Main Edition
US
FR
October 3, 2024 - 1:00pm
It’s been nearly two years since Olaf Scholz last spoke with Vladimir Putin. Now the newspaper Zeit reports that the German Chancellor is considering a telephone call with the Russian President — a move intended to send a message to his own electorate as much as to the Kremlin.
Moscow’s answer came instantly. Putin had Scholz know that “at first glance, there seems to be no common ground [for a conversation]” and that “our relations have practically reached rock bottom and not because of our initiative”. But the deafening nyet from Moscow hasn’t stopped Scholz from making his point in Germany: he wants peace.
The restyling of Scholz from war leader to peace chancellor is in full swing. While emphasising that Germany will continue to support Ukraine “for as long as it takes”, Scholz’s coalition has recently decided on severe cuts to its aid for Kyiv and his party ran its European election campaign explicitly on a peace message.
Scholz is undoubtedly hoping to draw voters back to his beleaguered Social Democratic Party (SPD), which is currently languishing in third place in many polls. As the recent regional elections in three of Germany’s 16 states have shown, there is a sizeable proportion of the electorate that opposes further support for Ukraine. In all three states, the far-Right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) gained nearly a third of the vote while the Left-wing populist Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW) gained over 10% in each despite being a brand new party. Both ran on Russia-friendly manifestos.
The argument that pre-war relations between Germany and Russia should be restored is more deeply entrenched in the former East Germany, where the recent elections took place, but it is also widespread across the country where it is usually dressed up as pacifism.
One recent survey indicated that the vast majority of Germans want peace negotiations and that this is an election-deciding issue for 52% of voters in the East and 41% in the West. The survey should be taken with a pinch of salt since it was commissioned by the feminist magazine Emma, which has strongly argued against weapon deliveries to Ukraine since the Russian invasion in 2022, but it is indicative of the public mood swing that Scholz wants to tap into.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWhy are politicians so pathetic. No wonder that centre parties are suffering – their politicians change tack almost every week. Bring on Trump.
Except Trump has flip-flopped markedly. His winning platform of 2016, “America First,” has been sidelined. His transition co-chair, billionaire Howard Lutnick, wants to tap “talent” among the ranks of the security state, the same talent pool that loves endless wars while putting serious American domestic concerns a distant second — absolutely corrupt people from the swamp like Jared Kushner, Mike Pompeo, Niki Haley, John Bolton. Trump’s foreign policy, the debt he owes to $100M funders like Mariam Adelson who want unlimited and unqualified support for Israel, the key people on his team, make his campaign look not much different than a traditional Republican one.
The figure who now most resembles Trump’s 2016 ideology is J.D. Vance, but Trump himself has made a big tack from 2016. He’s always been mercurial, really.
Just because this is the narrative of the supporters of war it does not have to be true. What would be the reason for Russia to attack a NATO country knowing it’s gonna lose? They are not idiots, but the narrative is for the ones they have no brain.
As it happens, they are idiots. They thought the invasion of Ukraine would be over in a week.
Yeah, he’s never changed tack in his whole life!
Can we please stop describing a pro-peace platform as being “Russia-friendly”. It isn’t.
The link above sends me to Deutsche Welle, a government mouthpiece and part of the media being weaponised against the AfD and the BSW.
Hey, even I am “pro-peace”, it’s just that my “peace” looks a bit different to Putin’s.
If Putin came out and said 2 + 2 = 4, we’d restructure our maths.
What does your peace look like, Martin?
Russian troops out of Ukraine, Russia crippled both militarily and economically, and a pariah state on a very short leash.
But who can achieve that? And how? And at what cost?
This war has been escalating: each new system the West supplies to Ukraine prompts Russia to intensify its military actions and introduce new weapons. However, viewing this war as being contained within Ukraine is misleading. The conflict is part of a broader confrontation between the West and Russia, with implications far beyond Ukraine. If peace is truly the goal, then it is necessary to negotiate with Russia to establish mechanisms that maintain a strategic distance between powers. This is fundamentally about creating a new security architecture in Europe and beyond. The opportunity to negotiate in 2021 was missed, and now the costs of this oversight are much higher. If the West, particularly the EU, continues its current level of military spending, it risks impoverishing itself further.
