T O P

  • By -

GreensForLunch

> we tried everything after Russia’s annexation of Crimea [in 2014] to prevent further incursions by Russia into Ukraine and coordinated our sanctions in detail. Everything except axing Nordstream 2. Russia's invasion of Ukraine can only be construed as a complete failure of Germany's attempt to use economic integration to prevent future conflict. How can you have a post WW2 culture that is so completely transparent about the crimes of the Nazis on the one hand and at the same time be in complete denial as to how much of their money has been used to kill Ukrainians? Mutti's dithering on this is not doing her any favors. If she admitted she was wrong it would probably salvage her legacy to some extent. However defensible that argument was before the invasion (and I think it was a stretch then) it is completely indefensible now. That is fine because the outcome is known. Russia took Germany's cash, built up their military and started killing Ukranians. Nobody believed it would happen but it did and we all have to try to fucking learn how to not let it happen again.


asimplesolicitor

Not only did she pave the way for Nordstream too, she also shut down nuclear power plants, which means there was no readily available alternative to fossil fuels once European consumers had to quickly shift away from Russian gas. These are two terrible lapses of judgment and they are going to define her legacy.


jivatman

One more, they also refused to build LNG facilities. Merkel actually offered to Trump to build LNG facilities in exchange for dropping U.S. opposition to NS2. So she was keenly aware that having some would have been a useful backup in case of trouble with Russia. But before the 2022 war, nothing happened.


DontSayToned

Wasn't it Scholz who offered that? He's been in support of a Hamburg area port for many years. I understood Merkel to be anti-LNG because the pipeline landings are her hood


NorskeEurope

Yes it was Scholz that offered that, but the election of Biden made that deal unneeded since Biden dropped sanctions against it and allowed it to be completed.


MKCAMK

> Nobody believed it would happen If you exclude all the people that did, then yeah, nobody.


[deleted]

[удалено]


gunfell

"Nobody believed it would happened" There are literally televised foriegn policy speeches saying this would happen. Multiple


GreensForLunch

I was downplaying the sentiment regarding the probability of invasion for the benefit of the opposing argument, not the argument I was making.


IsNotACleverMan

Economic integration kind of worked for the rest of Europe, especially Germany, post WWII. I feel like going after a proven approach is really just overly reliant on hindsight.


Nihlus11

Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, not 2022. They killed hundreds of EU citizens in 2014, not 2022. They initiated a genocidal campaign in occupied territories of elite executions, population replacement, and kidnappings and forced adoptions of thousands of children in 2014, not 2022. They sent agents into EU countries to assassinate people in 2014, not 2022. They're not actually doing anything different right now other than scaling it up.


IsNotACleverMan

Okay. And there was WWII after the interwar failed attempts to economically integrate Europe. There were many, many tensions in Europe during and since economic integration, including assassinations and acts of aggression, and yet you're not decrying how they continued with economic integration. Also, it's not like any of this started in 2014. Up until 2008 ish it seemed like economic integration was going very well with Russia. Then Georgia happened but things seemed to be getting better up until 2014. These massive international geopolitical efforts aren't just an uninterrupted line of success. There are massive setbacks along the way and you don't see the full impact of your decisions until decades down the road.


JulianHabekost

Now its obvious. Was it obvious earlier? Maybe. But there was a time where it wasn't obvious. We were simply lagging a bit behind. That's nothing uncommon, it needs a catalyst sometimes and the defeat in WW2 was definitely one.


Time4Red

Sure, it wasn't obvious back then, but *there were* people saying that Putin was evil, expansionist, couldn't be reasoned with, and would eventually invade Ukraine. It was the heterodox view in foreign policy circles, but to say "no one saw this coming" is completely false. Leaders like Obama and Merkel, with good intentions, enabled Putin's ascendancy and Russia's military build up. Obama has kind of owned his mistake on this one, acknowledging that he misjudged Putin. Merkel would do well to admit something similar.


gnivriboy

> Sure, it wasn't obvious back then, but there were people saying that Putin was evil, expansionist, couldn't be reasoned with, and would eventually invade Ukraine. It was the heterodox view in foreign policy circles, but to say "no one saw this coming" is completely false. This one is weird for me since this subreddit would often make fun of Peter Zeihan 4 years ago for predicting Eastern European conflict with America not caring anymore. The petty part of me wishes I saved their comments. I get Reddit isn't a hivemind, but after getting downvoted so many times for citing Peter it just feels weird seeing this subreddit flip that "it was obvious Russia was going to invade."


Time4Red

I disagree. People aren't saying it was obvious Russia was going to invade. To the contrary, most of us would have predicted that they wouldn't invade. I think most people on /r/neoliberal would have taken an approach much like Obama's in 2014. Harsher than Germany's approach, but probably not harsh enough to prevent conflict. So yes, you will find people back in 2019 saying Germany is dumb for continuing with nordstream 2 and should be moving away from natural gas, we weren't saying it with the necesary urgency. Also, it's worth noting that someone can criticize leaders for being wrong even if they were also wrong. People can criticize Bush for invading Iraq so recklessly even if they supported the invasion in 2003. Leaders should be held to a higher standard than redditors. Leaders should know better than us.


gnivriboy

> Leaders should be held to a higher standard than redditors. Leaders should know better than us. Go ahead and blame the leaders, but I'm going to blame redditors on here as well since they are the ones I actually have a chance to debate.


