"How Many NATO Nations Now Trade With Russia?" Topic

It might seem a bit odd that in the European theater of the "Post-"Cold War, NATO continues to exist and yet those same nations have no conflict trading with the same "foe" they seem to fear so much.

1) So how many still have substantial dealings* with Russia?

And, for an "apples to apples" WHAT IF comparison …

2) Would there ever come a time when Southeast Asian nations come together and form a similar alliance, with the same terms as those of NATO, just to make sure that one of their current trade allies (in Asia or elsewhere) doesn't try to become something dangerous? Would/could they ever form such a "friendly" defense bloc?

Dan
* And I mean substantial for that nation in particular.

Have a look at SEATO.

link

All of them, I suppose. Is that a problem? Are we at war?

Most if not all of the NATO nations trade with Russia and have traded with Russia for years. Most of the gas and oil in Western Europe comes from Russia.
ASEAN was formed in the 60s and is still in existence. Security concerns and fear of communism are why the group formed but they did not emphasize the military as much as economic aspects of their union.
SEATO was supposed to be the Asia version of NATO and was formed in the mid 50s and ended in the late 70s. Too much in-fighting and too many key regional players not involved are cited as the main reasons for the collapse.

Economics "trump(s)" geopolitics, notwithstanding trade wars and tariffs. Pun fully intended.

I never saw SEATO as being quite the same as NATO, in scope or actual buy-in and implementation. Plus it's gone.

Rakkasan: "ASEAN … Security concerns and fear of communism are why the group formed but they did not emphasize the military as much as economic aspects of their union."

So is it basically a trade bloc these days, but a weaker much loser version of the EU?

Dan

The US trades with Russia, why shouldn't the Europeans?
In the end, trade should help prevent shooting wars.
But the advent of internet "war" in the form of misinformation, fomenting of intra-nation conflict and election tampering seems to be just beginning.

Pan Marek: "But the advent of internet ‘war' in the form of misinformation, fomenting of intra-nation conflict and election tampering seems to be just beginning."

How is that relevant to the topic exactly?

Anyway, if it is indeed relevant, his predecessor traded weapons material with Russia. Plus he did more than his share of election tampering, among other interventionist things (including threatening to put the UK last if it left the EU), but his base always found ways to minimize the wrong of it. And they weren't just rumors either.

Previous presidents did other meddling too. So, no, what's going on now is not "the beginning", nor the worst we have seen.

Dan

The so-called "internet war" is just the old propaganda wars in new dressing. It is multi-faceted and propagates much faster than ever before via internet methods including various news websites, blogs, pod/webcasts and tweets.

Perfect for influencing the gullible masses like lemmings down a cliff.

Trading with your enemy is not that great an idea as it gives them a certain amount of influence over your affairs. Germany's "secret" deal for a natural gas pipeline direct from russia(bypassing the other NATO members), while benefitting germany does put her at the mercy of russia if they decide to threaten to close the spigot.

Luckily for the rest of NATO, the US has an abundant supply of natural gas available for export.

2) Would there ever come a time when Southeast Asian nations come together and form a similar alliance, with the same terms as those of NATO, just to make sure that one of their current trade allies (in Asia or elsewhere) doesn't try to become something dangerous? Would/could they ever form such a "friendly" defense bloc?"

I suppose in your round about way, you mean against China.

You seem to see the world in extremes: enemies & friends.
China, a super-power, can be aggressive (like the other two super powers). Unless you prefer war as the only alternative to normal diplomatic relations, you don't isolate countries you have issues with.

Australia's greatest trading partner (by far) is China. Australia doesn't agree with China closing down the South China Sea area. So Australia uses diplomatic methods of making their point. And belongs to ANZUS in order to consolidate their position militarily.
If you wish to see the world in black & white, such multi-faceted approaches to international relations seem "wrong" but are firmly based in realpolitik.

Trading with your enemy is not that great an idea as it gives them a certain amount of influence over your affairs.