Now that all is beginning to rapidly collapse in Ukraine, now that it is impossible for Western leaders and mainstream pundits to publicly deny anymore that Ukraine is losing the war, Scholz wants to speak to Putin, even “While emphasising that Germany will continue to support Ukraine ‘for as long as it takes.'”
Putin has repeatedly stated, and recently, that all objectives of the “Special Military Operation” must be met. It’s not going to be the tone and terms of Istanbul now, but a harder line. Namely, Ukrainians must withdraw from all four regions, must agree to neutrality — no NATO — must greatly downscale their armed forces, must fully protect the rights of Russian-speakers and the Russian Orthodox Church, and curb the assorted radical nationalist militias and their allies.
The West has zero leverage. The Russians have no reason to moderate their position because, as everyone knowledgeable concedes, they are going to win the war. The sanctions didn’t work, and in fact Russia’s economy is stronger today. Russia didn’t back off its demands of April ’22 when Scholz imposed sanctions, or in the fall of ’22 when the CIA’s Bill Burns met Sergey Naryshkin, head of Russia’s SVR.
As the article implies, Scholz’s gesture is performative and self-serving. The Russians have even less reason to be flexible now. I wonder if Scholz genuinely believed that Putin would be willing to enter negotiations and make any concessions. The Russians have no reason to do so. Scholz’s gesture seems meant to please voters — “Hey, I tried” — rather than to seriously broker peace. The fact that Putin wouldn’t take the proposed call implies that he considers it would be a waste of time, for all these reasons.
My suggestion is that the West keeps supplying weapons that enable the killing of Russian soldiers at the present rate, and we’ll see how many Russians are left in a few years’ time.
The West cannot do that. It simply doesn’t have the capacity to do so. Also Ukraine will run out of soldiers long before Russia.
The above were true at the start of the conflict and remain so. The Neocons were counting on the Russian economy collapsing because of sanctions. However the rest of the world isn’t cooperating so the Russian economy is doing just fine. In any event China was never going to allow Russia to become a US colony…a danger right next to it…quite the reverse.
The real winner so far is China, whose “stock in the world”, and “reach” have both risen. The loser is “the West”, particularly the USA which has been seen to be incapable of commanding events…as it was used to doing some time ago. That era has gone.
The Ukraine War is a wake up call to the West. They will have to massively rearm to counter Russia in the future, unless they can take it down now. In addition to giving Ukraine whatever it needs to fight in the West, it must foster division between Russia and China in the East (like telling China that if it seizes Russian territory, the West will “look away”).
The West cannot give Ukraine “whatever it takes” because the West hasn’t got it. The cupboard is bare, and whatever IS actually left in it will be going to Israel, in particular air defence missiles. It really is that simple.
And there won’t be division between Russia and China. Russia tried friendship with the West eg help after 9/11, and has been rebuffed. I imagine China can’t believe its luck to have had Russia driven into its embrace. The efforts spent by real geopolitical players in the West to prevent exactly that have been thrown away for no benefit whatsoever. Indeed this entire saga is a total disaster for the West, in particular the USA whose bluff has been called…and it has proved to be powerless to enforce its will. Yes, it can destroy but it cannot get others to do what it wants which is actually what the exercise of power is about.
As I said, the West needs to massively rearm.
No, no wake up call. The confrontation over strategic influence between NATO and Russia has been brewing for a long time—specifically since Putin’s speech at the Munich Security Conference in 2007. In that speech, he criticized NATO expansion and the unipolar world order dominated by the United States. Since then, tensions have escalated through events like NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe, the 2008 Georgia war, and Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, contributing to an increasingly adversarial relationship.
