4 ms·

Also, framing it as if Germany policy had not been also ... "influenced" by Russia's long-term strategy would be quite naive.

blub 4y ago
Why does everyone attribute to deception what could just as easily be attributed to this relationship being beneficial for Germany (and a lot of other EU countries which are conveniently omitted from this discussion)? Energy is at the core of economic development and Germany and a bunch of other countries were able to get gas for decades.
- agapon 4y ago
  Do you the famous (and maybe fake) quote 'The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them' ? It's the same here, but with selling energy to "capitalists". What Europeans might have seen as purely economic affair for the USSR / Russia was just means of getting money to grow and support its army, to buy Western politicians and media influence, etc.
  - blub 4y ago
    Theoretically you’re right. Practically you’re not though, because as history attests, the USSR dissolved peacefully and thorough all the ups and downs the economic relationship survived. This is perhaps why the warnings from the US were ignored for so long: they were based on self-interest and they had a track record of being wrong for decades.
    - lnsru 4y ago
      It was not peacefully. Rather without large scale war. Some people got killed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_Events_(Lithuania) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_Events_(Lithuania)
  - wsc981 4y ago
    Germany is just the b*tch of the USA though, that becomes very clear in this press conference. Germany has nothing to say over Nordstream: https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8?t=74 https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8?t=74
    - mannerheim 4y ago
      'US Senate approves Nord Stream 2 Russia-Germany pipeline sanctions | The move by US lawmakers is part of a push to counter Russian influence in Europe, but European [i.e., German] lawmakers have said the US should mind its own business.' 2019 December 17 https://www.dw.com/en/us-senate-approves-nord-stream-2-russia-germany-pipeline-sanctions/a-51711980 https://www.dw.com/en/us-senate-approves-nord-stream-2-russi... 'Why Germany pipes down when talk turns to Nord Stream 2 sanctions | Chancellor Olaf Scholz won’t say pipeline is finished if Russia attacks Ukraine, despite strong pressure from allies.' 2022 February 8 https://www.politico.eu/article/olaf-scholz-silence-on-nord-stream-2-draws-fresh-criticism/amp/ https://www.politico.eu/article/olaf-scholz-silence-on-nord-...
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  "could just as easily be attributed to this relationship being beneficial for Germany" There is no single concience called Germany that may definitively answer the question of whether it benefits them. As is often the case, people benefetting from this relationship are not the ones paying the price when something goes wrong. For every 1 billion of economic benefit produced by this relationship, this war has destroyed 5. most lukely, without this relationship, the qar would not be possible.
  - blub 4y ago
    The fact that it persisted for decades and increased in capacity is proof that it benefited Germany and the other European countries. And you’ve noticed yourself that the benefits accrued in the EU and the costs were incurred in Ukraine. But this is oversimplifying things - the Ukraine war has other important geopolitical facets besides the admittedly important energy aspect, such as NATO expansion.
guerrilla 4y ago
I think it's a mistake to see that as one sided. Bringing Russia closer to Europe and (according to the now falsified theory) creating conditions for peace while also getting cheap energy has been a goal of plenty of European elites.
- greedo 4y ago
  Elites who have been compensated handsomely by the Kremlin. "Useful idiots" comes to mind.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  > Bringing Russia closer to Europe and (according to the now falsified theory) creating conditions for peace It's not falsified. It may have improved conditions for peace; the situation could have been far worse now. Real-world issues don't work out neatly; they are extremely complex; you never know what the alternative outcome would have been. As an analogy, eating healthy food and getting exercise isn't 'falsified' as health recommendations when someone happens to die young.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    Yeah, definitely. I meant the position that it would be sufficient or decreased the probability much more than it could have (and did.) I'm actually of the opinion that it was the right thing to do and really we didn't do enough connecting the economies, bridging the cultures and elites and that's why we ended up in this situation. On the other hand, we probably shouldn't have gone that far in on gas without having done the rest of that and seeing actual results. If the long-term costs were accounted for, I think green was actually cheaper all along.