Nonsense. I'll remind you that threatening an oil embargo (ie not trading) with Japan provoked them into attacking Pearl Harbour. A sensible approach to diplomacy may have kept the Japanese out of WW2.I won't deny that economic imperialism isn't a tactic by the US, for instance, but well run & governed countries can easily avoid pitfalls.

As others have said, all of them including the USA and Canada. Even in the Cold War we had trade at some levels.

The US was trading with the Soviets in the 1950s and 1960s. For titanium to build the SR71!

As for the oil embargo with Japan in the 1930s (not threatened, we cut them off), the US was providing some 85% of Japan's peacetime oil consumption at the time. We put a gun to them and pulled the trigger. It should not have been a surprise that Japan attacked after that.

Having trade with someone gives you non-military levers to pull. Not trading means that if words aren't getting through your only recourse is violence. Money is usually more effective in how you get agreements with people who disagree with you.

Well, this topic certainly exposed some folks unicorns and rainbows view of geopolitical economic leverage.

topic certainly exposed some folks unicorns and rainbows view of geopolitical economic leverage.

Very few secrets here on TMP, Stone Mountain.

BTW I don't often agree with Lion but his post (just above) is spot on.

"Luckily for the rest of NATO, the US has an abundant supply of natural gas available for export."

So do I !!

Some countries can survive economic sanctions easily, some can't.

Russia really can't. Without oil and gas exports it has no economy. People might go about their lives, but the state would quickly run out of money.

Japan in 1940 was already at war, and was clear in their minds that war with the US was inevitable. The oil embargo threat merely decided the time (before they'd subdued China, fortunately, as after they would have been a much more dangerous after).

Russia might reach the same position that war is inevitable, but it doesn't look likely at the moment. Until then the threat of cutting off trade is a way to moderate their behaviour.

What was the point of the post other than some more Euro bashing by the usual suspects? And the expected resorting to name calling for anyone who disagrees with their view of the world? If you want to post narrow political views with the expectation of people agreeing with you there are plenty of other sites out there. This rubbish does nothing to promote the hobby.

As has been said presumably all of them, however in 2016 it looks like Germany, The Netherlands and the US have the biggest import/export totals.
link

So if Trump has a beef with it, perhaps he should sort his own act out with it first.

Vagilant: "more Euro bashing by the usual suspects? And the expected resorting to name calling for anyone who disagrees with their view of the world?"

I hope you don't mean me. If you do, then please show me where I supposedly did any of that "Euro bashing" or "name-calling" on this thread.

Dan

President Trump is only pointing out that most of the other NATO members haven't lived up to their support agreements for many decades and if they expect the organization to function they need to step-up their support to the pledged percentages.

The President also pointed out that certain members could be making deals that will put them in a serious disadvantage should russia take actions that would require a NATO response.

And since it only makes good sense to do business with your friends, he simply pointed out that making backdoor agreements that shut-out the other members is not good for the whole "unity" thing,

No euro bashing intended, but sometimes reality is painful.

The trouble may be the American president is so unpopular in countries like Germany, that any of his proposals will meet widespread, almost universal, opposition. In any democratic country, it's hard enough to increase spending on armaments but nearly impossible if you expect to get bounced at the next election for doing so.

Shooting himself in the foot?

So … back to the topic.

So clearly the ongoing existence of NATO does not escalate tensions that would prevent the member nations from trading with their potential foe.

Yet would you say there's no chance that the Southeast Asian nations would ever come together and form a strong mutual defense alliance, one that is truly comparable to NATO, just to make sure that the current expansionist threat in that area doesn't get any worse?

Or is it best to let Communist China strike trade deals with each of them separately, to influence their politics (both internally and with each other's neighbors), just to make sure that the smaller nations are never in a position to unite and have a rapid deployment force, and develop any serious leverage against Beijing, should they ever need it? Or has China already made sure of they don't ever unite?

