The irony is that the tension with China and Russia originates from the US. The Ukraine war cannot be undone but there is less to forgive than the cruelty of WW 2. If we split from the US we could rebuild our relations with China and Russia.
That’s why I believe that the tensions with the US are superficial. We don’t act as if the US are dead against us. We play good cop, bad cop because it would be difficult to explain to European democracies that we support the war against Iran to limit the oil supply for China.
Two days ago the son of the Shah was in Berlin. At least Germany supports the regime change.
Sure, except for the small imperialist invasion of Ukraine, Russia has been the most friendly and reliable partner for Europe. I wish we could forgive and forget 🥰
I am not pulling an equivalence. I am not saying that current Russia should be treated like current Germany. I am just saying that there can be reconsiliation. Russia’s main demand is no Nato. If Europe can offer that because we split with America then we should check what Russia has to offer. Maybe Putin is willing to step down for it.
“First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,” Putin said. “As for the Russian people, it became a genuine tragedy. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory.
That was in 2005. The writing was on the wall, and no one believed it.
This is bullshit. ‘No NATO’ is one of Russia’s many lies, a talking point, a pushed narrative, a lie they used at some point. At the same time, Putin has publicly stated intention of getting control of UDSSR land “back”.
NATO was never an enemy of a collaborative or just Russia. It was only opposition to military action.
Giving in to ‘no Nato’ is giving up on autonomy and on being able to defend, with all its consequences.
Today’s USA under Trump is more of an ally to Russia than not. Trump is actively working for Putin and against Europe. It’s just that the political and systematic environment protects us from worse, for now.
Putin has publicly stated intention of getting control of UDSSR land “back”.
Do you have a source? I know there is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics with the author being close to Putin, and there is a quote in another comment in that direction. But it requires to win a war against Europe. That’s not realistic.
NATO was never an enemy of a collaborative or just Russia.
Russia wanted to be part of Nato. Putin’s speech in front of the German parliament in 2001 looks sincere to me. On the other hand chancellor Kohl’s notes show that the West never had the intention to integrate Russia but they promised it.
Giving in to ‘no Nato’ is giving up on autonomy and on being able to defend, with all its consequences.
There is article 42 of the EU. There is also nothing preventing Nato from officially fighting for Ukraine right now.
Today’s USA under Trump is more of an ally to Russia than not. Trump is actively working for Putin and against Europe.
Deception. Trump would be impeached if that would be true. The US still have their base in Wiesbaden, they just let the EU pay for everything.
Putin would need a strong but independent EU against the US while the US needs a fractured EU to keep them paying and following their lead. Both support the right wing parties but with different goals.
You are absolutely right in that dictatorships are unreliable and will either stab you in the back when you cozy up to them or try to stab you in the front if you don‘t. Unfortunately there are too many people and especially politicians that can‘t let go of the status quo because they either profited massively from it or in other cases at least think they did. They don‘t realize or care that the dream of prosperity by giving dictators what they want is becoming more and more of a nightmare for of us.
Simply put I think too many people are selfish and don‘t believe tensions with autocracies are negatively affecting them.
Which relations specifically do you suggest we rebuild?
The Russia before the recent invasion was a Russia preparing for war. Russia has and had explicit pursued goals of destabilization of Europe and making Europe dependent. and Russia wants its UDSSR land and control back. The US isn’t the problem in that relationship. I certainly don’t want back into that trajectory.
China has its own voiced claims and seekings of foreign territories. They’re fundamentally egoistic and pursuing control and dominance. It was an asymmetric trade, making use of the open European market while having a closed domestic market. They were stealing know-how and then used subsidization to weaken and drive out European competition. I don’t want back onto that relationship and trajectory either.
We need new kinds of relations. And the US doesn’t stand in the way of that. It’s another party we need new kinds of relations with.
Which relations specifically do you suggest we rebuild?
The relations of 2001 when Putin gave his speech to the German parliament. An economic union from Portugal till Vladivostok was on the table. Russia wants to be self-reliant now after we rejected that.
China has its own voiced claims and seekings of foreign territories. They’re fundamentally egoistic and pursuing control and dominance
Aren’t they justified to be cautious? If Europe could, we would treat them like Africa or the US like Latin America. Unlike the US we are already number two, so not much to lose if China becomes number one. Nobody knows how relations are if containment is not part of the equation.
We need new kinds of relations. And the US doesn’t stand in the way of that.
And the government made clear there won’t be an official meeting. Instead, he met with selected members of the Bundestag (parliament). What are you trying to say?
What are you trying to say? That that isn’t support? Laschet is the former chancellor candidate. That’s the highest ranking member of the CDU that still allows some form of denial. Obviously it works but why? How can the meeting be interpreted any different but as support?