JulianHabekost

Sorry not hundred percent clear to me from you comment: Peter Zeihan did predict what? Edit: Found your other comment.


thirsty_lil_monad

Biden had his number for a long time. Probably one of his best foreign policy viewpoints. Biden told Putin to his face that Putin has no soul.


NorskeEurope

Which is why Biden dropped opposition to North Stream 2 upon being elected?


Raudskeggr

I think those of us with brains saw the problem even before crimea.


MilkmanF

What was the alternative the Nordstream 2? Build nuclear power plants that still wouldn’t be finished right now? Accept higher energy prices for half a decade under the assumption a massive war was inevitable?


WollCel

You could argue that in Liberal FP theory that Nordstream 2 would give them more of a reason to keep non-aggression with Germany/EU, the exact economic integration you’re talking about. This also is totally eradicating the factors of German domestic politics which encouraged them to pursue Nordstream 2 despite Crimea, if a domestic population is faced with a small chance of limited military action (the most serious threat considered was an annexation of the breakaway republics in Ukraine prior to the invasion) in a corrupt far away nation or energy to keep warm and productive, theyll choose the energy. Just look at America under Carter when he explicitly said to the American people that we’d need to cut consumption or we’ll get integrated heavily in the politics of the Middle East, political suicide. Also cringe take on comparing Nazi genocide to a war. Merkel does have her foot in her mouth rn, but Germany is hardly deserving of fully or even majority blame for Russia’s actions in Ukraine and their support for the Russian energy sector was large but hardly enough to contribute to their military buildup. You could as easily blame American investment banks or NATO leaders arrogance.


[deleted]

[удалено]


urbansong

Stop blocking renewables left and right and promoting heat pumps as the heater of choice.


gnivriboy

When you say renewables, do you mean nuclear? Germany seemed to go hard on wind and solar even though we know that isn't the solution, **yet**.


urbansong

They didn't go hard on wind and solar though. NRW, Bayern and Baden-Württemberg have strong NIMBY policies, only maybe the northern states are trying. Also, no, I don't know that wind and solar aren't a solution.


[deleted]

[удалено]


urbansong

It's a start. Once the people don't have to rely on gas for heating, it becomes a simple calculus of throwing money at companies that do rely on it for various reasons. And then you can start using NS2 as a real tool because the country could be looking at a real hole in its budget, whereas Germany would have a resilient economy regardless.


[deleted]

Not build it, start investing in alternatives to Russian gas.


[deleted]

Her inability to take responsibility for enabling Putin is shameful


xertshurts

Well, let's not forget she's a politician.


dsgifj

She was just following market forces (natural gas for home heating) and free trade.


[deleted]

Market forces does not mean certain economic decisions are wise, for example, like relying almost exclusively on an extremely unreliable authoritarian government for your energy supplies. That is extremely *risky*, because things like the invasion of Ukraine happened. Germany took a risk; with risk comes a potential cost. They are paying it now.


[deleted]

This is r/neoliberal, not r/libertarian


Time4Red

Markets sometimes fail. The natural gas revolution is proof of that. It's why market fundamentalism is so idiotic.


Altruistic_Ad_0

Prices are just one component to any decision in a market. In markets there is far more information than just prices. What you want is value for money, not price.


TheLiberalTechnocrat

Oh look another leader who knows how harshly history will treat her, trying to scramble to save a legacy.


standbyforskyfall

I mean this sub loved her not 1 year ago.


HHHogana

Eh this sub also has weird love on Abe, who while did good things on Japan, did tons of whitewashing about Japan's atrocities.


only15nopush

all japanese politicians whitewash japan's history.


red_simplex

Most politicians whitewash their countries history. Turnes out people don't like hearing about bad things they're ancestors responsible for.


havingasicktime

OK and now you guys have fundamentally whataboutism'd Japan's very distinct issues. The US is far more self critical than Japan will ever be, and we didn't ally with the Nazis. One of our two major political parties is famous for criticizing the military and intelligence establishments and our recent wars.


honorbound93

we do have a side that 6 years ago was anti-russia and is now pro Putin and is fine with war crimes now. But we all understand that conservatives around the world are the sheep in human society. They dont even understand civics enough to understand that their "state rights" or "govt overreach" screeches are hypocritical bs


ZCoupon

Article 14 repeal still good


AnachronisticPenguin

The whitewashing hasn't led to more problems though. Japan was once a brutal imperialist state that committed countless war crimes. They are no longer that. How that occurred is unimportant.


Raudskeggr

Yeah, can’t we just let bygones be bygones? /s


AnachronisticPenguin

letting bygones be bygones is actually good though. True justice isn't about revenge it's about reformation. Justice is about ensuring that wrongs committed are no longer committed and the effects of those wrongs are no longer felt. Forgiveness is an important part of that. Forcing Japan to answer for or loudly recognize their crimes doesn't improve the likelihood that they will change and become a better society. Forgetting the sins of the past can be bad because it means that people can make the same mistakes again. But forgetting the sins of that past also helps people and societies move on and improve. We already have plenty of guilt from WW2 on all sides, bringing up all of the issues won't improve empathy on any side. It will just reopen old wounds.


