I have admittedly been taking a break from presenting an update on Europe’s energy future, and not just to hike into the wilderness. There are certainly a lot of balls up in the air right now, and we’re seeing policy and supply changes from week to week. But while we don’t know yet what–if any–“fixes” are in the future for Germany and its neighbors, we know where the shortfalls are.
But first, the good news: Germany’s energy storage is 70-80% full. Industrial and residential users are looking to see where they can voluntarily cut back usage. Governments are looking to step in and help customers shoulder expected price increases. Good? Sure. Enough? Ehh…
We have never and will never charge for our newsletters or videos, but we do have an ask. If you enjoy our products, we ask you consider supporting MedShare by clicking one of the links below. MedShare is an established non-profit organization that helps respond to medical need globally, including to the ongoing crisis in Ukraine.
Germany shut down the Nord Stream 1 Pipeline today for a pre-scheduled 10-day maintenance period. Whether or not Russian natural gas will resume westward flows to Germany after repairs are made is anybody’s guess.
The 55 bcm/yr pipeline is a key component of the energy détente forged between Germany–the economic and manufacturing heart of Europe–and post-Cold War Russia. It has also inculcated a German dependency on Russian gas that has shaped German economic and security policy (and, by extension, Europe’s) since the project first entered the planning phase over 20 years ago.
For more information on the nature of Russian and German energy codependence, and the future of both, I would suggest the agriculture and manufacturing chapters of my newest book The End of the World is Just the Beginning as well as the Russia and Germany chapters of the last one, Disunited Nations.
Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel was wildly successful at maintaining a German–and European–status quo nearly two decades. While her tenure will almost assuredly be remembered as the Golden Age of a unified, post-war Germany, the deeper structural issues Merkel failed to address risk undermining the stability and success she sought to preserve.
If you enjoy our free newsletters, the team at Zeihan on Geopolitics asks you to consider donating to Feeding America.
The economic lockdowns in the wake of COVID-19 left many without jobs and additional tens of millions of people, including children, without reliable food. Feeding America works with food manufacturers and suppliers to provide meals for those in need and provides direct support to America’s food banks.
Food pantries are facing declining donations from grocery stores with stretched supply chains. At the same time, they are doing what they can to quickly scale their operations to meet demand. But they need donations – they need cash – to do so now.
Feeding America is a great way to help in difficult times.
The team at Zeihan on Geopolitics thanks you and hopes you continue to enjoy our work.
The past few several weeks have been busy for the Europeans, easily generating more events of consequence than at any time since at least the 2007 financial crisis. There is no specific trigger event here that makes much sense without absorbing the context first, so I’m just going to do what I do and start at the beginning.
Germans aren’t normal.
I don’t mean that as a condemnation of their weather or dourness or food or their linguistic tendency to link a dozen or more words together into typographical nightmares, but instead that Germany’s peculiar geography has made the Germans somewhat…peculiar.
Germany’s geography is the best and worst of all worlds. Best in that it boasts four major and a dozen minor rivers as well as ample stretches of flat land to both ease internal transport and make for cheap development. Worst in that Germany’s most rugged terrain is in the country’s interior while its flattest lands are on its borders, making it easier (historically speaking) for most Germans to integrate with their (non-German) neighbors rather than their own co-ethnics.
Historically, this has made German lands among the most bloodsoaked in Europe, with the whole area being preyed upon over and over and over. The first “Germany” was Charlemagne’s, and it only lasted so long as the great monarch was alive. The Holy Roman Empire was a primarily German entity (occasionally referred to as the First Reich), but it wasn’t even remotely united, comprised as it was by sometimes over 1000 (often mutually warring) statelets.
It was only with the onset of industrialization in the 1800s that Germans were able to use rail and electricity to overcome their internal geographic complexity and achieve unity. But unity doesn’t automatically translate into happy-fun-play-time. The second and third Reichs were Germany’s Imperial and Nazi incarnations. Those governments’ attempts to impose writs on the wider European neighborhood resulted in the most catastrophic wars humanity has ever experienced. For the following 45 years, Germany was the very definition of not united – split into two pieces to serve as mutually-opposing frontline states in the Cold War.