blub 4y ago

Why does everyone attribute to deception what could just as easily be attributed to this relationship being beneficial for Germany (and a lot of other EU countries which are conveniently omitted from this discussion)? Energy is at the core of economic development and Germany and a bunch of other countries were able to get gas for decades.

agapon 4y ago
Do you the famous (and maybe fake) quote 'The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them' ? It's the same here, but with selling energy to "capitalists". What Europeans might have seen as purely economic affair for the USSR / Russia was just means of getting money to grow and support its army, to buy Western politicians and media influence, etc.
- blub 4y ago
  Theoretically you’re right. Practically you’re not though, because as history attests, the USSR dissolved peacefully and thorough all the ups and downs the economic relationship survived. This is perhaps why the warnings from the US were ignored for so long: they were based on self-interest and they had a track record of being wrong for decades.
  - lnsru 4y ago
    It was not peacefully. Rather without large scale war. Some people got killed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_Events_(Lithuania) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_Events_(Lithuania)
- wsc981 4y ago
  Germany is just the b*tch of the USA though, that becomes very clear in this press conference. Germany has nothing to say over Nordstream: https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8?t=74 https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8?t=74
  - mannerheim 4y ago
    'US Senate approves Nord Stream 2 Russia-Germany pipeline sanctions | The move by US lawmakers is part of a push to counter Russian influence in Europe, but European [i.e., German] lawmakers have said the US should mind its own business.' 2019 December 17 https://www.dw.com/en/us-senate-approves-nord-stream-2-russia-germany-pipeline-sanctions/a-51711980 https://www.dw.com/en/us-senate-approves-nord-stream-2-russi... 'Why Germany pipes down when talk turns to Nord Stream 2 sanctions | Chancellor Olaf Scholz won’t say pipeline is finished if Russia attacks Ukraine, despite strong pressure from allies.' 2022 February 8 https://www.politico.eu/article/olaf-scholz-silence-on-nord-stream-2-draws-fresh-criticism/amp/ https://www.politico.eu/article/olaf-scholz-silence-on-nord-...
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
"could just as easily be attributed to this relationship being beneficial for Germany" There is no single concience called Germany that may definitively answer the question of whether it benefits them. As is often the case, people benefetting from this relationship are not the ones paying the price when something goes wrong. For every 1 billion of economic benefit produced by this relationship, this war has destroyed 5. most lukely, without this relationship, the qar would not be possible.
- blub 4y ago
  The fact that it persisted for decades and increased in capacity is proof that it benefited Germany and the other European countries. And you’ve noticed yourself that the benefits accrued in the EU and the costs were incurred in Ukraine. But this is oversimplifying things - the Ukraine war has other important geopolitical facets besides the admittedly important energy aspect, such as NATO expansion.

guerrilla 4y ago

I think it's a mistake to see that as one sided. Bringing Russia closer to Europe and (according to the now falsified theory) creating conditions for peace while also getting cheap energy has been a goal of plenty of European elites.

greedo 4y ago
Elites who have been compensated handsomely by the Kremlin. "Useful idiots" comes to mind.
wolverine876 4y ago
> Bringing Russia closer to Europe and (according to the now falsified theory) creating conditions for peace It's not falsified. It may have improved conditions for peace; the situation could have been far worse now. Real-world issues don't work out neatly; they are extremely complex; you never know what the alternative outcome would have been. As an analogy, eating healthy food and getting exercise isn't 'falsified' as health recommendations when someone happens to die young.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  Yeah, definitely. I meant the position that it would be sufficient or decreased the probability much more than it could have (and did.) I'm actually of the opinion that it was the right thing to do and really we didn't do enough connecting the economies, bridging the cultures and elites and that's why we ended up in this situation. On the other hand, we probably shouldn't have gone that far in on gas without having done the rest of that and seeing actual results. If the long-term costs were accounted for, I think green was actually cheaper all along.