On the afternoon of February 24 2022 East Coast time, the day Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, after a morning of consultation with the G7 governments, President Biden strode to the White House rostrum to announce America’s reaction.
I think wrapped by technicalities these sanctions actually hurt, a lot. And yes, SWIFT requires all members to agree, and some Europeans did not want to. As well there is a need not to fully cripple some European countries need for gas and oil as well as to close ledgers without hurting international financial system. Having said that though the actions are harsh and will stay in place. Frances Coppola explained well what just has been initiated here https://twitter.com/Frances_Coppola/status/1496939859092684803?s=20&t=IX9XwaCXvInsPnEjsk7OMA
This is a siege on the besieger. And it will hurt the intended target, which is not Putin per se, unreachable really, but the oligarchs. The transactional relation between oligarchs and Putin was great before 2014; after that, the relationship was tolerable but still working well enough for both sides; but Ukraine can be THE issue. Yes, oligarchs want to save money; but they must get richer and be free to be and go and do everywhere, so not at any price. Putin instead wants legacy and revenge of the URSS humiliation; he seems more and more in his own world. Already today 2 24 meeting was quite more nervous and inquisitive toward Putin in an unheard way. Oligarchs do not care who is in charge and how as long as it benefits them. Years ago, one of them said that when things change in Russia, they change the jacket but the wallet stays in the pants. When you hurt their wallet, they think what’s next and they can pressure the circle around Putin, the siloviki.
Back to Ukraine. Putin and the Russian army are on a clock. They do not have unlimited resources, despite Russian bank reserves; they need parts, they need food. 200,000 soldiers as impressive as it might seem they cannot keep control of Ukraine and Ukraine is not Belarus or Kazakhstan or Georgia. They do have a (massive) weapon advantage, which makes US and NATO weary to engage. The hypersonic missiles are impossible to stop or to be spotted by radars before is too late and they have a lot of those. So, putting a carrier nearby is not a helpful deterrent, just a target that can be taken care by a single Zircon from a frigate. Any fixed strategic land post can be wiped out by Iskanders. Hard to accept but at today Russian army has some more advanced weapons for which nor US nor NATO have an answer. Putin knows that. But his army cannot control a vast country like Ukraine with armed rebels moving targets. So, a month from now music will be different. Best tactic for Biden is to make life harder for oligarchs, which means also harsher for Russian people. Expect more and more manifestations riots in Russia Belarus Georgia. First police will take care of those until they cannot. Then siloviki will take care of a business long due. They always did.
Bringing the oligarchs/siloviki a few notches down may be a positive domestic "collateral damage" - nobody in Russia will object to that. This may bring them more aligned to the "Chinese model" of billionaire-management: keep your riches but don't presume to run the show.
Looking at the first two days of invasion through the fog of war, the plan that emerges is to break Ukrainian resistance into pockets around cities, break the communication between them, control key roads and communications and wait for Zelensky to come to negotiating table and sign some sort of "neutrality papers". After that - declare "victory" and get the hell out ASAP. No further Russian occupation of Ukraine will be needed, internal political forces will settle the scores, but nobody in right mind will argue that EU and NATO is the savior in shiny armor that will "rescue Ukraine". Hopefully the influence of Azov and Pravy Sektor will diminish and situation of Russian minority improve long term.
Yawn. If you think "play all our cards at once so you're left sitting there with no cards left to play" is great strategy, then I want to play poker with you right now. And if you're going to dishonestly ignore that it is Germany, Italy, Hungary (Exalted Cyclops Carlson's new favorite country second to Russia) and Cyprus that are blocking SWIFT sanctions, then you can GFY. The sanctions are not solely Biden's to decide. Anyone pretending as such is a disinformant and might as well be taking rubles on the side.
If Russia is allowed to export gas but not allowed to import goods in exchange or use the proceeds to purchase goods, does that mean they're giving it away for free? I don't understand the implications of allowing as to go in one direction, if the nothing can go in return.
