Jump to content

The German Cancellors roast, on the fire of Nordstream


Markus Becker

Recommended Posts

Another thing about the "it was the US": the US already gotten what it wanted! NS2 DOA, general exit from any form of Russian energy faster and more total than required. Fucking 🟩 assholes.

Schröder and the Merkel(PBUH) made us utterly dependent on Russian gas, the breakneck attempt to get out by the 🟩 only increases the damage. In the meantime the same idiots were doing their best to deny the Ukraine heavy weapons. 

Edited by Markus Becker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, urbanoid said:

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that everything was also completely legal when the Russians were buying a German Chancellor.

They didn't stop there. Gasprom "donated" 20 BN EUR to the Mecklenburg-Pomerania Trust Fund for the Protection of the Environment (hah!). It's amazing h0ow that still hasn't blown up in the face of the whole social democrats' leadership. They're still in control of the narrative. Hats off to them, I would have never believed they were that competent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, urbanoid said:

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that everything was also completely legal when the Russians were buying a German Chancellor.

Merkel did it for free because only with cheap Russian gas the green energy and anti nuclear policy could work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They turned off the last of their reactors last month or so, they weren't dependent on Russian gas by that time. They had the excuses not to - Rus/Ukr/Nord Stream shenaningans + the majority of citizens wanted to keep them going. Aaaand... they still turned them off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Is it cynical of me to wonder if she cut of the nuclear, purely so Germany would be dependent upon Russian gas? Is that at all plausible?

It's ... possible, like manned spaceflight. But the by far simpler explanation is populism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Is it cynical of me to wonder if she cut of the nuclear, purely so Germany would be dependent upon Russian gas? Is that at all plausible?

The woman had no convictions whatsoever. She was doing whatever was popular at the time to get good press. Thus she ditched nuclear in 11 and had to go all gas. Worked like a charm for her. The MSM sang her praises, allowing her to stay in power even after loosing a quarter of the votes in 2017.

Edited by Markus Becker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

...unlike all other politicians who would readily admit their mistakes, if they ever made them.

The neither 🟩 nor 🟥 ones would eventually not have a choice as the media, particularly the public funded would point out and exaggerate every mistake, no matter how small. 

After she turned the CDU hard left the media acted as her shield and sword. Her mistakes were ignored or sugarcoated and critics attacked instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting out of nuclear power was a reversal. The Merkel II cabinet had actually extended operation of the German plants by eight to 14 years over the 2002 limit by the Schröder administration just a year before the turnaround over Fukushima. Merkel justified it by saying the latter had shown even a minimal risk could be too much, but it was clearly about the imminent state elections in Baden-Württemberg where the Greens were already poised to win their first premiership after protests over the controversial Stuttgart 21 railway station project. Of course they won anyway, however Merkel was obviously capable of correcting what she thought was a political mistake. That the correction turned out to be the actual mistake after her term ended is another story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BansheeOne said:

Of course they won anyway, however Merkel was obviously capable of correcting what she thought was a political mistake. That the correction turned out to be the actual mistake after her term ended is another story.

The original decision was a deeply unpopular one, the 180° was just swimming with the current. And getting praise for doing it. 

That takes nothing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, BansheeOne said:

Which is however the exact opposite of what urbanoid claimed - doing things she thought popular, then sticking with them even when they turned out not to be.

Uncontrolled mass immigration. She opened the borders and kept them open because while the public opinion had turned against her decision, the published opinion had not. 

And why would a spineless populist admit and fix a mistake if it doesn't make any headlines? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The refugee issue was always a 60:40 thing, with the 60 percent sometimes being for and sometimes against her policy (which actually adapted to criticism over time with more restrictions in detail). In fact it has been said this was the one major Merkel decision which didn't carefully wait which way the wind of popular opinion was blowing, but went out on a limb. But then it was more of a quick reaction to Hungary dropping the problem into the lap of the German and Austrian governments by bussing/railroading refugees to their borders overnight, and it was either accept them or close down and risk the breakdown of intra-EU commerce as everyone South and East followed suit.

But we're getting rather far from the debris of Nord Stream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...