Scholz Disolved German Government Instead of Providing Missiles to Ukraine
yahoo.com
yahoo.com
Scholz (Chancellor, Social Democrat) is prepared to support Ukraine more generously with money and various weapons, but wants or needs to incur debt to do so. However, Scholz rejects the delivery of Taurus missiles because of Germany's direct involvement in the war and the danger of nuclear escalation.
Linder (disgraced FDP Finance Minister) does not want to run up debts for Ukraine, but would like to supply the Taurus missiles.
In fact, a CDU-led (Christian Democrat, Center Right) government will now happen faster.
I find this unfortunate, as I am in favor of Germany's neutrality and there are vocal warmongers in the CDU. (I hope the warmongers will not prevail, as the typical CDU member is a petty bourgeois who wants to be left in peace (like me))
"Gestern nun wurde der Vorschlag unterbreitet vom noch amtierenden Bundeskanzler, weitere drei Milliarden Euro für die Ukraine zur Verfügung zu stellen. Nicht aber drei Milliarden Euro würden angesichts des zur Verfügung stehenden Mittelvolumens den Unterschied machen. Ich habe im Koalitionsausschuss für die Freien Demokraten gesagt: Wenn wir eine andere, eine stärkere Unterstützung der Ukraine wollen, dann sind nicht drei Milliarden Euro zusätzlich nötig. Dann sollte Deutschland die Entscheidung treffen, die Ukraine mit den Waffensystemen auszustatten, die die Ukrainerinnen und Ukrainer zur Verteidigung ihrer Freiheit brauchen, nämlich insbesondere dem Waffensystem Taurus. Dazu gab es keine Bereitschaft."
https://www.fdp.de/pressemitteilung/lindner-statement-das-ri...
>Lindner suggested providing Ukraine with Taurus cruise missiles for defense against Russia, but Scholz rejected the proposal and demanded €3 billion in support.
Btw, why was he dismissed based on that decision? Seems a reasonable one to me as missiles built in Germany also suport the German economy and that 3 Billion would be better spent in Germany on education, healthcare, innovation instead of giving it away as cash to other nations?
If I were a German taxpayer and my tax money was being given away abroad while public infrastructure and services in my own country are underfunded, I'd be fucking furious and want that guy voted out. Have nothing against Ukraine, but politicians paid from my taxes should serve me first and foremost, not foreign entities, otherwise don't be shocked when they vote right wing.
Ironically, I see this happen the most to comments contradicting the common "liberal" wisdom, almost as if there's a liberal tendency to censor different opinions, even in cases like this one where they fit perfectly the current overton window.
I genuinely feel that allowing users to downvote and flag is harming the quality of discussions here, as it's often used to reinforce an echo chamber, rather than to weed out spam and actually dangerous content.
Arguably there should be some pretty-tight limits on downvoting & flagging. But I do those so little that I probably wouldn't know if there already were.
Flagging should periodically be reviewed by moderators. If it turns out that someone used flagging as a censorship tool, that user should eventually be banned, perhaps after a few warnings.
I do, and yes, downvotes filter out noise but in the process also filter out unconforming opinions. Whether you prefer a "clean" but sterile environment over a noisier but more interesting one is a matter of taste, and I feel other users shouldn't be able to impose their taste on me.
Being able to block users would be much more effective in terms of filtering noise and excluding censorship abuses.
A national government has to manage a lot of time & scale trade-offs. Longer-term, keeping a very large and aggressive rival nation mired in an expensive war elsewhere is much preferable to having them win their war. The rival would very likely proceed to "next steps" which would be considerably worse for Germany than the status quo.
Maybe read a bit about European's history over the past fourish centuries?
To me, education and healthcare is more important to the future of my country than the security of another country (no offense). People who refuse to see this cold hearted truth are also the ones surprised the right wing is growing when the voters are tired with the establishment who doesn't represented their best interests anymore.
As a politician you can't tell a couple who's struggling to find free spot at kindergarten or pediatrician near them for their kids that there's no more money for those things while you give 3 Billion away to a foreign country with a straight face. Average voters are stupid but they're not that stupid.
Those villages are protected by massive spending from the US and significantly smaller % from Europe. We'll likely see the difference if/when the US part goes away.
> they'll be a threat to whole of NATO and invade Germany
They don't have to invade. Have you seen the impact on the energy market in many countries? Grain availability? Refugee impact? And that's for countries still more then one border away.
- Said rival nation is 100% determined to invade and conquer Europe, basically triggering a WWIII
- There is no diplomatic way to sort this out, moving from a rivalry to a friendship
Apparently Scholz doesn't?
And if you do, I'd be curious to know what brings you to believe that Russia would rather attempt an utterly insane conquer of Europe than resume friendly and much more profitable relations.
Bonus points if you can explain that without resorting to baseless analogies.
This is not an issue if you are far away from Russia, like Germany is. But if you happen to be a country Russia considers to be in their sphere of influence, you may value your sovereignty. Just like Russia has historical reasons to be afraid of an invasion from Europe, countries bordering Russia have historical (and recent) reasons to be afraid of an invasion from Russia.
There were some reasons to believe that Russia would change for the better in the 90s and early 2000s. But then Putin took the wrong lessons from what the US and NATO did in Iraq and Kosovo. He learned that if you consider yourself a major power, you are allowed to invade lesser countries as long as you think you have good reasons for it. Then the situation escalated, and now many Russia's neighbors are fundamentally incapable of trusting Russia until there is a regime change or another equally significant change.
Germany basically has to make a choice. It can have good relations with Russia or with the countries between them and Russia, but not both. Not until something changes.
You presented this assumption almost as a fact, I simply asked you to elaborate.
> Maybe read a bit about European's history over the past fourish centuries?
Wasn't this unpleasant tone and a personal attack from your side, assuming GP doesn't know history?
He wasn‘t. He was dismissed because after months of acrimonious fighting in the three-party coalition and after asking him increasing more pointedly, chancellor Scholz finally ordered Lindner to make more debt, and the latter refused. Then, according to German newspaper reports, Scholz told him after a short recess „I don‘t want you any longer in my cabinet“ and he said „okay“.
There have been about two years of foul play, reciprocal attacks and leaking to the press between all combinations of the three coalition partners (and sometimes between individual ministers). Don‘t think you understand any about it by reading a short article.
That's short-sighted. I'm not trying to say here whether this case was the right direction or not, but sometimes helping another country is in your longer term interest. Cases like: Do you want to spend money helping the other country or get flooded with refugees in a year? Do you want to help defend a country or face the same enemy on your ground soon? Do you want to sponsor foreign infrastructure and stimulate trade, or hand over a potential partner to start producing ammo for your enemy?
We already are flooded. Everyone from Ukraine who can leave (and even those who theoretically can't but have money/connections) has already moved or is trying to move to the EU. The borders are already open for them anyway. So that argument is moot. Better would be to keep Ukrainians in their country so they can keep fighting for it since they can't defend it all the way from Belgium.
>Do you want to help defend a country or face the same enemy on your ground soon?
What proof is there that Russia can attack NATO? If they're struggling with 1% of NATO what argument is there they'll want to face 100% of NATO.
There aren't really proofs in geopolitics, only risks and unknowns.
In headlines and emotions, "flooded" can be a boolean. In on-the-ground-reality - not so much. There are still lot o' millions of people in Ukraine, who'd be "eager & available" to flood westward if Russia won.