The sooner that Russia’s expert community abandons their wishful thinking hopes for a rapprochement with Germany, the sooner that the Kremlin can promulgate the appropriate policies for containing this latent threat before it’s too late. Top Russian experts
Germany is an occupied country in which the occupiers have succeeded in putting in power some of the most dilettante, plain stupid, vapid political elites I've seen in my short life. These puppet political leaders prioritize subservience to the hegemon over the interests of their own citizens and are thus committing treason. Unless the meek, obedient and heavily propagandized German citizenship rises against this state of affairs, the above article rings very true.
I disagree with the widely parrotted "Merkel betrayal" theme. Reality is a bit more complex than that. Merkel certainly turned out to be a disaster for the EU and Europe at large even though her strategic plunders were curiously masked by her refreshingly unassuming personality, paired with intelligence and what appeared to be an unideologic pragmatism. But she actually started out with a strong ideology of idolizing "The Golden West" which she herself admitted in a rare later interview. In the early 90ies, she was uncritically kissing up to the aging but raging chancellor Kohl while he devastated her native Eastern Germany with a relentless, completely unprecendented, shock therapy that was driven by Kohl's economic ignorance and cold-war anticommunism instincts. And while in 2003 then German chancellor Schroeder, French Chiraq and Putin met in Moscow (!) to jointly condemn the impending US invasion of Iraq, German opposition leader and quantum chemist Merkel travelled to Washington and swore unconditional fealty to the ex-alcoholic and barely literate George W. Bush. Anyone who wants to know what got us into the current mess we find ourselves in, needs to study this very moment. Russia, France and Germany were positioning themselves for integration and emanzipation from an increasingly out of control US. The US neocons woke up to the threat and quickly implemented a skillfull divide and conquer campaign pitching "Old" against "New" Europe. Many of the cold-warrior German and European elites (and for sure the newly westernized Eastern European ones) were radically opposed to any turning away from the US but the reality of that war, Guantanamo and the appalling carricature of the George W. administration gave the "EU emanzipation" camp a clear upper hand. The EU was at its peak attractiveness with its new reserve currency gaining traction and countries queing up to join from all corners, pushed on by the US in a drive to weaken the core EU but that little detail was easy to brush away. When Merkel came to power in 2005, she still found herself in this reality and refrained from radically changing German foreign policy. Once Obama replaced George W., her deep instincts of teaming up with the now again "reasonable" US became stronger. Merkel from the start had stopped actively pushing for the former Schroeder / Putin EU-Russia integration project. Instead she tried to position Germany as the mediator that was reaping benefits from having good or at least decent relationships with both sides. What she and the majority transatlanticist German establishment totally didn't understand was that the US establishment, Obama or not, had not forgotten this embarassing moment in 2003 and was extremely determined to destroy the German-Russian axis at all cost. Instead of having it both ways Merkel-style, a strong push back would have been required from the German leadership. I had already left Germany at that point but I remember my frustration (and many fierce discussions) watching the relations with Russia slowly unravel. Some older SPD and even Green politicians and more independent-minded journalists were sounding alarm bells over the years but, unlike Schroeder before her, Merkel's conservative / liberal team would never ever risk facing off with the US. However, this does not mean that she was in the blind anti-Russian camp. Along with France, she was violently opposed to the 2008 NATO declaration about Ukraine and Georgia (but, as perhaps typical, caved in to pressure). She complained bitterly that this NATO declaration had to be perceived by Russia "as a declaration of war" -- her words. Merkel's Germany did nevertheless support the disastrous EU - Ukraine association treaty which was pretty much demanding decoupling from the Russian economy. Ignorance or malice? I don't know how much she was just moving along or actively pushing for it. Germany and the EU very much tried to defuse the Maidan bomb with the agreement they brokered and, I am sure, were royally ... let's say upset when the Nuland phone call surfaced showing how the US got their way with Yatsenuk and his Right Sector pals. But Putin's clever dash for Crimea terminally destroyed her relation with Putin: it was a clear violation of international borders and made all the cringeworthy US neocon or Eastern European anti-Russia zealots suddenly shouting "I told you so!" right into her face. So we have to imagine Merkel & Steinmeyer going into dammage control mode while being, fundamentally, let's spell it out, very much pissed off at all sides for needlessly wrecking their nice German have-it-all US foreign policy + profitable Eastern economic integration model. I absolutely believe Merkel, and even more Steinmeyer, were absolutely sincere in trying to establish some sort of peace with Minsk 1 and 2 if only to get on with business as usual. But she again failed to mount the necessary independent and emanzipated foreign policy vis-a-vis an escalatory US and was ideologically unable to see or believe the bigger US game plan. So what about this famous interview? I have read it carefully. MoonOfAlabama gave a good analysis with which I totally agree -- she did not actually say she brokered Minsk in order to give Ukraine time to rearm for conflict with Russia. In the interview she first states that they wanted Minsk to work out and achieve peace. She then goes on to say, apologetically, that even as that failed, at least it gave Ukraine time to now better stand up to the new attack. This really is an uneccary and dammaging attempt by Merkel to save her image or legacy in the face of relentless attacks on anyone who was "soft on Russia" in the past. I am only observing from the distance, but the hysteric pro-war media barrage is truly incredible. Having done enough dammage as she did, she now missed a great opportunity to just keep her mouth shut about the topic but I guess it must have been difficult.
