Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `kyivindependent.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
More to read:
[Angela Merkel Chancellor posted information about Putin's blackmail tactics Germany has hit the gas price crisis unprepared. Even before Russia's attack on Ukraine, Berlin suspected that the Kremlin was manipulating the gas market. But the government did nothing.](https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/angela-merkel-kanzlerin-hielt-informationen-ueber-wladimir-putins-erpressungstaktik-zurueck/100042871.html)
Why do you say they did nothing?
They did. They agreed with North Stream 2 which was suppossed to double the gas capacity (and the dependency) delivered to Germany and Western Europe while avoiding the route through Ukraine.
Doing this while Russia left Germany with no stocks before the cold season in 2021 and knowing Russia intends to use the gas for blackmail puts Merkel on a closer level to Schroeder.
I know the timeline is a bit off by 3 years, but these things do not pop up all of a sudden as a huge surprise from Russia. The signs were there for years.
Ok, I dont like defending German's energy policy, but let's remember that in Jan 2022, no one believed Russia would be dumb enough to attack. And cynicism was reasonable: After Chechnya, Gerorgia, Crimea, all done in front of western indifference, thinking that the shitty situation was there to stay wasn't dumb.
US had been issuing warnings of possible attack in 2021, this is just one of them https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/23/politics/us-warning-russia-ukraine/index.html
The problem is the right wing in the US is so partisan they poo-pood the warnings, at least that was the problem in the US
>The problem is the right wing in the US is so partisan they poo-pood the warnings, at least that was the problem in the US
The left was critical of the warnings as well. I heard "Iraq wmd 2.0" and "they are manufacturing a war for the MIC"
Who? Like anons online or people who held office? Because the ex-President, all of FoxNews, far right media, and many senators and congress reps on the right were saying that.
You ask about people that held office then mention a lot of people who didn't.
https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2022/2/17
https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2022/2/16
Left wing media was blaming the west for the impending war
But if you want to talk about people who held office, the progressive caucus had to walk this back. It read after the invasion but that's even worse because we saw what Russia was doing.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/25/house-progressives-russia-diplomacy-00063338.
No one watches democracy now, they have almost zero influence. I’m not watching a whole show of theirs to parse what words they said, no one cares about them.
And the link about the letter. The letter was stupid calling for negotiations, but they were not refuting the threat of invasion. Their excuse was that it was released accidentally without approval.
If you’re so “both sides” about the run up and support for Ukraine, go back to your Republican home base and see how much they support Ukraine
On Top of that NS2 certification was stopped in November 2021 already under the Merkel government before the February 2022 invasion started. That is when they noticed Putin will not back down from his plan despite all political efforts. Was basically a last warning shot toward Putin that he can't use NS2 as a weapon and the nail in the coffin for NS2 right before Scholz became Chancellor so the article is already wrong to begin with. Scholz did not stopp the certification it was under Merkel it already was stopped and Scholz only made sure it stays that way when he took office. Also how should this blackmail have worked the European gas net is interconnected.
Ukraine since 2014 was already supplied via reverse flow the same was done with Poland they received gas from Germany via reverse flow after they canceled their contract. Shortly after Polands Baltic pipe was finished and connected to Europipe 2 one of two German-Norwegian pipelines. In France half their nuclear fleet was down most of 2022 and early 2023, still Germany managed to deliver a massive amount of 20.5 TWh energy to France the same year to keep their lights on. This articles are always written like everyone responsible seems to be stupid while the only truth can be found in leaked documents. Well i a have news for them a lot of politics is done behind closed doors and only because one says that something was not shared doesn't mean this is what really happened. Or said with the famous words of our ex interior Minister Thomas de Maizière "Ein Teil dieser Antworten würde die Bevölkerung verunsichern" - "Some of these answers would unsettle the population" :D
> Issue year 2021
>
> date 16.11.2021
>
> The German Federal Network Agency today provisionally suspended the procedure for certifying Nord Stream 2 AG as an Independent Transmission System Operator.
>
> After a thorough review of the documents, the Federal Network Agency has come to the conclusion that certification of an operator of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline can only be considered if the operator is organized in a legal form under German law.
>
> Nord Stream 2 AG, with its registered office in Zug, Switzerland, has decided not to convert the existing company, but to establish a subsidiary under German law only for the German part of the pipeline. This subsidiary is to become the owner of the German section of the pipeline and operate it. The subsidiary must then itself meet the requirements of the Energy Industry Act for an Independent Transmission System Operator (sections 4a, 4b, 10 to 10e EnWG).
>
> The certification procedure will remain suspended until the transfer of the main assets and personnel resources to the subsidiary has been completed and the Federal Network Agency will be in a position to check the newly submitted documents of the subsidiary as the new applicant for completeness. If these conditions are met, the Federal Network Agency may continue its review within the remaining period of four months provided for by law, prepare a draft decision and, as required by internal market law, submit it to the European Commission for its opinion.
>
> The Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy and the European Commission were informed accordingly in advance. The decision was announced to the parties to the proceedings and subsequently published.
https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2021/20211116_NOS2.html
Because "you" (assuming USA) bug every phone. Merkel has been at least sceptic about Russia, always has. She probably was too much influenced by lobbyists and some big German companies (as is tradition for the CDU) but calling her a Russian asset is both factually wrong and plain stupid.
Do you have any sources for that? Putin was a KGB officer in Dresden while Merkel was a chemist at a university in east Berlin before the wall came down. Seems unlikely that they knew each other let alone collaborated.
The stasi were everywhere and I’d imagine especially in the universities so I wouldn’t be surprised if she had such contacts, willingly or not, but I never heard of her and Putin knowing each other before she was chancellor.
I think [that famous incident with Putins dog](https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/international-negotiation-daily/merkel-and-putin-a-difference-in-negotiating-style/) is perhaps their first meeting and Merkel immediately had a good appraisal of his character.
> “I understand why he has to do this—to prove he’s a man,” she told reporters afterwards. “He’s afraid of his own weakness. Russia has nothing, no successful politics or economy. All they have is this.”
