Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Russia, Turkey, and Article V
Two particularly interesting comments came up at the tail end of my post about Turkey’s shooting down of a Russian jet. Let me reproduce them:
Pilgrim wrote:
I’ll just say it. Dump Article 5. Mutual defense obligations are either doomsday machines or paper tigers. If the treaty is wrongly considered a paper tiger, then it becomes a doomsday machine. The treaty is no stronger than the capabilities and resolve of the allies and both are open to question.
The Great War (Parts 1 and 2, with a sporting intermission to let Germany raise a new generation of young men and re-arm), was ignited by a cascade of treaties, none of which protected vital national interests, and none of which deterred the horror. In fact, the mutual defense obligations caused the horror.
And Carey J. replied:
If the terms of the Treaty of Versailles had been enforced, there would have been no WWII. France could have reamed Germany if they’d re-occupied the Rhineland when Hitler illegally ordered German troops there.
I agree entirely with Carey J. on the latter point. But the odd thing is that Pilgrim is also making a valid historical argument, particularly concerning the onset of the First World War. So this is one of those cases where we have more than one lesson of history to which to appeal — and those lessons are highly contradictory.
To put my own cards on the table, I think that yes, it’s the product of at least a decade of insane policy-making that we’ve now put ourselves in this position: NATO’s credibility is at risk because Erdoğan is insane. But this is the position we’re in.
So let’s go with this thought exercise. Suppose tomorrow’s headlines were to read:
NATO ANNOUNCES THE REVOCATION OF ARTICLE V
What do you think would happen on Sunday? Would our security and the world’s be diminished or enhanced?
Published in Foreign Policy, General
Numbers, please?
Imagine what Turkey would do: wipe out every Russian asset in Syria. In a week. Correct? Now what is Russia going to do? Think Ukraine where Russia has no land access. Think what Turkey could do to any Russian ship that wanted to pass through the Bosporus. There is absolutely NO freaking advantage for Russia to initiate this sort of conflict.
People on this website who make Russians out to be 10 feet tall need to get a grasp of Russia’s limitations. Notice that I didn’t even mention how bad it would be for Russia if we gave Turkey back some of our Patriot missile batteries, to say nothing about our other air and missile defense systems, or about our F-22s etc., etc.
We are currently producing ~9MM Bbls/Day and importing ~7MM Bbls/Day
With the current NYMEX forward curve we will not bridge th7MM Bbl gap solely with U.S. production, but opening more of Alaska (although Shell’s recent efforts there were not viable) and ending the climate change debacle allowing Canada to exploit more of her unconventional resources may get us to the point where we can import from Canada, Mexico, and some South America.
The light barrels we produce from N. Dakota and south Texas can blend with Mexico’s heavy crude making it more viable.
Middle east oil isn’t a huge import for us now. We can limit its immediate impact to the U.S. Oil is still an internationally fungible dollar denominated commodity and thus we will never be free of international influence on the commodity, but we may be able to limit some of the short run impact to the U.S. of geopolitical upheaval.
Putin is a mix of freebooter and strategic thinker. The freebooter aspect of his personality seems to have trickled down to his commanders. Turkey has repeatedly warned the Russians to keep their aircraft out of Turkish airspace long before the warnings that were given to the crew of the Russian aircraft that was shot down. It seems his commanders have decided to emulate their master.
The strategic Putin needs a naval base in Syria. A Russian fleet that is confined to the Black Sea is impotent and much easier for an enemy to destroy. A Russian fleet based in Syria that is on the northern doorstep of the Suez Canal allows Russia to be a formidable foe in the Med and allows for more protection to a fleet that has to transit the Bosporus.
His alliance with Iran that is attempting to control the southern entrance to the Suez with their involvement in Yemen should cause the US concern. The US is looking at the same naval constraints with a strong Iran that is seeking to control the Strait of Hormuz. A US aircraft carrier trapped in the Persian Gulf will not to be too hard find if all hell breaks loose and trying to transit the Strait of Hormuz might be impossible.
NATO has become complacent and that when combined with a US President that has no understanding of military history does not make me optimistic about our ability to protect US national interests in the world.
The funnest thing to read is Peter Zeihan these days. Here’s a sample, but do read more:
“Putting all these technologies together, Zeihan expects the break-even cost for crude production in the UnitedStates to go from $45 per barrel today, to $40 per barrel at the end of 2015, to $30 per barrel by the end of 2016. “At this break-even price, US shale oil is competitive with every producer on the planet,” he said. “We’re not just competitive, but we are on the verge of completely changing the global energy business. And the United States will easily reach energy independence by the end of 2016. We are there.”
Natural Gas Is Essentially Free
Turning to natural gas, Zeihan argued the production cost is basically zero. “Fifty percent of natural gas produced today in the Bakken, Permian Basin, and Eagle Ford shale fields is a waste product,” he said. “The Marcellus Field is the only one producing it on purpose. What happens when the most-used raw material on earth is free?” The dynamics of the energy and power sectors change dramatically.”