I am sure they will be able to use those USD or EUR elsewhere - as a result of 2014 Crimea sanctions Russia was able to substitute much of EU import dependency. Especially for agriculture it was a veritable gift after few years of initial pain.
That seems to be the gist of it to me. Russia can export their entire nation's resources, but if they can't import war-making goods in return, then it us doubly detrimental to them. So the effectiveness of sanctions doesn't have anything to do with what Russian exports are targeted (especially when preventing Russian exports would deprive the importer of a real good). What is important is how effective the sanctions are at preventing Russia from acquiring material goods.
There is very few strategic "war-making" goods that Russia needs in the first place, being probably the most autarkic country on the planet. Few things they might need (sophisticated chips for radars and such) they can get from China.
If that's really the case, then what deterrence would sanctions have? And why wouldnt Russia immediately cut off Europe from its gas, if they don't need anything in return for it?
That act would just accelerate decoupling Europe from Russian energy supplies, which is obviously not in their interest. At some point war will b e over and rational energy policies will have to be reevaluated. Many will point to the fact that even during war time, Russia fulfilled their contractual obligations - just like they did back in 80ies when hundreds of nuclear-armed Pershing missiles were being pointed at them.
The post-war energy dilemma will be most crucial for Germany: how to compete globally (esp. with China) when paying 2 times more energy cost that gets factored into any industrial output? Who is going to absorb that cost? One way would be to decrease paying into EU coffers, which will further destabilize the EU. The only reason the likes of Poland and Hungary are in there is to collect billions of euros every year in name of "development funds". Even more so in corrupt countries like Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia - the whole political class there thrives on how much "pork" they can bring home from Brussels.
Here is an interesting consideration about the biggest Germany export item:
Hmmm.... I believe one fails to mention how much dependent these states are on Russia for their energy. That this is a problem... sure. But I wonder if the US was completely dependent on Russian gas if they would do this as well.
The problem in this is: where else to get your gas from.
Energy companies need to still work... and they are gas turbines. Slochteren in the Netherlands has greatly reduced it's outpour due to the problems it causes in being able to live in the North of the Netherlands where houses now getting into problems as the ground is clunking in as there is less gas to hold it all up.
So - where to get this energy from then?
Pray do tell....
This is one of the reasons why Germany is far ahead of the pack on Green energy: they have to.
But still with that - they are still heavily dependent on this rogue state.
This is also why Nord Stream 2 was going to be built.. Especially Germany needs it because its industry is still exanding.
spare a thought for WHERE this is heading. Yeah, real easy to beat the sanctions drum etc. The Russian continent is NOT going anywhere. So till (IF) the Russians overthrow Putin, or the Russian Armed Forces do a coup or such......we're even more precarious now than before. Ukraine is now a battlefield. Even if enough arms are shuffled to Ukraine to repel Russia, the devastation will be there. Erik Prince wanted Ukraine as an HQ for a mercenary base there valued at $10bn. Biden is neck deep in first hand experience in the buildup to this war, as is the DNC since the days of Viktor Pinchuk funneling campaign contributions. This war was a long time coming. Manafort included. Right to the top. Not a sudden development. Couldn't an entente have been reached? Some earnest listening?
Germany during the cold war wanted a healthy relationship with the ussr in case of potential unification with east germany. When the ussr collapsed and the unification was peaceful, many german politicians felt a sense of gratitude for not causing the end of the world and allowing the union dissolve peacefully ish
has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's about gas. which Germany uses for most of its energy production. And the only way it really makes sense to transport it is per pipeline. And there are very few other gas fields that still yield enough in the surrounding area to provide enough gas for Germany to keep it's people provided with electricity and heating by other means.
Is this a problem: Yes!
Should they have though about this before: yes!
Are they retooling their energy production: yes! (most advanced country in green energy) - is it enough? Hell no!
But this means that Germany is in a VERY awkward position right now....