One cannot ignore the growing tension between Russia, the EU, and the major power of the United States; this confrontation has been political, military, and, above all, economic. Although concerns about China’s rise had been building for years, by 2019, these fears intensified as trade tensions grew and China’s strategic investments in Africa and Latin America posed direct challenges to Western economic interests. Simultaneously, Russia reasserted itself in strategic regions like Syria and Central Asia, aiming to re-establish influence in areas where the USSR once held sway. While China’s competition is primarily economic and financial, Russia’s is more political and military.
The pandemic taught us several lessons. The initial reaction of Western countries to the pandemic was self-centered, with most forms of cooperation with developing and underdeveloped countries coming to a halt. China seized this opportunity, expanding its influence, as did Russia. Russia’s ability to launch one of the first vaccines, pledging to supply the poorest countries first, contrasted with the Western scramble to secure as many vaccines as possible. This period exposed the world to some of the most blatant propaganda campaigns. The West dismissed the Sputnik V vaccine, while anti-vaccine campaigns ran rampant in Russia, and Russia reciprocated with similar actions against Western vaccines.
By 2021, the economic recovery was driven by China. Supply chains, disrupted during the pandemic, struggled to adapt to the surge in demand. This led to a container crisis, the Suez Canal blockage, and port congestion, with ports overwhelmed and ships waiting for months to unload.
During this time, Russian railways emerged as a viable alternative to maritime transport, validating the old theories about the strategic importance of the Heartland. Amid the supply chain disruptions caused by the pandemic—including the container crisis and port congestion—Russia’s extensive railway network provided an alternative route for trade between Europe and Asia, reinforcing the strategic importance of land-based transport routes. This fact left the us strategists somehow in panic. Biden’s administration become more and more agresssive against the North Stream II pipeline, imposing heavy sanctions. Ukraine become very vocal against the new pipe line, feering losing the very lucrative transport fees. In Dez 2020 Zelensky, Putin, Merkel and Macron meet in Paris, Zelensky promised to implement Minsk II and Russia to keep using the pipelines till 2024.
In August 2021, a controversial campaign emerged against Russian energy supplies, accusing Russia of intentionally reducing gas supplies to Europe to drive up prices. In reality, this campaign aimed to artificially inflate gas prices by creating a perception of reduced availability. It is true that gas supplies to industrial markets in South and Southeast Asia decreased, but this was not the case in Europe, where Russia mainly supplied through pipelines. In fact, in 2021, Russia supplied Europe with more gas than ever before.
As a result, European countries engaged with Zelensky in the so-called Crimea Platform, an act of defiance against Moscow. What many did not realize was that Zelensky was on the brink of losing support in his own country, as the pandemic hit Ukraine hard. He also announced that Ukraine would abandon the Minsk Accords and introduced a new military doctrine that proposed a military solution to the Donbas conflict.
In October 2021, the Ukrainian army moved heavy artillery to the front line, attacking a rebel position using artillery, tanks, and, notably, heavy-weight drones. This use of drones marked a significant escalation, introducing a new dimension of warfare in the region. Russia responded by amassing troops near the Ukrainian border. The West grew nervous, but instead of seeking de-escalation, the rhetoric became increasingly confrontational.
On February 20, 2022, during the Munich Security Conference, Zelensky questioned the effectiveness of the Budapest Memorandum, suggesting that Ukraine might reconsider its non-nuclear status if security guarantees were not upheld. This was interpreted by some as a potential shift in Ukraine’s stance on nuclear capabilities, but he did not explicitly state an intention to develop nuclear weapons. The next day, February 21, Russia recognized the independence of the self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in the Donbas region. In the following days, clashes along the front lines intensified, with Ukrainian armed forces and separatist forces exchanging fire. At the time, Ukraine had positioned a significant number of troops near the Donbas, with estimates of up to 200,000 soldiers. On February 24, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, attacking from the north, south, and east, including from Belarusian territory. This forced Ukrainian forces, initially concentrated in the Donbas region, to shift focus to defend Kyiv and other northern regions against the Russian advance.
