5

One of the strongest "weapons" Russia has is the power to shut down gas, which Europe needs.

Is there anything suggesting that the NATO might have decided to procrastinate actions in Crimea for a few months, so that the Russian gas leverage would be much weaker?

I'm not asking for wild speculations, I'm asking if there is any evidence pointing to that conclusion (or disproving it).

Improve this question
2
  • There was no real winter in Europe 2013/14 and in the day you've written your question, the temperatures were already quite high.
    – Danubian Sailor
    Apr 10, 2014 at 8:31
  • If "too localised" were still a close reason, I would have applied it to this question!
    – Andrew Grimm
    Jun 2, 2018 at 13:02

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
12

This appear to be highly unlikely for several reasons:

  1. The Black Sea is currently ice-free. If any NATO actions (NATO being a military and not a political organization) were to take place they could easily occur now as there little to prevent sea or land resupply of any military.
  2. If the questioner means the European Union, a political body, instead of NATO, then this again seems unlikely as factories and homes would still require natural gas supplies for water heating and production There is no "ideal time" for the combined nations of Europe to take unified against the only thing that would hurt the Russian economy in the short-term: reducing or ending imports of natural gas.
  3. By waiting instead of acting now, both the EU and NATO risk Russian troops consolidating the positions making any peaceful efforts to remove them extremely difficult or making the installation of an armed peacekeeping force, impossible.

If the EU or NATO (or both) are going to take any action against Russia for its invasion of the Crimean Peninsula, waiting offers far greater risks than immediate action.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .