5 ms·

I think there are 2 independent problems for Germany: Not delivering weapons to any war zone has been a holy principle for German politics since 1945. Never wa

I think there are 2 independent problems for Germany: Not delivering weapons to any war zone has been a holy principle for German politics since 1945. Never war again war has had a strong foothold. Even now I grown up in this tradition would ask, is it better to lose the war or more lives. Putin might invade the country now, but he will not stay there forever. Most of Eastern Europe and the Baltic countries show that. Even Eastern Germany. Germany's dependency on Russian gas is a different problem. They don't dare to do much. Now delivering weapons might prolong and intensify the fights. If the pipeline (it passes through Ukraine!) gets destroyed they don't need to dare to stop financing Putin's war. They will need to solve the problem how to heat their homes. (German living abroad.)

periheli0n 5y ago
That is why Germany’s decision to deliver weapons is much more dramatic than many Germans realise. It is the admission that their previous policy of “Wandel durch Handel” (roughly meaning to gain influence in a country by forming tight trade links) has failed. Today it’s Russia, but they will have to follow through with China, too, plus a few other countries (gulf states e.g.).
scotty79 5y ago
If Putin gets Ukraine he'll definitely stay there forever. He will place his army alongside eastern Polish border and NATO will be forced to fortify the other side. Germany along with other countries of NATO will be forced to militarize which will cost way more than abandoning Russian exports. Ukraine is fighting now for less militarized and endangered Europe. I agree that sometimes it's better to loose a war. Just not this one.
- ailef 5y ago
  > Ukraine is fighting now for less militarized and endangered Europe. I hope somebody else can appreciate the irony of this sentence like I do, given that the cause of the conflict is military NATO expansion towards east.
  - emteycz 5y ago
    The cause of the conflict is that NATO did not expand to Ukraine. Putin would've never risked it if they were members.
    - ailef 5y ago
      Putin wouldn't have allowed them to become members. And this is effectively what is happening here: Putin is unfortunately destroying Ukraine, and effectively making sure that any possibility of joining NATO is long gone. This would have just happened earlier if Ukraine had tried to join NATO.
      - emteycz 5y ago
        Nah, he is just ensuring Ukraine gets support to join immediately, and inflicting enormous damage on Russia in the process. He'll be remembered as "The Man Who Ended Russia in a Week". Russians are going to be embarrassed about their nationality for the next 100 years at least.
        ailef 5y ago
        There is no chance Ukraine will join NATO in the short term (and possibly ever), let alone immediately. This would trigger an Article 5 invocation that would compel NATO members to send troops to Ukraine, escalate the conflict even more, possibly leading to a global war, which no one wants to do.
        janto 5y ago
        Putin has now demonstrated the need for NATO membership to Ukrainians. If they get a choice, my bet is they would join eagerly.
        ailef 5y ago
        Yes, but this point is kind of moot given that it was NATO membership expansion in the first place to start the tensions. You can look up articles from 2008 and see that even Germany (Angela Merkel) was adamantly opposed to Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO, because there was no credible threat from Russia and she knew this would create instability in Europe. The fact that there was no credible Russian threat is easily confirmed if you do a Google search for "ukraine russia" before 2008: you hardly find anything noteworthy. The whole narrative only changed around 2014. Now we're at the situation where the Ukrainian people, and also Russians and the entire Europe (at least economically), are paying huge costs because we couldn't avoid seconding foolish US foreign policy choices.
- usr1106 5y ago
  > I agree that sometimes it's better to loose a war. Just not this one. If Ukraine can stand up (which I'd hope, but don't really believe) and Putin thinks the same way you think he will use nuclear weapons. And he has said clearly that he thinks the current Ukraine is a threat to the survial of Russia. Which is of course nonsense, but that doesn't matter. The better support Ukraine gets the closer we are moving to a nuclear war. I'm not sure to say don't support them. But don't underestimate the danger of Putin.
  - hutrdvnj 5y ago
    If Putin throws nukes in Europe then the radioactive fallout will reach border countries including russia. And it could provoke a nuclear reaction from NATO, because nuclear fallout over NATO states could be considered as attack.
    - usr1106 5y ago
      Sure. But I am not convinced that Putin cares. As said in many places, Putin will go to history the worst aggressor in Europe since Hitler already. He might have committed economic suicide for Russia already. So don't be so sure he doesn't extend the suicide any further.
      - hutrdvnj 5y ago
        If Putin already has decided to end the world in a nuclear war, then there's not much that we can do about it. But if Putin would be seen as a brutal murderer by many russians, then chance are that there are some who could try to assassinate him, like there were many assassination attempts to Hitler.

