It could be emanating from a recent development, the yet inconclusive but undeniable ripping apart of that eternal brotherhood between the German Federal Republic and its great patron, provider and protector, the USA, a seemingly indestructible alliance cemented after World War II.

One key location in this process, however, is now soundless. The chug-chug of the special Swiss ship which had laid over 1,000 kilometers of the underwater gas pipeline from Russia to Germany – called Nord Stream 2 – is now silent. It had only a measly 150 km left to reach its goal when Washington made good on the very undiplomatic threats barked out by then U.S. Ambassador Richard Grenell (once a commentator for Fox and Breitbart): Any company helping with the pipeline would get slammed by sanctions as tight as those used against Russia or Cuba, Venezuela and Iran. To the surprise and anger of Angela Merkel and many German businessmen, that is just what happened.

The imposed stranglehold was all too suffocating so the Swiss seamen shut down their engines and went home to the Alps. The only Russian ship equipped to replace the Swiss ship needs renovations and repairs and is docked in Vladivostok.

Many commentators here saw this Verbot as an insult to Germany and a blow, not for ecology, but a move to force them to purchase more fracked gas from the U.S. while also damaging or wrecking the Russian economy.

Further south in this country, in the small town of Büchel, are about twenty American atomic bombs, next to a German base with Tornado planes ready to carry and fire them at a moment’s notice – each one far more horrendous than those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The nukes in Germany are doomsday weapons and likely targets, thereby endangering the German people themselves. In 2010 a large majority in the Bundestag called on the government to “work effectively to achieve the removal of U.S. atomic weapons from Germany.”

But the government did nothing of the sort and annual demonstrations in Büchel were largely ignored. Until May 2nd, that is, when a leading Social Democrat (whose party is in the government coalition) repeated this demand – and found surprising approval from the new leaders of his party. This too was a sign that the alliance between Germany and the U.S. was crumbling. Of course, it will take far more than that to close Büchel or the giant base at Ramstein, the European relay station for all U.S. drone attacks (and the protests continue).

Then in June Trump announced plans to pull 9,500 U.S. soldiers out of Germany, from a total 35,000. Was this to punish Germany for refusing to spend 2% of its Gross Domestic Product on armaments, as NATO (and Trump) demanded, but only 1.38%? Germany had dared to spend less on weapons than what Trump had demanded they spend. Or was it a penalty by thin-skinned Mr. Trump after Ms. Merkel spurned his invitation to a G7 summit in Washington, spoiling a campaign device to show himself as a “world figure”?

Whatever the reasons, the “Atlanticists” in Berlin, who cherish Washington ties, were shocked and dismayed. One top adviser groaned: “This is completely unacceptable, especially since nobody in Washington thought about informing its NATO ally Germany in advance.”

Many would be glad to see the nuclear missiles go. They love neither Trump nor having Pentagon troops in Germany since 1945, more than in any other country. But their pleasure was short-lived. Büchel and Ramstein would not be closed down and the U.S troops would not fly home to America but instead to Poland, perilously close to the Russian border, even worsening the dangers of a tragic – if not final – global catastrophe.

Even for a junior partner like Germany there had been problems in the relations with the U.S. Majority opinion just before an election kept Germany out of the Iraq wars and the aerial bombardment of Libya. But it dutifully followed its Washington leader in bombing Serbia, it joined in battering Afghanistan, obeyed the embargo-blockade of Cuba, Venezuela and Russia, bowed to pressure to bar Iran from the world trade market and supported the U.S. in nearly every UN controversy.

Where might a more independent path lead? Can some leaders break with the dangerous anti-Russia, anti-China campaigns in the U.S. and search for a new detente? Is that more than a dream? (People’s World--IPA Service)