On Monday, German Chancellor Merkel spoke in Berlin to a conference of military commanders. The text of her speech is here, auf Deutsch. (Here is video of a news story about the conference, also auf Deutsch. The NATO Secretary General also addressed the conference.)

She kicked two piles of dirt on the NATO alliance, only a few weeks before the big summit in Bucharest. First, with regards to Afghanistan. There are increasingly sharp feelings in the alliance about what NATO should be doing in Afghanistan, and the level of committments from member nations. Canada has made veiled threats about leaving Afghanistan if it does not receive more help. Earlier, remarks from Secretary Gates about the capabilities of NATO troops raised hackles.

At the recent meeting of NATO foreign ministers, Secretary Rice addressed these tensions, in a characteristically diplomatic tone.

QUESTION: In what ways do you think that the new strategy for Afghanistan might help bridge divisions within the alliance? And do you think Europe and Germany, in particular, are doing enough in the south? Thank you.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, first, let me say that I would not talk about divisions in the alliance on Afghanistan. I think the alliance has a very clear, commonly shared view that the NATO mission, which NATO took by consensus, the decision to enter this mission in Afghanistan, is a core mission of NATO, it is an essential mission of NATO, it must be successful. That means helping the Afghans to defeat the Taliban and other terrorists. It means helping the Afghans to build a decent and more prosperous and more democratic society. It is – since NATO is a military alliance, that there is a requirement that we be able to meet the obligations in a military sense. And not all nations contribute in exactly the same way. We have been concerned, and both Secretary Gates and I have made clear that we have been concerned that there be a sense of burden-sharing in the alliance that shares all of the burdens of what is a difficult fight, again, in a country that has experienced 30 years of conflict and more than 20 years of civil war.

Germany, like others, is contributing to the effort, and that is greatly appreciated. What we have to be able to do is to make certain that we can fulfill all of the requirements. We can’t just fulfill the requirements having to do with reconstruction and development. We can’t just fulfill the requirements that have to do with governance and rule of law. We can’t just fulfill the requirements that have to deal with the hearts and minds of the population. We also have to win against these insurgents — help the Afghans to win. We have to train the Afghan army. We have to mentor and provide help to them. And it is SACEUR’s view that he needs more help in that regard, and there’s been a significant effort to do that.

Let me say one word also about the Canadians in this regard, who have made it clear that they desire a partner in the south. And we believe that the alliance has an obligation to deliver on that because this is a NATO mission. This is not a Canadian mission or a Danish mission or an American mission or — it’s a NATO mission, and we have to respond as an alliance.

She was saying, sweetly, that it would be nice if Germany contributed more troops. Combat troops, preferrably. Merkel threw cold water on all that.

Chancellor Angela Merkel called on NATO members to improve coordination of military and civil elements in crisis areas such as Afghanistan. She stressed that Germany would not lift restrictions on troops in the country.

The trans-Atlantic alliance is a pillar of Germany’s foreign and security policy, but it has to move away from purely military thinking, she told a meeting of German armed forces commanders in Berlin on Monday, March 10.

The chancellor also affirmed Germany’s opposition to extending its military role in Afghanistan to the volatile south, a move requested by the United States and other NATO members.

She said her country’s NATO-led troops were needed in the relatively peaceful north, where they were engaged mainly in civilian reconstruction projects.

She took a shot at US leadership,

Erstens. Eine vorsorgende und wertegebundende Politik muss international möglichst breit abgestimmt sein. Wir müssen vor allen Dingen das Gespräch mit unseren Verbündeten und Partnern in Europa und in der transatlantischen Gemeinschaft suchen. Rein nationalstaatliche Lösungen helfen uns nur in den allerseltensten Fällen weiter. Selbst für eine Macht wie die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika ist heute klar: Niemand kann allein ohne Verbündete, auch ohne politischen Rückhalt, Probleme lösen. Das heißt, jeder auf der Welt braucht Partner, weil wir eben auch ein universelles, ein umfassendes Verständnis von Sicherheit haben.

Meaning, and mentioning the US by name, nobody can solve problems alone, without allies. Let’s have none of that cowboy diplomacy.

Second, Merkel took a saw and hacked off the limb upon which the membership hopes of Georgia and Ukraine were sitting. She said,

Wir werden uns auch über die Frage der Heranführung von Georgien und der Ukraine zu unterhalten haben. Hierzu möchte ich heute nur zwei sehr allgemeine Bemerkungen machen. Meine erste Bemerkung lautet: Ich bin der Meinung, ein Land sollte nur Mitglied der Nato sein, wenn nicht nur eine augenblickliche politische Führung diese Mitgliedschaft befürwortet, sondern wenn es auch eine qualitativ bedeutsame Unterstützung der Nato-Mitgliedschaft in der Bevölkerung gibt. Wir dürfen keine Risiken – sozusagen je nach Wahlverhalten in bestimmten Ländern, in denen sich noch zentrale politische Orientierungen herausbilden – eingehen.

Translation, from Vladimir Socor at the Jamestown Foundation,

In her speech, which dealt primarily with Afghanistan’s challenges, Merkel also cautioned against opening the door to Ukraine and Georgia. ‘Countries that are involved in regional or internal conflicts can not become members [of the alliance],” she stipulated, in a chilling “No” to Georgia.

Moreover, “qualitatively significant” internal public support would be required for countries’ accession to NATO. It is not enough for countries’ membership aspirations to be only supported by the incumbent leaderships, Merkel noted. Nor could the alliance risk admitting countries on the basis of their voter preferences, she contended (DPA, March 10).

What is this all about? Is it about energy? Russia is adamantly opposed to NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine. Russia does not want NATO that close to her borders. So why would Germany carry water for Russia?

Consider that Germany, the third largest consumer of natural gas in the world, gets over 40% of its gas from Russia. That is bound to increase with the building of the Nord Stream pipeline under the Baltic Sea.

What’s ironic is that when Merkel’s predecessor, Schroeder, left office, he took a leadership role in Nord Stream AG, the consortium building the pipeline. Nord Stream AG is 51% owned by Gazprom, the Russian gas company. In effect, Schroeder went to work for Russia. Merkel criticized him for this at the time.

Two days before her speech in Berlin, Merkel went to Moscow to meet with Medvedev and Putin, the incoming and outgoing Russian Presidents. Note that Medvedev is still Chairman of the Board of Gazprom. Yulia Latynina writes,

At a news conference on Saturday following his meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia’s foreign policy under President-elect Dmitry Medvedev would remain unchanged. “I do not think that our partners will have it any easier with him,” Putin declared.

Merkel’s speech was a balancing act, if not a step in Russia’s direction. Faced with a more aggressive Russia, a Russia with a hand on the spigot of Germany’s gas supplies, Merkel doesn’t seem eager to poke the bear with any sharp sticks.

Update: For more, see The Washington Realist, and Siberian Light.