periheli0n 5y ago

That is why Germany’s decision to deliver weapons is much more dramatic than many Germans realise. It is the admission that their previous policy of “Wandel durch Handel” (roughly meaning to gain influence in a country by forming tight trade links) has failed. Today it’s Russia, but they will have to follow through with China, too, plus a few other countries (gulf states e.g.).

scotty79 5y ago

If Putin gets Ukraine he'll definitely stay there forever. He will place his army alongside eastern Polish border and NATO will be forced to fortify the other side. Germany along with other countries of NATO will be forced to militarize which will cost way more than abandoning Russian exports. Ukraine is fighting now for less militarized and endangered Europe. I agree that sometimes it's better to loose a war. Just not this one.

ailef 5y ago
> Ukraine is fighting now for less militarized and endangered Europe. I hope somebody else can appreciate the irony of this sentence like I do, given that the cause of the conflict is military NATO expansion towards east.
- emteycz 5y ago
  The cause of the conflict is that NATO did not expand to Ukraine. Putin would've never risked it if they were members.
  - ailef 5y ago
    Putin wouldn't have allowed them to become members. And this is effectively what is happening here: Putin is unfortunately destroying Ukraine, and effectively making sure that any possibility of joining NATO is long gone. This would have just happened earlier if Ukraine had tried to join NATO.
    - emteycz 5y ago
      Nah, he is just ensuring Ukraine gets support to join immediately, and inflicting enormous damage on Russia in the process. He'll be remembered as "The Man Who Ended Russia in a Week". Russians are going to be embarrassed about their nationality for the next 100 years at least.
      - ailef 5y ago
        There is no chance Ukraine will join NATO in the short term (and possibly ever), let alone immediately. This would trigger an Article 5 invocation that would compel NATO members to send troops to Ukraine, escalate the conflict even more, possibly leading to a global war, which no one wants to do.
        janto 5y ago
        Putin has now demonstrated the need for NATO membership to Ukrainians. If they get a choice, my bet is they would join eagerly.
        ailef 5y ago
        Yes, but this point is kind of moot given that it was NATO membership expansion in the first place to start the tensions. You can look up articles from 2008 and see that even Germany (Angela Merkel) was adamantly opposed to Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO, because there was no credible threat from Russia and she knew this would create instability in Europe. The fact that there was no credible Russian threat is easily confirmed if you do a Google search for "ukraine russia" before 2008: you hardly find anything noteworthy. The whole narrative only changed around 2014. Now we're at the situation where the Ukrainian people, and also Russians and the entire Europe (at least economically), are paying huge costs because we couldn't avoid seconding foolish US foreign policy choices.
usr1106 5y ago
> I agree that sometimes it's better to loose a war. Just not this one. If Ukraine can stand up (which I'd hope, but don't really believe) and Putin thinks the same way you think he will use nuclear weapons. And he has said clearly that he thinks the current Ukraine is a threat to the survial of Russia. Which is of course nonsense, but that doesn't matter. The better support Ukraine gets the closer we are moving to a nuclear war. I'm not sure to say don't support them. But don't underestimate the danger of Putin.
- hutrdvnj 5y ago
  If Putin throws nukes in Europe then the radioactive fallout will reach border countries including russia. And it could provoke a nuclear reaction from NATO, because nuclear fallout over NATO states could be considered as attack.
  - usr1106 5y ago
    Sure. But I am not convinced that Putin cares. As said in many places, Putin will go to history the worst aggressor in Europe since Hitler already. He might have committed economic suicide for Russia already. So don't be so sure he doesn't extend the suicide any further.
    - hutrdvnj 5y ago
      If Putin already has decided to end the world in a nuclear war, then there's not much that we can do about it. But if Putin would be seen as a brutal murderer by many russians, then chance are that there are some who could try to assassinate him, like there were many assassination attempts to Hitler.