5 ms·

Now consider that Germany has a huge dependency not only on the supply side to China but also on the demand side for machinery equipment and vehicles. In additi

Now consider that Germany has a huge dependency not only on the supply side to China but also on the demand side for machinery equipment and vehicles. In addition, we have a huge dependency on the US for national security. So we are dependent on Russia for Energy, on China for Manufacturing and industrial demand of our most important industrial sectors and are protected by the US from a National Security point of view. The army is a national laughing stock, the car industry is begging to be disrupted, and chinese equipment and machinery companies have completed their IP theft programs and are now almost at par from an innovation level. All while international media hailed Merkel and her useful idiots for their international leadership.

mort96 5y ago
Wait what's the contradiction here? Merkel's and Germany's international leadership can be good at the same time as Germany's dependency on Russia and China is problematic from a national security perspective. Those two aren't mutually exclusive.
- lobochrome 5y ago
  Maybe. I guess you can celebrate her for her "international leadership" (what are we exactly celebrating by the way?) and at the same time acknowledge that she completely missed the interests of her constituency.
  - randomopining 5y ago
    Yeah I don't see how she made any strategic decisions that set up the long term success for Germany and EU. She's remembered bigly internationally for letting all the migrants in.
    - timeon 5y ago
      Bordering countries like Italy and Greece were becoming overwhelmed by migration wave. They were crying for help for quite some time til anyone even noticed the problem. So to ease the pressure there was plan to redistribute them in to EU. This was refused by several countries so 'Merkel' took some of them to Germany. It was not ideal but better then nothing. That crisis was caused by instability in Middle East. Which was caused by several other factors like climate (farms without water in Syria) and international politics of Russia and USA. But like now everyone was blaming Germany.
      - petre 5y ago
        She should have thrown money and equipment at the problem like the US does. That works most of the time. When it doesn't, let French diplomacy handle it. Or even better, just do both at the same time. Italy and Greece, just take this money and patrol ships and do coastal patrol. Hungary, just take this money and build a barbed wire fence, if you think it works. Border states were guarding the Schengen Area dreamland. Instead they paid Turkey tribute to allow it to blackmail and took the migrants in, assingned quotas which made everyone unhappy about it.
        mort96 5y ago
        Building barbed wire and stronger coastal patrols doesn't help you take in more refugees. Getting more countries to accept refugees helps take in more refugees. But I suppose you solution is to just kill all the refugees by letting them drown or whatever. Which, I suppose, is one way to solve a perceived "refugee crisis", but it wouldn't be my first choice.
        petre 5y ago
        Most of those were not war but economical refugees and they forced through EU borders, which the EU states at the periphery of the EU have to guard. Belarus used them to blackmail Poland and Lituania. Turkey used the refugees to blackmail the EU for more funds to essentially keep them out. The fences worked in fact, because the refugees changed their route. Other states have also built fences, but Hungary was the first to do so and it is by far the largest fence built during the refugee crisis. The US has a 650 mile border wall with Mexico exactly for this reason. Most of this border barrier was actually built during the Obama administration, Trump just used it as a campaign objective to build a "big, beautiful wall" instead of a fence. A fence does not necessarily bar a country from accepting refugees, but offers better border enforcement and so does an adequate coast guard. If a state can't even enforce its borders, there is no state to begin with. When human traffickers are discouraged, they'll look for other sources of income. I'm not for building fences and walls, but I can't really imagine other alternatives that actually work at enforcing borders at least to some extent.
  - mort96 5y ago
    I mean, "international leadership" are your words. I don't know what Merkel personally has done (or what her "useful idiots" have personally done, or even who those "useful idiots" are). But you are positing that there's a contradiction between Germany's dependency on China and Russia, and Merkel's perceived achievements in international leadership. I'm just saying that there's no contradiction or hypocrisy in being in an influential international leadership role, while being from a country with its own national security issues. Essentially, I'm saying that the last part of your argument falls under the "vaguely gesturing at imagined hypocrisy" category.
paganel 5y ago
The problem with a country like Germany is that it's too big for Europe (as a continent), but too "small" for the world. Similar thing for France. Of course that the European Union was meant as a solution for this problem (and for the accompanying wars caused by it). I'd say that while the EU has been a great project from an economic pov from a political and geo-strategic pov this war in Ukraine is showing its huge weaknesses. Imo only the US, China and partially Russia (and maybe India) can be really autarchic, all of these countries that span almost an entire continent (or a big part of it). Not sure if there's a solution to all of this, from Europe's point of view. Ideally by this point we should have had a genuine political and societal union (I'm from Romania myself, another EU member), but that has failed, it is failing (of course that the powers that be refuse to acknowledge that). Without that genuine political and societal union one cannot have an autarchic Europe.
- blaser-waffle 5y ago
  India is far too fractured and chaotic to really bat at the same level as the US or China. They will (probably)get there, but they're not at the big leagues just yet. Russia was thought to maybe be at that level, but the war is showing how hollow their military is, and maybe how wobbly their economy is.
- actionfromafar 5y ago
  Upvoting but Russia most definitely cannot be self-sufficient. Unless you mean in a theoretical or future sense. Most of it exports are energy, and their industry depends heavily on western and chinese machinery and components.
  - holoduke 5y ago
    Enough smart people to create a small world within.
    - imtringued 5y ago
      No, it's more logical to send all the smart people to Germany, let them work there and then sell your resources to Germany. You can then buy high quality products from Germany and thereby be completely independent from a properly functioning domestic economy.
cycomanic 5y ago
That's a weird argument, you will essentially not find one country in the world that is autark from others. If they are building stuff they depend on raw products from other countries and other countries to buy their things. If they consume things they are dependent on others again. I mean even if you're the centre of semiconductor manufacturing in the world like Taiwan, you still depend on others to build your machinary (pretty much all the EUV systems are build by Asml a Dutch Company)

mort96 5y ago

Wait what's the contradiction here? Merkel's and Germany's international leadership can be good at the same time as Germany's dependency on Russia and China is problematic from a national security perspective. Those two aren't mutually exclusive.