In the years since the Berlin Wall fell, the newly-united Germany – or Fourth Reich if you prefer – has been taking a wonderous vacation from history. It doesn’t need to fight to remain unified; America’s imposition of a global Order makes that unnecessary. It doesn’t need to protect its borders; American-dominated NATO takes care of security issues. It doesn’t need to fight for access to either raw materials or consumer markets. The Americans’ global structure has enabled the rise of the European Union within Europe, and has allowed German firms access to a worldful of consumption. All Germany needs to do to be Germany today is…be. And so the Germany of today is united, free and at peace…without the Germans needing to do a damn thing.
For those of you who would like Germany to exercise more decisionmaking power and take security matters into its own hands, I refer you to literally any book on European history between 1848 and 1945 to highlight why that might not be the fabulous idea you assume it to be.
Anywho, there are now three intersecting problems that all independently threaten Germany’s blissful existence.
First, the Americans are done holding up the collective civilizational ceiling of the world. The United States created the global Order to fight the Cold War, and that war ended when the Berlin Wall fell. The Americans have been edging away from, well, everything, ever since. The day of final abandonment was always going to come, it is now here, and everyone who used to shelter under the American security umbrella or benefit from a globalized economy must figure out a new way forward. That applies to Germany as much as everyone else.
Second, the German economic model of mass exports is running out of road. Mass exports requires a large, highly-skilled workforce heavy with people in their late-40s through early-60s. Germany has had that for the past 15 years, but those skilled workers collectively are crossing the retirement threshold this decade. With no replacement generation coming up through the ranks, Germany can neither consume what it produces today, nor maintain its current production for much longer. That eliminates both the basis of the German economy and the German tax base. Something new, something radical, something that utilizes resources beyond Germany, is required.
Third, the EU – the only meaningful piece of the Order the Americans do not directly control and so the only possible anchor the Germans have keeping them in a safe, peaceful, united Europe – is in mortal danger. In part it is because much of Europe faces the same security and export dependence upon the Americans as the Germans do. But there’s another problem.
Geography.
Northern Europe is flat and well-rivered and so countries there can achieve efficiencies and economies of scale. Southern Europe is rugged and lacks rivers and so cannot. Exceptions abound in a continent as varied as Europe, but the bottom line is that Southern Europe will never be able to compete with Northern Europe economically, just as Northern Europe cannot hope to compete with Southern Europe when it comes to sun, fun, food and flair. (France has a foot in both worlds which is part of what makes the French…well…French.) Anywho, the bottom line is that there is no European Union without both parts of Europe, so the question becomes how to keep it all stitched together without either the American-led Order or the ability to access markets from far beyond Europe?
There is no good answer. Even more problematic, what might prove a good answer for Ireland would be hilariously inappropriate for Croatia. What most everyone can agree on, however, is that Europe as a combined entity will be better able to get what it needs than the EU’s constituent members acting independently. And so Europe has been limping along since the 2007-2009 financial crisis, economically suppressed, strategically adrift, politically riven…but with no one (save the Brits) willing to pull the plug on the whole project.
In my new book, Disunited Nations, I’ve got a whole chapter on called “Superpower, Backfired” on the hows and whys Germany ended up in this situation and where it is likely to lead.
And then there’s the coronavirus.
Just as there are differences in European financial and economic structures on a country-by-country basis, so has the virus impacted EU members differently.
It comes down to vectors and weather. Most of the cases in Germany originated at a series of Alpine ski parties for 20-somethings. When the virus started to spread, it spread among the population most able to survive it. In addition, late-winter and early-spring in Germany isn’t exactly tourist season, so most elderly stayed locked up at home. Germany was able to address the virus outbreak relatively quickly and move on.
Not so in Italy. Patient zero went to a massive outdoor soccer game and became one of the first COVID superspreaders. Elderly Italians are also more likely to live in a multi-generational household than elderly Germans because…well… sun, fun, food and flair. It wasn’t long before the Italian health care system was overwhelmed.
Finances matter too of course. Germany has been whittling away at its national debt for twenty years, and so had plenty of dry powder to apply to the crisis without needing to ask anyone for help. Italy…hasn’t. When the crisis exploded upon the Italians they almost instantly ran out of cash and had to turn to the EU hat-in-hand for help.
The response was underwhelming. The Germans – backed up by the European Central Bank (ECB) chief – told the Italians that saving Italy wasn’t their job. As a point of comparison, across the Pond the Americans slapped together humanity’s largest-ever stimulus program in a matter of days.
It didn’t take long for German Chancellor Angela Merkel to realize that the situation was untenable. It wasn’t so much that Italy and others were facing fiscal collapse because of COVID (although they were), it was that Merkel knows full well that the road the EU is on means that Italy and others would inevitably face fiscal collapse. COVID just brought the end forward by a few years. The question Europe has been struggling with since 2007 – now that we are certain this is unsustainable, what do we do? – had moved from the hazy future to the here-and-now. And Merkel simply didn’t have an answer. If she had, she would have produced it. Years ago. And so the demurring and dithering continued.
Ironically, it took events within Germany itself to force the issue. On May 5 the German Constitutional Court ruled that methods the ECB were using to keep some of Europe’s weaker states on life support were unconstitutional. Specifically, the ECB can only purchase government debt if it does so proportionally to the size of all eurozone economies. Since the Germans have been paying their debt down, there wasn’t much German debt left to buy. And since the Italians were in a COVID pickle, the Italians needed to issue more debt. The ECB did the logical thing and put its resources where they were needed. The German court ruled that the ECB’s logic violated European law in general and the German constitution in specific, and that the German government must cease all cooperation on the issue within 90 days.
Running the European Central Bank without the participation of Europe’s largest economy would open up a hilariously huge barrel of worm-ridden monkeys, taking us down paths so convoluted and impractical as to be positively Venezuelan. But those monkeys and paths all take us to the same place: no European bond market, no European currency, and – very likely – no EU.
A world without America. A Europe without the EU. Germany left to look after its economic and security issues on its own, likely in competition with its current EU partners. That is nothing less than Merkel’s worst-case scenario, and so she did the only thing she felt she could:
On May 20 in a joint presser with French President Emmanuel Macron, Merkel proposed the EU’s first mutualized debt. For those of you not in finance, that’s a fancy way of saying that not only will Germany co-sign for some Italian borrowing, but that Berlin will agree up front to use the EU’s common budget to pay for some Italian spending. Simply put, Merkel committed Germany to paying for the ongoing existence of the EU in general and the EU’s weaker members in specific in the hopes of buying more time to find a better solution.
Many many details remain.
How big of a fund are we talking about? At present the combined floats of the Germans, French and the EU Commission total something around 1.5 trillion euro. (Right now that’s about $1.65 trillion US, so, you know, real money.) That’s roughly ten times the current total EU budget. That would probably cover the EU’s current needs this year, but only this year. And all the proposals to date are nothing more than one-offs designed to counter COVID impacts. This doesn’t actually help the EU survive in the long-run. For this to work and for the EU to function as a true superstate, the EU needs a full transfer union of at least these volumes annually.
Who would get the funds, and who would pay the funds back and how? At present the idea is to funnel everything through the European Commission, with funds being dispersed into (suddenly engorged) EU programs, while payback would come from the various member states who fund the Commission directly. Needless to say, that would be wildly inefficient and cumbersome, although it would wildly strengthen the EU’s administrative core and take Europe a few big steps down the road to full federalization on the American model.
Can this – institutionally – happen? It doesn’t look great. Big things like this normally require a treaty, and the EU has rarely managed negotiating and ratifying a treaty on anything less than a decade timescale. Moving forward without a treaty would still require unanimity, and several EU states have already voiced their vociferous opposite to the plan.
But, again, let me be clear here. Between the Americans’ withdrawal and Europe’s demographic implosion, the very existence of the European Union is at stake. This was always true. This was always inevitable. But COVID and the German court ruling makes the crisis imminent. In a Europe without either America or the EU, Germany must reorganize into a form that enables it to protect and further its own interests without outside support. This isn’t “simply” an existential crisis for the Germans. It is an existential crisis for all Europeans.
And historical annihilation tends to focus the mind.
So let’s take a brief look at the four hard-nos in this debate: Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden.
The bulk of Austria’s population lives on the southern watershed of the Danube. The entirety of the Netherlands lies atop the delta of the Rhine. Those two rivers are core Germany population, industrial and transport zones. The Austrians and Dutch have zero geographic insulation from Germany.
Neither country may like the financial implications of where the debt-mutualization path leads, but both are deeply, painfully aware of precisely where European collapse leads: a Germany forced or induced to seek out German national interests to the detriment of its neighbors. Historically speaking, once the Germans get rolling, maintaining an independent Austria or Netherlands is pretty much impossible. The Austrians and the Dutch know this. Both can be armtwisted into accepting Merkel’s (costly) logic.