Dan

Or is it best to let Communist China strike trade deals with each of them separately

This isn't how it's happening. Ever hear of the Pacific Free Trade Pact?

link

The US, in a monumental mistake, opted not to join.

Interestingly, Cacique, one of the nations with a strong reason to be wary of Russia – Poland – has a significant trade deficit with Russia.

Apparently the Poles aren't getting too concerned about trading with a potential enemy.

Trade to stop wars the main reason for the European Economic Community, if France and Germany were intertwined to a strong degree economically then the chances of them starting WW3 with each other was far smaller.
And last time I checked they haven't started any wars again.

Modern world policy is about big business. Creating global tensions helps military industry getting nice orders. Pulling a country from a trade agreement with you potential opponent is a millenium-old strategy.
If you have a look at any of new gas pipelines it is very easy to see who and why is for its building and who is against it.

The US uses Russian rockets to launch our satellites into orbit. Trade with other nations is a good thing as long as it is fair.

Now about NATO. Designed as a defense of Western Europe against Soviet communists aggression, it has outlived its original purpose. The USSR no longer exists. Russia is a "competitor", not an enemy.

I think the OP is illuminating the hypocrisy of the current anti-Russia narrative played out in the MSM. If Russia is so bad, why is Germany depending on them for their energy needs and not seeking it elsewhere?

Trade is independent of geopolitical concerns like dealing with a potential enemy because the world economy is driven by globalism. Globalism is underpinned by efficiency and the acquisition of goods and services at the lowest cost, not by politics.

There is an anti-globalist movement in the US and Europe of course that wants to return to the ways of protectionism and tariffs, but how enduring they will be remains to be seen.

The US uses Russian rockets to launch our satellites into orbit. Trade with other nations is a good thing as long as it is fair.

Now about NATO. Designed as a defense of Western Europe against Soviet communists aggression, it has outlived its original purpose. The USSR no longer exists. Russia is a "competitor", not an enemy.

Yes, until that trade makes you strategically vulnerable, then it actually could become an incentive towards bad behavior by an aggressive adversary. And that's what Germany has potentially done with Russian energy, getting about 25% of its total energy from Russia. Russia has been playing "energy blackmail" forever, even back during the Cold War when they made great efforts to hook the West on cheap natural gas and oil. While the CIA foiled that effort with a brilliant sabotage campaign in 1984, Russia has used its energy hooks to seal club Ukraine and other uppity former Soviet states and client states.

So it's kinda stupid to make yourself vulnerable to a country that not only uses energy as a weapon to beat other countries into line, but has repeatedly invaded its neighbors causing all sorts of death and bloodshed (Georgia, Ukraine), and threatened others (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, etc.).

So yes, engage up to the point of vulnerability. Engage hoping by doing so Russia will become more temperate and less threatening/pushy, but also be aware Russia is still aggressive towards its neighbors and has shown that if it can get what it wants by bullying or beating up someone up safely, it will do so.

As long as NATO, whose raison d'ętre has been put into question, does not encroach into Russia's near-abroad and threaten its interests, there is little reason to worry. Russian gas is just one card at its disposal to safeguard its interests.

"does not encroach into Russia's near-abroad"

So Russia is allowed to determine the foreign policy of nations they border and nations that are nearby?

So Russian can prevent Ukraine from joining NATO and can prevent NATO from soliciting Ukraine?

If we allow Russia to dictate foreign policy today, what will they dictate tomorrow?

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

So Russia is allowed to determine the foreign policy of nations they border and nations that are nearby?

Couldn't the Russians make the claim that both China & the US do precisely this?

BTW I am opposed to any imperialism by any of the 3 Super-powers. Our best hope for peace is if none of them gets too powerful.

Goragrad: "Poland – has a significant trade deficit with Russia"

Wow, I had no idea!

Now, just,wondering, would any of that be leftover debt from the Soviet days?

