What is intent though in this context? If all you actions go against your publicly stated intent, then what is the value of you public statements.

Back in the 90s, early 00s, there was a definite possibility of Russia getting its shit together, they actually had, for a change, a civil society.

What are you referring to? Mind you, I agree with the statement (I lived in russia in the 90s and 2000s), I am just curious how this is related to Merkel who was elected in 2005 and have a very consistent foreign policy approach to russia throughout all her rule. She always supported and enabled russian genocidal imperialism (show me an action that would suggest this is not true).

The Bayraktar example is a general example of broader German policy. It’s not like Merkel’s reaction would be any different. I am just highlighting how shallow Merkel’s statement are about giving Ukraine time to prepare.

We are not discussing France, UK. We are discussing Germany. Specifically Merkel’s claims.

I am not a PhD in history. Yet, even I know that russians are incapable of good faith actions (nothing inherent about russian culture, it’s just a fact). Merkel knows this too, so I don’t buy the “believing in Minsk” BS. At best, it was PR cover for enabling russian genocidal imperialism.

Nothing to do with assigning blame. I am not looking for someone to blame. What I am saying is that Merkel supports russian genocidal imperialism. She might claim to oppose it in terms for platitudes, but de facto she supports russia conquering independent countries and exterminating their cultures.

The improvement in the Ukrainian army was primarily driven by internal needs. One region was annexed and two others were invaded. At the beginning of the russian invasion, Ukraine only had around 5,000 battle ready troops (as per local media); of course there would be a change in military posture. Much of the early anti-air defense (S300 variants) were procured under Poroshenko who understand the risks of having russia as neighbour.

Military advice and training were primarily provided by US, UK, Canada, the Baltic nations and Poland. Where exactly did Germany play a role in military support? Can you be clear and specific.

I will highlight the reaction of the German government to the initial use of the Bayraktar drones at the LOC before full scale invasion:

https://euromaidanpress.com/2021/10/28/berlin-concerned-by-ukraine-using-bayraktar-drone-but-not-by-russian-separatist-side-using-banned-weapons/

Also don’t forget that much of the performance of the Ukrainian army is also driven by motivation. Ukrainian soldiers are defending their country. Russian are fighting for loot and their Tsar.

Germany under Merkel did nothing from a military perspective and ignored and enabled every escalation by the russians. Show me how I am wrong.

Normally, I would agree with you.

But Merkel is a little too explicit with openly parroting russian narratives “the west made him do it”, almost to a tankie level.

I will note she never makes such statements about the role of russian society in enabling putin specifically and genocidal imperialism more broadly.

It’s all in your [their] hands.

Whether we will or not is a matter of what America is like.

I am not making a judgment call here, just an observation.

Don’t see this on Firefox (with ublock Origin) on desktop Lemmy web UI.

Where did I say Merkel built NS2 with her own hands? What does this even mean?

We are discussing Merkel, no? You think my opinion of Schroder or Steinmeier is much better than Merkel?

Merkel had the option of using NS2 as leverage against russia. Merkel had the option of applying real sanctions against the russia (not meaningless BS the explicitly targeted some low level goons/orgs directly involved in annexed Crimea). Did she do any of this?

Let me go on a tangent for second. If I am wrong, and Merkel is not a support de facto supporter of russian genocidal imperialism (she may nominally oppose it even in a genuine manner, but I am talking about outcomes and actions), then the following should be easy to answer.

[1] What does “peace through trade” (in context of Merkel) refer to? If this is not a shallow BS slogan to enable russian imperialism, it has to mean something. What peace? For who? When? Where? What does this mean?

[2] Any strategy is based on some cause-effect drivers, right? Otherwise it’s not a strategy, but just some BS. What were these driver for the “peace through trade” policy in these two buckets:

• russia internal (rule of law, competitive elections, corruption)
• russia foreign (europe-specific, global)

What about russia’s actions/trends in the last 30 years served as a driver for Merkel’s strategy? Did putin decide to liberalize municipal elections while maintaining control over parliamentary and presidential election so the goal was to try and provide incentives to maybe get him to allow open regional elections? What sort of good faith actions has russia done in foriegn policy in the last 30 years? Can you provide clear and specific examples?

[3] Any strategy has to have a final desirable state outcome. You need an end goal to strive for and evaluate the performance of the strategy, otherwise it is not a real strategy. So based on the points raised in [2] (those points exist and were defined, right? 🤣), what was Merkel’s desirable state outcome? She wanted German engagement with russia to eventually result in open elections for governors, russia reengaging in good faith around the occupation of Moldova. Just some examples.

What was her goal? Surely, this is not an unreasonable ask.

Thank you!

Agreed. For some reason, I don’t like their US coverage. It’s not biased per se, but like you mentioned it often doesn’t click (not American, but I lived in North America for a decade).