And our beloved-by-Harvard-types Germany was spouting hot air? "Leyen also noted that Merkel has been at the forefront of diplomatic efforts to curb Russian aggression in Ukraine."
I guess you overlooked his 'Russia would be the easiest to talk to comment'
Also - this has 0 to do with that.
This is solely that Germany is dependent on Russia for it's Gas. Which is how most of its energy production happens (as it is of the carbon based fuels the least polluting)
I still don't understand Germany's decision to become completely energy dependent on Russia. Why on earth would they believe this was a tenable situation, even without a war on their doorstep?
Because it was a completely tenable and mutually beneficial relationship for 40+ years. Not a cubic meter missed, not a payment missed. It is another way around - why would US want to allow such relationship to exist when it could make Germany pay much more and keep it firmly in its own orbit:
Along with Ukraine and Russia, Germany is another big loser in this war - expensive energy will factor into the price of industrial exports and make it less competitive in world markets compared to Chinese or other Asian industrial powers.
Big winners: Turkey (will happily expand gas pipelines esp. from Azerbaijan its junior "sister-state") and China (can get even more preferential deals from Russia as it is being cut off from EU/West)
Sadly, fates of millions of people compare poorly with geopolitical calculations of the powerful economic interests. One recent example is the French interest to preserve CFA Franc led to destruction of Libya and thousands drowning trying to reach Italian coast.
Saudi Arabia is another murderous dictatorship, but bombing is not the answer. We could hope that our governments would cut off dependence on fossil fuel, but the ugly truth is that many people in the Western world care more about cheap energy prices than human life. I don't see how bombing a country will change this ugly reality.
What is the plot? "Ami go home" has been a common slogan in Germany for many decades. The country still idolizes heroes like Rosa Luxemburg.
I'm not saying they should be harder on Russia. As one would expect, Germany views Russia differently than the US does, and socialist traditions are connected to that.
Scholz and Merkel are the last people to be anti-American (Merkel suppoerted the Iraq war!) or idolize Luxemburg. We are talking about the most boring centrist establishment politicians imaginable. I think the reason why Germany is so dependent on Russia is purely about economics and not ideology.
The reaosn why German Governments have been buying cheap Russian oil is not some Anti-American ideology but because it's cheap. Like that's it. You're overthinking it way too much.
Energy policy in Germany has a big ideological component. At huge cost, they are shutting down their nuclear plants and going green. But with Russia it's all about economics?
No - with Russia it's Gas. In good supply. And it's a source they could trust. The regimes don't have to like each other to see a mutual benefit. As much as Azerbeijan has Gas - it's regime was much more volatile. It;s capabilities of maintaining a gas pipe much less robust. So depending on your energy from a place like that is much more hazzardous.
And that is their ONLY other option for natural gas, which they use mostly for their energy because it's the cleanest of the traditional energy sources.
Merkel, who supported the US interests in Irak, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran, Syria, all against Russia and China, and who was praised by your top politicians. And your using a baseless lie from a book to call her a communist?
Scholz is a social Democrat. Just because American democrats are capitalist elites, that doesn't make European social democrats communists. They are just actual "social democrats", I guess that concept is foreign to you. Plus when has Scholz ever criticized NATO? The man ran on a pro NATO, anti communist left platform and is in a coalition with two other pro NATO countries.
He [Scholz] supported the Freudenberger Kreis, the Marxist wing of the Juso university groups, promoting "overcoming the capitalist economy" in articles.[7] In it, Scholz criticized the "aggressive-imperialist NATO", ...
German Wikipedia says the same thing, citing Handelsblatt.
As to Merkel, I would consider praise from Bush to be a negative. Trump certainly scolded her for dependence on Russian energy.
The book in question quotes two named sources who say Merkel was a communist agitator. How is that baseless? Her denial was weak. From the book review:
the book quotes Gunter Walther, a former colleague of hers at the Academy of Sciences in East Berlin, as saying she had been secretary for "Agitation and Propaganda" in the Freie Deutsche Jugend (FDJ) youth organization at the institute.
