Russia and Ukraine flashpoint

[RolStoppable]

Nusma said:

As a german myself, I thought quite a lot about this. The first thing that comes to mind is the notorious german angst, of course. Deeply rooted insecurity leads germans to be very planning and risk-averse, that's kind of the stereotype and as with many stereotypes, there's truth to that. However, thinking about it further, this line of analysis seems quite one-dimensional. We are in a complicated geopolitical game, after all, and reducing the actions of one player to something as simple as cowardice seems amiss, especially when all evidence suggests that there actually isn't that much to be afraid of, as Ryuu laid out so many times already. Playing into this german angst stereotype, having the world think of germany as cowardly, that might just be what's intended by the german government, as a veil for their true strategy.

Fact is that the war in Ukraine is bad for Russia. Really bad. It's an economic, demographic and geopolitical disaster. A fast victory for Ukraine might be the best possible outcome for Russia at this point, in my opinion. Not for Putin and his cronies, oh no, but for Russia overall, I think so. On the other hand, the worst thing for Russia would be a long, drawn out grind, where no victory can be won, but where the people in charge still can't back down because that would hurt them politically. It's a bit like the US involvement in Afghanistan, a conflict of 20 years and with a monetary cost of mayben 1 trillion USD, depending on who you ask. In the end it was all for nothing, of course. There was no lasting victory, it was just bad for the US (and even more so for Afghanistan, but that's beside the point), a giant waste of life and resources that in turn played into the hands of its adversaries. Every time that conflict was prolonged it was a win for Russia and China, essentially. And I think it's possible that we're seeing the same dynamic here.

My fear is that the secret goal of my country (and maybe the US as well) is to ruin Russia and not to help Ukraine. That they don't want the Kerch Bridge to be destroyed, that they don't want to deprive Russia of its ability to wring itself dry by cutting off the supply lines. Don't stop your enemy while he makes mistakes, something like that is how the saying goes. The more Russia ruins itself, the more incapable and dorsile they might be later on. This might also mean the end of their influence in central europe. And of course their vast natural resources won't go anywhere in the meantime, no matter how many young Russians are getting slaughtered.

Although I'm a bit torn on the resources angle. The thing is, Brittain and France, the two countries that already provided cruise missiles to Ukraine, have one thing in common: They both don't benefit very much from russian resources. France, of course, is well known for its abundance of nuclear power, while the UK has its own gas fields, as well as nuclear and other sources. Germany, on the other hand, well... let's just say we're getting by for now, but our energy prices certainly are a problem. Cheap russian gas would be great for us and since we're so awfully nice not to provide those dreaded cruise missiles, Russia might just be inclined to accept us as customers again. And since they ruined themselves so hard with years of fruitless war, their leverage would be awfully small. Beggars can't be choosers after all. Ideally Russia becomes a third world country that's getting exploited like a third world country. I'm not sure how plausible this line of thinking is though.

What seems more plausible to me is the thought of ruining Russia to weaken its influence on the world. Just geopolitical power plays, fought on the back of Ukraine and its people. One less ally for North Korea, Iran and everyone else in Russias back yard. And one big warning signal towards China, of course. For some, all that might be well worth the price of thousands of ukrainian lives that would otherwise be spared with a swift victory. Kind of disgusting, if true and I actually hope I'm wrong.

Occam's Razor helps here.

We've seen the current pattern of Scholz's decision-making since the very beginning of the Ukraine war, so the likelihood that he had an elaborate long-term plan to wear Russia down is incredibly low. I'd actually rule it out completely, because if you compare his decision-making in foreign politics to his decision-making in inner politics, you'll find that it's very much the same.

He has repeatedly given in to the demands of the FDP, the smallest faction in his government coalition. He is so afraid of the coalition breaking up, forcing an early election and making the SPD lose its frontrunner spot - current surveys put them in third place way behind their main competitor CDU - that he rarely says anything against the FDP. If he wasn't a coward, he would tell those loonies that they have much more to lose than anyone else with an earlier election, because the FDP is on the brink of getting kicked out of the parliament, and being the plain obvious culprit for a breakup of the coalition would likely push them off the cliff. But instead Scholz sticks to his guns of being the reasonable, considerate and well-meaning guy (in his own and his party's perception) who wants to keep things peacefully despite being in the position of more power.

The Ukraine war has very similar variables. Russia has more to lose than anyone else, Germany is on the side which is much more powerful than the enemy and any objective analysis suggests that there's no need to hold back and play nice.

Cowardice is just how Scholz is, regardless of the subject and situation. Admittedly, this helped him win the last election, because the Germans viewed him as the closest successor to the Merkel-style of politics despite him belonging to a different political party. By now he should realize that continuing this role will not win him another election, but apparently he and his party are content with riding out the final two years of their government time before taking a then inevitable fall.