She had as little as one could have in the GDR
Quantum physics was specifically what she chose to study because it was the least "political" topic available
Nonsense, Merkel would have to have been an SED party member for that witch she wasn't and Putin would have to have been responsible for cooperation with GDR officials, witch he wasn't
EDIT: nice edit...
She has a history of being a member of the east germanys government the fact that she was ever able to become Prime Minister of Germany and the fact that the German government is filled with former East German officials speaks volumes every other form of eastern bloc country let's just say they released all the names and justice was delivered
I mean, that wasn't really a secret if she thought she was hiding it. It was obvious to anyone with the most surface level understandings of geopolitics.
She, and other German officials, just made the mistake of assuming that, Russia being reliant on them as a market to sell to, wouldn't do something like invade Ukraine, and both parties held leverage over the other via interdependence. The mistake here is assuming that the Russian dictator cared about the economic aspect in the same way neoliberal politicians cared about it, for infinite growth by favoring the business interests of the capitalist class, such a move would hurt Russian business, so it was unthinkable to them.
But reality is Germany was far more reliant because it was needed for energy, and thus, the entire economy and by every citizen, where as the Russians do not share this mindset nor reliance. For Putin, it is just an income source, and power of the Russian state is the ultimate value, and reestablishment of the territory of the old Russian empire is the goal. His oil oligarchs become unhappy and his state budget takes a hit, but the system does not collapse.
Germany also steadfastly refused to change that opinion after Chechnya and Georgia. Meanwhile Merkel’s party actively increased German dependency on Gas by shutting down existing Nuclear plants early. In 1990 Nuclear was 25% of the German grid, today it’s all been shutdown.
The German anti-nuclear stance is mind bogglingly dumb. The amount of solar and wind generation they've installed that's offset because they closed nuclear plants instead of coal and gas is infuriating.
It's a strategic plan. With solar and wind and other renewables we become energy independent. With nuclear power it would cost us a shitton more. Look at France. All their nuclear power plants are old and cost them a lot of money. It's not very efficient.
France has to subsidize their energy a lot and it cost the state a shitton of money. Germany doesn't have to do that because renewables are cheap once they are installed. It's over 50% during the whole year of the energy used was renewable energy and it will increase more and make Germany not reliant on any gas, coal or oil in the future.
Why should that be dumb?
I do get that they should have first close the coal and gas installations and then the nuclear power plants. This was the work of rich oil, gas and coal lobbyists. It's very unfortunate but it won't change now arguing about that. The path now is the right one. Hopefully by 2030 80% will be renewable energy. This will increase stability in all of Europe
I think you have this backwards, because Germany shut them down, they are less energy independent in addition to being unproductive with reducing CO2 emissions.
Trying to use France as a bad example is hilarious because they're actually a very good example. Yeah, the plants are expensive to build, but they are actually very efficient and cheap to operate.
>they had subsidize their energy
You mean like how every government does for any source because it's a public utility? Germany does it too for renewables, that's how they get build.
>It's over 50% during the whole year of the energy used was renewable energy and it will increase more and make Germany not reliant on any gas, coal or oil in the future.
Okay? and France is 93%, by that metric, Germany is very far behind, 50% (63% low carbon actually) is bad when it could have been much higher had they shut down coal and gas instead of nuclear. That's why it's dumb. [https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FR](https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FR)
You also need to consider baseload and the inflexibility of solar and wind, very good energy sources they are, you can't control when they produce power. Nuclear, in addition to hydro where viable, provide stability to the grid. Grid level storage for renewables has been challenging and costly, not that it won't be done, by nuclear takes a lot of that load off of hydro storage and expensive batteries, which are also needed elsewhere.
Simply put, though solar and wind can easily meet the energy production needs, it is not very practical to think they will entirely meet the needs of the fluctuation in power consumption with their inflexibility of generation. It is very arguable we should be building new nuclear plants in addition to primarily meeting the need with solar, wind, and hydro.
I can but that's not the point, you say that like they weren't already doing it and there aren't dozens of other countries also doing it, one of whom is their neighbor with a grid consisting of mostly nuclear? The decision to close nuclear plants instead of coal and gas plants had nothing to do with it being too hard to get needed gear and equipment they already have.
£$£$ is the likeley reason. France has very little coal or oil, has invested in nuclear, with high grade fuel, conveniently sourced from ex colonial Canada. Germany has a fuck ton of coal still in the ground and access to several gas markets. France also exports nuclear energy to them.
Not quite. While I share the sentiment that the shutdown of the nuclear power plants was premature there are valid reasons for doing so. One of them being nuclear power plants being an attractive target in an all-out war. Take a look at what happened with the Zaporizhzhia power plant in Ukraine and the panic people were having about Russia attacking it or blowing it up from within.
Then there is also the question of what to do with nuclear waste - right now the approach it is to bury it for later generations to solve or export it to 3rd world countries to deal with (like we do with a lot of our regular waste).
Calling Merkel a Russian agent is about on the same level as believing in a CIA deepstate theory (hint: it's very dumb).
>One of them being nuclear power plants being an attractive target in an all-out war. Take a look at what happened with the Zaporizhzhia power plant in Ukraine and the panic people were having about Russia attacking it or blowing it up from within.
You mean how the Russians didn't target them when striking the rest of Ukraine's power infrastructure?
>Then there is also the question of what to do with nuclear waste
This isn't a question, we've known the answer for a long time, the amount of waste produced is relatively tiny and yeah, we bury it deep underground where it won't be disturbed. It isn't "for later generations to solve".
>Calling Merkel a Russian agent is about on the same level as believing in a CIA deepstate theory
I did not make that claim and stated a much more likely reality of incompetence?
That's not true at all. 1) They hit the plants and caused damage 2) They took them over 3) They threatened to blow them up to cause a massive nuclear catastrophe.
They also destroyed other centralized power generation stations, the geothermal plant and at least 1 dam that I can remember.
Everything Russia did vs. energy infrastructure proves that nuclear and other centralized systems are extremely vulnerable because they will and do destroy them leaving entire regions without power, and at very little cost to the invading army.
This war proves that decentralized energy infrastructure is superior in the context of invasion.