I should have been more specific. Those are the numbers I was looking for. I question how much we would get from those for how long a time, especially from the ANWR, but I don’t have numbers, either.
For many years my standard line on the ANWR has been that we should leave the oil where it is, as a reserve. I happen to be enough of an ecofreak to like the northern tundra the way it is now, but if we were threatened with a foreign power that might install an Obama-like government in our country, and the ANWR oil could save us from that fate, I’d say plow it up and go after it. In the meantime, leave it in the ground instead of burning it up as fast as we can in our SUVs and twin-V lawnmower engines.
The US will be energy independent soon, but Iran will need freedom of navigation to get any oil revenues. It will need the US to keep the Strait of Hormuz safe for its own needs, far more than the US will. Read Peter Zeihan on this point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBdOBH7o4Ag
“With one [American] sortie we could take Iran out of the international economy for years.”
Those are two somewhat contradictory, but largely correct statements.
They, like many outside the industry, confuse exploration and production costs with lifting costs.
I think the oil comment is correct as it relates to hurdle rates for exploration and production (though it will vary widely).
The natural gas comments are lifting costs and have no relation to exploration and production.
Again, the natural gas boom is going to change everything, or so says Peter Zeihan. And if our geopolitical interests (reducing Russian leverage in Europe, defunding Russia and Iran and Saudi Arabia’ mischief using oil receipts), and our fiscal interests (avoiding massive taxes to pay off just interest on our national debt, let alone baby boomer SS and Medicare expense) dictate, wouldn’t it make sense to: “Drill-baby-Drill!” and earn extra lucre in so doing?
He’s [Zeihan] coming out with a book on natural gas and fracking soon. Should be a great read I expect.
[Update: the book will be called ” Shale New World” and may be be out by Christmas]
Again, we should use numbers to help think about these things.
Russia successfully invaded Ukraine on the QT. They will not be hiding their presence in Turkey.
In the first day of your week, how many Russian cruise missiles will hit Turkey? How many airstrikes with PGMs? How many airstrikes with dumb bombs thereafter?
How are you going to get the Patriots there? Of course you violated the premise of Russia v. Turkey sans NATO.
You are also missing the key asymmetry: Turkey is not going to launch a counterforce strike on Russia. It can’t/won’t hit Russian air and naval bases. Russia is not similarly constrained.
Clearly, we are agreed that the benefits to Russia are outweighed by the detriments. But apparently for different reasons.
I know squadoosh about this subject. If oil drillers can’t make money when we open US coasts to exploration then the suggestion to promote American drilling to expand production and world sale for improving our economy and deficit problem wouldn’t work. But so much of our coast is off limits isn’t it? How can there not be attractive drilling sites that we haven’t even tried to tap yet?
As far as whether US energy independence is really feasible or not, I again defer to Zeihan:
“Oil prices, and especially natural gas prices, are cheaper in the US than they are in other parts of the world because of US shale oil production. I expect the US to be energy independent in just two years. At this time, outside of special circumstances such as a Saudi owned refinery that will demand to use Saudi oil, the US will not be importing any oil from outside of North America. And the US is now becoming a major player in the export of refined product. The US now exports about 2.5 million barrels of refined product each day and has built more distillation capacity last year than they did during the entirety of World War II.”
The Patriots go where we want them to. Is Russia going to shoot down American transport planes now? And if we didn’t like what Russia was doing to Turkey, a former ally at worst – let alone considering the ‘possibility’ of NATO intervention, where we regularly use a Turkish airbase, why wouldn’t we come to their aid with air defense, etc.?
I don’t get why you can’t see how precarious Russia’s hold on its Syrian base is. It’s presence there would be a hostage to fortune if Russia ever conducted any attack on Turkey soil. It would evaporate in a week or two if Turkey invaded. Then what? Russia would, forever after, never, ever maintain a base on the southern flank of Turkey. It does so now only with the latter’s forbearance. It has no way to reinforce any losses that were inflicted there. It’s naval fleet would be at the bottom of the Mediterranean within a week. The Crimean fleet would also be in great jeopardy….
I disagree. NATO nations did help a lot, with planes to help monitor our skys while ours were away abroad.
Further, going into Iraq was part of our defense. They needed to let us stage from Turkey.
America was willing to face nuclear fire to protect every member of NATO. I expect that back.
Bryan,
NATO planes were here after 9/11, but we did not need them. The purpose of overflying the US was to shoot down hijacked airliners, especially on the east coast. We had plenty of aircraft for that purpose. It was mostly a show and the desire by Europe to stand with America. Standing is cheap. A few aircraft are cheap. But, defending their own countries properly is expensive and they fail to do this.
As for Europe standing up for us, that all depends upon the moment, the threat to them, how much they want from us, etc. etc. The Europeans speak in lofty tones and practice Realpolitik.