[...]
"With Agitation and Propaganda you're responsible for brainwashing in the sense of Marxism," [Krause] said. "That was her task and that wasn't cultural work. Agitation and Propaganda, that was the group that was meant to fill people's brains with everything you were supposed to believe in the GDR, with all the ideological tricks. And what annoys me about this woman is simply the fact that she doesn't admit to a closeness to the system in the GDR. From a scientific standpoint she wasn't indispensable at the Academy of Sciences. But she was useful as a pastor's daughter in terms of Marxism-Leninism. And she's denying that. But it's the truth."
Again, history, context, and knowledge of German politics matter. And I feel you have none of the above.
Regarding Scholz: You are citing a 30-year old article he wrote when he was a member of the youth party, which is known for its radical positions, mainly because it's run by idealist academic youth. If you have any idea about serious German politics, you'd know that in order to become a big player in the Social Democratic Party you'd have to walk back all of that youth nonsense. We have seen this happen many times in national politics and Scholz is no exception. Why don't you cite his endless pro US pro NATO speeches during the last election, or his refusal to go into a coalition with the German left-communist party, and instead working with the Liberal Democrats, a center-right party?
Regarding Merkel, again context matter. If you've lived in a communist country, you'd know that the Party reaches into every corner of society. And very often, in order to have a normal life, you are required to be part of the Communist Party, just to avoid being a suspect of the apparatus. Although it is hard to know for sure, because Merkel is a very private person, one would assume she had a similar story.
Not to mention, that she joined the Christian Democratic party right after the Berlin wall collapsed, a deeply anti-communist party, instead of deciding to join any of the splitter east-German splitter factions that form the current left-communist party.
Have you read the Spiegel article you are linking BTW? I doubt that. The article itself cites other sources that cast doubt on the objectivity of the book. Essentially it's a he-said-she-said accusation. And finally, she supported the US on Irak, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and and and... What ridiculous accusation.
So everything I wrote is true but you dismiss it because it happened a long time ago or some other nonsense. Yes, I read the whole Spiegel article, but as Merkel would say: "I can only rely on my memory. If something turns out to be different, I can live with that."
Next you two will be telling me that I shouldn't call out politicians for lying, because I'm missing the context that it's traditional for them to lie.
Further, we should never expect national leaders to be anything more than former apparatchicks, and pointing out that part of their history is totally uncool.
It looks like Russia will lose the Champions League (soccer) final that is scheduled to be played in St. Petersburg. Their national soccer team is in the qualifiers for one of the remaining European spots in next winter's World Cup and possible opponents have already requested that Russia not be permitted to host any matches in the country.
Would be more important if pro-Russian held teams around the world would shed themselves from the Oligarchs. (and in the UK maybe having an Ex-KGB agent + billionaire have multiple newspapers + a direct line to the PM is not the best thing either)
I think wrapped by technicalities these sanctions actually hurt, a lot. And yes, SWIFT requires all members to agree, and some Europeans did not want to. As well there is a need not to fully cripple some European countries need for gas and oil as well as to close ledgers without hurting international financial system. Having said that though the actions are harsh and will stay in place. Frances Coppola explained well what just has been initiated here https://twitter.com/Frances_Coppola/status/1496939859092684803?s=20&t=IX9XwaCXvInsPnEjsk7OMA
This is a siege on the besieger. And it will hurt the intended target, which is not Putin per se, unreachable really, but the oligarchs. The transactional relation between oligarchs and Putin was great before 2014; after that, the relationship was tolerable but still working well enough for both sides; but Ukraine can be THE issue. Yes, oligarchs want to save money; but they must get richer and be free to be and go and do everywhere, so not at any price. Putin instead wants legacy and revenge of the URSS humiliation; he seems more and more in his own world. Already today 2 24 meeting was quite more nervous and inquisitive toward Putin in an unheard way. Oligarchs do not care who is in charge and how as long as it benefits them. Years ago, one of them said that when things change in Russia, they change the jacket but the wallet stays in the pants. When you hurt their wallet, they think what’s next and they can pressure the circle around Putin, the siloviki.