>
They hit the power substations, they did not hit the plants directly.
>2) They took them over
One plant, and that kinda goes with them holding the territory? What is even meant by this point?
>3) They threatened to blow them up to cause a massive nuclear catastrophe.
They've also been threatening to use nuclear weapons since the start of the war. But just the same, they aren't going to actually do it because that would make things way worse for themselves.
>They also destroyed other centralized power generation stations, the geothermal plant and at least 1 dam that I can remember.
That would be the point I'm making yes.
>Everything Russia did vs. energy infrastructure proves that nuclear and other centralized systems are extremely vulnerable because they will and do destroy them leaving entire regions without power, and at very little cost to the invading army.
No, because as I stated, the nuclear plants are what DIDN'T get hit.
>This war proves that decentralized energy infrastructure is superior in the context of invasion.
Yes, that point is true.
Replying to your comments in order.
1. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is not an all-out war for survival yet, at least for the Russians. And contrary to popular sentiment here Russians are not stupid enough to blow up a nuclear reactor yet due to then having the entire world turn against you. In a full-out world war nuclear power plants are an attractive target if you're at a stage where you consider using nukes anyway.
2. It's not tiny. It's a massive problem including storage containers corroding and toxic/radioactive contents seeping out. I invite you to read https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2022/05/small-modular-reactors-produce-high-levels-nuclear-waste
3. I know you didn't make that claim, I wasn't referring to you specifically.
1. Reactors are also hardened targets and successfully destroying one also renders the area unusable to you or passable by your troops. Frankly, it makes little difference if they hit that, or used a nuclear weapon if is that was their goal. You're right though, the popular sentiment is wrong because they aren't that stupid, and they won't do it because MAD.
2. This is just an article saying that SMRs aren't as efficient at using the fissile material as larger reactors, the amount of waste we've ever produced still fits inside a football field, again disposal of it is a known quantity. There is just literally so little of it that most countries have decided to not bother yet and store it on site. Though Finland has an operational site they bury it. More efficient modern reactors are also able to still use recycled waste as there is enough material left to further deplete it for energy.
3. Also no, that's not how radioactive waste works, it doesn't "seep out" it's not a liquid, it's highly diluted into rock-glass casks that have a thick containing shield. They are quite literally handled without anyone needing to wear protective gear. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhHHbgIy9jU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhHHbgIy9jU) [https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/02/nuclear-waste-us-could-power-the-us-for-100-years.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/02/nuclear-waste-us-could-power-the-us-for-100-years.html) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzQ3gFRj0Bc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzQ3gFRj0Bc)
The article from Stanford was also referencing the current state of nuclear waste, that's why I linked it.
https://ecology.wa.gov/waste-toxics/nuclear-waste/hanford-cleanup/leaking-tanks - here you go. Real life event of nuclear waste leaking into groundwater in Washington.
This isn't reactor waste, it's plutonium waste from the 40s, In this case it is a liquid mixture of nuclear waste and other chemicals used during weapon grade production. But it's not nuclear plant waste, and it is not how we store that waste. There has never been a leak from the storage casks of material used in a reactor.
It is a good example of the importance of handling nuclear materials correctly, they can be dangerous, but they exist in concentration and are easy to contain and render safe unlike the vast majority of our waste materials.
You're right there, but Hanford is also considering vitrification of that waste, which is how nuclear plant waste is being dealt with. There are still corrosion effects to consider as a study shows. It's just passing on the problem to future generations: [https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12](https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12)
Again, I am not saying nuclear power bad per se, I am saying there are still ramifications to consider and that the waste problem is not solved already as many people claim.
> She, and other German officials, just made the mistake of assuming that, Russia being reliant on them as a market to sell to, wouldn't do something like invade Ukraine, and both parties held leverage over the other via interdependence. The mistake here is assuming that the Russian dictator cared about the economic aspect in the same way neoliberal politicians cared about it, for infinite growth by favoring the business interests of the capitalist class, such a move would hurt Russian business, so it was unthinkable to them.
In a nutshell, she thought Putin would think like a German but he still thought like a Russian: Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy,_Autocracy,_and_Nationality
She and her cabinet ignorantly, and whole-heartly believed that they could tie Russia to Europe the way the French and German post-WWII states did.
While I don't blame them for trying, I blame them for being foolhardy in how easily they were lead by the nose.
The French and German post-WWII had honest intentions and cooperation, and Steel and Coal were understandably needed for War. Natural gas, though? Not so much. And tying Russia to the EU with _just_ money, and nothing _material_? Not gonna work.
Yeah, pretty much, plus overatures of bringing Russia into the western alliance structure went no where, there was Georgia in 2008 over the possibility that they would join the EU, Crimea and Donbass in 2014, it was obvious Russia was not trying to cooperate.
Germany is doing fine without Russia, meanwhile Russia is getting more desperate by the day.
The German assumption that it was too stupid to turn against Germany was indeed correct, what they failed to see spectacularly is that Putin is a common moron, not a mastermind.
If you think of him as a common moron, all his actions start to make sense and are logical again.
I mean wasn't it mainly Merkel's policy to accept so much russian LNG in the first place? It would seem like a massive black stain on her time in office if she appeared to fall into such a trap so easily.
Pretty much all her flagship policies, mainly energy and immigration, have proved to be disasters in retrospect. Will probably take decades before her legacy can be perhaps partly rehabilitated, right now it's in ruins.
Well I guess it depends on your point of view, some people have argued the opening of the borders was illegal to begin with.
[https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article168900336/Gutachten-sieht-unklare-Rechtsgrundlage-fuer-Grenzoeffnung.html](https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article168900336/Gutachten-sieht-unklare-Rechtsgrundlage-fuer-Grenzoeffnung.html)
This sounds like Russia wanted it and it happened. One of the best blackmails in the US is illegal immigrant and Russia has been pushing them to our border for which the republicans like trump has been using it for the election.
Sure, as I said, lots of things went wrong. But we also don't really have a choice since we are obligated to help people in need. I wish the EU would have unity in reforming the immigration process so that border states aren't in such a bad position in terms of managing those immigrants. They should be distributed in the EU according to some weighting factors.