And that assumes Merkel doesn’t do her traditional thing. Unlike most leaders, Merkel tries to shun the spotlight and instead lead from behind. She allows her opponents to stake out bold positions, and then unobtrusively steps back from the shouting and quietly cobbles together a majority position that doesn’t include the troublemakers, leaving them with the option of joining the crowd or screaming into the void. She’s done this (repeatedly) to consolidate control of her political party in Germany. She’s done this (repeatedly) to defang troublesome governing coalition partners. She’s done this (repeatedly) to guide Europe through the financial crisis. It is highly likely that the Austrians and Dutch will be Merkel’s next void-screamers.
Denmark and Sweden are a different sort of challenge. Sweden doesn’t border Germany, while the bulk of the Danish population lives not in peninsular Denmark, but instead on the island of Zealand. Culturally, economically, and above all strategically both only have one foot in Continental Europe. In particular, both have historically been closer to the United Kingdom (and dare I say, the United States) on defense issues than to Germany. As such neither are even members of the eurozone. That makes the pair less likely to be cajoled into participation, but it also means there is another potential path.
Rather than run the funds and the debt through the EU budget, the funds could be kept aside as a purely eurozone project which could exempt any EU state that didn’t also use the European currency. (In addition to Denmark and Sweden, this list also includes a variety of Central European states such as Poland, Hungary and Romania.) It’d be messy organizationally, and arguably unnecessarily so, but the EU does tend to excel at spawning unnecessarily messy organizational structures.
Anywho, lots of details to work out. What Merkel and Macron are attempting on the fly is the first real step towards federalizing the European Union. Europe has a common currency (which not everyone is a part of) and a common foreign policy (which requires unanimity) and a common market (regulated by national governments), but until it has a common budget it is most certainly not a superstate and it is most certainly not pooling its national resources into a more powerful, more cohesive whole.
That more powerful, more cohesive whole is the only thing that matters if the EU is to persist through contorting geopolitical and demographic circumstances. There is no guarantee the current plan will be adopted, much less work, much less expand into something that would make the EU a true, durable power. But the fact remains that for the first time in years I have a faint glimmer of hope that this thing we call the European Union might, just might, survive.
On June 3 Melissa Taylor and Peter Zeihan will be hosting a video-conference on Manufacturing in a New Era. We’ll address the future of automotive, automation, reshoring, COVID’s shattering of supply chains, consumption shifts, as well as get you an update on the deepening trade war.
For those of you who don’t want to pop for the fee, we’ve recently completed a video on our projected shape of the COVID epidemic to come. You can watch it for free here.
Our June 3 manufacturing video-conference is only the first of a series which will include events focusing on Mexico, China, Energy and Agriculture. Scheduling and sign up information can be found here.
Newsletters from Zeihan on Geopolitics have always been and always will be free of charge. However, if you enjoy them or find them useful, please consider showing your appreciation via a donation to Feeding America. One of the biggest problems the United States faces at present is food dislocation: pre-COVID, nearly 40% of all foods were not consumed at home. Instead they were destined for places like restaurants and college dorms. Shifting the supply chain to grocery stores takes time and money, but people need food now. Some 23 million students used to be on school lunches, for example. That servicing has evaporated. Feeding America helps bridge the gap between America’s food supply (which remains robust) and its demand (which coronavirus has shifted faster than the supply chains can keep up).
A little goes a very long way. For a single dollar, FA can feed one person for three days.
The past few weeks have been…eventful. I make my living anticipating and explaining and projecting change, with an unfortunate emphasis on destabilizing and disintegrative change. Pre-coronavirus the world was already hurtling through its most rapid breakdown in living memory; Coronavirus has accelerated…everything.
Times of extreme change are often painful, but for many they provide opportunity. Leaders often shine during times of extreme change. History tends to remember people who help their people and institutions navigate periods of disruption. Reagan’s speech at the Berlin Wall ended the Cold War. Yeltsin standing on a tank, defying the military put a bullet in the Soviet brain. Meir launching a worldwide assassination program made tiny Israel a global power. Churchill pledging to never surrender set the stage for the Nazi defeat. Ataturk defying Europe’s post-WWI carve-up plans ensured that, eventually, the Turks would return as a major power. In moments like these, a few countries pull away from the pack and reinvent themselves.