Going into Iraq may have been part of our defense – but it was a “pre-emptive” move, not a response to an attack on the US or a NATO ally.
Finally, BB67 is right about how we produce 50-60% of our oil now. But, the rest that we require can be easily satisfied by Mexico and Canada, though tar sand oil is a bit pricey against $40 a barrel oil (the biggest cost of producing tar sand oil is oil burned to dig and process it).
I know it is not 100% correct, but the US is essentially 100% independent on non-North America oil in a crunch.
The appeal to the EU perhaps, not so much Turkey. A key interest appears to be membership in the Schengen Area, ironic considering current circumstances. I find it notable that in Merkel’s incentive offer to encourage Turkey to secure their borders included an easing of visa requirements for Turkish citizens as part of the aid package, reportedly Erdogan pushed hard for that to be included in the bargain.
What does Oil have to do with it?
It has to do with honoring a treaty. The United States of America risked total destruction to win the Cold War, and that included all of NATO.
Those nations and those people owe America their freedom, their liberty and their lives.
America should remind them of that over and over. They are only free because of America. Turkey not helping with Iraq should have spelled the end of our support for that nation, and as far as I am concerned it was a betrayal of an ally. Not being with us, means they were against it.
(Oh, no, Bryan is so simplistic. It is all so complicated. We have to worry about their feelings and pride etc. )
The biggest problem with our foreign policy is how un-imperialist it it.
Let me further say, Turkey is clearly an enemy of America and should be treated as such.
Then again, Iran is too and look how we treat them.
Please explain. Turkey may have different national interests than us, but why elevate that to the level of ‘enemy’?
Russia is not declaring war on Turkey or vice versa. The trade between the countries is around 30 billion annually? Russian cant afford that loss on the long run.
This was a screw up by local commanders, who forgot that Turkey is not the same as the Baltic Countries, and lost a plane as a result. I expect both Erdogan and Putin to make some noises, some nationalist threats and then calm the heck down afterwords.
This is not part of some grand design to get the Bosphorous. As someone who has spent some time comparing the Order of Battles of some of these countries, its my bet that it will be all be forgotten in two months, when France enters Lebanon with a Peacekeeping force and launches an invasion to take out ISIL with Russian Air support and commando operations.
We abrogated the defense treaty with Taiwan in 1979.
The current Taiwan Relations Act states US policy to be: “to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan.”
Oh, and “to make clear that the United States decision to establish diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means;”
So our only commitment is to have the capacity to do something, if we choose to, and to recall our ambassador if the PRC invades the ROC.
The area is tense sometimes but stable, probably for the same reason that little brother walks small around the neighborhood bullies if big brother makes it clear that his fights are his own.
Really. Now that would be interesting. “Take out ISIL” just like that? I would be impressed. But doesn’t Russia really care much more about stabilizing Assad and securing their base there in Syria than taking down ISIS? (despite losing their airliner). And I can’t see France having the commitment required to make much headway. Would be something to watch if they did, wouldn’t it?
Trade among Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Balkans and the Ottoman Empire was thought to make a European war inconceivable before 1914. Then Austria decided to impose a little discipline on the Serbs after Sarajevo. Historians are still trying to understand the course from Sarajevo to Ypres.
Don’t have the numbers handy but that trade must have been several orders of magnitude beyond $30 billion.
And some lunatic not affiliated with the Serbian government shot a Crown Prince and his wife. Prompt apologies by Serbia and all that but still…
You can always make the case we are one military incident away from WWX whatever. Not a very cheery life in that frame of mind.
We are and it isn’t
Russia: Active duty 2,845,000 Active reserves 766,055
France: Active duty 196,000 Active reserves 203,000
UK: Active duty 182,000 Active reserves 147,000
Germany: Active duty 145,000 Active reserves 179,000
This is what Russia has now. Certainly, the EU has the industrial base, and could draft and train bigger militaries… but that would put a crimp in their industrial capacity.
Figures, rounded slightly, are from globalfirepower.com which also assigns “firepower ratings” with the theoretical maximum being 0.0000. Their ratings for US, Russia, the UK, France, and Germany respectively are: 0.1663, 0.1865, 0.2747, 0.3069, 0.3507. I’m highly skeptical that even the new, improved Russian military is that close to the US, but I think the troop numbers are probably pretty close.
Plus Russian control over some of the EU’s energy supply.
Ontheleftcoast – “I’m highly skeptical that even the new, improved Russian military is that close to the US, but I think the troop numbers are probably pretty close.”
Roger that on both counts. Russian military is a logistic mess. Some weapons work well, some not reliable and some are for show. They are serious, but their aircraft are not that big a problem, while their anti-aircraft missiles are serious if working well. We might be able to neutralize the missiles, but it is dangerous.
Active oppostion to the United States of America in a time of war, is the action of an enemy.
If the Russians were serious about going after ISIS, maybe there are Turkmens that they should bomb:
That’s from last fall, but the players are probably more or less the same.