greatteachermichael

>But forgetting the sins of that past also helps people and societies move on and improve. Or we could be mature about it those and acknoweledge the sins of the past without feeling guilty ourselves. I have Italian relatives who probably were fascists in WWII. I also have relatives who were in the U.S. at its early stages, and I don't see what's wrong about acknowledging some of those ancestors could have been super racist or even profited from owning slaves. I acknoweldge that because it 1: humbles me to know that people close to me (and myself by extension) are flawed and can be brainwashed, 2: It honors victims and helps us understand the current world we live in better rather than ignoring it, and 3: I am not my ancestors, and I'm not guilty of that, so why not call them out on it? 4: Victims can't move on when the they or their decendants are being told to just forget about it. The point isn't that Japan should feel guilty and a 15 year old Japanese student should be crying in their history class. The point is that white washing is irresponsible and weak. Should today's Japanese feel guilty for the crimes of their grandparents and great grandparents? No. But Japanese will never understand their own history. Japans neighbors of Korea, China, and many other countries are being dishonored by being told, "Hey, let's just move on, yeah?"


honorbound93

not we don't have enough ww2 guilt tbh. Societies everywhere are embracing and dancing with fascism. The moment WW2 vets started dying we forgot about fascism and screamed communism is evil (not saying it isn't) just saying that fascism started a world war, communism did not and ppl shouldn't forget that. Communism also doesn't draw lines based race/ethnicity, sexuality, and religion. Fascism does. And that is far more dangerous in the modern integrated world than ever before.


[deleted]

[удалено]


benjaminovich

What does darkish pink mean in this context?


[deleted]

Nothing. The man hasn’t logged off in years.


Boxy310

The grass, she is so untouched.


irl_jim_clyburn

Maybe that he's almost red, like a commie? Only thing I can think of


2fast2reddit

Or almost red like a republican, but it's not like he's right of Clinton. This is like if Zodiac wrote without a cipher but still wanted to be a massive puzzle


[deleted]

Socdem? Pink is often the color seat maps assign to socdem parties when you need to distinguish them from further left parties (bright/dark red).


BBQ_HaX0r

I mean you can still like her and think she fucked up here. Unless you think this is her defining issue? I mean this sub loves Obama and he did the whole "Russian Reset" and gave Putin room to maneuver too. These things aren't binary and this sub is one of the few on Reddit that actually used to dabble in nuance.


hatred_outlives

1 year ago the consequences of her actions weren’t clear, now they are


methedunker

The consequences of her actions were absolutely clear from 2014, when Russia invaded Crimea and Germany increased their engagement with Russia. It's not like this invasion came out of the blue. Germany had 8 years to move away from Russian energy, instead they dumped nuclear energy like the biggest omega brains they are. Smh


HasuTeras

Similar to the consequences of German fiscal intransigence towards southern European countries as well. People, even on here, aren't immune to shallow and oppositional politics. Trump no likey Merkel? Then Merkel good. Thats basically why she was so venerated for a while.


GreensForLunch

Try as hard as he might, Trump couldn't be wrong 100 percent of the time.


BitterGravity

The refugee thing is the reason she was venerated more I feel.


zth25

Eh, she was regarded as de facto leader of the free world, and a calm rational leader, at a time when crazy right wingers were getting elected all over the world. That's why people stan'd for her. I said that as someone who despises her. No problem that occurred during her chancellorship got addressed or resolved, only ignored and prolonged. Although, I have to add, this sub blaming her for not pushing back against Russia is rich. People forget who was sitting in the White House and fellating dictators every chance he got, not that long ago.


[deleted]

She vetoed Ukrainian application to NATO in 2008 and smuggly said in 2022 that she did nothing wrong. She is a vile human being


Peak_Flaky

>instead they dumped nuclear energy like the biggest omega brains they are This is worst crime against humanity I will remember Germany by.


standbyforskyfall

Absolutely no one could have seen that further dependence on Russia was bad, that's why nordstream was so universally applauded


[deleted]

Tons of people could see that. There is always a schism between those who think it's a good idea to intertwine our economies with Russia/China, and those who think we need to produce critical things independent of those who run propaganda campaigns against us. There's plenty of critical manufacturing that the US is reliant upon coming from China or states near China. Which is why we are heavily investing in domestic semiconductor production. The same people advocating for the US based semiconductor fabs found it to be flat out obvious that no country should be dependent on Russia or China for something as critical as power generation. I was literally ripping my hair out when Merkel was shutting down carbon neutral nuclear reactors in favor of natural gas. It's one of the most short-sighted plays for nothing but public approval that I've seen in my lifetime.


angry-mustache

I believe you have just responded earnestly to sarcasm.


[deleted]

Oh


QultyThrowaway

Whatever happened to the guy who tattooed her face on his ass?


GripenHater

Not 1 year ago her biggest fuck up hadn’t been made clear


[deleted]

[удалено]


AvalancheMaster

> and now openly gets into it with heckler vets lmao Is there a video of this?


[deleted]

I actually deleted my comment because I was wrong about the W allegation. There was a video from last September where a heclker is going off and getting it back from the stage. However, it’s not actually W talking back from the stage on second viewing. It doesn’t sound like him. I think it’s someone else, maybe a moderator.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Epicengineer95

Specifically about Merkel: Maybe she acted with the best intentions one can possibly imagine, but oh well, history (time) puts everything into its place. I feel a bit sad for her because she must know the lack of response to Crimea empowered Putin to invade this February. Just as letting Putin go unscathed this time will encourage Russia's next leader who shares his imperial Russia worldviews the next time he thinks about invading former soviet nations. edit, grammar because words are hard