I haven’t seen any of that so far in the coronavirus crisis. Anywhere. Honestly, it is a little disappointing that no world leaders are rising to the challenge. While some leaders have dealt with the crisis competently, I haven’t seen any effort by any leader to harness the crisis to put their country on a more solid footing or to prepare for the post-COVID future. The lack of global leadership effort is simply mindboggling.
Let’s run through the list:
Emmanuel Macron has hitched his star to the idea that EU countries with solid budgets (that is, the countries less spendthrift than France) should shell out more money to help the poorer countries (that is, countries like France) get by. That certainly generates him some gravitas in Rome and Lisbon, but personifying the concept of asking for a hand-out isn’t what leadership looks like.
Germany’s Angela Merkel was supposed to be retired by now. Her chosen successor stepped back in early February, just before we all became obsessed with coronavirus. With her retirement plan in tatters, the Indispensable European is now once more unto the breach, dealing with intractable issues in her quiet, competent way. Unfortunately, she is constrained by her country’s savings-obsessed culture. No one in Germany wants to bail out Europe’s weaker members, particularly since Germany’s forward-looking, keep-your-powder-dry medical and financial approach has (so far) proven successful while Southern Europe’s spend-it-even-if-you-haven’t-got-it mindset has not. Honestly, Merkel looks like she’s just tired of it all. I feel exhausted just reading about her. (And frankly, she should be tired. She’s been shoveling Europe’s shit for over a decade.)
Even if everyone loved Brexit and how Prime Minister Boris Johnson has handled it, Johnson just now emerged from some quality time in a freaking COVID ward (just in time to bring his new baby home). The UK in general – and Johnson in particular – is in no shape to lead much of anything.
The orders to tamp down any discussion of coronavirus in Japan in order to maximize the chance of the 2020 Summer Olympics being derailed undoubtedly came from the top, making Prime Minister Shinzo Abe directly culpable in a spreading epidemic in the world’s oldest national demographic. Needless to say, few are looking to Tokyo for a how-to guide.
Canada’s Justin Trudeau has the look of a man who has been completely overtaken by events…because he has been. That’s less a judgment of his leadership or his team’s management skills, and more the crystallizing realization in Canada that there is no future for Canada unless it does everything of substance hand-in-glove with the United States. That includes trade policy and energy policy and China policy and…anti-COVID efforts. Trudeau has been (repeatedly) blindsided by whatever fresh spasms of oddity have erupted from the White House, and he simply has no option but to make the best of it. Pragmatic? Yes. Necessary? Certainly. But the liberal flame has most certainly gutted out.
Russia’s Vladimir Putin proudly proclaimed Russia had COVID “under control” just ten days before the Moscow mayor launched a lock down. There’s been broad spectrum public criticism by health care workers of the Russian government’s (mis)management of the epidemic, that has progressed to several doctors committing suicide by jumping out of buildings (a favorite technique of the Russian security services for disposing of troublesome personalities). This would be bad enough at any time, but Russia’s educational system collapse in the 1990s means Russia doesn’t have a particularly deep bench of health care staffers. COVID combined with the government’s response to the bad PR coming out of the health care sector is gutting what’s left of an already woefully inadequate health care infrastructure. Needless to say, while many countries want to manage the message, no one else is liquidating their precious health care workers to do so. (And incidentally, the Russian bot farms are hard at work spreading bat-shit crazy COVID-related conspiracy theories so please quit getting your COVID news from Facebook.)
Not to be left out, most of the world’s secondary powers have slightly wacky nationalist leaders who are proving…wackier with every passing day.
India’s Modi is working diligently to disenfranchise a large portion of his own population, and seems genuinely surprised when there is (violent) push back. Turkey’s Erdogan is gayly skipping his way down a neofascist path, setting the stage for (another) harsh, ethnic-based, wipe-out of a conflict with the Arabs to the south, the Europeans to the northwest, and the Russians to the northeast. Brazil’s Bolsonaro seems committed to ensuring the epidemic hits his country as hard as possible, in part by personally leading press-the-flesh rallies against COVID-containment and mitigation efforts. Mexico’s Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador is nearly as obtuse on the topic of the virus as Bolsonaro. Moreover, he has decided against providing much of any support to Mexican firms during the crisis, ensuring that Mexico’s recession will be longer and more difficult than it needed to be.