So? Laschet is the current chair of the Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee. Call me crazy, but I guess meeting with influential foreign political figures might have more to do with that than some election a couple of years ago.
And while he might support Pahlavi, not even his party is unanimously doing so. Meetings of political figures can also be used to voice concerns and criticism.
Hence, to insinuate that Germany supports him is at best uninformed, at worst malicious.
Of course, the meeting can be held for the personal goals of Laschet but how likely is that? Current chair of the Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee, it can’t be much more official while the war is illegal.
Of course, the meeting can be held for the personal goals of Laschet but how likely is that?
No one here said that. When the current chair of the Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee meets such a person (together with foreign affairs politicians from other parties), the most obvious reason for that meeting would be their respective function in foreign affairs.
Given the criticism from across a plethora of parties - involved and uninvolved - and the clear message by the government to not meet him, your statement of ‘Germany’ supporting is false: either uninformed or malicious.
Problem is that you keep on filling the circumstances with your own personal opinions/assumptions and then confuse these for facts. It is your choice to interpret these things in the most negative way possible or suspecting a conspiracy/“something bigger”, but don’t be surprised if others won’t follow you on that path and grow tired of you trying to keep that wheel spinning.
The facts are: the government explicitly stated they won’t meet Pahlavi. Pahlavi met with foreign affairs politicians / members of the Bundestag from various parties. These parties also raised concerns about this meeting. Laschet himself was cited with “Of course I want to talk to Pahlavi, as he’s a person of relevance when it comes to transition in Iran.” Details of this meeting and participants beyond Laschet are not known.
Yet, for you this is all clear and you’ll happily interpret it as a sign of support. Not only by Laschet, but the whole of Germany. What’s there left to say to that?
100% this. Its crazy to see the mental gymnastics America’s vassals do to explain how a decision that fucks them over and benefits the US/hurts our enemies was actually good for Europe.
IDK about rebuilding your relationship with Russia tho, your and their national bourgeois have such conflicting interests, and even if they wanted peace, they can’t stop the fascists in either country.
What are the conflicts? I thought the classic threat to the US is Russian resources and German engineering. Add the full EU to that and a single economic zone from Portugal to Vladivostok would become the central market of the world. The bourgeois must like that.
The irony is that the tension with China and Russia originates from the US. The Ukraine war cannot be undone but there is less to forgive than the cruelty of WW 2. If we split from the US we could rebuild our relations with China and Russia.
That’s why I believe that the tensions with the US are superficial. We don’t act as if the US are dead against us. We play good cop, bad cop because it would be difficult to explain to European democracies that we support the war against Iran to limit the oil supply for China.
Two days ago the son of the Shah was in Berlin. At least Germany supports the regime change.
Sure, except for the small imperialist invasion of Ukraine, Russia has been the most friendly and reliable partner for Europe. I wish we could forgive and forget 🥰
After ww2 germany was occupied for years. I don’t think Russia should be let off the hook for what they are doing in Ukraine.
Germany became trustworthy and stable through democratic systems and the rule of law. OP pulling an equivalence to Russia of today is insane.
I am not pulling an equivalence. I am not saying that current Russia should be treated like current Germany. I am just saying that there can be reconsiliation. Russia’s main demand is no Nato. If Europe can offer that because we split with America then we should check what Russia has to offer. Maybe Putin is willing to step down for it.
Lol no…just no. NATO and Ukraine being magically run by nazis is just an excuse. Putin wants power and to rebuild the USSR.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna7632057
That was in 2005. The writing was on the wall, and no one believed it.
This is bullshit. ‘No NATO’ is one of Russia’s many lies, a talking point, a pushed narrative, a lie they used at some point. At the same time, Putin has publicly stated intention of getting control of UDSSR land “back”.
NATO was never an enemy of a collaborative or just Russia. It was only opposition to military action.
Giving in to ‘no Nato’ is giving up on autonomy and on being able to defend, with all its consequences.
Today’s USA under Trump is more of an ally to Russia than not. Trump is actively working for Putin and against Europe. It’s just that the political and systematic environment protects us from worse, for now.
Do you have a source? I know there is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics with the author being close to Putin, and there is a quote in another comment in that direction. But it requires to win a war against Europe. That’s not realistic.
Russia wanted to be part of Nato. Putin’s speech in front of the German parliament in 2001 looks sincere to me. On the other hand chancellor Kohl’s notes show that the West never had the intention to integrate Russia but they promised it.
There is article 42 of the EU. There is also nothing preventing Nato from officially fighting for Ukraine right now.
Deception. Trump would be impeached if that would be true. The US still have their base in Wiesbaden, they just let the EU pay for everything.
Putin would need a strong but independent EU against the US while the US needs a fractured EU to keep them paying and following their lead. Both support the right wing parties but with different goals.