Germany is an occupied country in which the occupiers have succeeded in putting in power some of the most dilettante, plain stupid, vapid political elites I've seen in my short life. These puppet political leaders prioritize subservience to the hegemon over the interests of their own citizens and are thus committing treason. Unless the meek, obedient and heavily propagandized German citizenship rises against this state of affairs, the above article rings very true.
I disagree with the widely parrotted "Merkel betrayal" theme. Reality is a bit more complex than that. Merkel certainly turned out to be a disaster for the EU and Europe at large even though her strategic plunders were curiously masked by her refreshingly unassuming personality, paired with intelligence and what appeared to be an unideologic pragmatism. But she actually started out with a strong ideology of idolizing "The Golden West" which she herself admitted in a rare later interview. In the early 90ies, she was uncritically kissing up to the aging but raging chancellor Kohl while he devastated her native Eastern Germany with a relentless, completely unprecendented, shock therapy that was driven by Kohl's economic ignorance and cold-war anticommunism instincts. And while in 2003 then German chancellor Schroeder, French Chiraq and Putin met in Moscow (!) to jointly condemn the impending US invasion of Iraq, German opposition leader and quantum chemist Merkel travelled to Washington and swore unconditional fealty to the ex-alcoholic and barely literate George W. Bush. Anyone who wants to know what got us into the current mess we find ourselves in, needs to study this very moment. Russia, France and Germany were positioning themselves for integration and emanzipation from an increasingly out of control US. The US neocons woke up to the threat and quickly implemented a skillfull divide and conquer campaign pitching "Old" against "New" Europe. Many of the cold-warrior German and European elites (and for sure the newly westernized Eastern European ones) were radically opposed to any turning away from the US but the reality of that war, Guantanamo and the appalling carricature of the George W. administration gave the "EU emanzipation" camp a clear upper hand. The EU was at its peak attractiveness with its new reserve currency gaining traction and countries queing up to join from all corners, pushed on by the US in a drive to weaken the core EU but that little detail was easy to brush away. When Merkel came to power in 2005, she still found herself in this reality and refrained from radically changing German foreign policy. Once Obama replaced George W., her deep instincts of teaming up with the now again "reasonable" US became stronger. Merkel from the start had stopped actively pushing for the former Schroeder / Putin EU-Russia integration project. Instead she tried to position Germany as the mediator that was reaping benefits from having good or at least decent relationships with both sides. What she and the majority transatlanticist German establishment totally didn't understand was that the US establishment, Obama or not, had not forgotten this embarassing moment in 2003 and was extremely determined to destroy the German-Russian axis at all cost. Instead of having it both ways Merkel-style, a strong push back would have been required from the German leadership. I had already left Germany at that point but I remember my frustration (and many fierce discussions) watching the relations with Russia slowly unravel. Some older SPD and even Green politicians and more independent-minded journalists were sounding alarm bells over the years but, unlike Schroeder before her, Merkel's conservative / liberal team would never ever risk facing off with the US. However, this does not mean that she was in the blind anti-Russian camp. Along with France, she was violently opposed to the 2008 NATO declaration about Ukraine and Georgia (but, as perhaps typical, caved in to pressure). She complained bitterly that this NATO declaration had to be perceived by Russia "as a declaration of war" -- her words. Merkel's Germany did nevertheless support the disastrous EU - Ukraine association treaty which was pretty much demanding decoupling from the Russian economy. Ignorance or malice? I don't know how much she was just moving along or actively pushing for it. Germany and the EU very much tried to defuse the Maidan bomb with the agreement they brokered and, I am sure, were royally ... let's say upset when the Nuland phone call surfaced showing how the US got their way with Yatsenuk and his Right Sector pals. But Putin's clever dash for Crimea terminally destroyed her relation with Putin: it was a clear violation of international borders and made all the cringeworthy US neocon or Eastern European anti-Russia zealots suddenly shouting "I told you so!" right into her face. So we have to imagine Merkel & Steinmeyer going into dammage control mode while being, fundamentally, let's spell it out, very much pissed off at all sides for needlessly wrecking their nice German have-it-all US foreign policy + profitable Eastern economic integration model. I absolutely believe Merkel, and even more Steinmeyer, were absolutely sincere in trying to establish some sort of peace with Minsk 1 and 2 if only to get on with business as usual. But she again failed to mount the necessary independent and emanzipated foreign policy vis-a-vis an escalatory US and was ideologically unable to see or believe the bigger US game plan. So what about this famous interview? I have read it carefully. MoonOfAlabama gave a good analysis with which I totally agree -- she did not actually say she brokered Minsk in order to give Ukraine time to rearm for conflict with Russia. In the interview she first states that they wanted Minsk to work out and achieve peace. She then goes on to say, apologetically, that even as that failed, at least it gave Ukraine time to now better stand up to the new attack. This really is an uneccary and dammaging attempt by Merkel to save her image or legacy in the face of relentless attacks on anyone who was "soft on Russia" in the past. I am only observing from the distance, but the hysteric pro-war media barrage is truly incredible. Having done enough dammage as she did, she now missed a great opportunity to just keep her mouth shut about the topic but I guess it must have been difficult.