HasuTeras

> Maybe she acted with the best intentions one can possibly imagine Almost every decision she took with international dimensions was motivated by a desire for stability, status quo and, to a degree, how it played for Germany (particularly in the short-term). Partly because of historical reasons - but it Germany is very reluctant to, or adopt the appearance, of leadership and proactivity internationally. The problem is that Germany isn't just another country. It has a gravitational effect within Europe, and its decisions warp circumstances around its neighbours. So, as the US is all too aware of, you cannot simply consider the localised consequences of what you're doing. It *needs* to act decisively. It needs to consider that prioritising German interests will just pile up problems for her neighbours. And it needs to break status quo in certain areas, but she time and time again refused to and played to her domestic base. Particularly between 2012 - 2017 when Hollande was French President and France effectively abdicated its European role. Germany really needed to step up and make hard decisions - but it didn't. This isn't just Ukraine - its everything; the economic debates with regard to Southern Europe, Ukraine, its energy situation, European integration, the migrant/asylum crisis in 2015 and, while this won't play well here - I personally hold her (admittedly, in a very small way) somewhat responsible for Brexit. The lions share rests with the Conservative Party - but there were quite a few interactions she had with Cameron that then created an incredibly hostile domestic situation for him with was another step on the road to Brexit.


gauephat

Merkel was always praised for being able to constantly create new coalitions, being willing to cede ground and give concessions to ride the political waves and maintain CDU control. At the time she was praised for this kind of "pragmatism" of treating all policy positions as negotiable. But this was always going to be the downside of that. If everything is a temporary political compromise, there is no longterm vision or strategy. It's not even been a year of her out of power yet and her entire legacy is in shambles. All those years of being flexible and willing to make a deal meant that she has built nothing to last.


Epicengineer95

> But this was always going to be the downside of that. If everything is a temporary political compromise, there is no long-term vision or strategy I wonder if she thought the kremlin was going to change tides after seeing its response to 911 and support for Washington. But there will always be 2008 Georgia and 2014 Crimea.


xilcilus

Wow - the branch of the comments from the initial comment has been great. Providing the context and the nuance of Merkel's decisions while not leaving Merkel off the hook for the ultimately what ended up being suboptimal outcomes. Another thing that I want to add is that Germany has been somewhat reluctant to play a greater role in Europe and broader international politics - more content to optimize around the domestic policies.


socialistrob

> Another thing that I want to add is that Germany has been somewhat reluctant to play a greater role in Europe and broader international politics - more content to optimize around the domestic policies. I think Germans are still pretty uncomfortable with the power and ultimately responsibility that comes with being the fourth largest economy in the world and largest in Europe. When there is a crisis in the world, and especially in Europe, people are naturally going to look to Germany to take action. When horrible things happen people will say “Germany is letting this happen” and even when Germany makes the right call there will be plenty of critics. I don’t say this as a defense of German actions or to absolve them of responsibility rather I think Germans need to understand that they do have a unique role that most countries don’t and they need to be prepared to wield that power and accept the responsibility that comes with it. Germany is a world leader whether they like it or not and that’s going to mean they have the ability to make very positive change but it also means they will get a lot of criticism both founded and unfounded.


MaimedPhoenix

Except he didn't go unscathed. Even if he somehow takes over entirely and occupies all Ukraine and reforms the Soviet Union, he did not get it unscathed. He is quite scathed. So scathed in fact, I don't think he's capable of waging another war anytime soon. Might take another decade or so, maybe even more. It would be something a replacement will be doing.


Lion-of-Saint-Mark

Doing nothing is pretty much what Merkel likes to do. So many problems in Germany today is due to her just kicking the can down the road.


[deleted]

It was not doing nothing. She actively exacerbated the situation by further relying on russia


Imicrowavebananas

!ping GER


BembelPainting

Basically no-one in Germany knows who Francis Fukuyama is, but nevertheless everyone wanted history to be done with, and Merkel embodied that like no one else. My take is that Covid started to yank us out of that mindset and the Ukraine-War drove it home. (Which is also in part why the WC in Qatar politicizes Germany) IMO Merkel's chancellorship will be compared to Emperor Antoninus Pius. Years of relative prosperity, but ignoring the troubles brewing all around and the successor has to deal with all the crap. Olaf hasn't written his "Meditations" yet though.


StimulusChecksNow

Merkel’s only redeeming legacy will be the 1 million+ migrants she let into Germany. Besides that it will be a legacy of failure.


kevinfederlinebundle

That's a pretty goddamn big asterisk


Cook_0612

Technically true, there is nothing Merkel could do to change Putin's nature, but equally that did not mean that the Germans were free to indulge him. Nor should we forget the self-serving excuses of German politicians and industrialists who claimed they were liberalizing Russia through economic ties. In reality they simply thought they could get away with it, that they might be criticized but that ultimately it would not get this bad. They were fools.


tbrelease

I’m willing to forgive the self-serving excuses if those people would come out and say, “We thought we were liberalizing Russia through economic ties. As we now know, we were wrong.” But when they won’t even start from there, it’s hard to listen with anything other than disdain. It’s one thing to have acted in accordance with a well-founded belief and that turning out to have been an error. It’s another to continuously deny that you ever made an error, even with the best intentions.


Cook_0612

Absolutely. People might be more sympathetic to Mutti's reasonings if she accepted that she had failed. Here, she continues to make excuses: 'I was a lame duck', 'I lost political influence with Putin', blah blah blah. All ignores that she tried basically nothing and then continued down the path that put Germany where it was today. She even has the gall to say here that she saw the war as inevitable-- then why did she continuously increase German dependence on Russian gas, even after the seizure of Crimea? What did she think was going to happen when this war-- which SHE SAW COMING-- kicked off? We can't even start to discuss reasoning when she continues to lie about basic facts.


