In China, Germany’s foreign minister does not hold back–and is still welcomed
economist.com
economist.com
Germany won't engage militarily anyway and we will continue to trade, too. The only threat to the relations can only come from the CCP restricting trade.
Germany simply doesn't have a navy, overseas territories in the Pacific, nuclear submarine deals with Australia, a space force, a war-deciding satellite-internet company, or an air force that could fly further than Switzerland.
On the economic side, Maybachs and Porsches sold to Chinese customers pay for our standard for living. We won't bite the hand that feeds us. On really crucial industries, we don't have anything, especially not in China: Social networks with billions of users, AI, computer chips, raw materials, PV cells - nothing. We couldn't cut them off from anything critical because we don't have it.
To China, we're harmless. That's why they don't care. Smile and wave, boys.
From what I have heard Chinese factories use alot of German engineering. It's been a key component of China's ascent and the current leverage they have over western interests.
To me it is obvious what path Germany will take. It cannot do a two-front economic war both against Russia and China at the same time.
So maybe they won't outright insult the US like Macron did but they will not join an US-led cold war on China.
[1] Well even dictatorship China relented when protests against Covid restrictions got too big.
Ultimately, all societies are democratic, because they require the buy-in from the population. The moment the population isn't willing to play nicely anymore, a state is doomed. See: France, ca. 1789.
The ballsy part was that EU was leading a foreign policy (support for Ukraine) while knowing it will probably lead to Russia cutting off the gas supply.
Do people in Europe actually believe that to be the case? Is this yet another "Russia blew up its own billion dollar industry" thing again?
> it will probably lead to Russia cutting off the gas supply
So, the supply disruptions have absolutely nothing to do with Europe freezing payments and accounts, as well as disrupting all the ecosystem around the industry with sanctions?
You can't really live in a reality where you both claim yourself to be a victim of a countries supply disruptions and lead an economic war against it, right? How is that not doublethink?
> The ballsy part was that EU was leading a foreign policy (support for Ukraine)
We now publicly (thanks to Merkel's and Hollande's confessions) know that EU had been preparing to a full scale war under the guise of peace agreements. "Ballsy" is an ironic way to describe this situation, especially when any talk of negotiations or even a ceasefire gets shunted at.
Which was the right thing to do, we always knew Russia would invade again and any peace agreements with Russia aren't worth the paper they are written on. Russia already broke the previous agreement they had with Ukraine to never invade the country anyway.
So why would this time be any different?.
Not for people of Donetsk.
> Russia already broke the previous agreement they had with Ukraine to never invade the country anyway.
I am not that good of a legal expert to track each and every treaty, but I doubt that there was an agreement formulated exactly like that. For example the Budapest Memorandum article 3 was technically broken when Europe and the US were fast to support a coup in Ukraine.
> So why would this time be any different?
Because this essentially legitimises Russia's motive for the war.
It was 100% right thing to for the people of Donetsk, who got invaded by Russian forces in 2014.
> I am not that good of a legal expert to track each and every treaty, but I doubt that there was an agreement formulated exactly like that. For example the Budapest Memorandum article 3 was technically broken when Europe and the US were fast to support a coup in Ukraine.
So because the US / Europe broke the Budapest Memorandum the Russians can also break every single part of it because they feel like it?.
They got invaded by the new Ukrainian government's "anti-terrorist" forces, consisting largely of shady shaved-head guys with very particularly thematic tattoos - as no one else wanted to take part in that senseless bloodshed.
Look, I recognise your username and I am well aware on your views on the matter. We've already clashed multiple times and there is really nothing to discuss when you insist on dismissing the idea that people who overwhelmingly voted for president elect in 2014 might not be happy with the fact that some mob had stolen their country.
Keep in mind that people can live in a single country and have different preferences and political opinions. That is absolutely normal and expected in a normal situation, and even more so, much more sharply, during a revolution. I don't get how can anyone imply monolithicity in 2014 Ukraine.
Ah yes the country was stolen by the people such a novel idea, I understand you're mad because the Russian puppet got ousted for going against the people then ran away to his masters in Moscow.