Back to Ukraine. Putin and the Russian army are on a clock. They do not have unlimited resources, despite Russian bank reserves; they need parts, they need food. 200,000 soldiers as impressive as it might seem they cannot keep control of Ukraine and Ukraine is not Belarus or Kazakhstan or Georgia. They do have a (massive) weapon advantage, which makes US and NATO weary to engage. The hypersonic missiles are impossible to stop or to be spotted by radars before is too late and they have a lot of those. So, putting a carrier nearby is not a helpful deterrent, just a target that can be taken care by a single Zircon from a frigate. Any fixed strategic land post can be wiped out by Iskanders. Hard to accept but at today Russian army has some more advanced weapons for which nor US nor NATO have an answer. Putin knows that. But his army cannot control a vast country like Ukraine with armed rebels moving targets. So, a month from now music will be different. Best tactic for Biden is to make life harder for oligarchs, which means also harsher for Russian people. Expect more and more manifestations riots in Russia Belarus Georgia. First police will take care of those until they cannot. Then siloviki will take care of a business long due. They always did.
Bringing the oligarchs/siloviki a few notches down may be a positive domestic "collateral damage" - nobody in Russia will object to that. This may bring them more aligned to the "Chinese model" of billionaire-management: keep your riches but don't presume to run the show.
Looking at the first two days of invasion through the fog of war, the plan that emerges is to break Ukrainian resistance into pockets around cities, break the communication between them, control key roads and communications and wait for Zelensky to come to negotiating table and sign some sort of "neutrality papers". After that - declare "victory" and get the hell out ASAP. No further Russian occupation of Ukraine will be needed, internal political forces will settle the scores, but nobody in right mind will argue that EU and NATO is the savior in shiny armor that will "rescue Ukraine". Hopefully the influence of Azov and Pravy Sektor will diminish and situation of Russian minority improve long term.
Yawn. If you think "play all our cards at once so you're left sitting there with no cards left to play" is great strategy, then I want to play poker with you right now. And if you're going to dishonestly ignore that it is Germany, Italy, Hungary (Exalted Cyclops Carlson's new favorite country second to Russia) and Cyprus that are blocking SWIFT sanctions, then you can GFY. The sanctions are not solely Biden's to decide. Anyone pretending as such is a disinformant and might as well be taking rubles on the side.
Have you ever actually played poker before?
Sounds more like this guy plays UNO or Crazy Eights.
I was thinking Go Fish. He even said it: GFY = Go Fish, You!
If Russia is allowed to export gas but not allowed to import goods in exchange or use the proceeds to purchase goods, does that mean they're giving it away for free? I don't understand the implications of allowing as to go in one direction, if the nothing can go in return.
I am sure they will be able to use those USD or EUR elsewhere - as a result of 2014 Crimea sanctions Russia was able to substitute much of EU import dependency. Especially for agriculture it was a veritable gift after few years of initial pain.
That seems to be the gist of it to me. Russia can export their entire nation's resources, but if they can't import war-making goods in return, then it us doubly detrimental to them. So the effectiveness of sanctions doesn't have anything to do with what Russian exports are targeted (especially when preventing Russian exports would deprive the importer of a real good). What is important is how effective the sanctions are at preventing Russia from acquiring material goods.
There is very few strategic "war-making" goods that Russia needs in the first place, being probably the most autarkic country on the planet. Few things they might need (sophisticated chips for radars and such) they can get from China.
If that's really the case, then what deterrence would sanctions have? And why wouldnt Russia immediately cut off Europe from its gas, if they don't need anything in return for it?