Maybe the people, but haven’t we learned by now you can’t trust a dictatorship? No more trade relations with dictators…
You are absolutely right in that dictatorships are unreliable and will either stab you in the back when you cozy up to them or try to stab you in the front if you don‘t. Unfortunately there are too many people and especially politicians that can‘t let go of the status quo because they either profited massively from it or in other cases at least think they did. They don‘t realize or care that the dream of prosperity by giving dictators what they want is becoming more and more of a nightmare for of us.
Simply put I think too many people are selfish and don‘t believe tensions with autocracies are negatively affecting them.
Which relations specifically do you suggest we rebuild?
The Russia before the recent invasion was a Russia preparing for war. Russia has and had explicit pursued goals of destabilization of Europe and making Europe dependent. and Russia wants its UDSSR land and control back. The US isn’t the problem in that relationship. I certainly don’t want back into that trajectory.
China has its own voiced claims and seekings of foreign territories. They’re fundamentally egoistic and pursuing control and dominance. It was an asymmetric trade, making use of the open European market while having a closed domestic market. They were stealing know-how and then used subsidization to weaken and drive out European competition. I don’t want back onto that relationship and trajectory either.
We need new kinds of relations. And the US doesn’t stand in the way of that. It’s another party we need new kinds of relations with.
The relations of 2001 when Putin gave his speech to the German parliament. An economic union from Portugal till Vladivostok was on the table. Russia wants to be self-reliant now after we rejected that.
Aren’t they justified to be cautious? If Europe could, we would treat them like Africa or the US like Latin America. Unlike the US we are already number two, so not much to lose if China becomes number one. Nobody knows how relations are if containment is not part of the equation.
Which kinds? Mercosur was not a full success.
And the government made clear there won’t be an official meeting. Instead, he met with selected members of the Bundestag (parliament). What are you trying to say?
What they were saying is in the sentence following the one you quoted.
Of course, as you point out, they’re making wrong assumptions or deliberately mislead. With that, what they were saying falls apart.
What are you trying to say? That that isn’t support? Laschet is the former chancellor candidate. That’s the highest ranking member of the CDU that still allows some form of denial. Obviously it works but why? How can the meeting be interpreted any different but as support?
So? Laschet is the current chair of the Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee. Call me crazy, but I guess meeting with influential foreign political figures might have more to do with that than some election a couple of years ago.
And while he might support Pahlavi, not even his party is unanimously doing so. Meetings of political figures can also be used to voice concerns and criticism.
Hence, to insinuate that Germany supports him is at best uninformed, at worst malicious.
Of course, the meeting can be held for the personal goals of Laschet but how likely is that? Current chair of the Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee, it can’t be much more official while the war is illegal.
No one here said that. When the current chair of the Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee meets such a person (together with foreign affairs politicians from other parties), the most obvious reason for that meeting would be their respective function in foreign affairs.
Given the criticism from across a plethora of parties - involved and uninvolved - and the clear message by the government to not meet him, your statement of ‘Germany’ supporting is false: either uninformed or malicious.
The government doesn’t meet Pahlavi because it looks bad. How does it not look bad if somebody else meets him who has deep ties to the government?
Problem is that you keep on filling the circumstances with your own personal opinions/assumptions and then confuse these for facts. It is your choice to interpret these things in the most negative way possible or suspecting a conspiracy/“something bigger”, but don’t be surprised if others won’t follow you on that path and grow tired of you trying to keep that wheel spinning.
The facts are: the government explicitly stated they won’t meet Pahlavi. Pahlavi met with foreign affairs politicians / members of the Bundestag from various parties. These parties also raised concerns about this meeting. Laschet himself was cited with “Of course I want to talk to Pahlavi, as he’s a person of relevance when it comes to transition in Iran.” Details of this meeting and participants beyond Laschet are not known.
Yet, for you this is all clear and you’ll happily interpret it as a sign of support. Not only by Laschet, but the whole of Germany. What’s there left to say to that?
If the meeting doesn’t mean anything why has the government not met him? Adding one layer of indirection doesn’t change much.
Fuck Russia. Putin and his oligarchs are a snake that nobody can trust.
100% this. Its crazy to see the mental gymnastics America’s vassals do to explain how a decision that fucks them over and benefits the US/hurts our enemies was actually good for Europe.
IDK about rebuilding your relationship with Russia tho, your and their national bourgeois have such conflicting interests, and even if they wanted peace, they can’t stop the fascists in either country.
What are the conflicts? I thought the classic threat to the US is Russian resources and German engineering. Add the full EU to that and a single economic zone from Portugal to Vladivostok would become the central market of the world. The bourgeois must like that.
The Euro bourgeois want cheap resources, Russia has cheap resources. A developed Russia means expensive resources.