Merkel does not accept criticism and believes she is being made “scapegoat” for war in Ukraine (www.pravda.com.ua)

submitted 1 month ago by Skiluros@sh.itjust.works to c/ukraine@sopuli.xyz

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] m0n0krom@social.vivaldi.net 1 points 1 month ago

It's a mistake to say that she (as a single person) is responsible for all the problems nowadays.

Do you think Putin woldn't have attacked, if Ukraine would have joined the NATO? Nobody knows. There is just no indication to believe such an step would have prevented the problems nowadays.

[-] Skiluros@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago

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

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

[-] m0n0krom@social.vivaldi.net 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

@Skiluros

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

Can you give some examples for that claim? Anyway, I still believe there were more people involved, a single person can not be made responsible for consolidation of his position.

[-] Skiluros@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 weeks ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[-] m0n0krom@social.vivaldi.net 0 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

@Skiluros

NS2 was build by Angela Merkel, alone? Of course not. Even if she would have build it by her own hands (alone) - she was elected by voters, you can not deny there were so many people involved.

What about Gerhard Schröder? Why not blame him? Or Daniela Schwesig? Again, the voters decided to put these people into power.

But I totally agree with you, that the reaction of europe politicans to russian imperialism was weak. There should have been much more attention and much more consequences (since the 90s).

[-] Skiluros@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 weeks ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you!