‘We were all wrong’: how Germany got hooked on Russian energy

[shockedcanadian]

As I'm watching CNN link Putin to Trump (again), I can't help but think about their silence as Germany made Russian oligarchs wealthy. Trump didn't arm Russia, don't blame your enemy for exploiting a weakness that you allowed.

The Guardian couldn't find it in themselves to quote Trump who repeatedly warned Germany about this reliance, while Merkel and her weak government laughed at the risks. They couldn't swallow their pride and ensure historical accuracy.

Who was right on this issue?

âWe were all wrongâ: how Germany got hooked on Russian energy

The long read: Germany has been forced to admit it was a terrible mistake to become so dependent on Russian oil and gas. So why did it happen?

www.theguardian.com

Germany has been forced to admit it was a terrible mistake to become so dependent on Russian oil and gas. So why did it happen?

 

[ESay]

Germany has been forced to admit it was a terrible mistake to become so dependent on Russian oil and gas. So why did it happen?

Answer is obvious. Great profits out of stable flows of Russian natural resources.

 

[zaangalewa]

...

Germany has been forced to admit it was a terrible mistake to become so dependent on Russian oil and gas. So why did it happen?

​

We had not be forced to do so - we evolved the gas market for Russia. This had been part of the serios peace politics of Germany. The short formula for this politics is "Wandel durch Handel" (change by trade). Our hope had been to strengthen the European roots of Russia. And not we had been wrong with our peace politics - Putin is wrong with his war politics.

 

[para bellum]

We had not be forced to do so - we evolved the gas market for Russia. This had been part of the serios peace politics of Germany. The short formula for this politics is "Wandel durch Handel" (change by trade). Our hope had been to strengthen the European roots of Russia. And not we had been wrong with our peace politics - Putin is wrong with his war politics.

It's the same misguided belief that we held about China too. Hard line positions would soften if there was economic interdependence.

What we got out of it was just the opposite.

 

[ESay]

It's the same misguided belief that we held about China too. Hard line positions would soften if there was economic interdependence.

What we got out of it was just the opposite.

It is the same logic I applied to the Iranian nuclear deal. That economic integration in the world market would give a chance for the reformators to gain real power. I don't know, maybe it would get even worse.

 

[para bellum]

It is the same logic I applied to the Iranian nuclear deal. That economic integration in the world market would give a chance for the reformators to gain real power. I don't know, maybe it would get even worse.

I think the track record of the logic is not good. The end points always seem to empower the autocrats.

Iran is a unique case, for many years the US assessment was that Iran would self-reform under internal pressure. Iranians are modern and tolerant people, it's the theocracy that isn't.

Iran was flush with cash after the nuke deal, but it didn't get invested in Iranian civil society, it went to their regional proxies. I don't see why that would change, given autocrats require outside enemies to justify crackdowns on domestic dissent.

 

[toomuchtime_]

​

We had not be forced to do so - we evolved the gas market for Russia. This had been part of the serios peace politics of Germany. The short formula for this politics is "Wandel durch Handel" (change by trade). Our hope had been to strengthen the European roots of Russia. And not we had been wrong with our peace politics - Putin is wrong with his war politics.

I don't think change by trade fully explains Europe allowing itself to become dependent on Russia for its energy needs. Trade with Russia? Certainly. Become dependent on Russia? That was just foolish and irresponsible. Being a member of NATO and becoming dependent on Russia, does that make sense? No, it doesn't.

For decades, the US had been warning Europe not to become dependent on trade with Russia, but the Europeans, especially France and Germany, motivated at least in part by arrogant anti Americanism, chose to believe in a world that was not dangerous and in which it was not dependent on the US for protection.

Clearly, Putin believed Europe's dependence on Russian gas and oil gave him great leverage in dealing with European objections to the two Russian invasions of Ukraine, so the question arises: if Europe had never become dependent on Russian gas and oil, would Putin have dared to invade Ukraine? Did western Europe's dependence on Russian gas and oil set the table for Putin's fantasies about expanding the Russian empire?

 

[ESay]

I think the track record of the logic is not good. The end points always seem to empower the autocrats.

Iran is a unique case, for many years the US assessment was that Iran would self-reform under internal pressure. Iranians are modern and tolerant people, it's the theocracy that isn't.

Iran was flush with cash after the nuke deal, but it didn't get invested in Iranian civil society, it went to their regional proxies. I don't see why that would change, given autocrats require outside enemies to justify crackdowns on domestic dissent.

I don't think that what happened after signing the deal can be called flushing with cash. The sanctions were being lifted gradually, and they hadn't been lifted entirely in any time.

But for now, I don't know whether a new deal is possible. I have little doubt that some talks are being held behind the closed doors. Whether they bring some agreement, I don't know. The world needs their oil, after all.

But then again, I don't want a similar situation to happen there as is ongoing in Europe with Russia. There also had been claims about European need in Russian energy sources and what reliable partner Russia is.

 

[para bellum]

I don't think that what happened after signing the deal can be called flushing with cash. The sanctions were being lifted gradually, and they hadn't been lifted entirely in any time.

$100 Bn isn't pocket change, that's what Iran said was released in frozen assets around the world.

Iran Says $100 Billion In Frozen Assets 'Fully Released'

Iran says it now has access to more than $100 billion worth of overseas assets that were unfrozen as a result of a landmark nuclear deal with world powers.

www.rferl.org

 

[Litwin]

Germany made Russian oligarchs wealthy

Germany has created Moscow imperialism, army , and this war in general.

remember :

 

[ESay]

$100 Bn isn't pocket change, that's what Iran said was released in frozen assets around the world.

Iran Says $100 Billion In Frozen Assets 'Fully Released'

Iran says it now has access to more than $100 billion worth of overseas assets that were unfrozen as a result of a landmark nuclear deal with world powers.

www.rferl.org

Well, 100 bn is a big enough figure. I don't remember about those unfrozen funds it got, to tell the truth. What I remember is that it was an interim period when sanctions were being lifted gradually. But this period didn't end, basically, because the sanctions were reimposed.

 

[Burgermeister]

Look at these German assholes laughing at Trump in 2018 when he warned them during a UN address -