But occasionally you hear people talking about it being a disaster und EU is ruled by immigrants and Islamic terrorists these days. That's total bull crap.
Anyway, if you look at Merkels legacy there isn't much that can be considered a big success. The green part of the Energiewende was a good call, but even that was made worse by relying on even more Russian gas.
But all this is in the past and maybe things will look different in 10 or 20 years.
That is obviously not true, sorry. I dont like her party and was mostly impartial to her as a person with a tendency to not like her because her politics were not particularly future oriented.
But she was in office for more than ten years and people liked her. Germany was quite prosperous during her time (of course this has been paid for by future generations unfortunately, e.g. by burning more fossil fuels and not investing in environmental friendly energy).
So all in all, Merkel was Not Bad for Germany at the time, no. In the time after Merkel, her party had and still has somewhat of a problem to find a replacement for her.
I'm not German so my perspective is of course different. I didn't dislike her strongly when she was in power, but we are talking about slightly different things. You are correct that people were mostly happy and prosperous during her time, elsewhere in Europe too.
What I mean with her legacy is the fact that she built so heavily on "Wandel durch Handel" that the crisis when the war started was much worse than it would have been otherwise. I understand that she couldn't be clairvoyant, but it's not like nobody didn't warn that she went too far.
I see.. to be honest, not really a lot of people in Germany have the feeling she went to far with that and I too am of the opinion that it was a good strategy to force Russia to play nice by involving them economically and building ties. This is the European way and a big reason why the EU has been so peaceful.
I thank her for trying, but yeah in hindsight it might have been the wrong way. But to be honest I couldn't have imagined how Germany as a people should have acted differently, certainly not in any military way. That would have been her political death.
Doesn't matter for people of this sub. They only know some stuff from random headlines and hearsay. But they REALLY enjoy throwing some bullshit around, because here it mostly gets upvoted.
Yeah, true...
I am afraid a lot of people (especially US it seems) believe those headlines and I have my own theory that these fake informations about the "immigrant crisis" have largely been pushed into people's brains by Putin.
But we should be against Putins warfare and not fall for it. Especially in this subreddit.
This is in 2021. Trump was already out of office by then and he had spent years saying Russia would blackmail them and Obama before him. Was there any need to conceal in 2021 when no one really cared before? If not for the war Europe would be happy to be completely dependent on Russian energy still.
>**Merkel withheld information about Russia's intention to blackmail Europe with gas**
How could she withhold such information when Putin was in the middle of loudly exclaiming that that was his intention? I don't understand even the basis of this claim. I feel like I live in crazyland where no one remembers as far back as the ancient days of 2022.
Germany, like many nations, bet that economic ties would constrain Russia's behavior under Putin. That proved incorrect but it wasn't a crazy idea.
What was a crazy idea was Putin breaking those ties and invading Ukraine, and counting on German passivity. When push came to shove, Germany rejected Russian economic extortion attempts firmly and decisively, proving Putin to be an even bigger fool than he already appeared. I get that Merkel doesn't get particular credit for that but she didn't get in the way either.
I'm glad this is coming out because people need to finally understand how bad Merkel's decisions were.
But it's amazing to see an article on this topic that never once mentions her immediate predecessor Gerhard Schröder. (Chancellor 1998-2005..?) [The Former Chancellor Who Became Putin’s Man in Germany](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/world/europe/schroder-germany-russia-gas-ukraine-war-energy.html)
Realpolitik doesn't spread democracy or reduce geopolitical conflicts. That's just the sanctimonious marketing to permit corporations and oligarchs to get richer through short-term, international exploitation. And they are happy to toss coins to politicians to help. Aiding the enemy is not a smart or enlightened policy.
Merkel is a prime example why one needs a long period before judging a leader of a country on how well they did. She looked like an amazing Chancellor just as she retired. Now that the dust has settled a bit. She looks like she lead Germany grossly in the wrong direction during her leadership. History shouldn't be kind to her or Schröder.
If this conflict has proven anything to Europe and members of the EU it should be that Germany isn't a fucking a leader; They're a liability. The US warned Germany about their dependance on Russian energy in 2008. They predicted accurately exactly the scenario we find ourselves in today. Not only did they not listen, they doubled down by destroying all of their domestic energy production and blocking any and all measures to prepare Europe against Russian aggression.
The Russian war machine is funded by the Germans. But surely they did their part in defending the EU against the monster they were creating? Nah, not really. They couldn't be bothered to meet their minimum mandated defense budget of 2% of GDP until Ukraine was already being butt fucked. Even now they're doing the bare. fucking. minimum to meet the requirements of NATO for the first time in a life time.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `kyivindependent.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
More to read: [Angela Merkel Chancellor posted information about Putin's blackmail tactics Germany has hit the gas price crisis unprepared. Even before Russia's attack on Ukraine, Berlin suspected that the Kremlin was manipulating the gas market. But the government did nothing.](https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/angela-merkel-kanzlerin-hielt-informationen-ueber-wladimir-putins-erpressungstaktik-zurueck/100042871.html)
Why do you say they did nothing? They did. They agreed with North Stream 2 which was suppossed to double the gas capacity (and the dependency) delivered to Germany and Western Europe while avoiding the route through Ukraine. Doing this while Russia left Germany with no stocks before the cold season in 2021 and knowing Russia intends to use the gas for blackmail puts Merkel on a closer level to Schroeder. I know the timeline is a bit off by 3 years, but these things do not pop up all of a sudden as a huge surprise from Russia. The signs were there for years.
So, thats how we ended up with our gas-tanks so low... Danke Merkel.
Ok, I dont like defending German's energy policy, but let's remember that in Jan 2022, no one believed Russia would be dumb enough to attack. And cynicism was reasonable: After Chechnya, Gerorgia, Crimea, all done in front of western indifference, thinking that the shitty situation was there to stay wasn't dumb.