That act would just accelerate decoupling Europe from Russian energy supplies, which is obviously not in their interest. At some point war will b e over and rational energy policies will have to be reevaluated. Many will point to the fact that even during war time, Russia fulfilled their contractual obligations - just like they did back in 80ies when hundreds of nuclear-armed Pershing missiles were being pointed at them.
The post-war energy dilemma will be most crucial for Germany: how to compete globally (esp. with China) when paying 2 times more energy cost that gets factored into any industrial output? Who is going to absorb that cost? One way would be to decrease paying into EU coffers, which will further destabilize the EU. The only reason the likes of Poland and Hungary are in there is to collect billions of euros every year in name of "development funds". Even more so in corrupt countries like Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia - the whole political class there thrives on how much "pork" they can bring home from Brussels.
Here is an interesting consideration about the biggest Germany export item:
https://www.motorbiscuit.com/how-much-energy-to-build-a-car/
I wonder if the Ukrainian army starts sabotaging the pipeline on its land. The consequences can be terrifying for Europe.
Hmmm.... I believe one fails to mention how much dependent these states are on Russia for their energy. That this is a problem... sure. But I wonder if the US was completely dependent on Russian gas if they would do this as well.
The problem in this is: where else to get your gas from.
Energy companies need to still work... and they are gas turbines. Slochteren in the Netherlands has greatly reduced it's outpour due to the problems it causes in being able to live in the North of the Netherlands where houses now getting into problems as the ground is clunking in as there is less gas to hold it all up.
So - where to get this energy from then?
Pray do tell....
This is one of the reasons why Germany is far ahead of the pack on Green energy: they have to.
But still with that - they are still heavily dependent on this rogue state.
This is also why Nord Stream 2 was going to be built.. Especially Germany needs it because its industry is still exanding.
spare a thought for WHERE this is heading. Yeah, real easy to beat the sanctions drum etc. The Russian continent is NOT going anywhere. So till (IF) the Russians overthrow Putin, or the Russian Armed Forces do a coup or such......we're even more precarious now than before. Ukraine is now a battlefield. Even if enough arms are shuffled to Ukraine to repel Russia, the devastation will be there. Erik Prince wanted Ukraine as an HQ for a mercenary base there valued at $10bn. Biden is neck deep in first hand experience in the buildup to this war, as is the DNC since the days of Viktor Pinchuk funneling campaign contributions. This war was a long time coming. Manafort included. Right to the top. Not a sudden development. Couldn't an entente have been reached? Some earnest listening?
The gloved hand regarding oil, the reality of our interdependent economies, may soon be forced.
It's actually gas, not oil. If it had been oil, it would be less problematic as there are more places to get it and you can transport it a lot easier.
Yes. I should have said "oil and gas."
I don't think this is well known whatsoever. I feel like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football held by Lucy.
Germany during the cold war wanted a healthy relationship with the ussr in case of potential unification with east germany. When the ussr collapsed and the unification was peaceful, many german politicians felt a sense of gratitude for not causing the end of the world and allowing the union dissolve peacefully ish
has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's about gas. which Germany uses for most of its energy production. And the only way it really makes sense to transport it is per pipeline. And there are very few other gas fields that still yield enough in the surrounding area to provide enough gas for Germany to keep it's people provided with electricity and heating by other means.
Is this a problem: Yes!
Should they have though about this before: yes!
Are they retooling their energy production: yes! (most advanced country in green energy) - is it enough? Hell no!
But this means that Germany is in a VERY awkward position right now....
So Trump's 2018 scolding of NATO was spot on? https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/10/politics/donald-trump-nato-summit-2018/index.html
And our beloved-by-Harvard-types Germany was spouting hot air? "Leyen also noted that Merkel has been at the forefront of diplomatic efforts to curb Russian aggression in Ukraine."
I guess you overlooked his 'Russia would be the easiest to talk to comment'
Also - this has 0 to do with that.