But please keep telling me how the 'Ukrainian rebels' in Donetsk were using Russian air defence systems and then electing to put a former Russian FSB agent in as head of the military.
Totally sounds like a civil war right?.
Of course.
> So, the supply disruptions have absolutely nothing to do with Europe freezing payments and accounts,
The gas was being paid for. There's basically no time or casual connection to frozen accounts. Bulgaria was e.g. one of the first cut-off countries despite not freezing any accounts.
> You can't really live in a reality where you both claim yourself to be a victim of a countries supply disruptions and lead an economic war against it, right?
I'm not playing the victim card. Europe did what it did, knowing the probable consequences. All I'm saying is that it was Russia who stopped pumping the gas, not Europe.
> We now publicly (thanks to Merkel's and Hollande's confessions) know that EU had been preparing to a full scale war under the guise of peace agreements.
Nice try at throwing the blame everywhere, maybe people will forget that that Russia is invading Ukraine for the 3rd time in the last 10 years. But sure, it's Germany who is the bloodthirsty country.
I don't believe Merkel anyway. Her foreign minister Steinmeier (current German president) has been actively pushing for Minsk-2 implementation. I believe she just tries to whitewash herself.
EU sanctioned Russia's foreign assets and froze accounts, preventing Russia from using it's funds. Gazprom was specifically sanctioned as a government-related entity. I am not making this up, I am googling as I type: "was gazprom sactioned by EU?", "was russia accounts frozen by EU?", etc. All of this is public information.
Unless you claim that this had happened in some other plane of the multiverse, this IS your time and casual connection. Moreover, this is literally not paying - these funds remain in the EU economy, kept reinvested by bankers who manage them while boosting EU liquidity.
> Bulgaria was e.g. one of the first cut-off countries despite not freezing any accounts.
Is Bulgaria not a EU state that paid in EUR to Gazprombank’s Luxembourg-based accounts?
The whole "payment with roubles" shenanigans were meant as a bypass for these sanctions (again, not making this up, it was specifically the EU officials who assessed this procedure as "breach of sanctions" https://www.ft.com/content/aa0d294b-0982-4f94-a327-a93300444... )
> I'm not playing the victim card. Europe did what it did, knowing the probable consequences
That's exactly what you are doing. Either EU decided to engage in an economic war with Russia, willing and aware of possible consequence, or "evil Russia unexpectedly stopped dealing with us" - pick one, both is doublethink.
> All I'm saying is that it was Russia who stopped pumping the gas, not Europe.
That is quite an ironic statement, given all the background of the Nord Stream 2 story.
> maybe people will forget that that Russia is invading Ukraine for the 3rd time in the last 10 years
When you start to remembering things that didn't actually happen - it's a bad sign, man. Sorry, I just had too many conversations like that, discussing the collapse of the Ukrainian government and all the following events and each time it boils down to dehumanising huge chunks of Ukrainian population that was not happy about the fact that their elected government (try overlaying Ukraine's 2010 election map on the map of the present conflict) was brought down.
> I believe she just tries to whitewash herself.
I doubt that anyone around the world, besides a small European corner, sees it as whitewashing and not as legitimising Russia's actions. You can't act like a guarantor of peace and then confess that you were totally lying without hurting your credibility.
Just think how this looks from an outsider's perspective: Russia claims that Ukraine wants to genocide people of Donetsk and isn't going to resolve this peacefully with Minks agreements as it promised to, and then European leaders go "yeah, we were totally preparing Ukraine for war all while dragging time under the guise of a peace agreement".
Gazprom was sanctioned in February 2022, Bulgaria was cut off from Russian gas in September 2022, with most other countries still buying Russian gas for months. Why specifically Bulgaria (whose role in freezing the assets was minimal) and why 6 months later? There's simply no connection to the frozen assets.
> Either EU decided to engage in an economic war with Russia, willing and aware of possible consequence
That's what I've been saying since my first comment from this thread - EU engages in economic war, but cutting out the gas was not an EU action, it's the Russian retaliation.
> When you start to remembering things that didn't actually happen - it's a bad sign, man.