It’s as if they can’t figure out whether they want to report as outsiders looking in or as if they are reporting from within the US. Better to stick to one framing. I actually prefer an “outsider looking in” perspective as some of the US-based internal-focused reporting is not for me.

As weird as it sounds, I do like NYT for US coverage (from the US) and I tend to avoid their coverage on Europe.

I’ve mentioned something similar in the Ukraine community discussions on Merkel, but if she knew that putin would invade and wanted to help Ukraine prepare, why was there no attempt to provide military (covert aid if needed)?

Her story never adds up, it’s like she is grasping at straws to try and somehow explain away her support for russian genocidal imperialism.

Why can’t she be honest and just openly say that she supports russian imperialism and believes it is right for russians to eliminate other nations. Schroder does it, with zero consequences.

While I generally agree with the points raised in the article, I have to say there is a certain level of irony seeing this particular text in Al Jazeera (with them being funded by Qatar).

I do like their coverage of Africa, it seems informative and relatively balanced (perhaps I just don’t know any better English language sources).

I lean towards agreeing with their coverage of India, but the Qatari connection makes me cautious.

They are pretty bad on Ukraine. Giving coverage to faux-opposition russian imperialists and having a somewhat cavalier attitude that they do not demonstrate for example with Gaza.

That being said, for all their faults they can do good work, just got to remember their Qatari connection.

Downstream, global in the cotext of the russian economy. Things like bank failures, significant drawdowns from reserved. Etc.

I guess what I really meant is more downstream, global impacts from stagflation.

To me it’s lunacy to think Russia will be defeated and split up. Who’s going to defeat them? With which soldiers? Europe is an old continent, there are so few young people… It would be the final demise of the European economy having to fight a war with Russia. And do you consider the risks? Russia has nukes. Before anything even remotely to the scenario of being split up happens, it will have used them. No sane person can ignore this threat.

You do realize that in last ~100 years, 16 countries liberated themselves from russian occupation? Two other countries tried, but failed.

This is not a matter of directly fighting russia. There is also matter of not providing moral support for their genocidal imperialism, not providing financial support for their genocidal imperialism and targeting corruption (Schroder).

Peace through trade is not some sort of magical deus ex machina and it clearly did not work and will not work until russians start caring about the rights and the future of their children.

Don’t count your chickens before they hatch, or how does that idiom go?

Let’s see if the current prediction around stagflation in the russian economy plays out (I very much hope it comes true).

The economic model of russia changes with time (Tsarism/aristocracy, socialism and central planning, plutocratic oligarchy), but socio-political structure remains the same for some reason.

I will note that several of the brave souls who came out to protest the invasion of Czechoslovakia on the Red Square in 1968 also got sent to psychiatric institutions. And yet if you look at russian society more broadly, they continue to tolerate such behaviour from their government.

Mind you, I am in no way implying that there is something inherent to russians that leads to these sort of outcomes. This is a ridiculous idea. This a matter of the choices that the russians make (for which they are responsible). Who could have thought voting for a KGB goon in 2000 would lead to such outcomes? Or supporting him again in 2004 when he shut down all independent TV?

Building out NS2 after the annexation of Crimea is not support for Russian imperialism?

Refusing to recognize in any practical manner (not thoughts and prayers) the russian occupation of Moldova and Georgia is not de facto support for russian imperialism?

Claiming that “the west” forced putin to invade Ukraine is not parroting russian propaganda?

In the interview, Merkel stated that Vladimir Putin, at the beginning of his presidency, had no intention of attacking Ukraine, and his plan gradually took shape over the years, partly due to the behaviour of the West.

Russia already had a direct border with NATO, right by their 2nd largest city. The entrance of Finland and Sweden to NATO was not an issue at all for russia. Because the russians of course know that “threat to our security from NATO” is a beautiful scapegoat for imperialism expansion. And Merkel explicitly gives cover to this claim.

Full tolerance of multiple high-profile assassinations and even combat activity by the russians on EU soil is not support for russian imperialism?

Putting Navanlniy, a known supporter of the annexation of Crimea and the invasion of Georgia, on the metaphorical pedestal should not under any condition be interpreted as support for russian imperialism?

Full acceptance of banning of Ukrainian passports and Ukrainian culture in the occupied Donetsk/Lugansk (pre full scale invasion) is not support for russian genocidal imperialism?

A new era in Europe’s relations with Russia “regrettably” began following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, says Mrs Merkel.

What is this even supposed to mean? I am assuming this is a direct quote.

Whenever I hear anything from Merkel these days, for some reason I get that image from Dr. Strangelove in the war room.

Some of this is likely to be grandstanding, no?

Either way, even if he goes through with this, it’s not like this will have any noticeable impact on his support.

She enabled putin and promoted russian imperialism. Even to this day she refuses to speak clearly about this.

Putin didn’t attack the Baltic nations, even though they have even less capability to fight back against the russians.

Russia invaded Moldova and Georgia in the early 90s under Yeltsin.

This is not a putin matter per se. This is a russia issue.