This is solely that Germany is dependent on Russia for it's Gas. Which is how most of its energy production happens (as it is of the carbon based fuels the least polluting)
I still don't understand Germany's decision to become completely energy dependent on Russia. Why on earth would they believe this was a tenable situation, even without a war on their doorstep?
Because it was a completely tenable and mutually beneficial relationship for 40+ years. Not a cubic meter missed, not a payment missed. It is another way around - why would US want to allow such relationship to exist when it could make Germany pay much more and keep it firmly in its own orbit:
https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/the-crisis-in-ukraine-is-not-about-ukraine-its-about-germany/
Along with Ukraine and Russia, Germany is another big loser in this war - expensive energy will factor into the price of industrial exports and make it less competitive in world markets compared to Chinese or other Asian industrial powers.
Big winners: Turkey (will happily expand gas pipelines esp. from Azerbaijan its junior "sister-state") and China (can get even more preferential deals from Russia as it is being cut off from EU/West)
Yes, what's a humanitarian crisis compared to higher energy prices...
Sadly, fates of millions of people compare poorly with geopolitical calculations of the powerful economic interests. One recent example is the French interest to preserve CFA Franc led to destruction of Libya and thousands drowning trying to reach Italian coast.
Let me know when we start to bomb Saudi Arabia, then.
Yes, creating another humanitarian crisis is the answer to the West's continued dependence on fossil fuel.
What Saudi Arabia is doing in Yemen is not a humanitarian crisis? But the West blows the Saudis kisses.
Saudi Arabia is another murderous dictatorship, but bombing is not the answer. We could hope that our governments would cut off dependence on fossil fuel, but the ugly truth is that many people in the Western world care more about cheap energy prices than human life. I don't see how bombing a country will change this ugly reality.
Who are their recent Chancellors?
1998-2005: Gerhard Schröder, now chairman of Nord Stream AG
2005-2021: Angela Merkel, possibly a former communist agitator
2021-now: Olaf Scholz, former young socialist, NATO-critic, and a protégé of Schröder
If you thin that Merkel or Scholz are not hard enough on Russia because of their "socialist" past you really lost the plot.
What is the plot? "Ami go home" has been a common slogan in Germany for many decades. The country still idolizes heroes like Rosa Luxemburg.
I'm not saying they should be harder on Russia. As one would expect, Germany views Russia differently than the US does, and socialist traditions are connected to that.
Scholz and Merkel are the last people to be anti-American (Merkel suppoerted the Iraq war!) or idolize Luxemburg. We are talking about the most boring centrist establishment politicians imaginable. I think the reason why Germany is so dependent on Russia is purely about economics and not ideology.
The reaosn why German Governments have been buying cheap Russian oil is not some Anti-American ideology but because it's cheap. Like that's it. You're overthinking it way too much.
Energy policy in Germany has a big ideological component. At huge cost, they are shutting down their nuclear plants and going green. But with Russia it's all about economics?
No - with Russia it's Gas. In good supply. And it's a source they could trust. The regimes don't have to like each other to see a mutual benefit. As much as Azerbeijan has Gas - it's regime was much more volatile. It;s capabilities of maintaining a gas pipe much less robust. So depending on your energy from a place like that is much more hazzardous.
And that is their ONLY other option for natural gas, which they use mostly for their energy because it's the cleanest of the traditional energy sources.
It's in line with the rest....
What a horribly uninformed comment.
Merkel, who supported the US interests in Irak, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran, Syria, all against Russia and China, and who was praised by your top politicians. And your using a baseless lie from a book to call her a communist?
Scholz is a social Democrat. Just because American democrats are capitalist elites, that doesn't make European social democrats communists. They are just actual "social democrats", I guess that concept is foreign to you. Plus when has Scholz ever criticized NATO? The man ran on a pro NATO, anti communist left platform and is in a coalition with two other pro NATO countries.
Typical brainded American opinion...
