And yet she didn’t bother to take his words seriously and maybe consider whether de facto backing russia (e.g. thinking moving forward with Nord Stream 2 after the annexation of Crimea was a good idea).
I’m going to get down voted, but it’s a bit more complicated than that. Granted, in hindsight the “economic binding” strategy was clearly wrong and a bad call, but at the time “we” believed Putin that he will honor agreements and be a trustworthy partner. And that he will honor Russian economy over territorial things, that do not matter at all for the standing of russia - hell, even back then the consensus was that Russia will utterly fail if they try something stupid, because they “needed” the gas money more, than we needed their gas. And while that downfall will take a few more years, it is inevitable. I admit though, I could not have been more wrong about some things…
I will have to disagree.
I don’t think she intended to be malicious per se (that would be Schroder), but Merkel definitely had a deep respect for russian imperial ambitions if not a roundabout show of support for russia’s land expansion.
Something along the lines of "well, what they are doing is wrong, but we’ll just have to keep supporting russia in hope that they will become normal in 30 years. The ends justify the means so to speak, except there are no ends in the case, it’s just Merkel enabling russia.
Reading through her comments after the full scale invasion, I get the impression she hasn’t changed her view and on an outcome basis supports the annexation of Ukrainian territories. Sure, she’ll say it’s wrong, but she will always oppose any real actions to kick russia out of Ukraine.
peace for our time*!
::: spoiler read time as while I’m in office :::
I’m sure this gets downvoted & censored by the mods again, but it was equally as dumb, if not dumber, of Ukraine to bomb the pipeline. Imagine Germany came to Ukraine and bombed their pipelines coming out of Russia, or whatever other infrastructure they have political issues with. Sabotage acts like this against an ally’s infrastructure are absolutely not okay and could normally be considered an act of war, regardless of what you think of the pipeline from a political point of view. Can’t say I feel good with Ukraine’s EU application now, and Poland’s EU membership as well, since they were also involved. It’s like Ukraine & Poland do not recognize Germany’s sovereignty, which is precisely the way Russia thinks of Ukraine and other countries.
I see where you are coming from, but I think this is not comparable.
Imagine if russia invaded Germany. Took over Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (renaming it to Putlergrad oblast), banned German and forced everyone to speak russian and get russian citizenship. In the mean-time Ukraine and Poland would build a pipeline to the newly annexed Putlergrad oblast. How would you feel then?
False equivalence. The pipeline did not go to what I presume would be Crimea in this example. Either way, I would not bomb Poland’s or Ukraine’s pipeline, especially after it was shut down anyway and would’ve easily been solved through politics rather than terrorist like actions - especially considering that Germany is one of Ukraine’s biggest contributors. If Germany was somehow taken over by the AfD or whatever, then fine, bomb away, because at that point you’d have a hostile and Russia aligned government anyway. If you want to join the West, the EU, then you’d have to be better than Russia, not act like them.
So you would be OK with Ukraine and Poland building a Russian pipeline if didn’t go directly to the newly annexed Putlergrad oblast? If the pipeline went to Austria or Czechia following the annexation of Putlergrad oblast, would this fundamentally change how you would view Ukraine/Poland’s involvement in the construction of the said pipeline?
I am not necessarily arguing you’re wrong or trying to convince you of anything. I am just trying to show you how it looks from the other side.
You’re missing the point. None of this is any sort of excuse to commit acts of war against one of your largest allies, let alone one you want to join. I did not agree with the building of NS back then either, I always thought it was a stupid thing to do. But ultimately, whether it was used or not, it was still part of EU infrastructure and Ukraine had zero rights to just blow it up.
Would you argue it is okay to execute or torture Russian POWs too, just because Russia does the same? That it is okay to annex your neighbors? Would it okay for Ukraine to attack Moldova and declare it their territory? You can’t claim to have the moral high ground and wanting to join a more civilized world by acting this way.
No I don’t support torturing russian POWs. I agree with you that bombing NS was a bad idea. I disagree with you that it was “EU infrastructure”, it was owned by the russians I believe and Germany explicitly told other EU members to “bugger off” with their concerns.
What bothers me is your moralizing attitude. The last two German leader were some of the biggest enablers of russian genocidal imperialism in the last ~30 years. There is nothing to discuss with Schroeder. Merkel as a bit sneaky. Nominally she said she opposed it, but all her actions de facto always supported russian imperialism.
And then you come along saying “Poland and Ukraine” shouldn’t be in the EU because they don’t uphold moral standards. You don’t see how this could be seen as hypocritical!?
I’m not sure what your point about Schröder and Merkel is, I don’t support them, I don’t like them, I have frequently called them out on their bullshit politics.
And you still miss the point, even though I clearly stated it already. I am of this opinion because they did not recognize Germany’s sovereignty and chose to commit an act of war against an ally. Two things that Russia and Nazi Germany did to Ukraine and Poland btw. You try to justify Ukraine’s aggression towards Germany by the same bullshit arguments that Russia uses to attack Ukraine, not respecting their right of sovereignty, that they are not allowed to make their own decisions, like joining NATO for example. In the West, disagreements like this are supposed to be solved through politics and diplomacy, not through hostilities.
What’s with the 'tude on the napoleonic wars soldier?
