The improvement in the Ukrainian army was primarily driven by internal needs. One region was annexed and two others were invaded. At the beginning of the russian invasion, Ukraine only had around 5,000 battle ready troops (as per local media); of course there would be a change in military posture. Much of the early anti-air defense (S300 variants) were procured under Poroshenko who understand the risks of having russia as neighbour.
Military advice and training were primarily provided by US, UK, Canada, the Baltic nations and Poland. Where exactly did Germany play a role in military support? Can you be clear and specific.
I will highlight the reaction of the German government to the initial use of the Bayraktar drones at the LOC before full scale invasion:
Also don’t forget that much of the performance of the Ukrainian army is also driven by motivation. Ukrainian soldiers are defending their country. Russian are fighting for loot and their Tsar.
Germany under Merkel did nothing from a military perspective and ignored and enabled every escalation by the russians. Show me how I am wrong.
I will highlight the reaction of the German government to the initial use of the Bayraktar drones at the LOC before full scale invasion:
That wasn’t Merkel but Scholz, fresh in office. Or rather Baerbock probably, doing her job while the Chancellor was trying to get to grips with the overall situation of 16 years of CDU government.
Germany under Merkel did nothing from a military perspective and ignored and enabled every escalation by the russians. Show me how I am wrong.
They believed in Minsk. Or at least they believed that someone needed to believe in it, make an effort. Support went into the OSCE monitoring mission as well as general NATO initiatives, including exercises in Ukraine. Surveillance, both drones and satellites, and you might not want to hear it but but medical capabilities. Military ones, that is.
Traditionally, within the European context, it falls to France and the UK to be hawks, and Germany to be the brake… UK was (and still is) busy with Brexit fallout I think supporting Ukraine is the only thing that gives them joy and purpose right now, France, well, you’ve seen Macron in Moscow.
Long story short yes we all know we should’ve listened to the Poles but that doesn’t mean that everyone who didn’t just blindly strengthened Russia’s position.
And you know what? People make fun of Wandel durch Handel, but there’s an aspect that’s often overlooked: The entanglement. Without Germany getting into Russia they’d still be able to make their own ball bearings. The idea is that a rational actor wouldn’t kill off their own economy and, well, in the end it turns out Putin isn’t a rational actor. But at least their economy is toast, which it wouldn’t be if Russia had been isolated all those years.
Ultimately this war will be won through economics causing a collapse, internal revolt, putsch, whatever, and it’s not going to take long now because Russia is way overextended, cracks are forming quicker than they can patch them. Some of them very literally, as in district heating and winter is coming.
Russia could, probably, have been bitch-slapped back into its own borders by NATO on day one and nothing bad would’ve happened but a pissed Putin, but the powers that be thought that to be risky, and whether they were right or wrong it’s the situation we’re in right now. IMO, we can talk about assigning blame and generally divisive stuff as soon as Ukraine is whole, again, not much sense doing it now.
The Bayraktar example is a general example of broader German policy. It’s not like Merkel’s reaction would be any different. I am just highlighting how shallow Merkel’s statement are about giving Ukraine time to prepare.
We are not discussing France, UK. We are discussing Germany. Specifically Merkel’s claims.
I am not a PhD in history. Yet, even I know that russians are incapable of good faith actions (nothing inherent about russian culture, it’s just a fact). Merkel knows this too, so I don’t buy the “believing in Minsk” BS. At best, it was PR cover for enabling russian genocidal imperialism.
Nothing to do with assigning blame. I am not looking for someone to blame. What I am saying is that Merkel supports russian genocidal imperialism. She might claim to oppose it in terms for platitudes, but de facto she supports russia conquering independent countries and exterminating their cultures.
“Support” implies intent, at least it usually does.
Back in the 90s, early 00s, there was a definite possibility of Russia getting its shit together, they actually had, for a change, a civil society. In that sense believing in Russia’s capability to not drive that cart of theirs as blindly as usual is not entirely naive, heck, plenty of Russians believed in it, even through all those layers of fatalism. I agree though Putin showed his true colours way before Merkel got elected but then there’s other reasons why the German foreign ministry really doesn’t like the concept of “diplomacy is pointless”. To them that’s, for better or worse, defeatism: War is the continuation of politics with different means, sure, but maybe if you end up at war then you need to get better at politics. That’s how they think.
What is intent though in this context? If all you actions go against your publicly stated intent, then what is the value of you public statements.
Back in the 90s, early 00s, there was a definite possibility of Russia getting its shit together, they actually had, for a change, a civil society.
What are you referring to? Mind you, I agree with the statement (I lived in russia in the 90s and 2000s), I am just curious how this is related to Merkel who was elected in 2005 and have a very consistent foreign policy approach to russia throughout all her rule. She always supported and enabled russian genocidal imperialism (show me an action that would suggest this is not true).
She didn’t come up with the Wandel durch Handel doctrine, that one goes back to the 60s – and it worked with the Soviets, at least apparently so. It wasn’t just Merkel who had a consistent foreign policy Germany in general has a very consistent foreign policy, no matter the government. There’s been like three major shifts total in the whole history of the republic (Ostpolitik, Signing off on the Kosovo intervention, now Zeitenwende).
As said I’m not actually trying to defend her, here, just trying to contextualise all this in German politics, but two things about her: Firstly, she just plainly lacks imagination or vision. Her MO has always been status quo, so don’t attribute to malice that which can be attributed to being a conservative. Secondly, she plainly didn’t have the power to change anything: The chancellor alone is not powerful enough in German politics to impose or create such a shift. When Scholz proclaimed the Zeitenwende he did exactly that – proclaim it. He didn’t cause it. It wasn’t about some politicians or some foreign ministry bureaucrats analysing strategy, it was about the country as a whole being fed up with Russia’s antics, the invasion was the last straw. Ostpolitik came against a backdrop of the people being fed up with going along with the US’s militarism (e.g. Vietnam). Kosovo, well, not really a shift but a clarification: Yes going to war to stop a genocide is a perfectly valid thing to do.
There’s plenty of things Merkel should be crucified for, but I can’t blame our stance regarding Russia on her because if she had tried to make a meaningful change the country wouldn’t have followed. Worse, it probably would have strengthened the position of the Putinversteher by claiming Russophobia.
What she absolutely could and should’ve done is not kill off our solar energy sector, not be beholden to fossil fuel (and nuclear) corporate interests, not been a complete brake on the energy transition. No German would’ve minded her telling Russia “well yes we’re going to stop buying, you should invest that money we already gave you wisely there won’t be coming much more”. I can see how that, from an Ukrainian perspective, can seem like “she wanted to support Russia” – nah. She wanted to support RWE, EnBW, etc, big German electricity companies who moved their investments to renewable energy way too late.
If you want to hate on someone may I propose Schröder. He’s on record, this year, saying that there’s free elections in Russia. Don’t worry about the elections btw Ukraine support has a steady 2/3rd majority with more than half of that more hawkish than Scholz. Might have to go back on the legalisation of cannabis but if that’s to be our punishment, then so be it.
The improvement in the Ukrainian army was primarily driven by internal needs. One region was annexed and two others were invaded. At the beginning of the russian invasion, Ukraine only had around 5,000 battle ready troops (as per local media); of course there would be a change in military posture. Much of the early anti-air defense (S300 variants) were procured under Poroshenko who understand the risks of having russia as neighbour.
Military advice and training were primarily provided by US, UK, Canada, the Baltic nations and Poland. Where exactly did Germany play a role in military support? Can you be clear and specific.
I will highlight the reaction of the German government to the initial use of the Bayraktar drones at the LOC before full scale invasion:
https://euromaidanpress.com/2021/10/28/berlin-concerned-by-ukraine-using-bayraktar-drone-but-not-by-russian-separatist-side-using-banned-weapons/
Also don’t forget that much of the performance of the Ukrainian army is also driven by motivation. Ukrainian soldiers are defending their country. Russian are fighting for loot and their Tsar.
Germany under Merkel did nothing from a military perspective and ignored and enabled every escalation by the russians. Show me how I am wrong.
That wasn’t Merkel but Scholz, fresh in office. Or rather Baerbock probably, doing her job while the Chancellor was trying to get to grips with the overall situation of 16 years of CDU government.
They believed in Minsk. Or at least they believed that someone needed to believe in it, make an effort. Support went into the OSCE monitoring mission as well as general NATO initiatives, including exercises in Ukraine. Surveillance, both drones and satellites, and you might not want to hear it but but medical capabilities. Military ones, that is.
Traditionally, within the European context, it falls to France and the UK to be hawks, and Germany to be the brake… UK was (and still is) busy with Brexit fallout I think supporting Ukraine is the only thing that gives them joy and purpose right now, France, well, you’ve seen Macron in Moscow.
Long story short yes we all know we should’ve listened to the Poles but that doesn’t mean that everyone who didn’t just blindly strengthened Russia’s position.
And you know what? People make fun of Wandel durch Handel, but there’s an aspect that’s often overlooked: The entanglement. Without Germany getting into Russia they’d still be able to make their own ball bearings. The idea is that a rational actor wouldn’t kill off their own economy and, well, in the end it turns out Putin isn’t a rational actor. But at least their economy is toast, which it wouldn’t be if Russia had been isolated all those years.
Ultimately this war will be won through economics causing a collapse, internal revolt, putsch, whatever, and it’s not going to take long now because Russia is way overextended, cracks are forming quicker than they can patch them. Some of them very literally, as in district heating and winter is coming.
Russia could, probably, have been bitch-slapped back into its own borders by NATO on day one and nothing bad would’ve happened but a pissed Putin, but the powers that be thought that to be risky, and whether they were right or wrong it’s the situation we’re in right now. IMO, we can talk about assigning blame and generally divisive stuff as soon as Ukraine is whole, again, not much sense doing it now.
The Bayraktar example is a general example of broader German policy. It’s not like Merkel’s reaction would be any different. I am just highlighting how shallow Merkel’s statement are about giving Ukraine time to prepare.
We are not discussing France, UK. We are discussing Germany. Specifically Merkel’s claims.
I am not a PhD in history. Yet, even I know that russians are incapable of good faith actions (nothing inherent about russian culture, it’s just a fact). Merkel knows this too, so I don’t buy the “believing in Minsk” BS. At best, it was PR cover for enabling russian genocidal imperialism.
Nothing to do with assigning blame. I am not looking for someone to blame. What I am saying is that Merkel supports russian genocidal imperialism. She might claim to oppose it in terms for platitudes, but de facto she supports russia conquering independent countries and exterminating their cultures.
“Support” implies intent, at least it usually does.
Back in the 90s, early 00s, there was a definite possibility of Russia getting its shit together, they actually had, for a change, a civil society. In that sense believing in Russia’s capability to not drive that cart of theirs as blindly as usual is not entirely naive, heck, plenty of Russians believed in it, even through all those layers of fatalism. I agree though Putin showed his true colours way before Merkel got elected but then there’s other reasons why the German foreign ministry really doesn’t like the concept of “diplomacy is pointless”. To them that’s, for better or worse, defeatism: War is the continuation of politics with different means, sure, but maybe if you end up at war then you need to get better at politics. That’s how they think.
What is intent though in this context? If all you actions go against your publicly stated intent, then what is the value of you public statements.
What are you referring to? Mind you, I agree with the statement (I lived in russia in the 90s and 2000s), I am just curious how this is related to Merkel who was elected in 2005 and have a very consistent foreign policy approach to russia throughout all her rule. She always supported and enabled russian genocidal imperialism (show me an action that would suggest this is not true).
She didn’t come up with the Wandel durch Handel doctrine, that one goes back to the 60s – and it worked with the Soviets, at least apparently so. It wasn’t just Merkel who had a consistent foreign policy Germany in general has a very consistent foreign policy, no matter the government. There’s been like three major shifts total in the whole history of the republic (Ostpolitik, Signing off on the Kosovo intervention, now Zeitenwende).
As said I’m not actually trying to defend her, here, just trying to contextualise all this in German politics, but two things about her: Firstly, she just plainly lacks imagination or vision. Her MO has always been status quo, so don’t attribute to malice that which can be attributed to being a conservative. Secondly, she plainly didn’t have the power to change anything: The chancellor alone is not powerful enough in German politics to impose or create such a shift. When Scholz proclaimed the Zeitenwende he did exactly that – proclaim it. He didn’t cause it. It wasn’t about some politicians or some foreign ministry bureaucrats analysing strategy, it was about the country as a whole being fed up with Russia’s antics, the invasion was the last straw. Ostpolitik came against a backdrop of the people being fed up with going along with the US’s militarism (e.g. Vietnam). Kosovo, well, not really a shift but a clarification: Yes going to war to stop a genocide is a perfectly valid thing to do.
There’s plenty of things Merkel should be crucified for, but I can’t blame our stance regarding Russia on her because if she had tried to make a meaningful change the country wouldn’t have followed. Worse, it probably would have strengthened the position of the Putinversteher by claiming Russophobia.
What she absolutely could and should’ve done is not kill off our solar energy sector, not be beholden to fossil fuel (and nuclear) corporate interests, not been a complete brake on the energy transition. No German would’ve minded her telling Russia “well yes we’re going to stop buying, you should invest that money we already gave you wisely there won’t be coming much more”. I can see how that, from an Ukrainian perspective, can seem like “she wanted to support Russia” – nah. She wanted to support RWE, EnBW, etc, big German electricity companies who moved their investments to renewable energy way too late.
If you want to hate on someone may I propose Schröder. He’s on record, this year, saying that there’s free elections in Russia. Don’t worry about the elections btw Ukraine support has a steady 2/3rd majority with more than half of that more hawkish than Scholz. Might have to go back on the legalisation of cannabis but if that’s to be our punishment, then so be it.