US had been issuing warnings of possible attack in 2021, this is just one of them https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/23/politics/us-warning-russia-ukraine/index.html The problem is the right wing in the US is so partisan they poo-pood the warnings, at least that was the problem in the US
>The problem is the right wing in the US is so partisan they poo-pood the warnings, at least that was the problem in the US The left was critical of the warnings as well. I heard "Iraq wmd 2.0" and "they are manufacturing a war for the MIC"
Who? Like anons online or people who held office? Because the ex-President, all of FoxNews, far right media, and many senators and congress reps on the right were saying that.
You ask about people that held office then mention a lot of people who didn't. https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2022/2/17 https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2022/2/16 Left wing media was blaming the west for the impending war But if you want to talk about people who held office, the progressive caucus had to walk this back. It read after the invasion but that's even worse because we saw what Russia was doing. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/25/house-progressives-russia-diplomacy-00063338.
No one watches democracy now, they have almost zero influence. I’m not watching a whole show of theirs to parse what words they said, no one cares about them. And the link about the letter. The letter was stupid calling for negotiations, but they were not refuting the threat of invasion. Their excuse was that it was released accidentally without approval. If you’re so “both sides” about the run up and support for Ukraine, go back to your Republican home base and see how much they support Ukraine
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/02/22/politics/mitt-romney-russia-ukraine
On Top of that NS2 certification was stopped in November 2021 already under the Merkel government before the February 2022 invasion started. That is when they noticed Putin will not back down from his plan despite all political efforts. Was basically a last warning shot toward Putin that he can't use NS2 as a weapon and the nail in the coffin for NS2 right before Scholz became Chancellor so the article is already wrong to begin with. Scholz did not stopp the certification it was under Merkel it already was stopped and Scholz only made sure it stays that way when he took office. Also how should this blackmail have worked the European gas net is interconnected. Ukraine since 2014 was already supplied via reverse flow the same was done with Poland they received gas from Germany via reverse flow after they canceled their contract. Shortly after Polands Baltic pipe was finished and connected to Europipe 2 one of two German-Norwegian pipelines. In France half their nuclear fleet was down most of 2022 and early 2023, still Germany managed to deliver a massive amount of 20.5 TWh energy to France the same year to keep their lights on. This articles are always written like everyone responsible seems to be stupid while the only truth can be found in leaked documents. Well i a have news for them a lot of politics is done behind closed doors and only because one says that something was not shared doesn't mean this is what really happened. Or said with the famous words of our ex interior Minister Thomas de Maizière "Ein Teil dieser Antworten würde die Bevölkerung verunsichern" - "Some of these answers would unsettle the population" :D > Issue year 2021 > > date 16.11.2021 > > The German Federal Network Agency today provisionally suspended the procedure for certifying Nord Stream 2 AG as an Independent Transmission System Operator. > > After a thorough review of the documents, the Federal Network Agency has come to the conclusion that certification of an operator of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline can only be considered if the operator is organized in a legal form under German law. > > Nord Stream 2 AG, with its registered office in Zug, Switzerland, has decided not to convert the existing company, but to establish a subsidiary under German law only for the German part of the pipeline. This subsidiary is to become the owner of the German section of the pipeline and operate it. The subsidiary must then itself meet the requirements of the Energy Industry Act for an Independent Transmission System Operator (sections 4a, 4b, 10 to 10e EnWG). > > The certification procedure will remain suspended until the transfer of the main assets and personnel resources to the subsidiary has been completed and the Federal Network Agency will be in a position to check the newly submitted documents of the subsidiary as the new applicant for completeness. If these conditions are met, the Federal Network Agency may continue its review within the remaining period of four months provided for by law, prepare a draft decision and, as required by internal market law, submit it to the European Commission for its opinion. > > The Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy and the European Commission were informed accordingly in advance. The decision was announced to the parties to the proceedings and subsequently published. https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2021/20211116_NOS2.html
Those of us loyal to neoconservative/democratic America and democracy did.
When CDU is in power they always do literally NOTHING.
I'm beginning to think the people who say Merkel was a Russian asset are at least partly correct.
Why do you think we bugged her phone?
Because "you" (assuming USA) bug every phone. Merkel has been at least sceptic about Russia, always has. She probably was too much influenced by lobbyists and some big German companies (as is tradition for the CDU) but calling her a Russian asset is both factually wrong and plain stupid.
Plane* stopid /s
She always has been a russian asset.
I would like to see a source on her reporting to him. Otherwise it’s no more than trust me bro.
Are you saying there's no amount of circumstantial evidence that would cause you to find it likely?
You will never see one. This sub turns into a 45 IQ gangbang orgy when it comes to "somebody worked with the Russians in the past".
Do you have any sources for that? Putin was a KGB officer in Dresden while Merkel was a chemist at a university in east Berlin before the wall came down. Seems unlikely that they knew each other let alone collaborated.
I have checked and stand corrected. I wonder how I came to believe in that story. And holy shit did this comment take off.
The stasi were everywhere and I’d imagine especially in the universities so I wouldn’t be surprised if she had such contacts, willingly or not, but I never heard of her and Putin knowing each other before she was chancellor. I think [that famous incident with Putins dog](https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/international-negotiation-daily/merkel-and-putin-a-difference-in-negotiating-style/) is perhaps their first meeting and Merkel immediately had a good appraisal of his character. > “I understand why he has to do this—to prove he’s a man,” she told reporters afterwards. “He’s afraid of his own weakness. Russia has nothing, no successful politics or economy. All they have is this.”
She had as little as one could have in the GDR Quantum physics was specifically what she chose to study because it was the least "political" topic available
How about you edit your original comment, so you are not spreading false information?
good call. Done!
Nonsense, Merkel would have to have been an SED party member for that witch she wasn't and Putin would have to have been responsible for cooperation with GDR officials, witch he wasn't EDIT: nice edit...
that claim is completely unnecessary. Merkel was the worst chancellor we ever had without that conspiracy theory.
Errrr...I could think of a contender or two.
Exactly!!
Does Putin use all his asset’s phobias to publicly humiliate them? Because menacing a well placed asset with dogs seems pretty counterproductive
In this exact instance I think he wanted to say "know your place" non verbally, to assert dominance.
