Connect with us

EUROPE

Europe’s deepening crisis and Germany’s current state

Published

on

The European Central Bank (ECB), the Bank of England (BoE) and the Federal Reserve (Fed) went on to increase interest rates one after the other, as it was expected. Three central banks, who prioritize the “fight against inflation”, aim to make borrowing difficult and cool the economy by hiking the policy interest rate. While the ECB raised the policy interest rate to 2%, the Fed increased it to 4% and BoE to 3%.

ECB President Christine Lagarde asserted there is still way to go on interest rates, and that with the increase, their goal is to reduce inflation to 2%. Inflation in the euro area is expected to rise from 9.9% in September to 10.7% in October. Decisions on interest rate that make borrowing difficult are thought to pose a risk of global recession.

However, the debate that the ECB’s reasons for raising interest rates are not the same as those of the Fed is also on the agenda. Some economists argue that for the U.S., post Covid-19 period led to the rapidly increasing demand and therefore inflation, while in the euro area, geopolitical tensions (such as the Ukraine-Russia war) have become the source of inflation. This view is of “inflation-phobic” Bundesbank origin, fearing that inflation will become permanent in the euro area and that this will strain the German and European economies, especially in the year-end collective labor agreement negotiations in Germany.

On the other hand, we should also note that in the euro area, which is said to have fallen into an inflation pit due to geopolitical reasons, the hike in energy prices, which experienced a huge increase in summer, has started to decline. Natural gas prices fell by 50% compared to September and by 70% compared to August, when it peaked. The EU has clearly stopped seeing this nightmare of winter freeze, for a while. In this case, the view that geopolitical elements trigger inflation is partly impractical.

Source of inflation: Demand or profit?

But what is not right for Europe is right for the United States? Earlier, we stated the mainstream interpretation of the origin of inflation in the United States was excessive demand. There are also variants of this statement: Excessive money supply causes inflation; the fact that demands for wage increase force companies to increase prices causes inflation…

These statements are highly controversial, and the policies of the central banks are contradictory. For example, BoE, which claimed to control inflation by increasing interest rates, launched an emergency bond purchase program after the real estate market alarmed following Liz Truss’s package of tax cut, and did not hesitate to release money.

Moreover, these statements observed to lose their reputation within the mainstream. In an article published in the Financial Times, it was argued that the Fed’s showing excessive demand and wages as the cause of inflation did not reflect the facts. The article by Paul Donovan, the chief economist of the world’s largest asset manager, UBS, identifies the source of inflation as the profit margins of companies, with a long-lost openness.

Prices are rising faster than wages, and real wage growth is negative, Donovan says. This finding is based on the following: Businesses and companies have grown their profits by reflecting price increase to their customers, while at the same time making people work harder and increasing wages less than the prices. Post-pandemic household continued to consume by saving less and borrowing more, and thus managed to make up for the sorry state of real wages.

Numerical repercussions of sanctions to the German industry

A report released by the IMF last February estimated that 60% of inflation in the euro area was caused by supply shocks. Therefore, supply chains smashed by COVID-19, the destruction in international trade and the manufacturing industry are among the main causes of inflation. It is seen that the sanctions imposed on Russia have also stirred up trouble in the manufacturing industry in Europe, especially in the German industry.

Perhaps BASF, the world’s largest chemical producer, best describes the state of the German industry shaped after the sanctions against Russia. BASF reported last month that should Germany be forced to ration gas this winter, it may shutter its flagship plant, which employs 39,000 people. Even if this does not happen, BASF will have to stop some of its operations next year, and European consumers will be constrained to U.S. and Asian suppliers for their chemical supply, according to experts. It should be kept in mind that natural gas is not only an energy source for BASF, but also serves as a raw material for making products such as ammonia. Therefore, BASF CEO Martin Brudermüller is one of the most important opponents of sanctions against Russia.

According to preliminary estimates published in mid-October, BASF’s net income in the first three quarters of 2022 was 909m euros. That’s a 32% drop from the same period last year. The company’s second quarterly report also shows that energy costs rose by 260% compared to the same period last year, costing the company 500m euros.