This led to a series of confrontations and heightened aggressiveness in the political discourse between Western leaders and Russian officials. Russia issued an ultimatum to NATO, which NATO refused to negotiate.
As the conflict escalated, the West’s response revealed deep divisions and a lack of coherent strategy. Rather than uniting around a clear policy, European countries and the US became mired in conflicting interests, corporate battles, and short-term political gains. The measures aimed at isolating Russia often backfired, triggering economic pain within Europe itself—higher energy prices, disrupted trade, and growing internal dissent. Instead of finding a path to stability, the West’s decisions have opened Pandora’s boxes intended to harm Russia, but these actions have boomeranged, causing severe damage. Now, Europe finds itself weakened, struggling with the unintended consequences of its own policies, and seemingly unable to close the doors it recklessly opened.
It is nonsense to claim that West hasn’t got capacity to help Ukraine.
What it has not got is political will.
For the last 3 years there were always delays in weapon deliveries and use restrictions not because of lack of weapons but lack of will.
The whole idea of peace with Russia when Ukraine is neutral and reduces its armed forces is carbon copy of Munich agreement of 1938.
So how that worked out?
Hitler took over Sudety region and then in march 1939 occupied whole of now defenceless Czechslovakia.
Why would anyone trust any agreement with Russia?
They signed Budapest referendum of 1994 guaranteeing territorial integrity of Ukraine.
This was signed by USA and Britain as well.
So least West can do is supply weapons to Ukraine to defend against Russian aggression.
People reflexively bring up 1938 whenever diplomatic negotiation with an official enemy is suggested. As if Munich 1938 is ever and always applicable. As if it set the precedent for all time, in all circumstances.
People also routinely claim that Russia will only break promises, that it can’t be trusted. It’s striking how only certain parts of history are invoked. As if there is no context for the West breaking major promises, including to Russia.
Take for example the agreement of 1989/90 to create a unified Germany. The then Soviet government under Gorbachev had to agree to it. They had a condition. The German foreign minister Hans Dietrich Genscher and U.S. Secretary of State James Baker promised that NATO would not expand beyond the borders of a unified Germany. Baker stated that NATO would expand “not one inch” eastward.
That promise was quickly broken: by 1992 Ukraine was included in plans to expand NATO, a plan that was articulated and given a timetable authored by Zbigniew Bresinski in Foreign Affairs.
The U.S. expanded NATO ten more times (seven times under George W. Bush). Then in 2008 the U.S. insisted that Ukraine and Georgia be included in NATO, which would complete the plan to surround Russia in the Black Sea region. Putin told the U.S. to stop expanding NATO to their planned total expansion of 14 countries.
Imagine Russia promising not to expand “one inch” westward, then setting up a permanent military presence along the Mexican border.
All very interesting, but what business is it of Russia if independent countries join an international organisation? Does Russia really think NATO wants to invade and occupy it? If not, then what is its problem?
Actually I believe that a significant proportion of Russian military leaders and politicians do believe exactly that, along with a fair few of the population. There’s definitely quite a number of neocons out there who happily promote doing so. Its also quite possibly the reason why Putin made tentative approaches regarding Russia joining NATO.
Destroy Russia, yes sure. Many “NeoCons” (me included) support that. Invade Russia, no.
Except it’s not just an “organization.” It’s a military organization. Omitting that obvious context, it’s almost as if you’d like to misrepresent NATO as somehow a neutral, tame entity that Russians could not possibly object to as a permanent presence along their border with Ukraine.
It would be the same “business” of the United States if Mexico joined in a pact with an international military organization dominated by China and Russia to install a permanent presence along the American border.
We can be sure that you wouldn’t say “What business is it of the U.S. if independent countries join an international organisation?”
If instead of acknowledging reality we obscure it, then our opinions, no matter what they are, cannot have relevance.
It is a military organisation dedicated to defending against the predations of Russia, something that is just as necessary now as it was in 1950. The fact is that in the modern world, such defence wouldn’t be conducted by lots of troops dug in behind a latter-day Maginot Line, and Western countries (as far as I am aware) no longer have short range nukes.