Wait, you're claiming that Russia did not invade Ukraine?
> You can't act like a guarantor of peace and then confess that you were totally lying without hurting your credibility.
More like an appeaser of the imperialistic invader / aggressor.
> Russia claims that Ukraine wants to genocide people of Donetsk
Oh right, 2013 Donetsk was the scene of a genocide while 2022 Mariupol is the face of liberation. Honestly can't fathom this doublethink.
Google tells me that it was April, not September. I assume September was when the long-term contract had expired. Google also tells me that the payment scheme was finalised by Russia also in April.
I also see that it wasn't "specifically Bulgaria", but also Poland, and by that time a few of other European countries had already switched to a new scheme. So no, there is nothing specific about Bulgaria.
> That's what I've been saying since my first comment from this thread - EU engages in economic war, but cutting out the gas was not an EU action, it's the Russian retaliation.
So let me get this straight: when you block your credit card and e.g. Spotify stops providing a service to you - is it a normal and expected business practice, or is it a sinister retaliation?
EU leaders just plainly shot Europe in a foot and now try to shift responsibility on evil Russia, as it totally should have continued to pump gas for free.
> Wait, you're claiming that Russia did not invade Ukraine?
Well not 3 times. If you count it like that, that means you dismiss and ignore the revolution, the civil war and all the people who were not happy about the fact that some mob had stolen their country.
> More like an appeaser of the imperialistic invader / aggressor.
"imperialism" in this case is merely a narrative to dismiss the actual substantial causes for the war. Imperialists don't plead for peace agreements in a wake of war.
> Oh right, 2013 Donetsk was the scene of a genocide while 2022 Mariupol is the face of liberation. Honestly can't fathom this doublethink.
That's because you are making wrong assumptions here. First of all, it's not some childish tale of oppression and liberation and thankfully back in 2013 Ukraine was not successful, so Donetsk didn't turn into a scene of genocide in its common sense. Secondly, it's one thing to invade a country unprovoked, and it is a completely different thing to push the frontlines away from your borders and people who associate themselves with you onto the people who are gathering strength for their "final solution of Donetsk problem" all while acting like they are totally peaceful good guys (well not really, only on the higher political levels).
It's just... Remember when Macron had leaked the private conversation he had with Putin just before the war, where Putin said that Zelensky isn't going to fulfil Minks agreements and is preparing for war, and Macron replied something along the lines of "have faith and patience". Remember how everyone was like "hurr-durr, stoopid Russia, we see through your bullshit"? Well now it turns out that Putin was telling the truth and Macron was full of shit in a room full of journalists. What the hell?
And let's be honest, it's not 2013 Donetsk, it's 2013-2022 Donetsk. Enough time for a child to be born and grow up enough to go to school, without ever in their life knowing peace and not war - go figure which is more tragic.
I find it strange that the people in this civil war, where somehow instantly trained on complicated Russian military equipment, procured enough of this equipment to fight and then when they captured enough ground they eventually installed get this.
A former Russian FSB agent as the head of the military. Thats totally what happens in a totally 'real' civil war right.
What complicated Russian military equipment? Hypersonic missiles? Any other equipment designed in Russian Federation that was actually used in combat even after the full-scale war had started? Or is it all old Soviet stuff, the same stuff that Ukraine uses? The country that had conscription service which implies that a substantial number of adult men in Ukraine are trained to operate this equipment?
> procured enough of this equipment to fight
Donetsk had military installations. Even a whole military academy, AFAIK. Though I don't doubt that Russia had started supplying DNR under the table at some point.
> A former Russian FSB agent as the head of the military.
Seizing an opportunity for themselves. Given the specific ideological matter along which the Ukraine had been torn, this isn't an unimaginable thing.
> Thats totally what happens in a totally 'real' civil war right.
Define "real"? Is the civil war in Syria real? Was the civil war that had collapsed the Russian Empire real? If it is the foreign influence that confuses you - that is actually an expected thing: In most cases the sides of the civil war gravitate to nearest opposing poles of power, with the exception for secluded places like America.
