And yet she didn't bother to take his words seriously and maybe consider whether de facto backing russia (e.g. thinking moving forward with Nord Stream 2 after the annexation of Crimea was a good idea).

[–] nexusband@lemmy.world 10 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

I'm going to get down voted, but it's a bit more complicated than that. Granted, in hindsight the "economic binding" strategy was clearly wrong and a bad call, but at the time "we" believed Putin that he will honor agreements and be a trustworthy partner. And that he will honor Russian economy over territorial things, that do not matter at all for the standing of russia - hell, even back then the consensus was that Russia will utterly fail if they try something stupid, because they "needed" the gas money more, than we needed their gas. And while that downfall will take a few more years, it is inevitable. I admit though, I could not have been more wrong about some things...

[–] Skiluros@sh.itjust.works 4 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

I will have to disagree.

I don't think she intended to be malicious per se (that would be Schroder), but Merkel definitely had a deep respect for russian imperial ambitions if not a roundabout show of support for russia's land expansion.

Something along the lines of "well, what they are doing is wrong, but we'll just have to keep supporting russia in hope that they will become normal in 30 years. The ends justify the means so to speak, except there are no ends in the case, it's just Merkel enabling russia.

Reading through her comments after the full scale invasion, I get the impression she hasn't changed her view and on an outcome basis supports the annexation of Ukrainian territories. Sure, she'll say it's wrong, but she will always oppose any real actions to kick russia out of Ukraine.

load more comments (4 replies)