Pros and cons of the energy embargo: The risk is great

Germany can no longer afford to fund Putin’s war machine.

Germany no longer understands the world. Didn’t Olaf Scholz just proclaim the greatest “turning point” in German post-war politics? And yet Berlin is now being criticized internationally because the federal government is still hesitant to decide on an immediate energy embargo against Russia in the face of the war crimes in Bucha.

The world no longer understands Germany. What else has to happen, one asks from Warsaw to London to Washington, so that the Germans don’t always think first of their “economy, economy, economy” (Ukraine’s President Zelensky)?

However, when it comes to the energy embargo, economic reason and morality only appear to be irreconcilable. Just as arguments against an immediate delivery stop are not immoral (it’s also about jobs and economic livelihoods), the motives of the advocates of an embargo are “only” emotional and unreasonable.

Joe Kaeser is also wrong when he divides the German conflict of conscience into mental pain on the one hand and the compulsion to “think and weigh rationally” on the other.

At least since Butscha, the crucial question is no longer whether Germany can afford to accept the consequences of a Russian oil and gas embargo. Rather, the issue is whether we can afford not to.

Another reason why Germany must not continue to finance Putin’s war machine is that it is jeopardizing its international reputation and thus its economic well-being. Values ​​always have an economic dimension, which is why the label “Made in Germany” can also become a flaw.

Anyone who believes that Germany’s hesitation will soon be forgotten after the war has still not understood the turning point.

Opponents of the embargo do not have a monopoly on responsibility ethics

Opponents of an immediate energy embargo like to invoke Max Weber’s ethics of responsibility because they also consider the economic consequences of sanctions. What is forgotten is that the continued supply of gas, oil and coal also has economic and political consequences: the Putin system is supported, the warmonger is also invited to expand his aggression and Germany loses goodwill worldwide.

If these factors are too “soft” for you, remember that we have only become dependent on dictators in Moscow and Beijing because we have ignored this moral dimension of our economy for far too long.

Even the hint from opponents of the embargo that they are already in the process of turning off the money supply to Putin no longer works. By the time gas supplies are scheduled to stop in 2024, Ukraine could long have disappeared from the map.

It is important to act quickly and wisely now. The fact that this does not have to be a contradiction is shown by the economically sensible proposal to immediately impose an import tax on Putin’s energy supplies.

Cons: Incalculable risk

With a gas import ban, we do more harm than Russia.

By Juergen Flauger

The pressure on Germany to advocate a boycott of Russian energy supplies is increasing day by day. However, the federal government should remain steadfast on this issue – at least in part. Germany could certainly consider stopping Russian oil and coal supplies, but the economic consequences of a gas embargo are hardly justifiable.

In addition, even stopping oil and coal imports would have the desired effect. They would hit Russia’s President Vladimir Putin hard, but Germany could cope with them.

The sanction rule that the opponent should be hit harder than the one who imposes the penalties is violated by a gas import ban.

Substitutes for oil and coal from Russia can be obtained on the world market, but this is simply not possible in the short term in sufficient quantities for gas. Germany recently obtained a good half of its gas from Russia via pipeline. This cannot easily be covered from other sources.

The terminals at which tankers with liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Qatar are to land in the medium term simply do not yet exist.

A gas stop can irreparably damage systems

With the nuclear and coal phase-out, Germany has also made itself even more dependent on gas. Germany is therefore finding it much more difficult to give up Russian gas than most European nations.

In the coming months, the situation would probably even be manageable because the heating period is coming to an end. But the federal government and thousands of companies are dreading the coming winter. If the gas storage facilities are not replenished with deliveries from Russia in the next few months, there will be too little gas in Germany to cover consumption.

Then priorities have to be set. Many gas-fired power plants will go offline, but many companies will also be cut off from the gas supply. For some companies, such as hot-dip galvanizing plants, even a short-term interruption is not acceptable because then their systems would be irreparably damaged.

But every production stop not only damages the company concerned, but in many cases also downstream companies in the supply chain.

Of course, given the terrible pictures from Bucha, it is difficult to argue with economic losses. However, the upheavals in the German economy would be so unpredictable that it would be sensible not to go ahead with a gas boycott.

More: EU insider: Brussels wants to ban coal imports from Russia

source site-15