4 ms·

> Btw, Wouldn't that 3 Billion be better spent in Germany on ... A national government has to manage a lot of time & scale trade-offs. Longer-term, keeping a

> Btw, Wouldn't that 3 Billion be better spent in Germany on ... 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?

FirmwareBurner 2y ago
Russia can't even invade some villages in Ukraine, what makes you think they'll be a threat to whole of NATO and invade Germany after, that warrants German taxpayer money funding Ukraine when Germany can't fund its own rail infrastructure and education system property? 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.
- baybal2 2y ago
  [dead]
- viraptor 2y ago
  > Russia can't even invade some villages in Ukraine, 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.
ossobuco 2y ago
That is only a good investment if you believe that: - 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.
- baybal2 2y ago
  [dead]
- jltsiren 2y ago
  Russian security doctrine is based on surrounding themselves with buffer states. Those buffer states cannot be fully sovereign, because a fully sovereign state could choose an alliance with another major power. Ideally they should be vassals, but neutral countries can also be tolerated. 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.
- bell-cot 2y ago
  <sigh/> ...now I'm wishing that someone would downvote you. You are attributing to me simplistic straw-man beliefs which I do not have, and demanding that I defend counterfactuals. In a rather unpleasant tone. While kinda presenting your own assertions as axioms.

FirmwareBurner 2y ago

Russia can't even invade some villages in Ukraine, what makes you think they'll be a threat to whole of NATO and invade Germany after, that warrants German taxpayer money funding Ukraine when Germany can't fund its own rail infrastructure and education system property? 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.

baybal2 2y ago
[dead]
viraptor 2y ago
> Russia can't even invade some villages in Ukraine, 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.

ossobuco 2y ago

That is only a good investment if you believe that: - 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.

baybal2 2y ago
[dead]
jltsiren 2y ago
Russian security doctrine is based on surrounding themselves with buffer states. Those buffer states cannot be fully sovereign, because a fully sovereign state could choose an alliance with another major power. Ideally they should be vassals, but neutral countries can also be tolerated. 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.
bell-cot 2y ago
<sigh/> ...now I'm wishing that someone would downvote you. You are attributing to me simplistic straw-man beliefs which I do not have, and demanding that I defend counterfactuals. In a rather unpleasant tone. While kinda presenting your own assertions as axioms.