You’ve had to be forced to admit that NATO isn’t merely a generic “international organization.” Forcing you to be honest, to not get away with disguising and trivializing this crucial context to understanding the Ukraine war should not be necessary.
Why use blatant deceptions like that instead of engaging in good faith? This is a matter of character as much as anything else.
To understand this war, like any war, it is vital to understand the perspectives of the parties involved. We are bombarded by propaganda in the mainstream press regarding Western/U.S. motives vs. Russian motives. Still, we can actually know the Russian perspective. They’ve consistently and clearly articulated it.
The Russians have been clear from the start that a prime reason for invading Ukraine involves Ukraine’s potential membership in NATO. It also helps to know the history of NATO expansion since the broken promise to Gorbachev, and how Russians — by far more than just Putin — have felt about that. We have to accept that they have seen the expansion of this military alliance, particularly in Ukraine, as an existential threat. They have been consistent and clear about that. Again, we do not have to like that reality, but it cannot be denied as a reality. It just is.
As I’ve pointed out, the Russians feel about NATO expansion into Ukraine the same way the U.S. would if Mexico was poised to become a member of an international military organization that included China and Russia, that would establish a permanent presence along the northern border with the U.S.
If the U.S. then invaded Mexico to forestall that event — which would be extremely likely — whatever we thought of that action, despite its illegality, we could not deny that the U.S. saw this military alliance’ expansion as an existential threat, and had made it a non-negotiable factor to a peace settlement. We would have to accept that the U.S. would never back down from demanding that Mexico stay out of that military alliance. Given U.S. military resources, despite China and Russia providing support to Mexican fighters, in this scenario the U.S. might well be chewing up Mexican lives. Of course we would want the slaughter to stop. And we would know what would help most to turn the tide: a diplomatic negotiation that involved an agreement with China and Russia to stop their military alliance’s expansion into Mexico.
In terms of stopping this slaughter, it wouldn’t matter what we thought of U.S. predation in the world, no matter how well documented. What would matter is knowing that the U.S. would not stop its invasion of Mexico until the threat the U.S. regarded as existential — by far more than just the President — was removed.
Apparently it was perfectly ok for jfk to take us to the brink of a nuclear WW3 (and have no illusions that he and the hawks would have had no compunction in pressing the button) over Soviet missiles in Cuba.
I’m in no way condoling the Russian invasion of Ukraine but completely ignoring the circumstances which empowered Putin to feel justified in doing so is simply sticking rhe collective head in the sand and seems to either be a total lack of geopolitical understanding or more likely a deliberate strategy to precipitate an inevitable outcome sooner rather than later.
I agree. The absolute worst people end up making existential decisions.
We will fight to the last Ukrainian
The Ukrainians fight for their own reasons. Given that the alternative is rape, torture and murder, who can blame them?
Hmm… is that why they’re pulling Ukrainians who refuse conscription off the streets and forcibly sending them to the front?
Maybe some Ukrainians are as naive about Russians as a lot of people here are. I bet these people who are refusing to fight weren’t around during the Soviet era. If they were, they’d have a pretty good idea about what Russians are all about.
I can see that 11 useful Lenin idiots (at time of writing) don’t believe that alternative for Ukrainians is rape, torture and murder.
Why?
That what happened in the 1930s during Holodomor.
It is instructive to look at the Wikipedia pages for “Russian War Crimes”. There are so many that they are split over three pages. The one with the above title only goes back to 1989. Before that, you have to search “Soviet War Crimes”, and before that “Imperial Russian War Crimes”.
That idea is so profoundly wrong that if someone actually wanted to destroy Ukrainians and inflict the maximum suffering possible, it would be the ideal choice.
The idea stems from ignorance of the two key facts of this war, that it is a war of attrition, and that the casualty exchange ratio is so vastly in favour of the Russians that there is no possible way for the Ukrainians to prevail. It isn’t about giving them unlimited money and weaponry; none of that is decisive.
