3 ms·

That's an extremely good point, which hits really close to home. I wonder if Putin would have still invaded Ukraine, knowing the extent of sanctions that would

That's an extremely good point, which hits really close to home. I wonder if Putin would have still invaded Ukraine, knowing the extent of sanctions that would hit them. He might have been lulled into thinking that the EU would not care, given the existence of people like Gerhard Schröder and his ilk. edit: I am not sure that the reason for the Russian-German energy alliance was an attempt at pacification. It seems more likely to me that it was simply in the economic interest of Germany. Countries which are East of Germany certainly complained about it, for strategic reasons.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/02/germany-dependence-russian-energy-gas-oil-nord-stream https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/02/germany-depend... > The relationship would benefit both sides: Germany would supply the machines and high-quality industrial goods; Russia would provide the raw material to fuel German industry. High-pressure pipelines and their supporting infrastructure hold the potential to bind countries together, since they require trust, cooperation and mutual dependence. But this was not just a commercial deal, as the presence at the hotel of the German economic minister Karl Schiller showed. For the advocates of Ostpolitik – the new “eastern policy” of rapprochement towards the Soviet Union and its allies including East Germany, launched the previous year under chancellor Willy Brandt – this was a moment of supreme political consequence. Schiller, an economist by training, was to describe it as part of an effort at “political and human normalisation with our Eastern neighbours”.
Izkata 2y ago
Before WWI there was a similar belief in Europe, that the growing economic interdependence would prevent wars from breaking out. Instead once there was a spark, those relationships kept pulling more and more countries into the conflict and turned it into the "Great War".
- dcrazy 2y ago
  Were they economic interdependencies or high-level political alliances? The E.U. is clearly an example of the economic interdependency theory. It evolved in post-WW2 Europe from the European Coal and Steel Community. Mineral richness is why the Saarland was given to France after WW2. The idea is that economic integration will lead to political integration from the ground up. My understanding of the pre-WW1 alliances is that they were deals made between a lot of people with “Habsburg” in their names.
  - wqaatwt 2y ago
    The Habsburg dynasty technically became extinct in 1780. After that they were the house of Habsburg-Lorraine and they didn’t have much direct influence outside of Austria-Hungary. Dynastic politics were by and large dead in the 1800s with few exceptions (but generally kings/queens were just pawns in the hand of the politicians unlike in the preceding centuries).
  - rat87 2y ago
    I disagree the EU is peaceful because of democratic peace theory and because of the political union not because of trade. If it was just economic and some of those countries were authoritarian I could easily border conflicts turning into wars
    - oceanplexian 2y ago
      It really hasn’t been particularly peaceful. The last dictatorship was in the 1970s? The last World War the 40s? The US might have had a civil war but it went in and came out the other side with the same borders, government, and constitution. Still going strong since the 18th century.
      - Kbelicius 2y ago
        The person you are responding to was talking about the EU. It did not exist in the 40s and Spain wasn't a part of it til the 80s. You are really bringing the level of discourse down.
      - 2y ago
- pyrale 2y ago
  > Instead once there was a spark, those relationships kept pulling more and more countries into the conflict This is a bad take on the cause of alliances. large wartime coalitions had been a thing since the consolidation of power into monarchies in Europe: the 7-year war had involved all of Europe's significant actors, as did the napoleonic wars, the war for the spanish succession, the 30-year war, etc. This was much earlier than the development of cross-border trade. In an imperialist era, diplomacy was the way to coordinate European nations' colonial efforts without repeating that kind of conflict. It was only temporary, though, since expansionist policies can't last forever peacefully. The reason WW1 felt so different from previous wars was technological development. That aspect was already present in earlier wars, WW1 was just the first major European conflict in a long time.
rat87 2y ago
German Ostpolitik (eastern politics) goes back before independent Russia back to the 1960s attempt to cooperate and have peace with Eastern Germany and the Soviet Union. And peace with Russia (maybe even its transformation into a regular democraric state) was the primary stated motivator in recent years. Economics and even bribes helpwd grease the wheels but peace is what formed the national strategy in the first place and what entrenched it kraut made some intresting videos on this topic recently. both the start of ostpolitik and their failure in recent hears compared with Polish politics towards Russia https://youtu.be/XjvrbnEMNVk?feature=shared https://youtu.be/XjvrbnEMNVk?feature=shared https://youtu.be/bWJeNVzqBZI?feature=shared https://youtu.be/bWJeNVzqBZI?feature=shared
ashoeafoot 2y ago
Its prussian restorationism, it oozes out of berlin since the reunification and with it and its disciples (AFD) comes that idea that you can ignore the small countries if you are a big country. There are people not falling for it, but real-imperialists like Steinmeier, Schröder or Gauland are ready to send other smaller nations to the slaughter for their own benefits .