The number of leaders who have risen to the occasion is vanishingly small. Korea’s Moon Jae-in and Taiwan’s Tsai Ing-wen have done a phenomenal job of managing the COVID epidemic, but much of the credit must go to those countries’ intelligence and diplomatic corps who are arguably the most attuned to regional disruptions. After all, for them threat detection/assessment is a matter of day-to-day survival, and their hawklike watching of China is what provided their countries’ health services with the advance warning the situation necessitated.
Honestly, the only leader who has truly outperformed is Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand. But while Ms Ardern continues to impress, her country’s geographic isolation grants the Kiwis virus containment/limitation options denied the rest of humanity. There are a few lessons there for others, but only a few. Yet even with these three bright spots, no one outside of their respective countries is looking to Moon or Tsai or Ardern for leadership.
That holds true pretty much everywhere. With the possible exception of Angela Merkel, not many people have looked to any of these leaders to be authorities on regional issues, much less global ones…ever. Part and parcel of true global leadership is that there can really only be one. Since the Americans for the past 70 years have provided the security architecture and economic capacity for a global system to exist, it has fallen to the man in the White House to design the response, set the course, provide the resources and, to be blunt, lead. That’s triply true in the case of the meaningful international institutions which provide the sinew of global cooperation.
Those days are over.
Since his election, Donald Trump has functionally ended NATO, eliminating the single greatest security alliance in human history. Last year the Trump administration functionally destroyed the World Trade Organization, the only institution capable of empowering the multilateral trading system. Last month the Trump administration ended American funding for the World Health Organization. A flawed institution? Sure. But to abandon it during a pandemic was, in a word, questionable. The American alliance with South Korea – long one of America’s three most loyal allies – is likely to end this year at Trump’s behest. TeamTrump is even drawing up plans to pull intelligence assets out of the United Kingdom, America’s oldest, closest, and most capable ally, in protest over the Kingdom’s Huawei-linked telecoms policy.
It doesn’t really matter whether you think Trump’s actions are warranted or otherwise. The point is that the United States de facto controlled these institutions and alliances. By leaving or killing them while simultaneously failing to establish domestically-run alternatives, Trump has vastly reduced the ability of the United States to manipulate the world. That isn’t leadership. That is abdication.
Nor is it purely an international question. Domestically, Trump is a standout in that the longer he is in the White House, the less competent he appears to be at using the tools of domestic power.
I’m not talking here about Trump’s politics, policies, or even personality, but about his gob-smacking lack of managerial skills. Nearly three and a half years into his term, there are still hundreds of positions throughout the federal bureaucracy which remain unfilled, a disturbing number of which deal with issues of health. Headless bureaucracies are broadly useless except to carry out the last orders that they were given. It is with more than a touch of irony that I must note that despite all sound and fury to the contrary, Trump’s pathological unwillingness to engage with the federal bureaucracies has actually entrenched Obama’s regulatory disfunction rather than excised it.
Nor has much of what Trump has done trimmed those bureaucracies down to size. After all, reducing staff and mandates and budgetary outlays takes active leadership, and Trump is one singularly disinterested and disengaged leader. Since Trump hasn’t disbanded the agencies or programs, America has been landed with all the expenses of a sprawling bureaucracy, but few of the benefits.
Add in daily COVID briefings in which Trump seems pathologically committed to showcasing his furiously deliberate lack of knowledge, and Trump’s levels of respect at home and abroad are at the lowest of his presidency – and trending very firmly down. Imagine how weak he will look in a few months (weeks?) when the United States experiences its second coronavirus wave.
Absent from this list of not-necessarily-failed-but-certainly-not-successful leaders is, of course, China’s Chairman Xi Jinping. Understanding just how disastrously Xi has mismanaged the coronavirus crisis and just how much permanent, irrevocable damage his “leadership” is causing China requires an entirely independent newsletter.
Stay tuned for Part II…
With the world under COVID-related lockdowns, I’m pretty much as home-bound as everyone else. That’s nudged me to launch video conferences for interested parties on topics ranging from food safety to energy markets to the nature of the epidemic in the developing world. While most of these events are for a set fee, my next video conference will be free of charge. Space, however, will be limited.
Join me May 19 for a once around the world of where we stand in the current crisis. Which countries are suffering most critically? Which are pulling ahead? What the shape of the pandemic will be in the weeks and months to come? What will the world look like once coronavirus is in our collective rear-view mirror? As with all the video conferences, attendees will have the opportunity to submit questions during the event.
