And yet she didn't bother to take his words seriously and maybe consider whether de facto backing russia (e.g. thinking moving forward with Nord Stream 2 after the annexation of Crimea was a good idea).

[–] nexusband@lemmy.world 10 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

I'm going to get down voted, but it's a bit more complicated than that. Granted, in hindsight the "economic binding" strategy was clearly wrong and a bad call, but at the time "we" believed Putin that he will honor agreements and be a trustworthy partner. And that he will honor Russian economy over territorial things, that do not matter at all for the standing of russia - hell, even back then the consensus was that Russia will utterly fail if they try something stupid, because they "needed" the gas money more, than we needed their gas. And while that downfall will take a few more years, it is inevitable. I admit though, I could not have been more wrong about some things...

[–] Skiluros@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

I will have to disagree.

I don't think she intended to be malicious per se (that would be Schroder), but Merkel definitely had a deep respect for russian imperial ambitions if not a roundabout show of support for russia's land expansion.

Something along the lines of "well, what they are doing is wrong, but we'll just have to keep supporting russia in hope that they will become normal in 30 years. The ends justify the means so to speak, except there are no ends in the case, it's just Merkel enabling russia.

Reading through her comments after the full scale invasion, I get the impression she hasn't changed her view and on an outcome basis supports the annexation of Ukrainian territories. Sure, she'll say it's wrong, but she will always oppose any real actions to kick russia out of Ukraine.

[–] massive_bereavement@fedia.io 8 points 11 hours ago

peace for our time*!

::: spoiler read time as while I'm in office :::

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io -4 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I'm sure this gets downvoted & censored by the mods again, but it was equally as dumb, if not dumber, of Ukraine to bomb the pipeline. Imagine Germany came to Ukraine and bombed their pipelines coming out of Russia, or whatever other infrastructure they have political issues with. Sabotage acts like this against an ally's infrastructure are absolutely not okay and could normally be considered an act of war, regardless of what you think of the pipeline from a political point of view. Can't say I feel good with Ukraine's EU application now, and Poland's EU membership as well, since they were also involved. It's like Ukraine & Poland do not recognize Germany's sovereignty, which is precisely the way Russia thinks of Ukraine and other countries.

[–] Skiluros@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I see where you are coming from, but I think this is not comparable.

Imagine if russia invaded Germany. Took over Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (renaming it to Putlergrad oblast), banned German and forced everyone to speak russian and get russian citizenship. In the mean-time Ukraine and Poland would build a pipeline to the newly annexed Putlergrad oblast. How would you feel then?

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io -2 points 8 hours ago

False equivalence. The pipeline did not go to what I presume would be Crimea in this example. Either way, I would not bomb Poland's or Ukraine's pipeline, especially after it was shut down anyway and would've easily been solved through politics rather than terrorist like actions - especially considering that Germany is one of Ukraine's biggest contributors. If Germany was somehow taken over by the AfD or whatever, then fine, bomb away, because at that point you'd have a hostile and Russia aligned government anyway. If you want to join the West, the EU, then you'd have to be better than Russia, not act like them.

[–] massive_bereavement@fedia.io 2 points 11 hours ago

What's with the 'tude on the napoleonic wars soldier?