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.

Did he also have no intention of continuing to occupy Georgia and Moldova and the West forced him to continue the occupation and then invade Georgia in 2008?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So did the interviewer ask her this? Cause they should have.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Not directly, but she did say that the Bucarest Summit lead to the invasion of Georgia in 2008.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

She is talking about the year 2000. It took 8years for the war in Ukraine and 14 until he took Crimea and 22 years until the full scale invasion. Is it really that hard to imagine that Putin is not some incredible mastermind, but does something big, when he believes there is a good chance of success or something else changes. In 2008 Georgia had made moves to join NATO, so Russia intervened. 2014 was the Orange Revolution and Ukraine was weak, so he attacked. If he wanted to take all of Ukraine all the time, that was actually also the perfect moment for that. However it took him until 2022, when he thought the West was weak due to Covid and a lot more propaganda, for him to attack. It might also very well be that he changed his mind on a lot of things, being in power for over two decades and yes the behavior of the West certainly was part of it.

[–] Skiluros 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Putins court ideogog wrote the book on russian empire path. They have followed it to the letter for decades. Even before ger reign. 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

[–] [email protected] 31 points 3 months ago

show me a conservative that accepts blame for anything

[–] [email protected] 26 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Plenty of blame to go around. Where is Gerhard Schroder these days?

[–] lurch 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Apparently his party wasn't able to expell him and caved. Source in German: https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Miersch-erklaert-Gerhard-Schroeder-wieder-zum-Teil-der-SPD-article25321765.html

[+] [email protected] -9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

The move to expel him was utterly shameful. A lot of smart people ridicule pacifists and people believing in peace through trade etc. They should be ashamed. Schröder was a great chancellor and he should be praised for a lot of good decisions during his tenure. His vision to position Germany and Europe in the middle between the US and Russia was farsighted, still is today. He kept Germany out of the Iraq war, turned out he was very right about that. He also fostered a shift towards renewable energy.

A lot of good could be said about his years as chancellor yet smug online "experts" on foreign policy of course know everything much better lmao.

[–] lurch 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

A majority of Germans hate Schröder, because he privatized important infrastructure and then went to "work" for Gazprom. He's one of the top examples of corrupt German politicians and by supporting putins fascist regime he is in part guilty of causing russias wars, even though he may not have forseen them. russias domestic human rights violations were impossible to miss and as a German he should have known better for historic reasons.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yes Schröder was also criticised rightfully for his neoliberal policies that so many socdem governments in the west introduced during these years. But IMO you also have to give him credit for the stuff he was right about, which is so rapidly forgotten. And having peaceful and tighter relationships with Russia, even if it is an authoritarian country, was one of his better ideas. As a European I want peace on this continent. And we're not gonna have peace against Russia, only with Russia.

[–] lurch 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

We'll have peace when russia has been destroyed and split into multiple smaller democratic nations, like Germany back in the day. This has proven to be very effective.

The friendly way has been tried and it failed, as there is war right now. Remember, Ukraine was friends with russia. They gave their nukes and got guarantees to not be attacked. russia decided to backstab them. russia can never again be trusted. The only chance for peace for countries near russia must be enforced by constant threat of russias destruction. russians, who support the invasions by a large majority, must live at the mercy of their neighbours, who must be ready to wipe them out any moment.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

If you think Russia can never be trusted you'd have to say the same about the other countries failing their security obligations. Those who guaranteed Ukraines territorial integrity, the US, the UK, didn't act and send their own troops to stop the invasion.

IMO the friendly way hasn't been tried as NATO also didn't care about how Russia feels about this and that. The story is well known. There's not a single country or single person to blame but many of the involved actors.

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.

[–] lurch 4 points 3 months ago

If you think Russia can never be trusted you'd have to say the same about the other countries failing their security obligations. Those who guaranteed Ukraines territorial integrity, the US, the UK, didn't act and send their own troops to stop the invasion.

That's not true. In the Budapest Memorandum those states only agreed to respect Ukraines territorial integrity, not defend it. In case of threat, they agreed to consult and to get the UN security council involved in case of an attack. Therefore only russia is the traitor that violated it. Even though Ukraine is not in NATO other countries go way above their obligations to help, because friends don't need defense pacts to help. However, if NATO countries get involved with soldiers, they risk losing their NATO support if russia strikes them back, as NATO is a purely defensive org and doesn't support attackers.

IMO the friendly way hasn't been tried as NATO also didn't care about how Russia feels about this and that.

That has nothing to do with Ukraine. Ukraine and others in the region didn't even consider joining NATO until after russians second attack and NATO also didn't actively try to recruit them. Everyone lived in peace, but that all changed when the Fire Nation attacked.

The story is well known.

That's russian propaganda to confuse the allied forces. Everyone sees right through it, as the russian people want the war just for expanding their country.

There's not a single country or single person to blame but many of the involved actors.

I strongly disagree, because russia did not have to start it and can still end it any time by retreating their troops back to russia. Even putin alone can stop it against the wishes of his evil citizens. Therefore, they are the only ones directly to blame.

To me it's lunacy to think Russia will be defeated and split up.

russia is already almost defeated just by Ukraine alone. They even had to beg NK for additional troops. How pathetic.

Russia has nukes.

France, UK and US, etc also have nukes. The risk of mutual destruction must be ignored, because it's not woth living in a world where villains like putin can just take whatever country they want and turn it to shit like russia, just because they have nukes. The other countries are ramping up their military as a reaction to russia attacking a peaceful nation. If russia doesn't retreat soon, the allies will likely also come to my conclusion, that russia must be defeated and split up. China will probably backstab russia once it's weakened, take a big chunk of russia for themselves and encircle Mongolia.

[–] Skiluros 1 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago

Wasn't he literally on the Russian payroll? Cashing checks from gazprom.

[–] gravitas_deficiency 16 points 3 months ago

Hey someone should try to find a ladder - it might help her to climb down a bit from her own asshole.

For real, she killed any possibility of a response because she was too invested in nordstream 2. It was a conflict of interest, and it made a difference, and this war, right now, is the consequence.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago (2 children)

She also fed the afd.. letting in a million refugees, telling everyone it will be fine and then not actually doing anything to prevent the issues everyone saw coming.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

And somehow now it‘s all the greens fault.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

I will never understand how that works.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago

spinscore

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

Ukraine was essentially a Russian client state until a few years later. I imagine very few wanted Ukraine in the alliance until a little more of the corruption was taken care of. Germany definitely benefited from cheap oil and gas from Russia while Russia did bad things but I think these are two different issues.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

A Boomer who refuses to accept and acknowledge their personal failing and complicit decisions?

Quelle surprise

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Denialism

[+] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] Skiluros 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[+] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] Skiluros 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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?

[+] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] Skiluros 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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!