He [Scholz] supported the Freudenberger Kreis, the Marxist wing of the Juso university groups, promoting "overcoming the capitalist economy" in articles.[7] In it, Scholz criticized the "aggressive-imperialist NATO", ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olaf_Scholz
German Wikipedia says the same thing, citing Handelsblatt.
As to Merkel, I would consider praise from Bush to be a negative. Trump certainly scolded her for dependence on Russian energy.
The book in question quotes two named sources who say Merkel was a communist agitator. How is that baseless? Her denial was weak. From the book review:
the book quotes Gunter Walther, a former colleague of hers at the Academy of Sciences in East Berlin, as saying she had been secretary for "Agitation and Propaganda" in the Freie Deutsche Jugend (FDJ) youth organization at the institute.
[...]
"With Agitation and Propaganda you're responsible for brainwashing in the sense of Marxism," [Krause] said. "That was her task and that wasn't cultural work. Agitation and Propaganda, that was the group that was meant to fill people's brains with everything you were supposed to believe in the GDR, with all the ideological tricks. And what annoys me about this woman is simply the fact that she doesn't admit to a closeness to the system in the GDR. From a scientific standpoint she wasn't indispensable at the Academy of Sciences. But she was useful as a pastor's daughter in terms of Marxism-Leninism. And she's denying that. But it's the truth."
https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/new-book-suggests-angela-merkel-was-closer-to-communism-than-thought-a-899768.html
Anyway, I wrote below that it's natural for Germans to feel differently about Russia than the US does.
Again, history, context, and knowledge of German politics matter. And I feel you have none of the above.
Regarding Scholz: You are citing a 30-year old article he wrote when he was a member of the youth party, which is known for its radical positions, mainly because it's run by idealist academic youth. If you have any idea about serious German politics, you'd know that in order to become a big player in the Social Democratic Party you'd have to walk back all of that youth nonsense. We have seen this happen many times in national politics and Scholz is no exception. Why don't you cite his endless pro US pro NATO speeches during the last election, or his refusal to go into a coalition with the German left-communist party, and instead working with the Liberal Democrats, a center-right party?
Regarding Merkel, again context matter. If you've lived in a communist country, you'd know that the Party reaches into every corner of society. And very often, in order to have a normal life, you are required to be part of the Communist Party, just to avoid being a suspect of the apparatus. Although it is hard to know for sure, because Merkel is a very private person, one would assume she had a similar story.
Not to mention, that she joined the Christian Democratic party right after the Berlin wall collapsed, a deeply anti-communist party, instead of deciding to join any of the splitter east-German splitter factions that form the current left-communist party.
Have you read the Spiegel article you are linking BTW? I doubt that. The article itself cites other sources that cast doubt on the objectivity of the book. Essentially it's a he-said-she-said accusation. And finally, she supported the US on Irak, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and and and... What ridiculous accusation.
So everything I wrote is true but you dismiss it because it happened a long time ago or some other nonsense. Yes, I read the whole Spiegel article, but as Merkel would say: "I can only rely on my memory. If something turns out to be different, I can live with that."
(s)he waylays argument - you: oh... so you agree except for everything you wrote.
This is exactly why Europeans don't like Americans. You put 0 effort into understanding the other because it's not you.
Good luck buddy....
You are a hopeless waste of my time.
Next you two will be telling me that I shouldn't call out politicians for lying, because I'm missing the context that it's traditional for them to lie.
Further, we should never expect national leaders to be anything more than former apparatchicks, and pointing out that part of their history is totally uncool.
Interesting, though I'm not clear that Merkel fits this pattern.
It looks like Russia will lose the Champions League (soccer) final that is scheduled to be played in St. Petersburg. Their national soccer team is in the qualifiers for one of the remaining European spots in next winter's World Cup and possible opponents have already requested that Russia not be permitted to host any matches in the country.
Would be more important if pro-Russian held teams around the world would shed themselves from the Oligarchs. (and in the UK maybe having an Ex-KGB agent + billionaire have multiple newspapers + a direct line to the PM is not the best thing either)