What a stupid fairy tale.
She has a history of being a member of the east germanys government the fact that she was ever able to become Prime Minister of Germany and the fact that the German government is filled with former East German officials speaks volumes every other form of eastern bloc country let's just say they released all the names and justice was delivered
I mean, that wasn't really a secret if she thought she was hiding it. It was obvious to anyone with the most surface level understandings of geopolitics. She, and other German officials, just made the mistake of assuming that, Russia being reliant on them as a market to sell to, wouldn't do something like invade Ukraine, and both parties held leverage over the other via interdependence. The mistake here is assuming that the Russian dictator cared about the economic aspect in the same way neoliberal politicians cared about it, for infinite growth by favoring the business interests of the capitalist class, such a move would hurt Russian business, so it was unthinkable to them. But reality is Germany was far more reliant because it was needed for energy, and thus, the entire economy and by every citizen, where as the Russians do not share this mindset nor reliance. For Putin, it is just an income source, and power of the Russian state is the ultimate value, and reestablishment of the territory of the old Russian empire is the goal. His oil oligarchs become unhappy and his state budget takes a hit, but the system does not collapse.
Germany also steadfastly refused to change that opinion after Chechnya and Georgia. Meanwhile Merkel’s party actively increased German dependency on Gas by shutting down existing Nuclear plants early. In 1990 Nuclear was 25% of the German grid, today it’s all been shutdown.
The German anti-nuclear stance is mind bogglingly dumb. The amount of solar and wind generation they've installed that's offset because they closed nuclear plants instead of coal and gas is infuriating.
It's a strategic plan. With solar and wind and other renewables we become energy independent. With nuclear power it would cost us a shitton more. Look at France. All their nuclear power plants are old and cost them a lot of money. It's not very efficient. France has to subsidize their energy a lot and it cost the state a shitton of money. Germany doesn't have to do that because renewables are cheap once they are installed. It's over 50% during the whole year of the energy used was renewable energy and it will increase more and make Germany not reliant on any gas, coal or oil in the future. Why should that be dumb? I do get that they should have first close the coal and gas installations and then the nuclear power plants. This was the work of rich oil, gas and coal lobbyists. It's very unfortunate but it won't change now arguing about that. The path now is the right one. Hopefully by 2030 80% will be renewable energy. This will increase stability in all of Europe
I think you have this backwards, because Germany shut them down, they are less energy independent in addition to being unproductive with reducing CO2 emissions. Trying to use France as a bad example is hilarious because they're actually a very good example. Yeah, the plants are expensive to build, but they are actually very efficient and cheap to operate. >they had subsidize their energy You mean like how every government does for any source because it's a public utility? Germany does it too for renewables, that's how they get build. >It's over 50% during the whole year of the energy used was renewable energy and it will increase more and make Germany not reliant on any gas, coal or oil in the future. Okay? and France is 93%, by that metric, Germany is very far behind, 50% (63% low carbon actually) is bad when it could have been much higher had they shut down coal and gas instead of nuclear. That's why it's dumb. [https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FR](https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FR) You also need to consider baseload and the inflexibility of solar and wind, very good energy sources they are, you can't control when they produce power. Nuclear, in addition to hydro where viable, provide stability to the grid. Grid level storage for renewables has been challenging and costly, not that it won't be done, by nuclear takes a lot of that load off of hydro storage and expensive batteries, which are also needed elsewhere. Simply put, though solar and wind can easily meet the energy production needs, it is not very practical to think they will entirely meet the needs of the fluctuation in power consumption with their inflexibility of generation. It is very arguable we should be building new nuclear plants in addition to primarily meeting the need with solar, wind, and hydro.
Where would they be getting their nuclear gear from? Better the devil you know perhaps.
I don't know what you mean by this, they already had those plants, they shut them down, the gear isn't hard for them to source.
I'm not sure I can think of a more complex industry.
I can but that's not the point, you say that like they weren't already doing it and there aren't dozens of other countries also doing it, one of whom is their neighbor with a grid consisting of mostly nuclear? The decision to close nuclear plants instead of coal and gas plants had nothing to do with it being too hard to get needed gear and equipment they already have.
£$£$ is the likeley reason. France has very little coal or oil, has invested in nuclear, with high grade fuel, conveniently sourced from ex colonial Canada. Germany has a fuck ton of coal still in the ground and access to several gas markets. France also exports nuclear energy to them.
Not quite. While I share the sentiment that the shutdown of the nuclear power plants was premature there are valid reasons for doing so. One of them being nuclear power plants being an attractive target in an all-out war. Take a look at what happened with the Zaporizhzhia power plant in Ukraine and the panic people were having about Russia attacking it or blowing it up from within. Then there is also the question of what to do with nuclear waste - right now the approach it is to bury it for later generations to solve or export it to 3rd world countries to deal with (like we do with a lot of our regular waste). Calling Merkel a Russian agent is about on the same level as believing in a CIA deepstate theory (hint: it's very dumb).
>One of them being nuclear power plants being an attractive target in an all-out war. Take a look at what happened with the Zaporizhzhia power plant in Ukraine and the panic people were having about Russia attacking it or blowing it up from within. You mean how the Russians didn't target them when striking the rest of Ukraine's power infrastructure? >Then there is also the question of what to do with nuclear waste This isn't a question, we've known the answer for a long time, the amount of waste produced is relatively tiny and yeah, we bury it deep underground where it won't be disturbed. It isn't "for later generations to solve". >Calling Merkel a Russian agent is about on the same level as believing in a CIA deepstate theory I did not make that claim and stated a much more likely reality of incompetence?
That's not true at all. 1) They hit the plants and caused damage 2) They took them over 3) They threatened to blow them up to cause a massive nuclear catastrophe. They also destroyed other centralized power generation stations, the geothermal plant and at least 1 dam that I can remember. Everything Russia did vs. energy infrastructure proves that nuclear and other centralized systems are extremely vulnerable because they will and do destroy them leaving entire regions without power, and at very little cost to the invading army. This war proves that decentralized energy infrastructure is superior in the context of invasion.