It should also be noted that along with BASF, Putin supporter Russian oligarch Mikhail Fridman is the co-owner of oil and gas manufacturer Wintershall Dea. Wintershall Dea was also a major financial investor of in the Nord Stream 2 gas project.

The German energy giant Uniper is of a similar case. Announcing the balance sheet for the first nine months of 2022, Uniper reported a record loss of 40 billion euros. In September, the German government nationalized Uniper by acquiring a 99% stake. The government is expected to give Uniper a 30-billion-euro support package.

Reaction grows against US-Germany-based economy in Europe

Contrary to all expectations, Germany managed to grow by 0.3% in the third quarter. But alarm bells are ringing for other EU countries.

The EU’s second largest economy, France, grew by 0.2% in the third quarter. The growth in the second quarter was 0.5%; the recession was driven by a decline in consumption due to high inflation. Similarly, Spain grew by 0.2% in the third quarter, despite a 1.5% growth in the second quarter and a large increase in tourism revenues in post Covid-19. Yet again the slowdown in growth is also caused by decline in consumption due to inflation.

As a matter of fact, reactions to the ECB’s hike in interest rates were immediate. In her maiden speech, Italy’s new prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, sniped at ECB, saying hike in interest rates would create additional difficulties for states, like Italy, which have high public debt. Italy’s public debt is currently around 150% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

French President Emmanuel Macron, whose country’s public debt to GDP ratio is around 113%, has also been critical of the ECB’s decision. Unlike the United States, European economies are “not overheating”, Macron told experts that demand must be curtailed to reduce inflation. Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin said last month that the ECB’s credibility has become questionable, since it is driving economies into recession.

In Germany, on the other hand, the voice of the opposition began to grow more. Tino Chrupalla of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party urged the German parliament to lift the sanctions against Russia, stop selling weapons to Ukraine and withdraw Germany from U.S. unilateral politics. Sahra Wagenknecht of the Left Party described the Greens as the ‘most dangerous party’ in the Bundestag for destroying the German economy with their stance on the Ukrainian war. Meanwhile, after the Left Party Group chairman separated himself from Wagenknecht, saying that the most dangerous party was still the AfD, rumors increased that the opposition figure would leave the party and form a separate organization.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz took several CEOs on a trip to Beijing. According to CNN, Scholz is accompanied by German industry titans such as Volkswagen, Siemens, Deutsche Bank and BASF. The chancellor’s visit to China comes amid controversy that began when the Chinese state-owned Cosco sought to buy shares in the operator of one of the four terminals at the port of Hamburg. It should also be acknowledged that China is Germany’s biggest trading partner. Germany, whose economy is based on exports and is separated from the Russian market, appear to be not wanting to lose the Chinese market.

EUROPE

US officials’ visit to Greenland sparks controversy amid political tensions

Published

on

As negotiations to form a new government continue in Greenland, a Danish territory, following recent elections, senior officials from the Trump administration are scheduled to visit the island next week.

According to individuals familiar with the trip who spoke to the Financial Times (FT), US National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, Usha Vance (wife of Vice Presidential candidate J.D. Vance), and the Secretaries of Defense and Energy will be in Greenland from Thursday to Saturday for a “private visit.”

A source familiar with the visit confirmed that Waltz and Energy Secretary Chris Wright will tour the US military installation, Pituffik Space Base, in Greenland.

Danish and Greenlandic officials have indicated they are open to an increased US presence on the island but are not receptive to a takeover of the base.

The FT reported that the visit has caused consternation among Greenlandic and Danish officials. Jens-Frederik Nielsen, the leader of Demokraatit, which won this month’s elections, stated that the timing of the visit, amidst ongoing coalition negotiations and local elections, “once again shows a lack of respect for the people of Greenland.”

Greenland’s outgoing Prime Minister, Múte Egede, added that the visit “cannot in any way be described as a harmless visit by the wife of a politician” and that its “sole purpose is a show of force against us.”

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed his desire to acquire the Arctic island and has even considered the possibility of using military force to take it over from the NATO ally. Trump’s eldest son, Donald Jr., also visited the island in January for a “private visit.”

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen responded to the new US visit, stating that it “cannot be seen independently of the public statements” made by Trump and other officials.