lobochrome 5y ago
Maybe. I guess you can celebrate her for her "international leadership" (what are we exactly celebrating by the way?) and at the same time acknowledge that she completely missed the interests of her constituency.
- randomopining 5y ago
  Yeah I don't see how she made any strategic decisions that set up the long term success for Germany and EU. She's remembered bigly internationally for letting all the migrants in.
  - timeon 5y ago
    Bordering countries like Italy and Greece were becoming overwhelmed by migration wave. They were crying for help for quite some time til anyone even noticed the problem. So to ease the pressure there was plan to redistribute them in to EU. This was refused by several countries so 'Merkel' took some of them to Germany. It was not ideal but better then nothing. That crisis was caused by instability in Middle East. Which was caused by several other factors like climate (farms without water in Syria) and international politics of Russia and USA. But like now everyone was blaming Germany.
    - petre 5y ago
      She should have thrown money and equipment at the problem like the US does. That works most of the time. When it doesn't, let French diplomacy handle it. Or even better, just do both at the same time. Italy and Greece, just take this money and patrol ships and do coastal patrol. Hungary, just take this money and build a barbed wire fence, if you think it works. Border states were guarding the Schengen Area dreamland. Instead they paid Turkey tribute to allow it to blackmail and took the migrants in, assingned quotas which made everyone unhappy about it.
      - mort96 5y ago
        Building barbed wire and stronger coastal patrols doesn't help you take in more refugees. Getting more countries to accept refugees helps take in more refugees. But I suppose you solution is to just kill all the refugees by letting them drown or whatever. Which, I suppose, is one way to solve a perceived "refugee crisis", but it wouldn't be my first choice.
        petre 5y ago
        Most of those were not war but economical refugees and they forced through EU borders, which the EU states at the periphery of the EU have to guard. Belarus used them to blackmail Poland and Lituania. Turkey used the refugees to blackmail the EU for more funds to essentially keep them out. The fences worked in fact, because the refugees changed their route. Other states have also built fences, but Hungary was the first to do so and it is by far the largest fence built during the refugee crisis. The US has a 650 mile border wall with Mexico exactly for this reason. Most of this border barrier was actually built during the Obama administration, Trump just used it as a campaign objective to build a "big, beautiful wall" instead of a fence. A fence does not necessarily bar a country from accepting refugees, but offers better border enforcement and so does an adequate coast guard. If a state can't even enforce its borders, there is no state to begin with. When human traffickers are discouraged, they'll look for other sources of income. I'm not for building fences and walls, but I can't really imagine other alternatives that actually work at enforcing borders at least to some extent.
- mort96 5y ago
  I mean, "international leadership" are your words. I don't know what Merkel personally has done (or what her "useful idiots" have personally done, or even who those "useful idiots" are). But you are positing that there's a contradiction between Germany's dependency on China and Russia, and Merkel's perceived achievements in international leadership. I'm just saying that there's no contradiction or hypocrisy in being in an influential international leadership role, while being from a country with its own national security issues. Essentially, I'm saying that the last part of your argument falls under the "vaguely gesturing at imagined hypocrisy" category.

paganel 5y ago

The problem with a country like Germany is that it's too big for Europe (as a continent), but too "small" for the world. Similar thing for France. Of course that the European Union was meant as a solution for this problem (and for the accompanying wars caused by it). I'd say that while the EU has been a great project from an economic pov from a political and geo-strategic pov this war in Ukraine is showing its huge weaknesses. Imo only the US, China and partially Russia (and maybe India) can be really autarchic, all of these countries that span almost an entire continent (or a big part of it). Not sure if there's a solution to all of this, from Europe's point of view. Ideally by this point we should have had a genuine political and societal union (I'm from Romania myself, another EU member), but that has failed, it is failing (of course that the powers that be refuse to acknowledge that). Without that genuine political and societal union one cannot have an autarchic Europe.

blaser-waffle 5y ago
India is far too fractured and chaotic to really bat at the same level as the US or China. They will (probably)get there, but they're not at the big leagues just yet. Russia was thought to maybe be at that level, but the war is showing how hollow their military is, and maybe how wobbly their economy is.
actionfromafar 5y ago
Upvoting but Russia most definitely cannot be self-sufficient. Unless you mean in a theoretical or future sense. Most of it exports are energy, and their industry depends heavily on western and chinese machinery and components.
- holoduke 5y ago
  Enough smart people to create a small world within.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    No, it's more logical to send all the smart people to Germany, let them work there and then sell your resources to Germany. You can then buy high quality products from Germany and thereby be completely independent from a properly functioning domestic economy.

cycomanic 5y ago

That's a weird argument, you will essentially not find one country in the world that is autark from others. If they are building stuff they depend on raw products from other countries and other countries to buy their things. If they consume things they are dependent on others again. I mean even if you're the centre of semiconductor manufacturing in the world like Taiwan, you still depend on others to build your machinary (pretty much all the EUV systems are build by Asml a Dutch Company)