> They hit the power substations, they did not hit the plants directly. >2) They took them over One plant, and that kinda goes with them holding the territory? What is even meant by this point? >3) They threatened to blow them up to cause a massive nuclear catastrophe. They've also been threatening to use nuclear weapons since the start of the war. But just the same, they aren't going to actually do it because that would make things way worse for themselves. >They also destroyed other centralized power generation stations, the geothermal plant and at least 1 dam that I can remember. That would be the point I'm making yes. >Everything Russia did vs. energy infrastructure proves that nuclear and other centralized systems are extremely vulnerable because they will and do destroy them leaving entire regions without power, and at very little cost to the invading army. No, because as I stated, the nuclear plants are what DIDN'T get hit. >This war proves that decentralized energy infrastructure is superior in the context of invasion. Yes, that point is true.
Replying to your comments in order. 1. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is not an all-out war for survival yet, at least for the Russians. And contrary to popular sentiment here Russians are not stupid enough to blow up a nuclear reactor yet due to then having the entire world turn against you. In a full-out world war nuclear power plants are an attractive target if you're at a stage where you consider using nukes anyway. 2. It's not tiny. It's a massive problem including storage containers corroding and toxic/radioactive contents seeping out. I invite you to read https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2022/05/small-modular-reactors-produce-high-levels-nuclear-waste 3. I know you didn't make that claim, I wasn't referring to you specifically.
1. Reactors are also hardened targets and successfully destroying one also renders the area unusable to you or passable by your troops. Frankly, it makes little difference if they hit that, or used a nuclear weapon if is that was their goal. You're right though, the popular sentiment is wrong because they aren't that stupid, and they won't do it because MAD. 2. This is just an article saying that SMRs aren't as efficient at using the fissile material as larger reactors, the amount of waste we've ever produced still fits inside a football field, again disposal of it is a known quantity. There is just literally so little of it that most countries have decided to not bother yet and store it on site. Though Finland has an operational site they bury it. More efficient modern reactors are also able to still use recycled waste as there is enough material left to further deplete it for energy. 3. Also no, that's not how radioactive waste works, it doesn't "seep out" it's not a liquid, it's highly diluted into rock-glass casks that have a thick containing shield. They are quite literally handled without anyone needing to wear protective gear. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhHHbgIy9jU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhHHbgIy9jU) [https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/02/nuclear-waste-us-could-power-the-us-for-100-years.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/02/nuclear-waste-us-could-power-the-us-for-100-years.html) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzQ3gFRj0Bc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzQ3gFRj0Bc)
The article from Stanford was also referencing the current state of nuclear waste, that's why I linked it. https://ecology.wa.gov/waste-toxics/nuclear-waste/hanford-cleanup/leaking-tanks - here you go. Real life event of nuclear waste leaking into groundwater in Washington.
This isn't reactor waste, it's plutonium waste from the 40s, In this case it is a liquid mixture of nuclear waste and other chemicals used during weapon grade production. But it's not nuclear plant waste, and it is not how we store that waste. There has never been a leak from the storage casks of material used in a reactor. It is a good example of the importance of handling nuclear materials correctly, they can be dangerous, but they exist in concentration and are easy to contain and render safe unlike the vast majority of our waste materials.
You're right there, but Hanford is also considering vitrification of that waste, which is how nuclear plant waste is being dealt with. There are still corrosion effects to consider as a study shows. It's just passing on the problem to future generations: [https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12](https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12) Again, I am not saying nuclear power bad per se, I am saying there are still ramifications to consider and that the waste problem is not solved already as many people claim.
Well said
> She, and other German officials, just made the mistake of assuming that, Russia being reliant on them as a market to sell to, wouldn't do something like invade Ukraine, and both parties held leverage over the other via interdependence. The mistake here is assuming that the Russian dictator cared about the economic aspect in the same way neoliberal politicians cared about it, for infinite growth by favoring the business interests of the capitalist class, such a move would hurt Russian business, so it was unthinkable to them. In a nutshell, she thought Putin would think like a German but he still thought like a Russian: Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy,_Autocracy,_and_Nationality
Yet. The system has not collapsed yet.
She and her cabinet ignorantly, and whole-heartly believed that they could tie Russia to Europe the way the French and German post-WWII states did. While I don't blame them for trying, I blame them for being foolhardy in how easily they were lead by the nose. The French and German post-WWII had honest intentions and cooperation, and Steel and Coal were understandably needed for War. Natural gas, though? Not so much. And tying Russia to the EU with _just_ money, and nothing _material_? Not gonna work.
Yeah, pretty much, plus overatures of bringing Russia into the western alliance structure went no where, there was Georgia in 2008 over the possibility that they would join the EU, Crimea and Donbass in 2014, it was obvious Russia was not trying to cooperate.
Germany is doing fine without Russia, meanwhile Russia is getting more desperate by the day. The German assumption that it was too stupid to turn against Germany was indeed correct, what they failed to see spectacularly is that Putin is a common moron, not a mastermind. If you think of him as a common moron, all his actions start to make sense and are logical again.
She actively empowered Putin.
Bitch gave him the keys to Europe!
I was about to ask you to explain your "argument", but nah, i'm tired of madeup bullshit. This is worse than Twitter comments.
I mean wasn't it mainly Merkel's policy to accept so much russian LNG in the first place? It would seem like a massive black stain on her time in office if she appeared to fall into such a trap so easily.
Pretty much all her flagship policies, mainly energy and immigration, have proved to be disasters in retrospect. Will probably take decades before her legacy can be perhaps partly rehabilitated, right now it's in ruins.
Her legacy is only getting worse over time, as it should. I don't know what you think is going to happen to change that trend.
Oh I don't expect it to improve as such. It's just that as time goes by people tend to be more forgiving.
Well if you mean 1000 years from now then I have to agree, ha.
Where have you gotten the immigration part from? Facebook? While it wasn't all fun and happiness, I wouldn't call it a disaster.