Press gangs are forcing men into service, older men. People know the front lines are a slaughterhouse, so they resist. These soldiers are not combat-ready and have little motivation but are sent to the front anyway.
Moreover, the Ukrainian military command has repeatedly made the same blunders, causing massive, unnecessary losses of personnel. The Russian strategy is to methodically capture villages around a town or city. At a certain point it becomes urgent to withdraw Ukrainian troops to avoid encirclement and/or cutting off of supply routes. We see this in Kursk, in Vuhledhar, in Toretsk, in Kurakhovo, etc, etc.
These doomed troops are typically experienced veterans, a dwindling resource. Withdrawal would preserve them to deploy elsewhere, to fight another day. Yet over and over again the Ukrainian command do not allow a retreat, which results in either mass slaughter or mass surrender. Either way, the Ukrainians lose large numbers of experienced soldiers due to this pattern.
This is due to military incompetence, and likely also the Zelensky government being keenly aware of its growing political vulnerability, wanting to avoid giving its opponents leverage with the stigma of the “failure” of retreating. Either way, they sacrifice their own soldiers, making the casualty exchange ratio even worse.
The only solution is political. Diplomatic. The war needs to stop now or the Ukrainians will continue to be decimated and lose more and more territory — and by the way, increasingly faster.
All of this could have been avoided, and on much better terms for Ukraine, had the U.S. and Britain (via Boris Johnson) not told Zelensky to cancel late-stage negotiations because the West was going to provide all the money and arms they needed to win — the exact same idea Michael M proposes. A proxy war against Russia, using Ukrainians as fodder. An unnecessary tragedy.
Zelensky himself will sooner or later take flight, to enjoy the fruits of his graft.
I’m not going to call you out on all the untruths in your post, because I don’t have enough time. What I will say is that the West needs to take this conflict seriously. A long range missile needs to hit EVERY Russian oil and gas facility, and a large percentage of its railway bridges (Russia has a poor road network, and relies on its railways). If it were up to me, I’d pump a few of them into the Kremlin itself too. It is pointless to agree a peace treaty, because Russia will NEVER honour it. We can have this fight now, or we can have it in a decade, or in five decades, but we’re going to have it. We had better make sure we are ready for it.
Martin, you only had to call out a single point in my reply, the essential one. Namely the casualty exchange ratio.
Undermine that point, and the core of my analysis would tumble.
But you chose not to do that. Not because you don’t have time. I mean, it’s but a single point, and it should be easy to confirm or counter.
All you had to do was show that the “the killing of Russian soldiers at the present rate” is already in Ukraine’s favour.
Then you could convincingly predict that continuing at the current rate would drastically reduce the number of Russians “left in a few years’ time.”
What you do when you can’t challenge a point is to ignore it and add yet another opinion. That’s bad faith.
As it happens the opinion you added is equally as ignorant as the first, but in this case it would doom not just Ukraine but the entire world.
Is there a subject you might be better at than geopolitics?
That idea is so profoundly wrong that if someone actually wanted to destroy Ukrainians and inflict the maximum suffering possible, it would be the ideal choice. Russia does want to destroy Ukrainians and inflict the maximum suffering possible. That’s the sort of thing that Russians do.
Maybe Olaf has decided that funding the ongoing slaughter of Ukrainians, and Russians for that matter, is not in anyone’s interest, least of all Germany’s.
I’m sure that he knows that the ongoing slaughter of Russians is in Europe’s interests. I mean, the less Russians there are, the better it is for Europe.
Exactly wrong again Martin, how do you manage to be so consistent
It’s called “having principles”.
Principles are fine, but to enforce them requires power.
I imagine NATO must have a few Lee Enfield .303s still tucked away in a warehouse somewhere.
Wanting to kill as many Russians as possible, and not caring how many Ukrainians die in the process is NOT “having principles” it’s disgusting
You’re worse than the people you hate
Really? You think the Ukrainians would rather surrender, and that it’s only the evil West that is forcing them to fight? Seriously?
