Hacker News Reader

Comment by _Codemonkeyism | Hacker News Reader

As a German reading the German press I think any government except the current conservative one would wiggle out of any NATO operation in the baltic states.

Support for the Yugoslavia effort was mainly based on the genocide there and some people felt some obligation because of the holocaust and German war crimes in Yugoslavia during WW2. It's exactly the opposite with Russia. Contrary to every evidence Russia is seen as a victim by large parts of the population.

"Russia is in fact the weak party"

With Crimea, South Ossetia, Abkhazia etc. etc. Russia doesn't look like the weak party to me.

View on HN

I live in Germany too but I still fail to see where you get your assessment from. What are those "other" governments you are talking about? AfD and die Linke coalition? Because they are the only ones who have problems with NATO and love Russia. Both are far away from being even considered seriously in day to day business and their ties to Russia are a topic for itself.

> Contrary to every evidence Russia is seen as a victim by large parts of the population.

Do you seriously believe Russia would be seen as a victim when it invades another country? Seriously? By whom? AfD? And how would that new invasion look like to you? People welcoming the Russian Freedomfighters? Do you thing there would be no dead people there?!

And why should it be seen positively when the invasion in Ukraine has not been seen positively while the sanctions against Russia are seen positively: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/292793/umfrag... even though Germany is among those who are hurt by those sanctions.

> With Crimea, South Ossetia, Abkhazia etc. etc. Russia doesn't look like the weak party to me.

Please don't kid yourself. Most people here don't even know where this is and their illegal involvement in Ukraine made them the evil guy for a long time. It did not help them at all and it doesn't help your point at all.

I really wonder where you come from. AfD, Linke, Querfront?

I think any government of SPD and Greens will wiggle out. Obvously any government with the communists (Linke). Don't think a government with AfD will happen soon or ever.

"Please don't kid yourself. Most people don't even know where this is and their illegal involvement in Ukraine made them the evil guy for a long time. It did not help them at all and it doesn't help your point at all."

After rereading this, I still can't follow your point.

"Do you seriously believe Russia would be seen as a victim when it invades another country? Seriously? By whom? AfD?"

If Russia plays the Russian-minority-we-have-nothing-to-do-with-it-Crimea-shenanigans with the baltic state, yes.

Russia is seen as the victim of the Ukraine crisis.

50% of SPD members/voters - more if it's left dominated as it currenty is compared to a Schmidt/Schroeder/Brand rightist dominated SPD - 50% of Green members/voters - less if Realos dominate like Fisher, but the Greens are currently dominated by Fundi positions - 100% of Linke voters of course, no clue about AfD.

Just read [1] for example, 39% of people in Germany think Germany should accept Crimea as part of Russia. In a government without the conservatives that position would have the majority.

Or here [2], majority of people in France (53), Italy (51) and Germany (58) would not defend an eastern NATO country attaked by Russia.

[1] http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2014-11/deutsche-umfr...

[2] http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/umfrage-zur-ukrai...

> I think any government of SPD and Greens will wiggle out.

What is this supposed to be based on? SPD and Greens were those who sent troops to Yugoslavia and the Greens had some values back then. Here is a statement by them supporting the sanctions: https://www.gruene-bundestag.de/presse/audiovideo/statement-...

Besides that, both SPD and Grüne and SPD and Linke are far away from forming a government without CDU. Not even mentioning that SPD doesn't even take Linke serious.

> If Russia plays the Russian-minority-we-have-nothing-to-do-with-it-Crimea-shenanigans with the baltic state, yes.

This didn't even work out in the Ukraine. They are still losing big money there every day and they are stuck just like in those other regions at the end of the world you've mentioned as signs of strength.

> Russia is seen as the victim of the Ukraine crisis. 50% of SPD members/voters -....

Where do you get this from? Why not provide source for this? Instead you come with a 2014 source on Crimea.

Adding to my Russia is weak and support for Russia is low even though Germany suffers from the sanctions: http://www.rp-online.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/russland-sank... Pay attention to the third last paragraph:

> Die restlichen 91 Prozent kämen zustande, weil keine Finanzierungsmöglichkeiten in Russland mehr für den Import bereitstünden.

@your Ninja Edit [2]:

> Gleichzeitig äußern große Mehrheiten – in der Regel zwei Drittel und mehr – die Erwartung, die Vereinigten Staaten würden militärische Gewalt anwenden, um das bedrängte Land zu verteidigen.

So short of half of the people don't want to go to war but most expect the US to do it for them. You would have to twist this like hell to interpret that those people support Russia in any way. Further down there is a 23% support for Putin in Germany. Which contradicts your assumptions above and covers pretty much the radical left and right party voters/members. They are by far no majority and this is already the highest number in the EU.

