Quote (Black XistenZ @ 26 Jul 2024 21:03)
Afghanistan, Georgia, Ukraine (2014). The Second Chechen War began at a time of not-high-yet, but dramatically rising oil prices which were only stopped by the dotcom bubble bursting. The Russian involvement in the Central African Civil War also began in 2018 at a time of spiking oil prices, as did their operations in Mali.
Afghanistan wasn't Russia - that was United States in 2000s or USSR in 1980s, you get to choose. Happy to debate whether those were poor choices or not and their historical significance.
Georgia War was not started by Russia. Russia did overreact and had a swift and decisive show of force which ended the conflict there and then. Its quite well researched and plenty of independent sources and even a whole EU Factfinding report was made into the causes of that war
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/new-report-on-russia-georgia-war-eu-investigators-debunk-saakashvili-s-lies-a-652512.htmlChechen Wars were Russian internal secession struggle. Again, not really started by Russia, but rather by separatists that wanted to secede and ETHNICALLY CLEANSED the region. Second Chechen War was literally started by wahhabi islamists (remember Shamil Basayev? May he rot in hell) who broke peace treaty by attacking Russia which provoked a response that settled this conflict once and for all.
African involvement can hardly be described as "Russia War" as from what I understand Russian military was never officially deployed and whatever PMC groups are doing cannot be attributed to Russia directly as they have no operational oversight.
Quote
I didn't say that he is wrong, just that it is VERY in character for the French guy to suggest waving the white flag. :lol:
Regarding the "autonomy"-angle: Germany's military is in a pitiful state and the country is aging, with no room to muster up a huge troop strength. At the same time, Germany is a trade nation, a densely populated country without many natural resources which is affluent nonetheless. The point I'm trying to convey is the following: Germany's wealth hinges on global trade, but the country lacks the power to keep global trading or shipping routes open. Hence, Germany benefits more than most other countries from the "Pax Americana". Germany needs a stable world order to thrive and there are only two countries which can provide it: the US or China.
So while I welcome an autonomous Germany which is thinking and acting for itself and tries to triangulate between the two superpowers - for example by refusing to join the Iraq War, or by continuing to trade oil and gas with Russia as soon as possible - I am under no illusions that Germany needs to pick a side when things come down to the wire, and that it is better served being on the side of the US-led Western bloc as opposed to the China-Russia bloc.
Germany was forced to make a choice after comfortably sitting on two chairs for good 70 years and benefiting from cheap resources as well as trade with the whole world. A choice not forced by Russia, but rather Germany's "ally". For instance companies like Mabanaft GbmH or SoyuzNefteExport had no problems importing Soviet oil and fuel into WEST Germany in 1960-1990s even during the heights of Cold War. Germany should follow its own interests and lead European Council to protect European interests, just like India, China, US or Russia does instead of "falling in line" at the expense of its own interests and wellbeing of its citizens. Instead we have Von Der Leyen - arguably the most hated politician in the world (after Putin).
And then there is the humiliation of Nord Stream sabotage where everyone knows it was most probably Ukranians aided by US, but its politically difficult to lay the blame and pursue perpetrators in 2024. Maybe they will get justice in 2025? 2026? Never? German Greens that forced Germany to close best in class Nuclear Plants are surprisingly disinterested in the biggest single emission of greenhouse gas in the history of modern civilization.
This post was edited by Malopox on Jul 26 2024 01:41pm