German Leaders Are Out of Touch on Ukraine. One Politician Is Forcing Their Hand.

Friedrich Merz is capitalizing on the ambiguity of the German government over Russia’s aggression.

By
12

When Russia invaded the Crimean peninsula in February 2014, the swift conquest assured that Vladimir Putin could make the trip to the recently annexed territory for Victory Day on May 9 of that year. The day marks the victory of the Red Army against Nazi Germany in World War II, but also serves to underline Russia’s military power. Given that the current invasion of Ukraine started in February, it isn’t far-fetched to believe that Putin once envisioned himself standing in what he would consider a “liberated” Ukraine on Victory Day. However, despite a long-awaited clue about the direction of the war, Putin’s speech in Moscow revealed little about the autocrat’s plans.

It’s now impossible to imagine Putin appearing in Kyiv anytime soon, if ever. But one of the biggest public relations victories for Ukraine has been the steady stream of Western leaders visiting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in recent weeks: U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, the foreign ministers of Poland, Slovenia and the Czech Republic; and others.

Germany is noticeably absent from that list, but that could soon change. Zelenksy had previously said that German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier wasn’t welcome; the chilly relations stemmed from the fact that Steinmeier and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, both Social Democrats, have long pushed for closer ties to Russia, particularly on energy, and have been ambivalent about a Russian energy embargo. But Ukraine’s president reversed himself and invited the pair last week.

Now that moves towards a comprehensive embargo have been more promising on the European Union level, Zelensky’s invitation—which German leadership will eventually be politically forced to accept—is taunting the Russians, who celebrate a Victory Day without victory to show for.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
12
By
Comments (12)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    I hope this wakes up the Germans and reminds them not to trust Russia.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Earl King

    I am completely mystified by any rapprochement with Russia. Hitlers backstabbing Barbarossa invasion of Russia was likely one of the biggest blunders of modern warfare ever. Opening up a two front war is lunacy. Were it not for that, Germany would still likely be in control of Europe. 500,000 German soldiers were lost at Leningrad alone. Think about that number on the Atlantic Wall? Russia/Stalin were always going to win. Russia is too big to invade, supply lines too long. Add in a leader that was willing to allow 20 million people to die in order for him to remain in power. Add in the infamy. If Pearl Harbor galvanized the American public in to the annihilation of Japan as a military power, think what Stalin and Russia being backstabbed did for their moral and mission to destroy Hitler?

    Why therefore, with the absolute destruction of Germany by Russia, the mass incarceration Germans, the subjugation of Germans, would any German Politicians feel any affinity for Russia?

    Is it purely oil and gas so that Germany would feel threatened by OPEC? Is it that simple? Or was it the most successful coup by Russian propaganda, spies, counter intelligence infiltration in the history of the world?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Israel Bigelow

      I think oil and gas is part of it, while the other is a growing anti-American sentiment in Germany. The Germans under Schroeder and Merkel embraced a very short sighted strategy of going for net zero carbon emissions while ingoring that they were merely off-shoring their oil to Russia. I've read elsewhere that Germany's social democrats have a very off historical narrative that places their negotiations with Russia as the reason for the Cold War instead of United States economic and military pressure. Add the two together with an arrogantly, absurd belief that they are more responsible than the US to "lead the free world", and you get the diplomatic crisis that we are facing right now. If German delusion about how their absurdities helped foster Russia's invasion of Ukraine seems absurd, one could also make the observation that similar beliefs are at play in the US and that we are still not doing enough to boost our own oil and gas production to reinforce our European allies and to take away Russia's leverage. There's just a vaccuum of competent leadership among Western leaders right now.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Earl King

        Leadership in the US is following the winds of populism on both sides of the aisle. Populism is always short term thinking. Our politicians are listening to their worst angels. Long term thinking is simply not possible. My daughters boyfriend was lamenting about how much we spend on the military. How one less F 35 would give free medical care to people who need it. I tried to explain that we have a large military to protect us and our allies economies and population and our freedom. Anyway, it was to deaf ears. Similar to those who simply don’t understand that oil and gas will be here for a very long time and thinking that if we just don’t drill for it that will save the planet. Stupidity is actually pandemic we are facing.

