The German Dilemmas

[mindlight]

In an interesting interview for Spiegel magazine, Olaf Scholz laid out his understanding of the war.

Interview with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz: "There Cannot Be a Nuclear War"

In essence:
1) Germany is helping the Ukrainian military with some $2billion worth of military equipment

2) Big mistakes were made by previous German administrations both SPD and CDU relating to the strategic energy dependence on Russia. Approval should have been given for LNG terminals that allowed other suppliers in situations like this.

3) Germany's strategy of Ost Politik and rapprochement was an honorable one and it was not a mistake to try it even if Putin's aggression has proven it now naive.

4) He resents descriptions of his party as being pacifist and antiNATO and reminds us that it was Gerhard Schroeder that brought Germany back to combat missions and that they supported Adenauer when he brought Germany into NATO in the first place.

5) He recommended a good read: Masha Gessen's book "The Future is History: How Totalitarianism Reclaimed Russia."

6) He is worried that Putin's defeat in Ukraine could result in desperate acts like the use of nuclear or biochemical weapons.

The dilemma here is threefold:

1) If Germany stops paying for gas Europe and maybe the world will experience an economic collapse as a result of the fallout, there would be no money to help finance a Ukrainian recovery in that case. But so long as Germany pays for it, it is financing the war.

2) Germany's military has been so poorly funded over the last decades that it has no more surplus to give Ukraine and it will take years to repair the damage and fill the gaps. The Germans do not have the Soviet-style quick-fix equipment that the Ukrainians are trained with but can provide a measure of backfilling for NATO allies as they hand on soviet-style equipment. If he pushes too hard on the military front we could have a nuclear war on our hands.

3) Any peace agreement must cement borders and give iron glad security guarantees to Ukraine to prevent any further wars. The best way to do that is to bring Ukraine into NATO and the EU. But the costs of doing so would be high at a time when some core EU members are already balking at the costs of the EU project e.g. the French. Germany cannot pay for this alone even if its economy remains intact through this crisis.

How would you resolve the dilemmas?

 

[Nithavela]

4) He resents descriptions of his party as being pacifist and antiNATO and reminds us that it was Gerhard Schroeder that brought Germany back to combat missions and that they supported Adenauer when he brought Germany into NATO in the first place.

Al Qaida brought Germany back to combat missions. Schröder just happened to be chancellor at the time.

 

[Red Gold]

3) Germany's strategy of Ost Politik and rapprochement was an honorable one and it was not a mistake to try it even if Putin's aggression has proven it now naive.

I agree!

 

[Red Gold]

How would you resolve the dilemmas?

I really don't know.

 

[readywriter]

Pray.

 

[Robban]

In an interesting interview for Spiegel magazine, Olaf Scholz laid out his understanding of the war.

Interview with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz: "There Cannot Be a Nuclear War"

In essence:
1) Germany is helping the Ukrainian military with some $2billion worth of military equipment

2) Big mistakes were made by previous German administrations both SPD and CDU relating to the strategic energy dependence on Russia. Approval should have been given for LNG terminals that allowed other suppliers in situations like this.

3) Germany's strategy of Ost Politik and rapprochement was an honorable one and it was not a mistake to try it even if Putin's aggression has proven it now naive.

4) He resents descriptions of his party as being pacifist and antiNATO and reminds us that it was Gerhard Schroeder that brought Germany back to combat missions and that they supported Adenauer when he brought Germany into NATO in the first place.

5) He recommended a good read: Masha Gessen's book "The Future is History: How Totalitarianism Reclaimed Russia."

6) He is worried that Putin's defeat in Ukraine could result in desperate acts like the use of nuclear or biochemical weapons.

The dilemma here is threefold:

1) If Germany stops paying for gas Europe and maybe the world will experience an economic collapse as a result of the fallout, there would be no money to help finance a Ukrainian recovery in that case. But so long as Germany pays for it, it is financing the war.

2) Germany's military has been so poorly funded over the last decades that it has no more surplus to give Ukraine and it will take years to repair the damage and fill the gaps. The Germans do not have the Soviet-style quick-fix equipment that the Ukrainians are trained with but can provide a measure of backfilling for NATO allies as they hand on soviet-style equipment. If he pushes too hard on the military front we could have a nuclear war on our hands.

3) Any peace agreement must cement borders and give iron glad security guarantees to Ukraine to prevent any further wars. The best way to do that is to bring Ukraine into NATO and the EU. But the costs of doing so would be high at a time when some core EU members are already balking at the costs of the EU project e.g. the French. Germany cannot pay for this alone even if its economy remains intact through this crisis.

How would you resolve the dilemmas?

Germany should be free to choose where they get their energy from.

It is about being practical.

 

[Robban]

In an interesting interview for Spiegel magazine, Olaf Scholz laid out his understanding of the war.