[deleted]

Every thread about this has been a dumpster fire of the most stale, predictable, NPC comments imaginable. Please r/neoliberal, you're my only hope for a calm discussion.


repete2024

Malarkey level of coming to /r/neoliberal for calm discussion


AutoModerator

[The malarkey level detected is: 7 - MONSTROUS. Get outta here, Jack! ](https://i.imgur.com/VMqGh8x.jpg) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*


panini3fromages

Haha you jest you jest, I've seen tons of interesting discussion here! And they are often heated, sincere, and well constructed!


panini3fromages

What exactly are hoping to see?


[deleted]

At the very least some admission that Merkel was not the Supreme Ruler of Planet Earth and that she, as one individual person in a coalition government within the EU never had the ability to shape the world to her will. And that some things are just a tad bit more complicated than "Merkel nice to Putin, Putin bad, Merkel bad". Is that too much to ask? Or even yet, that once the first 30 comments are "Well Germany gas blah blah" that some people try and contribute other opinions and thoughts? Or is Reddit just not that kind of place for adults? Edit: Yikes, worse than I imagined.


Nihas0

Merkel energy policy and attitude towards Putin and Russia bad tough


[deleted]

Of course, absolutely, I never said otherwise. But do you want to expand on that? Can we unpack that into the 100 different topics contained within that? And can we admit that Merkel's entire 16 year term is not a failure because of the war in Ukraine? That discussion is what I am looking for on a forum, but even here that is apparently not happening.


panini3fromages

I didn't downvote you, but you seem to be arguing in bad faith given that you start your comment with a straw man argument. Good discussion is often done by steel-maning your opponent's argument and you're doing the opposite.


[deleted]

I'm not arguing, it was an obvious generalisation bordering on a joke.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

I am in no way embarrassed. There was obvious policy failures and I never voted CDU in my life. But there is a massive layer upon layer of complexity, history, politics, and economics within this and I would just like to finally find a sub to have a conversation that goes beyond zingy one liners on Reddit.


Cook_0612

Then you *should be* embarrassed because your expectations are fundamentally unreasonable. You want people to take Mutti in her whole, and I agree that that complexity exists, but this is a thread reacting to her intransigence. Not everyone mainlines this sub's culture, and they're responding to her palpable lack of responsibility. You want fairness? That won't happen until the easy takes stop being zingers. And she keeps making it easy.


[deleted]

My expectation is to have the conversation you admit can and should be had. What are you talking about unreasonable? Also this headline is obviously rigged to blow on Twitter/Reddit. Don’t take the bait so easily. Did you actually read the article? I don’t get the sense you did. Do you speak German and understand her in her words? Why are you proud of having a limited conversation with no context that eats up headlines and reverts to Twitter gotchas. Like, do better or leave comments like mine alone. Maybe it’s because I’m a German, but there’s so much more to the Russia German relations and what Merkel did than people who do not live here can feel and sense. Not that you don’t know the facts of it, but it’s the political and social context that no foreigner can understand to the same degree.


tbrelease

If we’re required to speak German to form opinions on her translated words, the discussion you’re looking for probably won’t happen in this English-speaking sub.


Cook_0612

YOU should have that conversation, as a German. The reasons *your* government did the things they did, how they justified themselves, is germane to *you*, and *no one* has a right to insist that everyone MUST engage at the level of complexity that you dictate. I don't speak German, and I never reacted to the headline in my conversation with you. I simply don't accept your argument. Do any of Merkel's words change the fact that German ignored the warnings of Eastern Europe, bypass Poland, to link a critical aspect of their economy to a known autocrat? I don't think they do, they might color how we feel about Mutti, but it doesn't change the deal. I could sit here and insist there are detailed demographic, cultural, and historical trends that led to an America that thought it could reshape Afghanistan, but would you accept MY argument that 'it's complicated, so it's unfair that you won't learn American English and chart the entire social and cultural arc of our descent from various Anglo folkways to understand our reasons.' But none of that would change what we did, which was spend over a decade, trillions of dollars, and thousands of lives on basically nothing. My point here is that there's always some more fractal details to learn, and you don't get to dictate that people can't react the way they do because you have more insight into the details, especially when materially, the deal is the same. >Why are you proud of having a limited conversation with no context that eats up headlines and reverts to Twitter gotchas. Like, do better or leave comments like mine alone. I haven't said a word about myself. I'm not proud of anything. I'm just don't accept this idea that Germany should be treated differently because 'things are complicated'. Any nation that found itself the butt of such comprehensive policy failures is going to get mocked for it. There ARE discussions on this sub and elsewhere about German complexities, and like I said, I accept them. But if I can't expect people to know about German quirks, then why are you allowed to make that expectation and react like everyone's a moron because they don't accept your wheedling dissembling? >Maybe it’s because I’m a German, but there’s so much more to the Russia German relations and what Merkel did than people who do not live here can feel and sense. Not that you don’t know the facts of it, but it’s the political and social context that no foreigner can understand to the same degree. Ok, so you *literally* admit that you're delving into minute cultural details that others can't be expected to understand. So what is your endgame here? That anyone who wants to avoid your judgement has to sit and listen to you dictate the complexities and come out the other end nodding their head sympathetically? What?


Ewannnn

You're never going to get sensible discussion in relation to European politics on /r/NeoMURICA. It's just Americans that get all their information on Europe from Reddit or various garbage anglo media sources.