Newsletters from Zeihan on Geopolitics have always been and always will be free of charge. However, if you enjoy them or find them useful, please consider showing your appreciation via a donation to Feeding America. One of the biggest problems the United States faces at present is food dislocation: pre-COVID, nearly 40% of all foods were not consumed at home. Instead they were destined for places like restaurants and college dorms. Shifting the supply chain to grocery stores takes time and money, but people need food now. Some 23 million students used to be on school lunches, for example. That servicing has evaporated. Feeding America helps bridge the gap between America’s food supply (which remains robust) and its demand (which coronavirus has shifted faster than the supply chains can keep up).
A little goes a very long way. For a single dollar, FA can feed one person for three days.
You may have noticed, but the Germans lost the world wars. Ever wonder why? The obvious answer is they started a two-front war, but the truth is more basic.
Germany sits in the middle of the Northern European Plain (NEP), a stretch of flat, arable, temperate, well-watered, densely-rivered territory that comprises most of the rich parts of Europe. It is a great place to craft a successful ethnicity, polity, economy and state. With one exception: Germany sits in the middle of a plain. Germany doesn’t have much in terms of defensible borders.
As big as Germany is, the Germans will never enjoy a quantitative advantage over their collective competitors so their only option is to be better at, well, everything: infrastructure, education, planning, financing, manufacturing, and so on.
But there are no secrets in Europe. The high productive capacity of European farmland means the whole region was the first in the world to urbanize. Combine a dense population footprint with an agriculturally rich zone like the NEP, and French cities and Dutch cities and Polish cities and Danish cities are so close to German cities that everyone’s noses are perennially in everyone else’s business. Germany cannot hide how good they are. Make anything as big as Germany as efficient as Germany and its mere existence is interpreted by everyone as an existential threat, prompting a pan-European alliance that tears it down.
Germany can deal with this in two ways. Option one is to hope against hope that no one will come for it in the night. Every time that do-nothing strategy has been chosen, Germany eventually suffers cataclysmic defeat and dismemberment. Option two is to attack first, trying to defeat its rivals in sequence before they can overwhelm Germany. Every time that strategy has been chosen, Germany eventually suffers cataclysmic defeat and dismemberment.
Unfortunately for the Germans, they live in a geography that actively discriminates against successful long-lived countries.
But the post-World War II world is different from what came before. In the bad ole days the imperial powers (Germany included) duked it out in a more or less continuous march of often-multisided wars. Trade among the empires was kept deliberately curtailed because trade with today’s friend could quickly devolve into dependency upon tomorrow’s enemy. Germany’s perennial quest for superior quality was harnessed for military purposes, and the Germans kicked some serious ass. From unification in 1871 on, the Germans inflicted triple or more the casualties on their foes than were inflicted upon them. The marrying of such a deliberately fractured international system to the rising industrial technologies to Germany’s penchant for perfection brought us to the inevitable horrors of World War II.
At war’s end the Americans bribed all the expeditionary powers – wartime allies like the United Kingdom and France and wartime foes such as Japan and Germany – to be part of its Bretton Woods alliance. The rivals who had caused the war were now clustered under American strategic leadership. The most successful of those powers were those able to refabricate their systems to fully take advantage of a world of open borders, of a world where the Americans provided free security for all, of a world where all the expeditionary powers were aligned, of a world where trade wasn’t something to fear, but something to embrace.
No one did it better than Germany.
Because Germany was defeated, the Germans had the advantage of a clean slate. The ancien régime wasn’t simply removed, it was executed. The allies imposed a new constitution (the Germans know it as the Basic Law) which established a number of legal roadblocks to keep extremist parties away from decision-making power.
But the real transformation was in German industry. After centuries of treating the German military as its first and most important customer, having the option of investing in, well, Germany, was a bit of a treat. Germany’s penchant for efficiency and organization was no longer directed to service the needs of the SS or the Wehrmacht but instead using the best technologies of the day to rebuild a country from scratch. Energy shortages became a thing of the past. The result was one of the fastest stretches of economic growth in world history. (Note: We are talking about West Germany here. Soviet-dominated East Germany was a hot mess.)
