Why Has Germany Been So Slow to Deliver Weapons?
spiegel.de
spiegel.de
I'm one of the other half. Ukraine is a country that has been failing to meet European standards for corruption for decades, has had a history of gas disappearing in their territory (the gas transit disputes were a staple for European political entertainment every year since at least 1995), got billions of EU monies for improving their situation just to show no tangible results, has been price-gouging other European partners, and now sent someone to be their ambassador to Berlin who would be kicked out of any respectable pub (and most that aren't) for being completely undiplomatic.
In short: The Ukraine was not a reliable partner in the past. Russia, on the other hand, while being massively corrupt always delivered what they promised.
I have deep compassion for individual Ukrainians during this war. But I think it's probably best for Germany and Europe to not get involved too deeply. Scholz, for all his failures, does the right thing here.
What does that any of this have to do with innocent civilians, including children, who are being slaughtered by Russia?
European intervention is predicated on the following concepts, none of which are addressed by your comment:
- This is an unprovoked invasion of a country that unilaterally disarmed under the promise that Russia wouldn't invade them.
- Russia is testing NATO's tolerance for invasion and conquest, which is also something China will be closely watching as they consider annexation of Taiwan and likely many other countries.
- Many civilians who have nothing to do with global politics are being killed, again for absolutely no reason. Russia's entire pretext for this invasion was the warming relationship between Ukraine and NATO.
> Russia, on the other hand, while being massively corrupt always delivered what they promised.
Russia has been waging a cyber war on NATO countries, especially the US, for years. They are openly hostile to NATO countries. They will "deliver what they promised" until it doesn't suit them anymore. If they are able to rebuild an empire, they may not need Germany for their economic engine as badly as they do now.
> I have deep compassion for individual Ukrainians during this war.
None of the rest of your comment suggests this at all. If you have compassion for them and so do most European voters, why shouldn't Europe act on that compassion?
If you don't treat similar situations similarly, the only option on how to act is in your own interest.
> - This is an unprovoked invasion of a country that unilaterally disarmed under the promise that Russia wouldn't invade them.
Even if that was in any way relevant to the current situation: How long do you think such a promise should be good for, and should it still be good for countries that have had a less than stellar track record when it came to international relations afterwards?
> - Russia is testing NATO's tolerance for invasion and conquest, which is also something China will be closely watching as they consider annexation of Taiwan and likely many other countries.
Note how both Russia and China do not need to test tolerances, as both of them are capable nuclear powers with primary and secondary strike capabilities. As Biden is unlikely to sacrifice New York for Kiev, or San Francisco for Taipeh, this is a moot point.
> - Many civilians who have nothing to do with global politics are being killed, again for absolutely no reason. Russia's entire pretext for this invasion was the warming relationship between Ukraine and NATO.
A warming relationship that was started by a clear US intelligence operation with Euromaidan and likely still is heavily supported by money right out of Langley. Maybe Europeans, the designated battlefield in an US/Russia war, should not fan that fire any more.
> Russia has been waging a cyber war on NATO countries, especially the US, for years.
And still, whenever we look at proof for this, we see explanations like 'the code has some cyrillic script in it', which is easily fakeable. I've yet to see definite proof of successful Russian hacking that goes beyond 'script-kiddie' levels. On the other hand, we do know of not one, but several US units that openly plan and execute hacking attacks (Stuxnet, anyone?)
> They are openly hostile to NATO countries.
They were friendly enough delivering gas while we were still paying them.
> None of the rest of your comment suggests this at all. If you have compassion for them and so do most European voters, why shouldn't Europe act on that compassion?
Compassion also can mean not speaking in support of a war that eventually will be lost, heavy weapons or not, but will still kill hundreds each day.
So why do European countries still send weapons? Because that's the perfect opportunity to get rid of the old trash and buy some shiny new toys (and the US hopes they're going to buy American).
The US has not invaded a democratic, friendly country in several generations.
> If you don't treat similar situations similarly, the only option on how to act is in your own interest.
That's ridiculous. That's like saying if you can't save everyone, you shouldn't try to save anyone. Doing the right thing in Ukraine does not require doing the right thing everywhere.
There's no point in my arguing with you because you are starting with a moral premise -- black-and-white whataboutism -- that is both extreme and uncommon. Governments should do what their citizens vote them to do, and most voters/human don't agree that we should ignore Russia invading Ukraine because we don't support regime change in Turkey.
Applying your morality uniformly, Europe should either go on a worldwide rampage and try to topple every moderately corrupt leader (including those, like Zelenskyy, who were elected democratically), or they should allow Russia and China to build empires by toppling democracies. It's one or the other -- you can't be inconsistent, right?
Ah, so innocent civilians in countries the US does not consider democratic and/or friendly are fair game to be slaughtered. Gotcha.
> Governments should do what their citizens vote them to do, and most voters/human don't agree that we should ignore Russia invading Ukraine because we don't support regime change in Turkey.
If you read the article carefully, you will understand that in Germany, the split between '1939 revival world tour' and 'hey, maybe not get involved' is pretty much 50/50. In that case, government should default on keeping their options open without a full commitment - which incidentally is exactly what Scholz is doing.