Interview with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz: "There Cannot Be a Nuclear War"

In essence:
1) Germany is helping the Ukrainian military with some $2billion worth of military equipment

2) Big mistakes were made by previous German administrations both SPD and CDU relating to the strategic energy dependence on Russia. Approval should have been given for LNG terminals that allowed other suppliers in situations like this.

3) Germany's strategy of Ost Politik and rapprochement was an honorable one and it was not a mistake to try it even if Putin's aggression has proven it now naive.

4) He resents descriptions of his party as being pacifist and antiNATO and reminds us that it was Gerhard Schroeder that brought Germany back to combat missions and that they supported Adenauer when he brought Germany into NATO in the first place.

5) He recommended a good read: Masha Gessen's book "The Future is History: How Totalitarianism Reclaimed Russia."

6) He is worried that Putin's defeat in Ukraine could result in desperate acts like the use of nuclear or biochemical weapons.

The dilemma here is threefold:

1) If Germany stops paying for gas Europe and maybe the world will experience an economic collapse as a result of the fallout, there would be no money to help finance a Ukrainian recovery in that case. But so long as Germany pays for it, it is financing the war.

2) Germany's military has been so poorly funded over the last decades that it has no more surplus to give Ukraine and it will take years to repair the damage and fill the gaps. The Germans do not have the Soviet-style quick-fix equipment that the Ukrainians are trained with but can provide a measure of backfilling for NATO allies as they hand on soviet-style equipment. If he pushes too hard on the military front we could have a nuclear war on our hands.

3) Any peace agreement must cement borders and give iron glad security guarantees to Ukraine to prevent any further wars. The best way to do that is to bring Ukraine into NATO and the EU. But the costs of doing so would be high at a time when some core EU members are already balking at the costs of the EU project e.g. the French. Germany cannot pay for this alone even if its economy remains intact through this crisis.

How would you resolve the dilemmas?

The dilemma is one that faces many,

"Oh my goodness, what would the neighbours say?"

Neighbours talk, because that is what they do.

Let them talk.

 

[mindlight]

Germany should be free to choose where they get their energy from.

It is about being practical.

Yes, but without the strategic dependency that characterized the preamble to this war. It was a mistake not to have those LNG Terminals approved and in place because this opened up the option of importing from anywhere in the world rather than just from Russia.

The Russians have shot themselves in the foot with this war. They had a reliable and lucrative customer with the Germans which could have run for another 5 decades of trade. Now they have accelerated the Green revolution trend and those LNG terminals will import firstly alternative supplies of gas and finally green hydrogen. They stand to lose trillions of dollars of potential revenues as a result of this war. If they had looked like winning it easily maybe that would have been a worthwhile decision. But right now their best-case scenario looks like possible territorial gains in the Donbas, Eastern coastal Ukraine, and Crimea offset by Ukraine firmly relocating itself to Western alliances and the long-term loss of their primary export market.

 

[mindlight]

Pray.

God prefers informed prayers to mere babbling, but yes I agree.

 

[Red Gold]

It was a mistake not to have those LNG Terminals approved and in place because this opened up the option of importing from anywhere in the world rather than just from Russia.

Now-a-days any country in this world is better than Russia - thanks to Putin.

 

[mindlight]

Al Qaida brought Germany back to combat missions. Schröder just happened to be chancellor at the time.

So you would dispute the SPD warrior culture credentials ;-)

This statement by Scholz was the weakest he made and sounded like self-justification in the face of fierce criticism of his party. He may well have fought tooth and nail to re-establish the pro-NATO, militarily responsible credentials of the historical SPD. However, it is blatantly clear that many of those he triumphed over to become the party leader do not share his views and are a part of the problem, not the solution.

Schroeder is on the board of Gazprom, Norbert Walter-Borjans and Saskia Esken picked a fight with the CDU on defense spending in 2019, Manuela Schwesig's involvement with Nord Stream 2 are all burning examples of this.

I kind of like Scholz for arguing this however and it proves his fitness to be Chancellor. I just hope he can bring his party with him on their long march to sanity.

 

[Robban]

Yes, but without the strategic dependency that characterized the preamble to this war. It was a mistake not to have those LNG Terminals approved and in place because this opened up the option of importing from anywhere in the world rather than just from Russia.

The Russians have shot themselves in the foot with this war. They had a reliable and lucrative customer with the Germans which could have run for another 5 decades of trade. Now they have accelerated the Green revolution trend and those LNG terminals will import firstly alternative supplies of gas and finally green hydrogen. They stand to lose trillions of dollars of potential revenues as a result of this war. If they had looked like winning it easily maybe that would have been a worthwhile decision. But right now their best-case scenario looks like possible territorial gains in the Donbas, Eastern coastal Ukraine, and Crimea offset by Ukraine firmly relocating itself to Western alliances and the long-term loss of their primary export market.

If we, you, I and others were to stand in a court before a judge,

how would we like the judge to be?

I would like if he was completely empty of own opinion, bias that he heard both or all sides of a conflict.


but unfortunately it is not the way of the world.