As West Germany-the-country was rebuilt, it was only one small step to West Germany-the-export-machine. Germany’s position in the middle of the Northern European Meat Grinder meant Germans had long been used to deferred gratification. Their savings tended to get funneled not into personal consumption, but instead into state-centric investment plans that typically had at least a heavy dusting of military purpose. But with the Nazi regime gone and the rebuilding largely completed, Germany’s (in)famous efficiencies were no longer applied to tanks or planes or rail lines or smokestacks, but instead to export goods such as automobiles and chemicals. West German exports were highly sought after the world over, largely because they were the highest quality goods humans had ever produced.
When the Cold War came to an end, the Germans advanced from what had been the greatest era of its existence to something even better. The two Germanies reunited. Germany gained access to a dozen new oil suppliers. The former Soviet satellites to Germany’s east and southeast all joined NATO and the EU. Instead of being a front-line state, Germany was now surrounded by allies and partners who were all members of the American-secured global structure. Defense spending plummeted with the savings poured into making Germany an industrial behemoth.
Simultaneously, the rise of the euro fused the European space together under German economic leadership. Even the weakness of some of the euro’s members – most notably Italy – helped Germany. With Germany in the same currency zone as moribund economies, the price of the Euro was weaker than a purely German currency would have been. German exports no longer merely competed on quality, but also cost. A second Golden Age dawned.
It was too good to last. Since 1992 the Americans have been pulling away from maintaining the global order that is so central to German peace, success, wealth and unity.
The first hot point for the Germans in this scared new world involves the Russians. The whole idea of Bretton Woods was to fence in the Russians. If the Americans walk away from Bretton Woods, Russia is not only no longer the bugaboo, it becomes a potential partner in a never-ending multi-sided balance of power game. And nearly anytime anyone has thought of the Russians as a partner, a bit of a scrap has eventually ensued between Moscow and Berlin.
The second point involves Europe. The European Union is able to exist because the United States keeps the European countries safe from both outside powers and one another. Germany is the EU’s economic heart and Germany is an export-oriented economy, which makes every other EU state integrated into German supply chains export-dependent systems as well. Remove American security overwatch and the whole thing comes crashing down (assuming other European issues such as the euro, sovereign debt, bad banks, terminal demographics, refugees, and so on don’t tear the Union down first).
It should come as no surprise that German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s dominant emotional state these days seems to be exasperated resignation, and why the key word from her post-G7 summit communications was “depressing.” There is absolutely no way forward here that works out well for Berlin.
But inaction is not an option, and so Germany once again faces the inevitable clash between strength and fear. The Germans under the Bretton Woods regime were able to have global economic reach without corresponding military reach. Strip away that feature, and the Germans either need to massively deindustrialize so that their economy matches their current military power, or they need to massively re-arm so that their military can sustain their current economic power. In times past the first option generated the 30 Years War, the Great Depression, and the near collapse of European civilization. In times past the second option generated the Nazis, the World Wars… and the near collapse of European civilization.
Which is a roundabout way of me saying that I think the Germans will end up trying something a bit different. They don’t currently have the military required to look after their own interests, and they don’t have an economy that is sustainable without someone powerful looking out for them. What they do have is a few neighbors who find themselves in hauntingly similar situations, many of which are also tied into pre-existing and most certainly non-military German manufacturing supply chains.
Courtesy of Bretton Woods, NATO, the Soviet collapse and the euro, there is an arc of countries that have broadly the same top-level concerns as Berlin: a crumbling European system, a supply chain model dependent upon extra-European end consumption, a concern about large-scale refugee movements, a shortage of local energy resources, and above all a resurgent Russia.
Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia check all the above.
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, Finland and Denmark check all but the supply chain issue.
Belgium, the Netherlands, and Austria check all but the Russia issue.
The first two bullets suggest a Germanocentric NATO in miniature. The latter two bullets suggest a Germanocentric EU in miniature (perhaps selling military goods to the Germanocentric NATO?).
Neither is likely to last the test of time. Russia’s demographics are so horrid that it is unlikely to be a long-term problem and nothing kills an alliance like the lack of an enemy. Any revised supply chain system still needs a market, and once war-related demand fades, what then? And a Germanocentric system of any type is certain to attract the gentle crowbars of the French, British, Russian and Turkish diplomatic services within minutes of getting going.
Compared to the long dark of Germany’s past, the possibility — however impermanent — of a third way between near-pacifism and a raging war machine is a surprisingly upbeat future. Merkel has presided over the best years in German history. What’s in front of her with a bit of luck just might be brighter than the German norm.