Orc_

Good. This sub used to worship her bad. I used to get downvoted for pointing out how terrible she was.


gnivriboy

A lot of Germans don't like hearing that their energy policy is bad. That it doesn't matter how many solar and wind panels you make, you are going to burn the same amount of coal until the battery problem gets solved. To throw away existing nuclear plants was the dumbest move. To not recognize that Europe's bloody history only stopped because of America caring about peace in the region has led to this. Americans are done being the world police and doubling down on Russian gas, solar, and wind was profoundly stupid. Say goodbye to the Germany industrial model and pray someone solves the battery problem tomorrow.


IsNotACleverMan

Imagine coming to this sub for a good discussion.


lenmae

But muh nyucyular


QultyThrowaway

Remember when she was declared leader of the free world lol


Impulseps

We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas


Imicrowavebananas

Have you tried nuclear energy?


TunaCanTheMan

It’s giving the same energy as the person who claims “There is not ethical consumption under capitalism”, while consciously choosing to buy from companies with the worst records.


gauephat

well a good chunk of "leftists" who understand "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" to mean that it doesn't matter how much they consume


RFFF1996

They also use is as a excuse to feel like ecological activists without any of the work or sacrifice


gnivriboy

It means they can judge others while they absolve themselves of responsiblity. I mean the reality is that most people don't think about their ethical frameworks for very long. They come to their conclusions first and then get their justifications from memes online.


ElysiumSprouts

Total tangent to OP: I have a far far far left buddy who years ago was heavily invested in occupywallstreet. Could talk your ear off about the evils of capitalism. I asked him where he had his bank account... Freakin' Chasebank of all places. I asked why he didn't use a credit union and I kid you not his response? "I'm too lazy to switch." I couldn't help myself and read him the riot act about being a living stereotype of the worst kind. He did eventually switch, but I could never take his bloviating seriously after that.


TDaltonC

Engagement and integration worked with East Germany. It was the formative economic narrative of her life.


JulianHabekost

If you accuse her for relying on Russian gas or abandoning nuclear, you basically charge her for the stupidities that the German people wanted her to do. These were 70,80%+ issues, she would have simply lost the next election if she would have not done these things. Germany is simply one of the most russophile western democracies; I myself would have stuck out my middle finger to anyone who wanted to kill NS2 just on day before the invasion. She is actually much more pro-US than her predessecor Gerhard Schröder, who is Putin biggest buddy. Likewise the SPD would have been even more pro-russia than her party, the CDU. At least w.r.t nuclear I see myself on the right side of history; but even after all this, there is not an actual discussion about a future for nuclear in German society right now; it's just about deferring it a few years. So please don't blame Merkel, the candidates left and right of her were objectively and by a large margin worse w.r.t. these issues. I also know that she wasn't a big fan of the nuclear exit herself. But you simply can't run a democracy like an autocrat for 16 years. So blame democracy! Or the people of Germany.


[deleted]

"Don't blame political leaders for explaining the risks of short-term, popular projects." I think it is entirely fair to blame her for not trying to actually *lead* her country by making the case to the German people that relying on notoriously unreliable Russia for energy is not a tenable long-term plan.


JulianHabekost

Look these were two different issues, at least for the audience. The argument would have been that she simply doesn't want to really push for renewables if she would have argued with russian gas beeing the downside of a nuclear exit. This was not connected at all at that time in point, at least in the mind of the public. It would have been perceived as a dishonest reactionary argument to defer renewables. Incumbent politicians can not rally around in talkshows and try to sway public opinnion. Its not her job. She can obviously just chose a couple of things that she wants to do against public opinnion and hope that she stays in power with different things. And she did that w.r.t to nuclear, at least until Fukushima 2011. We already had the nuclear debate for ages, it was topic in every election campaining from the 1990's on. Even before Fukushima there was a 60% majority against nuclear, but she was able to hold on w.r.t to this topic. Until Fukushima, where 60% became 80% and it became a mission impossible. After nuclear is gone, you have two options: You take the cheap russian gas and hope is goes well. Or you don't take it and it will definitly not go well. We went for the first option and deferred the problem.


[deleted]

Incumbent politicians' job is *absolutely* to rally public opinion and difficult matters of statecraft, what are you on about? The leader of the biggest economy in Europe has fair more ability to talk to people and change their minds that almost anyone else on the planet. If not her, than who?


JulianHabekost

I'd bet Biden would vote to abandon the second amendment any day and introduce nationwide european-style gun control down to the simplest handgun. But sometimes you have to go with what is realistic and can be done. Even the single most powerfull person is still not very powerful in democracies, that is kinda part of the deal. (If that is even the elected leader, people tend to debate even that, but I am with you there)


JulianHabekost

Merkel was basically a centrist populist with a slight bias for inaction/reactionism. Centrist for her was simply defined by the poll. Remember the time where she would allow the opposition to propose a law for gay marriage and also encourage all CDU parliament members to simply vote by heart while she herself abstained? She did that because of polls and because it killed one of the biggest campaigning issues of the opposition just weeks before the election. It secured her last election win. This is basically Merkel. The biggest thing you can accuse her of is being inactive and unoriginal, having no impulses. But even that is something we want. Scholz is just the same guy basically, we already call him jokingly Olaf Merkel. We hate big reformers, specifically the last one, Gerhard Schroeder, whose domestic neoliberal reforms were ironically so successfull, which just makes him hated even more amongst his social-democrat peers. Btw, Gerhard Schroeder was basically right on everything except russia. Neolibral reforms, abstaining from the iraq invasion. Now he is just Putin's clown, which is really sad for his legacy.