“As the Kingdom of Denmark, we want to cooperate with the Americans. But this must be a cooperation based on fundamental values such as sovereignty and respect between countries and peoples. We are serious about this issue,” Frederiksen said.

Trump and other US officials have hailed the results of the Greenlandic parliamentary elections, seemingly equating the voters’ preference for pro-independence parties with a desire for ‘Americanization.’ However, a recent poll showed that only 6% of Greenlanders want to join the US, while 85% are opposed.

All leaders of the current parties represented in the island’s parliament also condemned Trump’s behavior as “unacceptable.” Aaja Chemnitz, a Greenlandic member of the Danish parliament, told Danish television that the visit was an “untimely interference” in the island’s politics so soon after the elections.

“Anyone who tries to interfere but is not part of Greenlandic society should stay away. We are going through a particularly challenging period in Greenland’s history because we are very much affected by what is happening abroad,” Chemnitz said.

Martin Lidegaard, a former Danish minister and current opposition MP, said the visit crossed the acceptable line for both Denmark and Greenland.

“It will now be crucial for Denmark and Greenland to act together,” Lidegaard added.

Usha Vance’s office confirmed that she would be traveling with her son and a US delegation “to visit historical sites, learn about Greenlandic heritage, and attend Avannaata Qimussersu, Greenland’s national dog sled race.”

The organization behind the dog sled race told Greenlandic media that it had received a large but undisclosed sum of money from the US consulate in Nuuk, Greenland’s capital.

Continue Reading

EUROPE

Germany considers transferring Nord Stream 2 to US control

Published

on

In Germany, discussions are underway regarding the potential transfer of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to US control. The pipeline became unusable following sabotage in September 2022. The aim is to resume the flow of Russian gas to Europe.

According to a report by Bild newspaper, negotiations are ongoing to reach an agreement.

Meanwhile, some politicians from the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), led by Friedrich Merz, who was recently elected as prime minister, have suggested that natural gas imports from Russia could resume after the war in Ukraine ends.

CDU Member of Parliament Thomas Bareiss stated that Nord Stream 2 could be used for supplies, saying, “If peace is restored, relations normalize, and embargoes gradually ease, then, of course, gas could flow again, perhaps through a pipeline now under US control.”

Jan Heinisch, the deputy chairman of the CDU group in the North Rhine-Westphalia State Parliament, also stated that Germany should consider buying Russian gas again if a “fair and reliable” peace agreement is signed in Ukraine.

Heinisch added, “Whether this will be done by sea or via a pipeline remains to be seen.”

At the same time, Heinisch emphasized that Germany should not be dependent on a single supplier and should avoid situations where prices are “dictated.”

Heinisch is involved in developing the energy policy of the future ruling coalition consisting of the CDU, CSU, and SPD.

On the other hand, Free Democratic Party (FDP) Member of Parliament Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann claimed that the CDU is “already making efforts” to resume natural gas imports from Russia, undermining the country’s hard-won energy independence from Russia.

However, there are those within the CDU who do not want such cooperation to resume.

Party member Ruprecht Polenz said, “Vladimir Putin’s Russia can never be trusted again, and Donald Trump has shaken confidence in America. Therefore, the coalition agreement should rule out the reactivation of the Nord Stream pipeline.”

CDU foreign policy expert Roderich Kiesewetter also criticized this step.

Kiesewetter said, “Those who have always opposed sanctions, those who want Nord Stream to work again and want to pounce on cheap Russian gas again, those who do not care about the genocide suffered by the Ukrainian people, each of them would be extremely pleased with such a rapprochement.”

In addition, SPD Member of Parliament Michael Roth stated that Bareiss’s proposal was an inappropriate signal at the wrong time, coming from someone who had “obviously learned nothing from recent history.”

The German Ministry of Economy, led by Robert Habeck of the Green Party, stated that Nord Stream 2 has not been approved and has not received legal approval, and “there is no question of operating it at the moment.”

The party itself described Bareiss’s statement as “scandalous,” saying, “If Germany starts buying gas from Russia again, it would mean rewarding President Vladimir Putin for his war of aggression.”