What is refreshing to see is that regardless of state-run media and the openly pro-NATO Springer press's best efforts, instead of people flocking into the jingoistic camp I do see people to become more sceptical. The situation is likely to topple completely in three to four months, when the heating period starts, but not the heating.
> It's one or the other -- you can't be inconsistent, right?
This is a wilful twisting of my argument, which was explicitly about which side to support in time of wars of aggression, the most of which originated on the other side of the Atlantic.
Personally I also do not think that Russia is committing genocide. I don't even believe those that declare it as such are honest with their opinion. There are heinous acts that aren't genocide and there isn't a ladder from least bad to worst where there is genocide at the end. Just as it isn't a competition on which country is the worst.
The invasion of Ukraine cannot be justified and will lead to a lot of dead people. There are also heinous war crimes but there don't seem to be signs of genocide. That doesn't make it less bad.
It is clear that the main reason behind the invasion is to take control over Ukrainian land and natural resources (especially oil and natural gas that was discovered in 2012). This is clearly an imperialist ambition, but by itself does not make this invasion a genocide.
What makes it genocide is the plan how to solve the Ukrainian question, that is, what to do with the people who oppose Russian invasion in Ukraine and do not accept that Ukraine will become Russian territory.
So far 5 parliaments (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland and Canada) have declared Russian actions in Ukraine as genocide.
If you think that these parliaments are too much politically motivated, then here is one independent legal analysis
https://newlinesinstitute.org/russia/an-independent-legal-an...
Historian and holocaust researcher Timothy Snyder has written about the topic on multiple occasions.
The following was written after Russian state news agency RIA Novosti published an article about "Ukrainian question" just after revelation of the Bucha massacre:
https://snyder.substack.com/p/russias-genocide-handbook
This writing helps to understand the ideology behind these actions and justifications:
https://snyder.substack.com/p/russias-easter-offensive
Here is a video in Russian (switch on subtitles) that helps to put everything into better context
You can't be serious, or you think what you say is demonstration of decent human being who supports European values?
There is a major difference between Russia and Ukraine - willingness of Ukrainians to move toward European values while Russia is moving in other direction in light speed.
Worse, Putin Russia is financing political instability in Europe by directly funding both far right and far left parties. But not only founding but giving them propaganda support through social media manipulations.
There is another, strategical aspect that shows that we should really, really support Ukraine - its natural resources. If these fall into hands of Putin, he has even more control over Europe.
With Ukraine Europe can become a democratic economical power house and leave Fascist Russia into isolation and this is what Putin fears the most and this is why Ukraine must win.
"Genocide" is too often being used as a propaganda shell these days. What we see is a - very brutal - war. In Germany, we know what actual genocide looks like.
> supports European values
That's another word shell that, once you start digging, you realise means nothing. There is no such thing as "European values". There only are European interests.
> willingness of Ukrainians to move toward European values while Russia is moving in other direction in light speed.
Or, to express this in another way: One is willing to relinquish some level of control for decades of free EU monies, mostly originating from the tax coffers of Germany and France, while the other one has decided not to do so.
> Worse, Putin Russia is financing political instability in Europe by directly funding both far right and far left parties. But not only founding but giving them propaganda support through social media manipulations.
Welcome to politics. Do you really think for a second that "Radio Free Europe" was a fair and balanced station? That "Deutsche Welle" is? That all those "cultural institutes" we have all over the world just give language courses and local cuisine champagner parties? When I say "Nawalni" (a guy who by western standards should be considered a far-right at least) or "Chodorkovskij" (an even more colourful character), does it ring a bell?
We cannot reasonably accuse Russia of doing something we ourselves are engaged in, and have been for decades.
> There is another, strategical aspect that shows that we should really, really support Ukraine - its natural resources.
Putin was happily enough selling us natural resources in the past.
> With Ukraine Europe can become a democratic economical power house
Even though they had all the options and support to become a democratic economical power house in the last thirty hears, and consistently failed to do so. Ukraine is a money grave with constant potential conflict. You and me disagree on if we need another Romania, or another Hungary, or another Poland.
There have been multiple warnings by people seriously committed for human rights, but most importantly, parliaments of all Baltic states, Poland and Canada have already declared Russia's actions in Ukraine to be genocide based on evidence available.
Here is an independent legal analysis if you think these declarations were just politically motivated.
https://newlinesinstitute.org/russia/an-independent-legal-an...
It is unacceptable that after largest recent genocide committed, Germany has become a genocide denier because it would be inconvenient to accept it because it would mean serious actions have to be taken to stop genocide continuing.
(2) There exists very clear European values. These are valuing democratic governance, human rights, free movement of trade and people.
(3) Oh, that is the problem? You are personally afraid that you will lose money with Ukraine and will gain with Russia, is this right? What you think, what countries are the net winners in this EU game, Germany and France or the others? Either way, see point (2).