More bad faith from Martin M, with that rhetorical question attributing thoughts that D Walsh hasn’t even implied.
The entity “forcing them to fight” is their own government, using increasingly violent press gangs. Ukrainians are desperate to avoid fighting because they believe it’s folly.
Martin M assumes he knows the state of the war better than them — despite being ignorant of, and refusing to acknowledge the casualty exchange rate. (A context predicted, by the way, from the start in Feb., 2022.)
It is likely that most Ukrainian citizens are not ignorant of this situation, and that they are not unwilling to face it. But never mind them, here is Martin M, thousands of miles from the battlefield, comfy at home, facing not the slightest threat to himself, striking bold postures online insisting that Ukrainians push all their chips forward.
Probably 600,000 Ukrainians have been killed to date. Martin M would throw more into the meat-grinder because he believes he knows what’s best for them.
Is that you Vladimir?
Come on, Martin. You’re making a fool of yourself. You have time for cheap shots but none to counter the key point about the war’s casualty exchange ratio?
To prove me wrong and yourself in the right, all you have to do is show that “the killing of Russian soldiers at the present rate” is in Ukraine’s favour. It should take very little time to do that.
I understand that this is an emotional issue. I think that’s all the more reason to be careful in our thinking — to try our best to accept the reality of the situation, rather than to insist on believing what we prefer it to be. If we don’t do that, how can anything we think and say be relevant?
I do have a counter to the war’s “casualty exchange ratio”. The West should give Ukraine the technological means to massively increase the rate at which Russian soldiers are being killed.
It’s called blind, stubborn ignorance in the face of facts, so eloquently expressed by Andrew above.
Russia has been our enemy since the day I was born, in October 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis. They still are our enemy. I admit to thinking that things might be different after the Berlin War fell (for which I now feel a bit foolish), but Russia reverted to type pretty quickly, and resumed its mantle as the Evil Empire. We need to accept its status as a “forever enemy”, or it will go badly for us.
That is a very stupid thing to say and by the way the correct English is “fewer”, not less, Russians
Much obliged. The reason I come to UnHerd is for the English lessons. By the way, if you notice me misusing apostrophes, be sure to let me know.
I would suggest Scholz is more interested in appearing to want a peace deal, rather than actually wanting a peace deal. None of this would be public otherwise.
Surely Scholz is not idiot enough to actually want a peace deal. He is not a traitor like Schroder.
Schroder understood that a decent relationship with Russia was beneficial to Germany…cheap energy, less military spending. Germany has always wanted Russian resources and tried military means…and failed, then peaceful means (although it was complicit in the Ukraine coup) and been stopped by the US sanctions.
Merkel of course was a fluent Russian speaker, brought up in what was Prussia but then Communist, and a member of Party organisations pro USSR. She had private talks with Putin, no one else present, no notes taken. I doubt they were just discussing the weather.
A relationship with Russia will NEVER be beneficial to Germany, because Russia will NEVER be able to be trusted.
Historically Germany has taken a different view, as I set out above.
Also during the Weimar Republic.
Ah, yes. The Weimar Republic. One of the greatest and longest lived regimes in European history.
Yeah. How did that work out for them? Incidentally, my mother was brought up in what was Prussia too. The town was called Tilsit. It is now Sovetsk, in the Kaliningrad Oblast of Russia.
To those Germans who are “Russia-friendly”, I have this advice: Start learning Russian, as it might be useful when the Russian Army turns up on your doorstep.
Your other comments show you are smart enough to know the chance that the Russian army will invade Germany is zero. Why would you make a hyperbolic statement like this? You’re as bad as Donald Trump!
There is no chance that the Russian Army will invade Germany in the short term. It has worn itself out in Ukraine. However, in Putin’s head, Russian tanks are parading through Berlin.
The last paragraph sums it up. Scholz is going to end up looking more ridiculous than he already does.