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Andy Napoli

      There's an internal logic to the "Ostpolitik" that German governments began to pursue in the 1960s. I don't completely agree with it myself. But there's a logic to it. And there's a case to be made (and some have made it) that Ostpolitik helped pave the way for German reunification.

      Ostpolitik is essentially the deliberate use of soft power to slowly influence an adversary by entangling them so deeply in your economic and social life that extrication is needlessly painful. It's like smothering somebody with love.

      Germans found this strategy appealing in large part because both Germanies were on the front lines of the Cold War. If a hot war ever broke out, both Germanies would be devastated regardless of who "won" the ensuing conflict. There was a sober kind of pacifism in German politics which argued that bellicose rhetoric and saber rattling was existentially dangerous to Germany because they'd be the victims regardless of who was "right" or wrong in the conflict.

      Ostpolitik was a way to try and avoid conflict while also leveraging a key source of German power -- its dynamic and growing economy, which was always larger that the Soviet Union's.

      Germany deliberately entangled its energy sector with Russia's/USSR in order to overcome steep, well earned suspicions of German motives. Germany also sought to exploit this energy relationship into better export market access into the Soviet/Russian bloc.

      Did I agree with this approach? No. I think it was just as naive as the free market zealots who lobbied for Chinese MFN status and WTO admission who foolishly thought this would "tame" the excesses of Chinese Communism.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Earl King

        Thank you for the info, I hadn’t heard that term. However my suspicions regarding Germany are similar to mine regarding Soviet infiltration of the British intelligence services. I have no doubt that the Soviets have infiltrated German Intelligence services in the same way. In a practical manor, pipeline’s are quicker and easier than ships from the Gulf. I’m sure that was on their minds. Frankly, I never imagined another war in Europe. I am sure many German politicians did the same thing.

        Collapse
    3. Ed K

      A significant number of living Germans were raised under communism. No doubt some form of Stockholm Syndrome is at play.

      Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    MatthewRobin

    I hope the Germans as well as other allies are defining their conditions of victory in the Russian/Ukrainian war. I discuss this in my recent article.

    https://infraredline.substack.com/p/warzone-ukraine-defining-victory

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Mike B

      Good analysis and great maps, Matthew.
      On conditions of victory, I agree with Ukraine's ambassador to the US: Ukraine's territorial integrity restored to the Dec. 31, 2013 borders, including Crimea. In addition, any sanctions relief should be conditional upon Russia using the revenue for reparations payments to rebuild Ukrainian towns and infrastructure - which will likely take many years.
      One factor I haven't seen discussed much is Russian control of the right bank (i.e., the northern/western sides) of the Dnieper River below Zaporizhzhia. There is a canal running from the Dnieper that supplies fresh water to the Crimean peninsula; Ukraine cut the canal in 2014 but now that Russia controls the head of the canal it has restored the flow. If Ukraine can recapture enough of the south/east bank to again cut off water to Crimea, that would be a heavy blow to Russia, I would think. But then I'm no expert on military strategy.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        MatthewRobin

        Thanks Mike, I'm glad you enjoyed it. I also wrote about the canal in an article 1 month before the war began. In that article I am proud to say I correctly predicted that a full scale invasion would not work. Unfortunately I assumed Putin knew that as well so I predicted no war would happen.

        https://infraredline.substack.com/p/warzone-ukraine-putins-plans

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Mike B

          Very cogent. I too thought that a more limited invasion to carve out some more of the Donbas and secure the land bridge to Crimea was the probable Russian plan.

          Collapse
  4. Tom (Inadvertent Obfuscation)

    Thanks for the clear description. I had never heard of F. Merz before. Based on your article, I cannot help but to wish Herr Merz success.

    Collapse