"SPD and Greens were those who sent troops to Yugoslavia"

Both the SPD (Schroeder) and Greens (Fischer) where right dominated past then. Both parties are left dominated now.

"Here is a statement by them supporting the sanctions"

I thought we were talking about the NATO case in Germany when NATO is attacked by Russia, not sanctions.

The quoted article states 58% of Germans would not support Germany defending east European states when being attacked by Russia. 58% looks like a majority of people to me.

"They are still losing big money there every day and they are stuck just like in those other regions at the end of the world you've mentioned as signs of strength."

Repeattly annexing parts out of other countries without a military response looks like a sign of strengh to me.

"Besides that, both SPD and Grüne and SPD and Linke are far away from forming a government without CDU."

Why are you not providing a source for that?

"They are still losing big money"

Why are you not providing a source for that?

"Greens had some values back then."

Why are you not providing a source for that?

"above and covers pretty much the radical left and right party voters/members. "

Why are you not providing a source for that?

Stupid game, isn't it?

> Both the SPD (Schroeder) and Greens (Fischer) where right dominated past then. Both parties are left dominated now.

What?! :D This is by far the most ridiculous thing I've heard yet in this topic. Why are you doing that? To confuse all those non-Germans here? What a nasty strategy. Both did come to power BECAUSE OF THEIR LEFT ATTITUDE and to remove the right attitude.

> I thought we were talking about the NATO case in Germany when NATO is attacked by Russia, not sanctions.

You brought that myth of Germans supporting Russia and looking away when a country is invaded by Russia. Now you want to distance yourself from it?

> The quoted article states 58% of Germans would not support Germany defending east European states when being attacked by Russia. 58% looks like a majority of people to me.

I have already quoted and answered that based on your own source which says that they don't want to go themselfes but expect the US to do it for them. This also not in a marginal amount but 2/3rd and more according to your own source.

What are you trying there? Are you being paid for this?

> Repeattly annexing parts out of other countries without a military response looks like a sign of strengh to me.

Nobody even knows where this is. It's far away from Europe. Therefore of course nobody would send soldiers from Germany there. However on the topic here, we are talking about Estonia, Poland etc. People would do care about those if Russia would invade them. And those invasions would not be as cheap as ripping of parts of some backwater countries at the end of the world.

I've written that above twice. You are obviously trying to tire me out here.

> Why are you not providing a source for that?

No you play dump? I thought you are reading "newspapers", did you miss the recent election results or what was going on since then? Let me help your well informed background out: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=election+results+germany+2017

> Why are you not providing a source for that?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/vladimir-ryzhkov/syria-cost-r...

Also first result in google.

> "Greens had some values back then."

Do you now want to pretend that you missed what comulated in the most famous Farbbeutel attack? Is this what is left of your strategy? Ignoring key events in German history, ignoring recent election results, playing dump?

I'll bite. Here is the speech that came after it http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/wortlaut-auszuege-...

> "above and covers pretty much the radical left and right party voters/members. "

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/bundestagswahl-die-afd-pa...

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/afd-verteidigt-put...

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/die-linke-und-russland-wa...

https://www.mdr.de/nachrichten/politik/inland/linke-gegen-ru...

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/linkspartei-in-der...

All very well known to even half good informed "newspaper reader". Not to you? How come? Maybe we should get back to you: where are you coming from? What are those newspapers that let you miss all those key events and facts while leading you to this Russia Today standpoint on Russia?

We ban accounts that cross into incivility in arguments like this. If you want to keep posting here, please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take both the spirit and the letter of the rules to heart. This is necessary to preserve the container for discussion that we all benefit from.

> Support for the Yugoslavia effort was mainly based on the genocide there and some people felt some obligation because of the holocaust and German war crimes in Yugoslavia during WW2.

The breakaway Yugoslav republics Croatia & Slovenia were recognised first by Vatican & then by Germany. At that point, no fighting has started. It could be argued that their recognition ignited the conflict.

A good comparison would be if Vatican & Germany recognised Catalonia and started to arm them.

> It's exactly the opposite with Russia.

Well, NATO bombed Yugoslavia, in 1999. under the made up charges of ethnic cleansing, but it was only after the NATO offensive started, that the people started to migrate, to avoid the conflict.

An interesting fact to consider is that the bunkers built during the Hitler's German occupation of Serbia were staffed by German soldiers, in their first military action after the WW2.

Comparisons with Russia are not applicable in this case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com