Dan

28mm Fanatik: "Globalism is underpinned by efficiency and the acquisition of goods and services at the lowest cost, not by politics"

Interesting. So then none of these European countries would ever consider, imposing sanctions (or supporting anyone else who did so) on Russia or any other trading partner big enough to squash them, for political reasons?

Dan

link

Don't confuse punitive measures such as selective sanctions directed at specific targets with stopping international commerce and trade. Russian gas exports did not suffer at all and still flows to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Despite various poisoning of ex-Russian spies in Britain, rich kids of Russian oligarchs are still enrolled in the best British private schools. Life. Goes. On.

So Russia is allowed to determine the foreign policy of nations they border and nations that are nearby?

That's how we see it, but Russia sees it as keeping NATO away from its borders and safeguarding its geopolitical interests. After over a decade of unchecked NATO expansion, that's certainly understandable.

In conflicting situations like this, Realpolitik is often a better guide than Idealpolitik.

"unchecked NATO expansion…"

It's not like NATO is sending in troops dressed in all black outfits and claiming to be on leave from NATO armies and overthrowing legitimate governments to steal away bits of neighboring countries.

What happened to self determination where individual countries can determine who they wish to ally with no matter what other countries want?

"Our best hope for peace is if none of them gets too powerful." Certainly Western Europe did not have that view in 1917 or 1940 re: the USA.

Perhaps the next the the USA liberates Western Europe we should just keep it as a colony?

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

@ Mike Bunkermeister.

I prefer the US to the other two: obviously.

sending in troops dressed in all black outfitsetc

Surely we don't want to bring up the CIA in Central & South America? I don't think anyone would think the US is squeaky clean.

Western Europe did not have that view in 1917 or 1940 re: the USA.

Perhaps the next the the USA liberates Western Europe we should just keep it as a colony?

WW1 & 2 references? The US didn't have the much impact in WW1 with essentially British & Empire troops defeating the Germans. And I think you've forgotten the US was also in alliance with other nations in WW2.

The "colony" snark was uncalled for.

It's not like NATO is … overthrowing legitimate governments…

Didn't NATO help overthrow the government in Libya?

The US certainly overthrew the government in Iraq.

Many in the West want to overthrow the government in Syria.

The US didn't have much impact in WWI? Then why did we bother to mobilize 4,000,000 troops and have 100,000 killed? How was the Western Front doing before we got there?

After the CIA operated in Central and South America, how much territory did the US acquire? The Russians got Crimea and we got what?

If American help was so unnecessary in WWI and WWII then why do other nations keep asking for it? And how much territory did the US gain from that Iraq war? And there were 35 other nations in Iraq with the US.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

how much territory did the US acquire?

You are correct on that point. General Colin Powell eloquently spoke about this once when he said we only ask for a enough space to bury our fallen soldiers.

On Iraq, if the US didn't push for it to happen, the other 34 allies would not have invaded without the US. Easy in retrospect but most agree that war was a mistake. Iraq served as a useful counterbalance to Iran.

I am not even going to attempt to justify Russia's annexation of the Crimea back in 2014, but as I mentioned in another thread: TMP link it would not have occurred in the first place if NATO did not push its luck with its expansion and support the Maidan Revolution which toppled the lawfully elected president of Ukraine whose only "crime" was that he sided with Moscow.

Now that it's a fait accompli there's no use crying over spilt milk. The POTUS will just have to come to a new understanding and modus vivendi with Russia: link

If Russia is so bad, why is Germany depending on them for their energy needs and not seeking it elsewhere?

Because all the other options require shipping massive quantities of gas (I'm assuming we're talking compressed natural gas here) into the Baltic Sea?

Old sailor says something in gross violation of this forum's profanity rules in response to that, cognate to "No way in hell."

@28mm Fanatik: You do know that basically the entire former Warsaw Pact has told Russia to pound sand, because they would rather fight a nuclear war than be a Russian client state again?