It's important not to be dismissive of the fact that the root cause of all the problems is that people in Ukraine can not agree on a sustainable way to run their country and that people in Donbas have no less rights then the people who pushed for the revolution. Everything else is just bullshit that distracts everyone from what's important - the people.
A war that isn't started by a foreign power to try and destabilise the country is what id call a 'real' civil war, and it's clear the one in Ukraine was started by Russia.
> It's important not to be dismissive of the fact that the root cause of all the problems is that people in Ukraine can not agree on a sustainable way to run their country and that people in Donbas have no less rights then the people who pushed for the revolution. Everything else is just bullshit that distracts everyone from what's important - the people.
The root cause for a lot of it is Russian interference just like it is in what is it now? 4?, 5? post soviet states now.
Clearly it wasn't Russia who started a revolution in Ukraine, was it? This is just going in circles, really. You are just avoiding the wrong-think of even assuming that just as there were people passionate about Euromaidan, there might have been others that had the opposite view. You are denying the nature of what a revolution is.
> Russian interference just like it is in what is it now? 4?, 5? post soviet states now.
Well sure, the Soviet Union had been dissolved like shit and Russia will inevitably be tied into every other issue, that's one of the reasons CSTO exist.
Honestly, if "interference" is actually a principal problem, it is kinda ironic that it's only Russia that bothers you.
China is not seen as an invader. People agree they might be nasty in some aspects, but not where it hits them.
The US is of course highly selective when it comes to human rights. It says one thing to China and another thing to Saudi Arabia on the same topic.
There's a lot more one could say about the apparent double standards applied there and elsewhere. But it all boils down to economic interests and level of influence it allows the US to wield. The EU is no different of course. Nor China.
Until the US actually changes recognition over from China to Taiwan this is a joke. The US is just saber-rattling right now, and Macron pretty much said the EU should not blindly follow either side but listen to what the people want. So I think the other reply here is more on point about people not wanting to give up QoL should Europe decide not to side against China.
3/21 Germany's Economy Minister: "We must become less dependent on China" https://www.agenzianova.com/en/news/germany-economy-minister...
4/16 Germany backs EU-Indonesia trade pact to curb China reliance https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/germany-backs-eu-i...
Every self-proclaimed China expert since 2000.
I know I won't change your mind but for everyone else do note that HN is one of the worst places to get unbiased opinions on the country if you actually have curiosity on this matter.
It's not too hard to sample some people shitting all over their country basically in any country. There tons of these "unbiased truths" about the collapse of western civilization, or racial theories, or alternative medicine or whatever.
How do you figure this is actually representative?
That's data with existing businesses. It's been reported that within the last 2 years, China has had 1M+ SMB closures.
IMF estimates China's GDP to grow at 5.3% this year. For an economy the size of China, that's massive.
https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/en/about-us/leadership-feder...
I am still not sure how this was possible.
maybe I did misread you. You lamented the "hand over" of "the entire German gov mobile communication stack" to Apple. But what you show is BSI audited iOS and verified their own Indigo solution to be compliant with their requirements for handling VS-NfD documents (one solution of a handful of others).
So VS-NfD bits will pass that software stack sure - but as I was sceptic if "the operational part" was handled by Apple, I don't see this supported. An MDM will set endpoints for email/carddav/caldav to .de gov servers, I hope :)
Is saying that the EU shouldn't blindly follow the US position "insulting" to the US now? In that case, Macron is even more right. Any "friend" or "ally" that might be insulted if you don't immediately agree with them on anything (but of course only one way, they will often ignore you) isn't a reliable friend or ally.
France knows the US isn't a reliable ally since the Suez crisis. Look at what happened to the US allies in Afghanistan or to the Kurdish fighters in Syria for a more recent exemple. The issue is that it's a useful one.
Even if the American people are afraid of it, the rest of the world is quite capable of viewing the evidence of American war crimes and crimes against humanity. Especially the French, who consider this a vital issue, given the extent of their borders invalidation by refugees from America's wars ...