(4) And what bell should Navalny exactly ring? I know exactly what he is and it is irrelevant. He is repressed (mild label for attempted murder and political imprisonments, I guess) for being in opposition with the self appointed ruler, most importantly, for exposing corruption and having some level of actual political power regardless of his political views.
Is it your opinion that we should tolerate this because you have labeled him as "far-right"? Do you realize that on the political spectrum of Russia, he is very far from far right?
And what is in your opinion so colorful about Khodorkovsky?
So we can't accuse Russia in attempt to destabilize our democracy because we are trying to protect its democracy? Sounds like a fair comparison, does it? So in your opinion we could also not accuse North Korea in cyber attacks because we are having economic sanctions against it? Is that right?
(5) So in your opinion it is preferred for Europe to buy natural resources from a bloody genocidal despot instead of democratic nation that is in union with Europe and not in opposition and in constant attempt to undermine it?
(6) Do you think is there anything to do with Russian influence in Ukraine why it has been constantly in miserable state, or not? But my point was not about Ukraine but about Europe. If Russia is cut off from European revenue from natural resources because Europe can satisfy its needs internally then it will become democratic economical power house. Get it?
(1) A "genocide" is, by definition, the attempt to "kill a people". Given that Russia denies Ukrainians are actually a people (that they may have thought differently in the past is not relevant to the current situation), and that we do not see directed or organised attempts to actual mass murder (with the exception of the Bucha incident, which looks gruesome, likely is a war crime (we will have to determine that once independent investigations are over), but ultimately can be just another My-Lai-style massacre committed by dehumanized soldiers (noone accused the US for genocidal intend after My Lai...).
> independent legal analysis
Think tanks, given they are financed by outside interests, never are independent. A short search on their investors shows that these outside interests are mostly in the 'regime change' camp, and painting an opposing regime with the genocide brush is pretty effective.
(2) So Great Britain is not following these so-called "European Values", because they are against free movement of people? Hungary and Poland, which are less-than-democratic, do not follow these values? Germany and France, who have serious problems with not getting into Human Rights abuse, do not share these "European Values"? Or are "European Values" just something we tell the governed so they can keep feeling superior to less-enlightened regions?
(3) I am personally afraid that having more leeches will eventually tip the point to more nationalism and lead to new conflict and war within Europe's heartland, not at its periphery. It is hard to explain to a people why their elderly should freeze in the winter when money seems to be available in unlimited amounts to give to East-European elites.
(4) I've given you two names which tried to undermine Russian governance and were (and still are) massively financed by European and US governments. That you choose to ignore them and instead dance around how Russia is financing TV stations and bot farms to undermine ours reeks of hypocrisy.
We in the West would do good not to forget about causes and effects.
(5) Given there are no natural resources not provided by bloody despots (I still refuse to acknowledge the genocide part), and that there is no democratic nation that is in union with Europe as you describe, I'm for going with the less-ecologically-damaging (pipelines are better than ships) and cheaper option.
(6) Sure Russia has something to do with it. So does Poland, Hungary, Germany, Uruguay and the Chippendale stripper project. Everything is connected. Russia may have a larger impact due to proximity - but I see the main problem with Ukraine's widespread corruption.
Your second sentence is speculation at best. I find it more likely that Russian elites that now are getting poorer will use their influence and power to turn the country into something even more dangerous than today.
> "A "genocide" is, by definition, the attempt to "kill a people". Given that Russia denies Ukrainians are actually a people" ...
Can you explain what is gong on here? It is not genocide because Russia thinks Ukrainians are not people?
2) Did anybody claim that Europe is currently in perfect shape? This is again pointless whataboutism that does not change direction of Europe or general picture.
3) You don't know winter then if you think that somebody in Italy is going to freeze. Either way, there is nothing we can do anymore and escalation is the only option, do we like it or not and faster we escalate, faster it would be over.
4) Tried undermine Russian governance, like be an actual political opposition, like be against Putin? Are you for real? Being against Putin is not being against Russia, or is this too complicated concept for you? It looks like.
So lets see, supporting a little something that could provide restoration of actual democracy in Russia vs undermining democratic structures by using targeted media and social media attacks. Yes, totally the same thing, much hypocrisy.
Do you understand how stupid it sounds, what you claim?
I'm sure that we in the West understand now much better who is Putin and what is Russia.
5) I see, because nothing is perfect, you dismiss the values and go for the genocidal option because you just close your eyes and ears and because it is cheaper for now (is it really cheaper anymore, uh?).
Because Europe is not perfect at the moment, lets go to the rock bottom and choose a genocidal despot who is in war against us. Yes, it makes perfect sense.
Yes, he is in war against us. This is what HE believes. Again, if you have not noticed this, then it is your problem, not the lack of evidence.
6) I think you misunderstood. I do not think Russia will change. But if Europe can satisfy its energy needs internally (from Ukraine, North Sea etc) then it can become stronger democracy and also support more democratic values outside of Europe because it does not have to rely on undemocratic powers for its energy needs.
Yes, Ukraine is not without flaws but these flaws are non-existent in comparison to Russia and can be worked on, that is unfortunately not a realistic possibility for Russia.