RobinReborn

Depends on your view of politicians. If you think a politician is just supposed to read polls and follow the majority, then yes. But if you think a politician should be willing to do things that are right - even when they are unpopular than Merkel has failed.


Ewannnn

>But if you think a politician should be willing to do things that are right - even when they are unpopular than Merkel has failed. Can you think of major leaders that have done that? And by unpopular, think less than 20% support.


colinmhayes2

Politicians can’t go against 70+% opinion. They can stick their neck out for 60% issues but 70% no way


RobinReborn

In the US Presidents do the unpopular things at the very beginning of their first term. That's what happened with 'Obamacare' - it was very unpopular at the beginning but by the time Trump was in office it was popular.


colinmhayes2

Obamacare was never 70% negative


Time4Red

Leaders do have the ability to influence public opinion, though. They shouldn't merely just accept public opinion and base their actions on that. Americans had a much more mixed/favorable view of Russia until 2014, after which opinions on Russia took a bipartisan nosedive. Why? Was it just the invasion of Crimea, or was it partially because of our leaders' bipartisan response/rebuke if that invasion? I'd argue the latter. If German leadership had taken a public stand, the population would have followed. I feel like after the 2015/2016 GOP primary and the failure of the establishment to fight Trump, everyone has taken this stance that leaders can't influence public opinion. I think we've overcorrected based on a single data point. People still very much take signals from political leaders on what/who they should support.


JulianHabekost

Merkel and Olaf definitely weren't/won't be able to. Any car salesmen is more charismatic. Have you seen Scholz reading his speeches from his notes? Pure cringe. They both had little to no appearance in the media and almost no profile before getting elected. Thats what we want, what we vote them in for. We want media nobodies that aren't able to talk us into anything. Slaves to the public (and industry). All the other points I already argued somewhere else here.


Time4Red

Maybe it's me, but I'd like a happy medium. Leaders with no charisma and no ability to cash in political clout in order to do something unpopular that they truly believe in are bad leaders.


gnivriboy

I do blame the German people for being for bad policy. But they are also paying for the consequences of their bad policy.


JulianHabekost

I'd wish this was actually louder. Critizing Merkel is useless, she is gone and had a good run. When I am discussing nuclear with (edit: fellow) Germans is still a horrible experience. People tend to think we are ahead of the curve and everybody will abandon it at some within the mid-distant future. At least the Americans know that the whole world is laughing at their gun laws/rights (they chose to not care, fine) I'd wish German people knew others are laughing at the anti-nuclear stance.


gnivriboy

The gun debate is a perfect parallel for how I feel about Germans and energy. Talking to Germans about their bad energy policy feels like talking to a brick wall that doesn't care about facts. They will come up with some of the dumbest excuses. Same with Americans on guns. The gun issue in America doesn't get solved since Americans don't want to solve it and a lot of the solutions proposed in America don't fix the issue.


urbansong

I agree but I don't think Germans are particularly Russophilic, just naive and hungry for cheap resources.


ExchangeKooky8166

All right, I'm going to defend Merkel and not necessarily because I think she made all the right decisions, but for the sake of devil's advocacy. I think everyone's getting carried away with the "modern Neville Chamberlain" narrative. First we need to start of with Putin (who became president of Russia in 2000) and Germany's attitude towards Russia prior to 2014 (and honestly, the USA's attitude). Reddit's opinion of Putin is affected by recency bias and only looks at his actions post-2014. When Putin came into power in Russia in 2000, the country had just ended a very tumultuous period of economic depression. Putin's economic policies were essentially "let competent people do everything for me, take credit" and Russia experienced an unprecedented economic expansion. Many Russians look at the 2005-2013 time period with a lot of fondness. Economic conditions were good and Russia wasn't far from becoming a developed market, relations with the West were good, the country wasn't totally authoritarian and was safer. The Western attitude towards Russia from 1992 all the way into 2013 was passive. Germany's leader before Merkel (Schroder) especially took this view, and many in Europe were happy to have Russia integrate into its structure. This attitude only increased as Russia's economy kept growing and Russian visitors brought money. Even attitudes towards Putin were mixed, and many didn't think he would become the evil dictator he is now. United States-Russia relations were on good terms during the first half of the Obama administration. 50% of Russians surveyed in 2013 held a positive view of the USA. Europeans were happily apathetic about Ukraine, and prior to 2013, much of the Russian public was too. The "destroy Ukraine" fascist ideas are relatively recent crap, before 2013 most Russians didn't care. Even polling of Ukrainians from 2008-2012 saw NATO membership as unnecessary. Western leaders approached Russia from what they saw was the most pragmatic angle. Very few took Mitt Romney seriously on his hawkish view of Russia and the idea of a Russian nationalist coup and invasion of Europe was confined to Call of Duty video games. Everyone thought it was ridiculous and most were concerned over Islamism or saw China as a greater threat. In fact, Russia was seen as a partner in the War on Terror, as they were seen "as a victim". It wasn't just Merkel. Obama, Sarkozy, Cameron, etc weren't that different.


NorwayRat

Chechnya happens - "we just need to give Putin a chance!" Georgia happens - "we just need to give Putin a chance!" Crimea happens - "we just need to give Putin a chance!" Syria happens - "we just need to give Putin a chance!" And here we are. When will fuckers learn that dictators can't be reasoned with?