Yeah, no, it absolutely is not that. France is all too happy to sell war equipments to countries guilty of crimes against humanity when it’s in its own interest (who said Saudi Arabia?). I applaud any actions in favour of more autonomy within or especially without the EU - an alliance which stopped making sense for France after the 2004 enlargement and was already dubious after 1995 - but let’s not pretend it’s done out of any kind of virtue.
How does France feel empowering and collaborating with a functionally-totalitarian centralized government operating on Han ethnonationalism which sees the existence of large democracies as a threat to its internal affairs (all Xi Jinping Socialist Thought For International Relations global PR campaigns notwithstanding)?
I’d think that even if commitment to those principles turn out to be French agitprop, at least France remembers how it goes to let that kind of governance complex rise to (near-)hegemonic power.
The USA has no lessons to give to anyone regarding foreign diplomacy. There is no truth behind the idea that China is bad and the USA is the force for good. Both countries want to export their own model of exploitation. Both countries are trying to make the rest of world subservient. Both care about their own interest first and foremost. Both are pretty aweful in their own way. I wish we didn't have to deal with either. Sadly the world is what it is. Non alignment seems wise.
The USA has no diplomacy.
When did Macron outright insult the US?
As someone who both speak and read French, I haven't seen him say anything particularly shocking. As far as I know, the whole thing is mostly the US press being its usual self.
Macron said Europe should aim for more independance and refuse to be a vassal of the US, that Europe shouldn't let the US drag it in its own current commercial conflict with China and that France stands being the status quo regarding Taiwan as it has always done.
That all seems pretty tame.
The US regularly insult EU though (the Iran crisis regarding nuclear for instance), and do not particularly care to be nice.
The US also fund a lot of NATO, UN etc. so we (Europeans) are rather powerless.
This is all theater and drama as I see it.
When Australia started to get closer to the US, China put blocks on imports, delayed customs clearance for food (so it spoiled), hoping to break Australia away from the Western Alliance.
When Macron wanted to visit China, he was welcomed with open arms.
China knows they can't go up against the entire Western world, but if they can peel off each country - one by one - they can go up against the US alone (or think they can), whether it be economic or military warfare.
Which part do you not understand?
Sure. I wasn’t born then. But I would like to think society and governments have grown up since then and we can agree that invasion is wrong. Abuse of power is wrong.
Britain has given up a lot of what it took. It has no control or say in australia or New Zealand. It gave HK back. Left Singapore, Myanmar, India. Etc.
Obviously we can’t change what happened. None of us on HN or our families etc had any say in what happened for generations before we were born.
But in 2023 we should be at a point where we can acknowledge it’s wrong and stop it from happening.
Russia and China haven’t got that memo yet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor-General_of_Australia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional...
https://www.euronews.com/2020/07/14/australian-governor-who-...
Looking at the diplomatic wins China has racked up recently, it's entirely possible Taiwan willingly folds itself into China within a decade.
After what happened with HK they do not believe China can be trusted at any capacity.
China is banking on KMT winning next year so they can try and invade from the inside. But Taiwan won’t go peacefully.
Taiwan absolutely wont go willingly.
What do you think all the military exercises (by both sides) are for if China and Taiwan think it’s going to be resolved peacefully?
- China has openly supported Macron's "strategic autonomy" principle which aims to distance EU from USA.
- Ever since Xi got his regime extended, they've been inviting nation leaders to increase their influence. In last 5 months, they've invited Germany, Iran, Spain, France and Brazil.
- They've brokered a peace deal between Iran and Saudi. Which is another loss for US influencer in middle east, threatening the current petrodollar hegemony.
Note that I'm not condemning China. It's just an observation. And honestly, they would be dumb if they didn't do this while US is pissing off their key allies with rate hikes and the IRA Act.
I find this completely normal, but also shortsighted in a way. A more strategically autonomous and assertive EU wouldn't blindly follow US' follies (cf. Iraq), but that doesn't mean it won't side with the US for a just cause (cf. Ukraine). The democratic values in the US, Canada, UK and EU are too similar for a complete strategic divergence in policies. Therefore we'd get a more strong, integrated and assertive EU leading the way in many areas trade, manufacturing and regulations-wise, that still collaborates with US and friends when it makes sense and the cause is just (so not in invading Iran on imaginary pretenses, but if China invades Taiwan brutally à la Russia invading Ukraine, probably).