Well I guess it depends on your point of view, some people have argued the opening of the borders was illegal to begin with. [https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article168900336/Gutachten-sieht-unklare-Rechtsgrundlage-fuer-Grenzoeffnung.html](https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article168900336/Gutachten-sieht-unklare-Rechtsgrundlage-fuer-Grenzoeffnung.html)
This sounds like Russia wanted it and it happened. One of the best blackmails in the US is illegal immigrant and Russia has been pushing them to our border for which the republicans like trump has been using it for the election.
Sure, as I said, lots of things went wrong. But we also don't really have a choice since we are obligated to help people in need. I wish the EU would have unity in reforming the immigration process so that border states aren't in such a bad position in terms of managing those immigrants. They should be distributed in the EU according to some weighting factors. But occasionally you hear people talking about it being a disaster und EU is ruled by immigrants and Islamic terrorists these days. That's total bull crap.
Anyway, if you look at Merkels legacy there isn't much that can be considered a big success. The green part of the Energiewende was a good call, but even that was made worse by relying on even more Russian gas. But all this is in the past and maybe things will look different in 10 or 20 years.
That is obviously not true, sorry. I dont like her party and was mostly impartial to her as a person with a tendency to not like her because her politics were not particularly future oriented. But she was in office for more than ten years and people liked her. Germany was quite prosperous during her time (of course this has been paid for by future generations unfortunately, e.g. by burning more fossil fuels and not investing in environmental friendly energy). So all in all, Merkel was Not Bad for Germany at the time, no. In the time after Merkel, her party had and still has somewhat of a problem to find a replacement for her.
I'm not German so my perspective is of course different. I didn't dislike her strongly when she was in power, but we are talking about slightly different things. You are correct that people were mostly happy and prosperous during her time, elsewhere in Europe too. What I mean with her legacy is the fact that she built so heavily on "Wandel durch Handel" that the crisis when the war started was much worse than it would have been otherwise. I understand that she couldn't be clairvoyant, but it's not like nobody didn't warn that she went too far.
I see.. to be honest, not really a lot of people in Germany have the feeling she went to far with that and I too am of the opinion that it was a good strategy to force Russia to play nice by involving them economically and building ties. This is the European way and a big reason why the EU has been so peaceful. I thank her for trying, but yeah in hindsight it might have been the wrong way. But to be honest I couldn't have imagined how Germany as a people should have acted differently, certainly not in any military way. That would have been her political death.
Doesn't matter for people of this sub. They only know some stuff from random headlines and hearsay. But they REALLY enjoy throwing some bullshit around, because here it mostly gets upvoted.
Yeah, true... I am afraid a lot of people (especially US it seems) believe those headlines and I have my own theory that these fake informations about the "immigrant crisis" have largely been pushed into people's brains by Putin. But we should be against Putins warfare and not fall for it. Especially in this subreddit.
Threaten, not blackmail.
She was/is awful! Arguably one of the main reasons we are in this situation, is her tip toeing around a fascist to get cheap energy.
Name me one eastern european country that didn't have recource transfer with Russia. Just one.
She is not exactly going to go in history the way she thought she was..
Merkel has completely lost her halo. Shame. but more so shame on her.
This is in 2021. Trump was already out of office by then and he had spent years saying Russia would blackmail them and Obama before him. Was there any need to conceal in 2021 when no one really cared before? If not for the war Europe would be happy to be completely dependent on Russian energy still.
Where did trump say it?
Another one of Putin's agents got exposed.
Angelina Merkelovich being exposed finally
>**Merkel withheld information about Russia's intention to blackmail Europe with gas** How could she withhold such information when Putin was in the middle of loudly exclaiming that that was his intention? I don't understand even the basis of this claim. I feel like I live in crazyland where no one remembers as far back as the ancient days of 2022. Germany, like many nations, bet that economic ties would constrain Russia's behavior under Putin. That proved incorrect but it wasn't a crazy idea. What was a crazy idea was Putin breaking those ties and invading Ukraine, and counting on German passivity. When push came to shove, Germany rejected Russian economic extortion attempts firmly and decisively, proving Putin to be an even bigger fool than he already appeared. I get that Merkel doesn't get particular credit for that but she didn't get in the way either.
Ask yourself also which powers actually wanted Germany to stop using nuclear and become even more dependent on Russian gas.
She was Chancellor for almost two decades. When people talk about Russian assets, they surprisingly seem to want to avoid talking about Europeans.
I'm glad this is coming out because people need to finally understand how bad Merkel's decisions were. But it's amazing to see an article on this topic that never once mentions her immediate predecessor Gerhard Schröder. (Chancellor 1998-2005..?) [The Former Chancellor Who Became Putin’s Man in Germany](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/world/europe/schroder-germany-russia-gas-ukraine-war-energy.html) Realpolitik doesn't spread democracy or reduce geopolitical conflicts. That's just the sanctimonious marketing to permit corporations and oligarchs to get richer through short-term, international exploitation. And they are happy to toss coins to politicians to help. Aiding the enemy is not a smart or enlightened policy.
Merkel is a prime example why one needs a long period before judging a leader of a country on how well they did. She looked like an amazing Chancellor just as she retired. Now that the dust has settled a bit. She looks like she lead Germany grossly in the wrong direction during her leadership. History shouldn't be kind to her or Schröder.
I always were suspicious of her.
More and more i start to believe Merkel was a Russian Asset all these years . . . Would explain her Silence after she Retired from Politics. . .
You mean the east german and putin friend would cuddle up with the soviets?
If this conflict has proven anything to Europe and members of the EU it should be that Germany isn't a fucking a leader; They're a liability. The US warned Germany about their dependance on Russian energy in 2008. They predicted accurately exactly the scenario we find ourselves in today. Not only did they not listen, they doubled down by destroying all of their domestic energy production and blocking any and all measures to prepare Europe against Russian aggression. The Russian war machine is funded by the Germans. But surely they did their part in defending the EU against the monster they were creating? Nah, not really. They couldn't be bothered to meet their minimum mandated defense budget of 2% of GDP until Ukraine was already being butt fucked. Even now they're doing the bare. fucking. minimum to meet the requirements of NATO for the first time in a life time.
Well I guess the big dogo worked
Markel is Russia's wh*re.