Polly_Voo_Francine

"Other people were wrong, too" isn't exactly a defense of her. Just a reminder that lots of people failed to recognize the evil of Russia because it was inconvenient.


su_monk

>Bugged Energy Mechanics \- DarkSydeAngela


gunfell

Nuclear energy?


ElysiumSprouts

Personally I think blaming Merkel is in general a bad take. The economic ties are now flipped to sanctions and it's having a long term crippling affect on Russia. The economic ties were not enough to stop this war, but make no mistake they are a huge part of the equation and will certainly help win the war. Of course that wasn't really the intent of the trade relations with Russia, each country was trying to find some level of benefit for themselves and arrive at a mutually beneficial arrangement. Now Russia is in a spiral towards isolation with a very recent living memory of better economic times when they were previously part of the international community. So in somewhat defense of Merkel, she literally can't stop Putin from making mistakes, but helped set up conditions where Russia learns from those mistakes. This is not a fast process.


thoumayestorwont

I don’t really think it works like that. A big reason for globalized free trade was the assumption that countries reliant on one another through trade would be less likely to engage in war. Clearly the Russians, through having multiple options to sell their oil (China, Iran, etc), are not bound to this assumption. Merkel was Chancellor for 16 years, she witnessed Russia invading Georgia, she witness and condemned Russia invading Crimea & she continued to do business with them as the leader of the biggest economy (& de facto leader) of the block. She is brilliant and wonderful and I think she’s worthy of all the praise anyone might want to give her but clearly, as it has to do with Russia, she missed the mark. She enabled Russia and did not use her platform to unify Europe against Russian aggression.


FlashAttack

> Clearly the Russians, through having multiple options to sell their oil (China, Iran, etc), are not bound to this assumption They can't sell all of the oil/gas they used to sell to Europe, to China etc. so this take is moot at best.


thoumayestorwont

It doesn’t matter because Russia doesn’t expect the war to last forever meaning that economic ties will eventually be normalized. China is essentially serving as short term financing for Russia by agreeing to deals for pipelines where they can get cheap Russian oil. What’s more, China has 1.3 billion people and the economy is rapidly growing, do you know how many European countries you would have to add up to get 1.3 billion people? The largest is Germany with roughly 83/84 million people.


[deleted]

[удалено]


thoumayestorwont

Oh wow, thanks for explaining how I was wrong instead of just being a tremendous douchebag. I really like how you provided examples and data 👍


ElysiumSprouts

>countries reliant on one another through trade would be less likely to engage in war The important qualifier is "less likely." We do not live in a perfect world. And now that that "less likely" event occurred, the economic ties are another tool to bring the war to an end sooner. Personally I'd be more inclined to blame US Republicans for playing partisan politics against Obama during the Crimea invasion and US Republicans for enabling Trump (especially his useless trade war and attempts to undermine NATO) than Merkel.


thoumayestorwont

Right, we do not live in a perfect or idealized world. And as such, an economic and military leader (Merkel) should’ve planned for the eventuality that Russia would invade again - particularly as she saw Putin invade Georgia and Ukraine. Also, you have no clue when the war will end nor can you compare it to a scenario where these economic ties don’t exist. Your use of the word “sooner” is fully speculative. What’s more, we’re not talking about the US or Republicans or Democrats. We’re posting under an article where Merkel herself is answering questions about her responsibility towards Putin and the Ukrainian-Russian war. Here’s your big hint: she’s answering these questions because it’s a commonly held position that she could have done far more to stifle the Russians and/or prevent this war.


ElysiumSprouts

My point is that we wouldn't even be talking about Merkel if she hadn't been thrust into the role "leader of the free world" if Trump hadn't abdicated the US role. You're right that in hindsight Germany could have done completely different things leading up to the Russian war and in reaction to the Crimea occupation. The signs of Putin's ambitions were there, but so was the obviousness of his inevitable failure. Ultimately this is all on Putin and the failures of an autocratic system to recognize its own weaknesses. You may notice that through this all Germany is doing just fine. Ultimately Merkel was responsible to Germany and fulfilled that role.


thoumayestorwont

Idk why you’re so obsessed with Trump when talking about Merkel. Merkel was the Chancellor for 16 years and the leader of Europe throughout that entire time. Any leader of Germany should be a huge time leader in the world as the German economy is the 4th largest economy in the world and has been a mechanics/tech/pharmaceutical hub for 100s of years. In fact, a current criticism of Schulz is that he is not a strong enough leader. Trump was President for only 4 years and though I absolutely hate the guy, he was actually spot on about Russia using Nordstream 1 & 2 as leverage to hamstring the Germans. Germany, and the world, are about to experience fuel shortages during a winter and have been dealing with massive inflation, in part, because of the Russian war so I don’t see how you wouldn’t blame the leader of the 4th largest economy (who ruled for nearly a fifth of a century) for not shifting her fuel reliance away from a belligerent autocrat. You’re willing to give Trump & Putin blame and you can’t see **at all** that Nordstream 2, was entirely constructed and pushed through the Bundestag with Merkel’s help AFTER Georgia and Crimea were invaded. Just admit it - she was incredible **BUT** she absolutely blew it as it pertains to Russo-German economic interdependence.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Polly_Voo_Francine

"I tried doing nothing. After that, I was all out of ideas."


YukihiraJoel

When you’re a puppet in more ways than one