In longer term, (pure speculation) I think China may believe that after a while, China would have so much global influence that even strategically autonomous EU would be reluctant to side with US even for blatantly "unjust" cause.
No, China hasn’t set foot in Taiwan. If it does, by murdering thousands, then yes Apple would be rightfully seen as collaborators. As would you for supporting indifference to a murderous bloody invasion.
And just to be clear, the US had a massive part of the Allied war effort against the Axis, but they didn't singlehandedly win the war or free anyone, it was a joint effort with similarly massive Soviet and British (and Commonwealth) parts. As a reminder, Britain spent months fighting alone, and the vast vast majority of German troops were always on the Eastern Front while the Western Allies fought against subpar foreign "volunteers" or third-rate recovering German troops on the continent.
Only because of isolationist "not my problem"s like GP, the current fringe right in the US, and others on HN. That's what we're fighting to not be like.
Everything you said is pretty much true. It's also true that without the US, and especially US+UK, WW2 would've turned out very differently. Soviets could not beat the Nazis themselves. So you can still appreciate the US, UK, and the Soviets for freeing Europe. And the US and UK are telling Europe that you don't get to be saved by us and then shirk your responsibility to save someone else.
For all intents and purposes Taiwan is a separate independent country nowadays thay doesn't actively claim to be China, but it's too late to change the situation (like by amending their constitution or status to say they're a separate country, Taiwan, and don't have anything to do with China anymore) because anything done today just might piss off China(PRC). Technically if China invades Taiwan, they'd be within their internationally recognised legal rights to retake a runaway province from the losers of a civil war. From a humanitarian perspective it would be a disaster of course, but on what grounds does anyone defend Taiwan when barely any country recognises Taiwan exists in the first place?
Countries gain sovereignty either when the country they split off of allows it or they have the means to occupy and defend the land they claim is soverign.
Dubious. The current legality of the situation is that Taiwan is de jure part of China (PRC), and the ROC is nobody. Nobody is enforcing that with force, it's maintained by the unwillingness of the ROC to provoke the PRC, and the unwillingness of the PRC to risk their credentials and trade over this, or they're hopeful one day the ROC will peacefully join them if relations and trade are good enough.
> Countries gain sovereignty either when ... they have the means to occupy and defend the land they claim is soverign.
Haiti, or much more recently Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, North Cyprus, etc. prove this wrong. Even if you have full control of some land and claim to have full sovereignty over it, unless others recognise you, you're in a very bad situation. No international recognition -> no trade or international relations -> perpetually poor.
The stupid shit that China pulled in Hong Kong just a few years ago has pretty much put a nail into the coffin of that hope any time soon.
All China had to do was keep to the "one country, two systems" approach in Hong Kong that had been working so well.
But they couldn't even manage to do that, instead violating the agreement they themselves negotiated.
So, it's pretty easy to see why the majority of Taiwanese want them fuck right off. ;)
"Break away" as in "separate" or "remove from the group".
Up to now, that worked pretty nicely. Beijing knows that Germany, and by extension Europe, is unwilling to stop cooperating, especially since China for the longest time has been Europes 'extended workbench'. Berlin knows that Beijing is a reliable partner in manufacturing. Everyone is happy, no-one wants to change the status quo.
The situation is similar to the situation with Russia pre-2020 - and the last thing Europe needs is the US rattling the bars of another reliable partner.
That being said: Russia was relatively little intertwined with our (= European and American) economies. That's a different situation with the PRC. I think it is not unlikely that there will be less unity in a "Case Taiwan".
That's possible, but the consequences will still be vast. Many countries will go into a decade accelerating decoupling their economies from China. High tech will take a huge hit, stock markets may crash, ...
A more authoritarian rulership in China with a democratic Taiwan as an alternative model is at odds.
Well well well. She should have said that IF she and her entourage receive guarantees that they are free to drive wherever they want AND free to photograph whatever they see, then she will take him up on his offer.