toomuchtodo 2y ago

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/02/germany-dependence-russian-energy-gas-oil-nord-stream https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/02/germany-depend... > The relationship would benefit both sides: Germany would supply the machines and high-quality industrial goods; Russia would provide the raw material to fuel German industry. High-pressure pipelines and their supporting infrastructure hold the potential to bind countries together, since they require trust, cooperation and mutual dependence. But this was not just a commercial deal, as the presence at the hotel of the German economic minister Karl Schiller showed. For the advocates of Ostpolitik – the new “eastern policy” of rapprochement towards the Soviet Union and its allies including East Germany, launched the previous year under chancellor Willy Brandt – this was a moment of supreme political consequence. Schiller, an economist by training, was to describe it as part of an effort at “political and human normalisation with our Eastern neighbours”.

Izkata 2y ago

Before WWI there was a similar belief in Europe, that the growing economic interdependence would prevent wars from breaking out. Instead once there was a spark, those relationships kept pulling more and more countries into the conflict and turned it into the "Great War".

dcrazy 2y ago
Were they economic interdependencies or high-level political alliances? The E.U. is clearly an example of the economic interdependency theory. It evolved in post-WW2 Europe from the European Coal and Steel Community. Mineral richness is why the Saarland was given to France after WW2. The idea is that economic integration will lead to political integration from the ground up. My understanding of the pre-WW1 alliances is that they were deals made between a lot of people with “Habsburg” in their names.
- wqaatwt 2y ago
  The Habsburg dynasty technically became extinct in 1780. After that they were the house of Habsburg-Lorraine and they didn’t have much direct influence outside of Austria-Hungary. Dynastic politics were by and large dead in the 1800s with few exceptions (but generally kings/queens were just pawns in the hand of the politicians unlike in the preceding centuries).
- rat87 2y ago
  I disagree the EU is peaceful because of democratic peace theory and because of the political union not because of trade. If it was just economic and some of those countries were authoritarian I could easily border conflicts turning into wars
  - oceanplexian 2y ago
    It really hasn’t been particularly peaceful. The last dictatorship was in the 1970s? The last World War the 40s? The US might have had a civil war but it went in and came out the other side with the same borders, government, and constitution. Still going strong since the 18th century.
    - Kbelicius 2y ago
      The person you are responding to was talking about the EU. It did not exist in the 40s and Spain wasn't a part of it til the 80s. You are really bringing the level of discourse down.
    - 2y ago
pyrale 2y ago
> Instead once there was a spark, those relationships kept pulling more and more countries into the conflict This is a bad take on the cause of alliances. large wartime coalitions had been a thing since the consolidation of power into monarchies in Europe: the 7-year war had involved all of Europe's significant actors, as did the napoleonic wars, the war for the spanish succession, the 30-year war, etc. This was much earlier than the development of cross-border trade. In an imperialist era, diplomacy was the way to coordinate European nations' colonial efforts without repeating that kind of conflict. It was only temporary, though, since expansionist policies can't last forever peacefully. The reason WW1 felt so different from previous wars was technological development. That aspect was already present in earlier wars, WW1 was just the first major European conflict in a long time.

rat87 2y ago

German Ostpolitik (eastern politics) goes back before independent Russia back to the 1960s attempt to cooperate and have peace with Eastern Germany and the Soviet Union. And peace with Russia (maybe even its transformation into a regular democraric state) was the primary stated motivator in recent years. Economics and even bribes helpwd grease the wheels but peace is what formed the national strategy in the first place and what entrenched it kraut made some intresting videos on this topic recently. both the start of ostpolitik and their failure in recent hears compared with Polish politics towards Russia https://youtu.be/XjvrbnEMNVk?feature=shared https://youtu.be/XjvrbnEMNVk?feature=shared https://youtu.be/bWJeNVzqBZI?feature=shared https://youtu.be/bWJeNVzqBZI?feature=shared

ashoeafoot 2y ago

Its prussian restorationism, it oozes out of berlin since the reunification and with it and its disciples (AFD) comes that idea that you can ignore the small countries if you are a big country. There are people not falling for it, but real-imperialists like Steinmeier, Schröder or Gauland are ready to send other smaller nations to the slaughter for their own benefits .