Sources speaking to Bild newspaper previously reported that Richard Grenell, the former US Ambassador to Berlin and currently Trump’s special envoy, had traveled unofficially to Switzerland a number of times to discuss the commissioning of Nord Stream 2.

The headquarters of Nord Stream 2 AG, the operator of the pipeline, is located in this country.

The sources claimed that the American side wanted to mediate the supply of Russian gas to Germany, but only at the level of private companies.

Prior to this, sources interviewed by the Financial Times had said that Matthias Warnig, the former CEO of Nord Stream 2 AG, was trying to reactivate Nord Stream 2 with the help of an American investor consortium that had drafted an agreement with Gazprom if sanctions were lifted.

A former senior US official familiar with the matter said, “The US will say, ‘Russia can be trusted now because there are reliable Americans involved.'”

The official added that if everything goes well, American investors will start making money “without doing anything.”

Continue Reading

EUROPE

Europe plans for US absence in NATO with 5-10 year strategy

Published

on

Europe’s major military powers are formulating plans to assume greater responsibility for the continent’s defense, reducing reliance on the United States.

According to a report in the Financial Times (FT), these discussions are driven by fears of a unilateral US withdrawal from NATO, exacerbated by repeated threats from former President Donald Trump to weaken or abandon the transatlantic alliance. The aim is to avoid the chaos that such a withdrawal could cause.

Four European officials familiar with the matter indicated that Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and the Scandinavian countries are among those engaged in these informal discussions.

The FT reports that their objective is to devise a plan that shifts the financial and military burden towards European capitals. The intention is to present this plan to the US before NATO’s annual leaders’ summit in The Hague in June.

The proposal would include firm commitments from Europe to increase defense spending and enhance military capabilities, with the goal of persuading Trump to accept a gradual handover that would allow the US to focus more on Asia.

Since Trump’s election, countries such as Germany, France, and the UK have moved to increase defense spending or accelerate already planned increases. The EU has also launched initiatives to boost military investments among its member states.

Officials estimate that it would take approximately 5 to 10 years of increased spending to elevate Europe’s capabilities to a level where they could replace most US competencies, excluding US nuclear deterrence.

One source stated, “Increasing spending is our only leverage: burden-sharing and moving away from dependence on the US. We are beginning these discussions, but the task is so enormous that many are overwhelmed by its magnitude.”

While US diplomats have assured their European counterparts that Trump will remain committed to NATO membership and Article 5’s mutual defense clause, many European capitals worry that the White House might rapidly reduce troop or equipment deployments or withdraw from NATO’s joint missions.

Officials noted that some capitals are hesitant to participate in burden-sharing talks, fearing it might encourage the US to act more quickly, while others believe that despite Trump’s rhetoric, he does not intend to make significant changes to the US presence in Europe.

Others are skeptical that the Trump administration, given its unpredictable nature, would even agree to a structured process.

One official questioned, “You need an agreement with the Americans, and it’s not clear whether they will be willing to do that. Can you even trust that they would stick to an agreement?”

Officials highlight ongoing and regular discussions, led by France and Britain, about establishing a “coalition of the willing” to support Ukraine in its war against Russia and to invest in European defense.

These discussions among more than ten European defense powers do not include the US.

When asked what a European pillar within NATO would mean and whether it is feasible, a senior Western official responded, “We are seeing it now: the UK and France are taking the initiative [on a guarantee force for Ukraine] without the Americans.”

NATO officials argue that maintaining the alliance with less or no US involvement is much simpler than creating a new structure, given the difficulty of recreating or renegotiating the existing military plans, capability targets, rules, command structure, and Article 5 for the continent’s defense.

Officials stated that for Europe’s core defense, the UK and other Atlantic maritime powers, the Scandinavian countries for the north of the continent, and Türkiye for the southeast defense will always be needed.

Marion Messmer, a research fellow in international security at Chatham House, noted, “Even without the US, NATO provides a structure for security cooperation in Europe. There are aspects that would need to be replaced if the US were to leave. But it provides a framework and infrastructure that Europeans are really familiar with. It does so much of the work that you would have to do from scratch if you were just setting up a different type of structure for just European members.”

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey