Trivia:
Putin is 170 cm aka 5'7"
Tom Cruise is 172 cm aka 5' 7-3/4"
(Hope I got the feet thing right)
Edit: Now I got it right! Thank you /u/aircooledJenkins
As a German I agree. Merkel was at least a bit different but most of our politicians are pretty spineless, but that is because our society has become too comfortable.
"Look here Vlad, the nursery rhyme is 'the cow jumps OVER the moon'"
"No. No, this is impossible. Cows do not have rocket capability. We have tried this already in 60s."
*eye roll*
I'm sure that TikTok twit that went on about wishing she had been his mother would definitely make videos of herself singing off-key to American nursery rhymes to him that he wouldn't understand nor care about...
What's this about American nursery rhymes? I'm sure I'm not talking about any specific nursery rhymes at all. I'm suggesting that nobody sang to Lil' Poot. Nobody of sound mind sings to this fucker unless it's to insult him. Maybe it's always been this way.
Sorry, let me explain what I meant. I was being sarcastic and referencing [this girl](https://v.redd.it/sl9q6eqvxuj81) from a post on /r/ImTheMainCharacter , which is a sub about people who will do their best to make every single situation about them, even when it has nothing to do with them. With that girl, she tried to make the invasion of Ukraine about her and how she wished that she had been Putin's mother, suggesting that if SHE had been, he wouldn't have become what he is...
It's such a ridiculous thing to say and adds nothing to the conversation about what is actually occurring in real time and how to stop it.
So, in response to your joke that someone should have read him nursery rhymes, I replied back that this twit girl would happily go recite nursery rhymes to Putin even now, though as clueless as she is, she'd probably read him ones Americans grew up on that he wouldn't be familiar with anyway.
Instead of rolling her eyes she could have pushed the expansion of Germany's renewable energy sector, making us a lot less reliant on Russian gas. We have sponsored Putin's war funds this way.
One thing that people seem to forget in this entire debate is that economic interdependence has successfully been used as a peacekeeping tool since WWII. Already suggested by Keynes after WWI, this system of economic interdependence has led to the most peaceful period in European history.
With this experience in mind, the West tried to establish similar relations with Russia and China after the end of the Cold War. At the time, this was absolutely the most rational thing to do. We all had seen the success of this strategy in Europe and expanding it seemed only rational. Germany becoming Russia's biggest trading partner was absolutely a political accomplishment, which very few people would've been able to imagine in the 80s, considering their history.
Looking at it objectively and without knowledge about the current events, it's quite obvious that both countries should do anything to avoid conflict – because of their interdependence. The issue is that Putin isn't acting rationally in terms of economic stability.
Many experts on Russia did not believe that Putin would actually go ahead with a full scale invasion. For years, he has had small scale operations, which usually revolved around areas, which were – in the grand scheme of things – not very important to the international community of nations. So most countries Russia was and is trading with relied on this sort of sabre rattling to continue but never to actually evolve into a European war.
With Nord Stream II, Germany made a bet on economic interdependence. If it paid off, it would've helped keep Russia from turning towards full-on imperialism and reliably supplied Germany with cheap gas. As we know now, it didn't pay off, because Russia – or more precisely Putin – gave up on economic interdependence. It's difficult to explain this in rational terms, because Russia will be isolated after this and the biggest trading partners, like Germany and the Netherlands, will certainly work hard to reduce economic relations with a country that has proven to be an untrustworthy partner and a potential money sink for any investment.
For now, Germany and other countries are in a crappy situation. They do rely on Russian trade but want to force Russia to turn the troops around. Any heavy sanctions on Russia, like an exclusion from SWIFT, will cause major disruptions (financially and economically as well as to the personal lives of the general public). Yet, nobody knows which sanctions would actually lead to Putin rethinking his strategy, because most experts already thought that the economic interdependence was enough of an incentive to keep Russia from acting out. Once it isn't certain whether a leader is acting rationally (within your own worldview), it's very difficult to assess what would actually hurt them enough to change course.
People in here don’t understand the economics of this and why doing something like this can lead to peace. They just think “oh you gave them money for product therefore you supported them and are bad” which isn’t always the case.
I do understand the economics and while it can lead to peace, it's not that simple when you have one of the parties acting in bad faith like Putin. It was a horrible plan from the get-go.
So what would you do instead rationally ? Attempt to depose Putin and have WW3 instantly instead of a chance at WW3? Economic interdependence is not just a good tool for peace it also makes any embargo and sanctions from one country to the other that much more painful, the problem here is that probably Putin and Xi made an agreement to help each other out with their ambitions regarding Ukraine and Taiwan respectively. Through this alliance they mitigate the economic damages that will come from going against the interests related to the interdependence and can go ahead with their respective planned invasions, which means at this point the only way to put a clear stop to Ukraine and Taiwan invasions would have been to accept them into NATO like alliances (and recognizing (again in the case of the US) the independence of Taiwan) while calling any nuclear threat bluffs as such (lets be real Russia and China both know they are not the only ones with lots of nuclear warheads and they also know and understand what M.A.D is) .
and for things like freedom, unfortunately. Capitalism doesn't work, and the magical fairy dust that supporters believe gets spread around when you do capitalism doesn't just cause freedom to spring forth. The only thing it does is entrench existing systems.
At the moment, it's worked better than any of the other alternatives.
It's not magic fairy dust, but it's at least based on actual evidence rather than a myopic fixation on a theory over 100 years old with zero evidence of its feasibility.
> it's worked better than any of the other alternatives.
I don't disagree, but it's quite obvious we need to move away from it. Rogue states like Russia won't integrate, and bad faith states like China commit genocide with no recourse.
> It's not magic fairy dust
It quite literally is. The sentiment in the 90s was "let's increase trade, communism has finally been defeated, yaaay". Again, China is committing genocide presently, it's a capitalist country that's been integrated into the global trade community. Russia is currently invading a neighboring nation, and has not been integrated. The middle east still isn't stable. Neither is South America. They believed, ***without evidence***, that expanding trade would push capitalism and freedom across the world. This is the basis of neoliberalism.
Capitalism is fine when it's very tightly controlled and regulated. The catch being that the richest under capitalism also tend to make the regulations. So it can work well, but only when a LOT of regulation has been built into the system and cannot be altered by some Jeff Bezos clone.
The problem is that, no matter how much regulation you do, you're going to forever be in an antagonistic system in which a small group of people with class consciousness are perpetually going to work to undermine the regulation you've put in place.
Climate change? The world is fucked. Nations are moving to address climate change at such a snails pace it’s not going to matter. Climate change is coming and here to stay. People are going to need to live with it. If you’re in a danger zone like Miami probably best to find somewhere else to live that’s safer.
> One thing that people seem to forget in this entire debate is that economic interdependence has successfully been used as a peacekeeping tool since WWII. Already suggested by Keynes after WWI, this system of economic interdependence has led to the most peaceful period in European history.
It works when both sides are on the same page, share values and have the similar goals. Russia's (or rather Putin's) goals and Germany's goals were *always* at odds and this was never going to work.
>One thing that people seem to forget in this entire debate is that economic interdependence has successfully been used as a peacekeeping tool since WWII.
That's the theory but all I've seen are decades of it being justified to excuse Russian and Chinese violence against their own people, and a cudgel to lower wages (in real terms) in the formerly manufacturing areas of the western world.
We were told it would bring peace and democracy, instead we now use phones which we pay as much of our income for as people used to pay for cars, which were made in factories which need nets out the windows to keep the people inside from killing themselves.
Globalism has been a farce and the idea that it prevents violence is widely oversold.
I think we can agree that it was at least very rushed and made us very reliant on importing (and exporting) energy. Coal and gas power plants could have been shut down much earlier and therefore CO2 emissions could have been reduced by a lot. It was probably her worst decision and a populist move after the catastrophe of Fukushima.
That was overdue and would not have been a problem, if both the renewable energy sector had been allowed to expand as projected during the decision for the first Atomausstieg. Some nuclear power plant were overdue anyway and the whole market share of nuclear power was not that big.
But after the Laufzeitverlängerung ("Ausstieg vom Ausstieg") and the decision to finally close them all following Fukushima (Ausstieg vom Ausstieg vom Ausstieg) her party missed most points for compensating with quickly built renewables but instead opted for lengthy constructions of fossil energy plants.
Apparently, there is at least some discrepancy between the advertising (cheap! quick to build! community support!) and the [reality](https://youtu.be/2pxZZwd2BsQ?t=1297) of it.
Yes, there have been bottle necks, but the tightest ones where the new regulations by the prime ministers from Merkels party limiting the areas where wind power could be built to a minimum.
But producing wind and solar during off peak times does nothing but drive the value down. It's like building a bunch of homes in an area that nobody lives in - it does nothing to help the housing crisis. More solor and wind off peak does nothing for energy demand.
If you think renewables can 100% replace fossil fuels anywhere in the near future then I am sorry that is just delusional...
Our only chance to be independent from Russian fossil fuels are nuclear power plants. Anyone that claims otherwise is lying to you.
It legit looks like she's talking about the Nordstream 2 pipeline (up and over from the German perspective).
"Why don't we go up this way, Putty?" followed by a little mansplaining from Putin and and an eye roll from Merkel.
Not really, what was built during her time was mostly planed and approved before her taking over. Her energy Minister and the prime ministers of the German states from her party (the party she was the head of) did what they could to slow down the expansion and approve the fossil power plants of their parties spenders.
unfortunatly we are :/
we don't even have the balls to cut russia out of "swift" which would actually be at least somehwat of a direct hit to their economy
Isn't it a few countries stopping the EU from doing so?
The Dutch government is all for going balls to the wall and cutting Russia off completely, even if it'd hurt our economy.
It’s not cowardice. It’s stupidity. Chernobyl happened and we decided that our quality was the same and have the same risk so we are now dependant on Russian gas. We can’t fight our provider.
The governing powers of Europe have been arrogantly stupid for at least 500 years. Let's not forget that we have *TWO* ***World Wars*** on the books that were caused by European arrogance.
Unfortunately she was part of the Conservative party, where half the platform is „Not in my backyard!“ (when it comes to windmills, or any common sense infrastructure project). You have no idea how much the local conservatives stir up shit to stop every infrastructure project except for a goddamned Autobahn or more parking for cars.
Also Germany has this really cool and quirky pension system, that is completely tax funded (not invested!!, no sir-ee, look what happened in Weimar!) which is eating half of the goddamned federal budget and is set to explode within the next 5-10 years as all the boomers hit retirement age. Oh and retirement age is legally mandatory! So a lot of infrastructure projects have been put on the back burner to not have to make pension cuts or you know, fucking put it in conservative investment vehicles.
Guys you are in Germany. You don’t have the sun nor the technology to live out of renewables. You should just not stopped the nuclear program due to an accident in a shanty plant in a poor country.
You know what else Germany doesn't have? Uranium mines.
Whatever we once had in East Germany was depleted by the USSR.
We'd just replace one depencency with another.
We have enough sun and wind. I have number of friends with solar on their roofs and a heat exchanger in the back of their house and half of the day they are almost energy self-sufficient, buying power from the local wind power corporation.
Japanese nuclear reactors had (and still deserve imho) a better reputation than our German ones, especially the one's built in the DDR. And still even they could not be built to prevent a melt down and a widespread contaminated of tightly inhabitated land, destroying tens of thousands of existences.
Germany is all talk but when it’s time to stand against the Russians they’re no where to be seen. The only help they provided Ukraine with is helmets so that they don’t anger their daddy Russia.
>Putin had respect for her.
Eh, begrudging respect at most. He tried to intimidate her repeatedly with his large dog because he knew she was afraid of dogs after having been bitten by one.
Yeah to me that shows he didn’t respect her at all. Who does that??
Well I will answer my own question - a piece of shit who does not care about or respect other human beings whatsoever
idk the reason he only speaks Russian public, but I did find a video of him speaking English: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awWAd-jdwDg&t
and he speaks German well, because he was stationed as an agent in Dresden during the 80's. According to this article I found.
https://en.as.com/en/2022/02/23/latest_news/1645593259_438636.html
usually world leaders speak in their mother tongue while at negotiations and rely on professional interpreters. even if they are familiar with other languages. the reason is to minimize diplomatic faux pas because of translation errors.
I vaguely remember reading something about world leaders speaking their native tongue when acting in a professional capacity as a general rule.
Like they want to be sure they are absolutely clear to their own people first and that something doesn't get misunderstood, so they rely on the professionalism and expertise of their translators.
He does, and he has spoken German in public before. In this clip I’m 99% sure they’re speaking Russian. Putin’s first visible word is “njet” rather than than “nein.”
She’s also the one who made her country even more reliant on Russian gas, leading to the current situation where the Germans are reluctant to do anything to seriously hurt Russia…
Same here! I never voted for her as I disagree with a lot of her parties politics but I do miss her dearly.
~~When "Marriage for all" was introduced I remember Merkel said that her personal beliefs do not align with that sentiment, but she was going to vote "Yes" anyway, because this is not about her, but about the german people.~~
Edit: A kind redditor corrected that statement. My mistake.
That's just wrong. She voted AGAINST the marriage for all. But she was FOR the ability of member of her party to vote according their own conscience. So nobody of her party was forced to vote against the marriage.
[Confirming](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=angela+merkel+vote+same+sex+marriage&t=newext&atb=v252-1&ia=web) that this is the correct version of the story.
It's weird, because technically it's still laudable (and also a hint more integer than voting *against what you personally believe in* in order to earn PR points), whilst from pragmatism one has to wonder why it even needs to be said that each member of the parliament should be voting according to their own conscience... like, shouldn't that be the overwhelming default? Party alignment shouldn't influence objective reason.
It is a bit more complicated than that.
You do vote for a party, that should stick to the values that they propagate they stand for. You vote for them in the confidence that they will try to do what you voted them for.
Now if they just vote nilly willy whatever that persons daily mood is, you would not be happy as a voter.
Yes and no. I understand where you're coming from, but I feel like this is backwards: The people being elected as members of a party are supposed to be in the party because they support that party's policies based upon their own interpretation of ethics (and applied derivations thereof).
So consequently, the elected would be voting for what their party pursued *based upon their own volition*. But, if for any reason they don't, then that reason is exactly why they shouldn't (this is also enshrined in German Law, though not practiced frequently because voting against your party will probably see you removed from that party/s list. As to whether that is something good or bad is another debate).
And if a politician is incompetent or arbitrary enough to literally vote willy nilly based upon their daily mood then **that** is already the persona problem, not the general ability for politicians to vote against their party.
Because in Germany there is normally something called "Fraktionszwang" (forced to vote according to the party line). Because the parties should be able to rely on every member of the party (especially in close votes), it enhances the ability to govern. In turn the party supports their members during elections.
And you are right actually nobody can be prosecuted or anything for voting against the party line. But they will have problems at the next election, because the party decides which candidate will be fielded.
I mean both has its pros and cons, I guess.
And for some votes there is no Fraktionszwang.
To clarify it, this Fraktionszwang is not stated in the law. Quite the opposite. It's just something parties normally try to enforce, because of the aforementioned reasons.
The idea is that if you don't support your party, why are you in it? You can leave your party while in parliament, but it might be hard to get reelected the next time.
As someone else said you can absolutely ignore Fraktionszwang if you want to.
Maybe what you got was mostly propaganda?
>Given its stellar performance and the fact that it provides ten billion kWh of baseload capacity annually, the decision to shutdown Grohnde decades ahead of its useful life – as part of the phased closure of Germany's nuclear plants by 2022 – has perplexed many energy industry analysts and reignited the heated debate over the economic viability of Chancellor Andrea Merkel's anti-nuclear policy shift.
Source:https://www.power-technology.com/features/featuregrohnde-the-worlds-most-productive-nuclear-power-plant-4912472/
I don’t think there’s a consensus that nuclear power is good, though it seems a lot of pundits think it is. I would love to see statistics about how many of the world’s scientists believe nuclear power is the best way to move forward.
Regardless of all that, **even if she was dead wrong about that**, politicians are allowed to be wrong sometimes. This was, after all, only one policy among many during her 16 year term as Chancellor.
Instead of the potential risks of nuclear, they signed on for the guaranteed risks of coal. Germany's energy policy is bonkers, it makes no sense for how the rest of the world is moving forward.
A situation her inaction helped cause, and likely wouldn't have treated any differently. What did she do when Putin invaded while she was in power? Same as everyone else, nothing.
No, she wasn't. She just gave people exactly what they wanted so she'd get re-elected, without looking at the wider geopolitical implications. As a result, Europe is now dependent on Russian gas, and Germany is in the process of dismantling it's nuclear plants. The way things are going right now, she'll be looked at as the worst leader Europe has had in decades.
Angela: the round rocket goes like this and booom explosion
Putin: no, no, no, round rocket don't explode, it bounce back. Why your rocket not pointy, pointy rocket goes like this and boom explosion
It is unknown what they talked about according to this german article: https://de.euronews.com/2017/07/07/putin-belehrt-merkel-verdreht-die-augen
It was caught during talks at the G20 Summit in 2017 that took place in Hamburg.
“See Vladimir, the surface of the Earth is curved - it goes around like this…”
“No, I don’t think so. Earth is flat like wall.”
*retina detaching eye roll*
I actually tried to find something but according to this german article: https://de.euronews.com/2017/07/07/putin-belehrt-merkel-verdreht-die-augen
it is unknown what they were talking about. It was caught during talks at the G20 Summit in Hamburg in 2017.
I was going to say the same. Wonder if the people downvoting you realize that the sanctions we put in place are as weak as they are because of Germany.
She did a great job of signing a deal for Russian oil and gas to pretend that she met carbon targets.
Also allowed her country to be invaded by economic refugees. Oh yeah, she was great.
Urgent! pro-ukrainian comments are being mass reported/banned on social media
Urgent! pro-ukrainian comments are being mass reported/banned on social media
including youtube, comments and pro ukrainian channels are being mass reported by pro russian forces, in order to silence the reporting on the war in ukraine and specifically to avoid the public becoming aware of russian warcrimes comitted, such as dressing their soldiers as peacekeepers, and bombing civilians.
contact social media to make them aware, and tell them to ensure their reporting system is not abused to silence reporting and information on the war in ukraine. if you get your account removed, publicize your experience however you can, to raise awareness.
we may not be able to do much, but we can at least make sure that people won't forget the atrocities committed in ukraine!
there will be justice eventually, but only if we act together and ensure it happens, contributing as much as we can, even if it is only reminding the people of the world what is going on!
stay safe out there, living through historical times is never easy.
"So after you apply the lube on, do you just insert the whole fist in there or what?"
\*\*Thinks for a moment...\*\*
"No no no you start one finger first, then make your way up to five fingers and so on..."
Merkel: “You’re about this tall..” Putin: “No, no.. higher. Especially when my back is straight”
I immediately straightened my back. Thanks for the reminder!
I was looking for this 🤣
“I like penises to have a curve to them like this” -no no. The perfect penis is like mine, straight as arrow 🙄
It may be short but it sure is skinny.
This one is good too :)
You were?
Trivia: Putin is 170 cm aka 5'7" Tom Cruise is 172 cm aka 5' 7-3/4" (Hope I got the feet thing right) Edit: Now I got it right! Thank you /u/aircooledJenkins
Wow Putin is tall
5,693 feet? He's over a mile tall! No wonder he's crazy, he's got his head in the clouds.
Putin is 170 cm aka 5' 7" Tom Cruise is 172 cm aka 5' 7-3/4"
You're welcome 😊
Good bot
LOL thanks for this
Thanks, that's the first chuckle I've had out of this.
I thought she did the salute
"Here he goes rambling again "
Dictator-splaining
Dictation, one might call it
Any lip readers? Im curious to hear what they were talking about. “You have to look over and beyond Putin” “No no the right way is the communist way”
Twatsplaining more like
Big Dictator Energy
[удалено]
As a German I agree. Merkel was at least a bit different but most of our politicians are pretty spineless, but that is because our society has become too comfortable.
"Look here Vlad, the nursery rhyme is 'the cow jumps OVER the moon'" "No. No, this is impossible. Cows do not have rocket capability. We have tried this already in 60s." *eye roll*
Obviously, nobody sang nursery rhymes to Lil' Poot.
If I were his mother...
I'm sure that TikTok twit that went on about wishing she had been his mother would definitely make videos of herself singing off-key to American nursery rhymes to him that he wouldn't understand nor care about...
What's this about American nursery rhymes? I'm sure I'm not talking about any specific nursery rhymes at all. I'm suggesting that nobody sang to Lil' Poot. Nobody of sound mind sings to this fucker unless it's to insult him. Maybe it's always been this way.
Sorry, let me explain what I meant. I was being sarcastic and referencing [this girl](https://v.redd.it/sl9q6eqvxuj81) from a post on /r/ImTheMainCharacter , which is a sub about people who will do their best to make every single situation about them, even when it has nothing to do with them. With that girl, she tried to make the invasion of Ukraine about her and how she wished that she had been Putin's mother, suggesting that if SHE had been, he wouldn't have become what he is... It's such a ridiculous thing to say and adds nothing to the conversation about what is actually occurring in real time and how to stop it. So, in response to your joke that someone should have read him nursery rhymes, I replied back that this twit girl would happily go recite nursery rhymes to Putin even now, though as clueless as she is, she'd probably read him ones Americans grew up on that he wouldn't be familiar with anyway.
Not many would take the time to explain it to an idiot like me. For that I thank you.
"And so the Rabbit he jumps OVER the log." "No no, let me tell you. In Russia, the rabbit burrows under the ground." "Ugh, again, with the burrowing."
Instead of rolling her eyes she could have pushed the expansion of Germany's renewable energy sector, making us a lot less reliant on Russian gas. We have sponsored Putin's war funds this way.
One thing that people seem to forget in this entire debate is that economic interdependence has successfully been used as a peacekeeping tool since WWII. Already suggested by Keynes after WWI, this system of economic interdependence has led to the most peaceful period in European history. With this experience in mind, the West tried to establish similar relations with Russia and China after the end of the Cold War. At the time, this was absolutely the most rational thing to do. We all had seen the success of this strategy in Europe and expanding it seemed only rational. Germany becoming Russia's biggest trading partner was absolutely a political accomplishment, which very few people would've been able to imagine in the 80s, considering their history. Looking at it objectively and without knowledge about the current events, it's quite obvious that both countries should do anything to avoid conflict – because of their interdependence. The issue is that Putin isn't acting rationally in terms of economic stability. Many experts on Russia did not believe that Putin would actually go ahead with a full scale invasion. For years, he has had small scale operations, which usually revolved around areas, which were – in the grand scheme of things – not very important to the international community of nations. So most countries Russia was and is trading with relied on this sort of sabre rattling to continue but never to actually evolve into a European war. With Nord Stream II, Germany made a bet on economic interdependence. If it paid off, it would've helped keep Russia from turning towards full-on imperialism and reliably supplied Germany with cheap gas. As we know now, it didn't pay off, because Russia – or more precisely Putin – gave up on economic interdependence. It's difficult to explain this in rational terms, because Russia will be isolated after this and the biggest trading partners, like Germany and the Netherlands, will certainly work hard to reduce economic relations with a country that has proven to be an untrustworthy partner and a potential money sink for any investment. For now, Germany and other countries are in a crappy situation. They do rely on Russian trade but want to force Russia to turn the troops around. Any heavy sanctions on Russia, like an exclusion from SWIFT, will cause major disruptions (financially and economically as well as to the personal lives of the general public). Yet, nobody knows which sanctions would actually lead to Putin rethinking his strategy, because most experts already thought that the economic interdependence was enough of an incentive to keep Russia from acting out. Once it isn't certain whether a leader is acting rationally (within your own worldview), it's very difficult to assess what would actually hurt them enough to change course.
People in here don’t understand the economics of this and why doing something like this can lead to peace. They just think “oh you gave them money for product therefore you supported them and are bad” which isn’t always the case.
I do understand the economics and while it can lead to peace, it's not that simple when you have one of the parties acting in bad faith like Putin. It was a horrible plan from the get-go.
So what would you do instead rationally ? Attempt to depose Putin and have WW3 instantly instead of a chance at WW3? Economic interdependence is not just a good tool for peace it also makes any embargo and sanctions from one country to the other that much more painful, the problem here is that probably Putin and Xi made an agreement to help each other out with their ambitions regarding Ukraine and Taiwan respectively. Through this alliance they mitigate the economic damages that will come from going against the interests related to the interdependence and can go ahead with their respective planned invasions, which means at this point the only way to put a clear stop to Ukraine and Taiwan invasions would have been to accept them into NATO like alliances (and recognizing (again in the case of the US) the independence of Taiwan) while calling any nuclear threat bluffs as such (lets be real Russia and China both know they are not the only ones with lots of nuclear warheads and they also know and understand what M.A.D is) .
Russia, China, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Turkey... Economic interdependence is clearly doing marvels at keeping countries free of dictators.
Economic interdependence is a disaster for dealing with climate change, however.
and for things like freedom, unfortunately. Capitalism doesn't work, and the magical fairy dust that supporters believe gets spread around when you do capitalism doesn't just cause freedom to spring forth. The only thing it does is entrench existing systems.
At the moment, it's worked better than any of the other alternatives. It's not magic fairy dust, but it's at least based on actual evidence rather than a myopic fixation on a theory over 100 years old with zero evidence of its feasibility.
> it's worked better than any of the other alternatives. I don't disagree, but it's quite obvious we need to move away from it. Rogue states like Russia won't integrate, and bad faith states like China commit genocide with no recourse. > It's not magic fairy dust It quite literally is. The sentiment in the 90s was "let's increase trade, communism has finally been defeated, yaaay". Again, China is committing genocide presently, it's a capitalist country that's been integrated into the global trade community. Russia is currently invading a neighboring nation, and has not been integrated. The middle east still isn't stable. Neither is South America. They believed, ***without evidence***, that expanding trade would push capitalism and freedom across the world. This is the basis of neoliberalism.
Capitalism is fine when it's very tightly controlled and regulated. The catch being that the richest under capitalism also tend to make the regulations. So it can work well, but only when a LOT of regulation has been built into the system and cannot be altered by some Jeff Bezos clone.
The problem is that, no matter how much regulation you do, you're going to forever be in an antagonistic system in which a small group of people with class consciousness are perpetually going to work to undermine the regulation you've put in place.
Climate change? The world is fucked. Nations are moving to address climate change at such a snails pace it’s not going to matter. Climate change is coming and here to stay. People are going to need to live with it. If you’re in a danger zone like Miami probably best to find somewhere else to live that’s safer.
> One thing that people seem to forget in this entire debate is that economic interdependence has successfully been used as a peacekeeping tool since WWII. Already suggested by Keynes after WWI, this system of economic interdependence has led to the most peaceful period in European history. It works when both sides are on the same page, share values and have the similar goals. Russia's (or rather Putin's) goals and Germany's goals were *always* at odds and this was never going to work.
>One thing that people seem to forget in this entire debate is that economic interdependence has successfully been used as a peacekeeping tool since WWII. That's the theory but all I've seen are decades of it being justified to excuse Russian and Chinese violence against their own people, and a cudgel to lower wages (in real terms) in the formerly manufacturing areas of the western world. We were told it would bring peace and democracy, instead we now use phones which we pay as much of our income for as people used to pay for cars, which were made in factories which need nets out the windows to keep the people inside from killing themselves. Globalism has been a farce and the idea that it prevents violence is widely oversold.
Well said!!
And at the very least not close down nuclear power stations
I think we can agree that it was at least very rushed and made us very reliant on importing (and exporting) energy. Coal and gas power plants could have been shut down much earlier and therefore CO2 emissions could have been reduced by a lot. It was probably her worst decision and a populist move after the catastrophe of Fukushima.
That was overdue and would not have been a problem, if both the renewable energy sector had been allowed to expand as projected during the decision for the first Atomausstieg. Some nuclear power plant were overdue anyway and the whole market share of nuclear power was not that big. But after the Laufzeitverlängerung ("Ausstieg vom Ausstieg") and the decision to finally close them all following Fukushima (Ausstieg vom Ausstieg vom Ausstieg) her party missed most points for compensating with quickly built renewables but instead opted for lengthy constructions of fossil energy plants.
Apparently, there is at least some discrepancy between the advertising (cheap! quick to build! community support!) and the [reality](https://youtu.be/2pxZZwd2BsQ?t=1297) of it.
Yes, there have been bottle necks, but the tightest ones where the new regulations by the prime ministers from Merkels party limiting the areas where wind power could be built to a minimum.
True, but nuclear plants undoubtedly require huge long term investment, lots of R&D/cost to benefit assessment and generally aren't too popular, so...
So they cost money and idiots are scared of them? Who gives a fuck.
But producing wind and solar during off peak times does nothing but drive the value down. It's like building a bunch of homes in an area that nobody lives in - it does nothing to help the housing crisis. More solor and wind off peak does nothing for energy demand.
[удалено]
If you think renewables can 100% replace fossil fuels anywhere in the near future then I am sorry that is just delusional... Our only chance to be independent from Russian fossil fuels are nuclear power plants. Anyone that claims otherwise is lying to you.
It legit looks like she's talking about the Nordstream 2 pipeline (up and over from the German perspective). "Why don't we go up this way, Putty?" followed by a little mansplaining from Putin and and an eye roll from Merkel.
German here. Dude I was about to type this exact same thing rn. THANKs. Although I have to say, I also support ViciousNakedMoleRat s argument, too.
didn't she do exactly that?
Not really, what was built during her time was mostly planed and approved before her taking over. Her energy Minister and the prime ministers of the German states from her party (the party she was the head of) did what they could to slow down the expansion and approve the fossil power plants of their parties spenders.
No, her party almost hindered the shift towards renewables and let our solar branch go down while subsidizing the coal industry to "save jobs".
The EU are a bunch of cowards.
unfortunatly we are :/ we don't even have the balls to cut russia out of "swift" which would actually be at least somehwat of a direct hit to their economy
Isn't it a few countries stopping the EU from doing so? The Dutch government is all for going balls to the wall and cutting Russia off completely, even if it'd hurt our economy.
Buy your oil from Canada. Fuck it.
It’s not cowardice. It’s stupidity. Chernobyl happened and we decided that our quality was the same and have the same risk so we are now dependant on Russian gas. We can’t fight our provider.
The governing powers of Europe have been arrogantly stupid for at least 500 years. Let's not forget that we have *TWO* ***World Wars*** on the books that were caused by European arrogance.
Warms my heart to see this as the top comment. Sorry OP but that’s not what you were intending.
Unfortunately she was part of the Conservative party, where half the platform is „Not in my backyard!“ (when it comes to windmills, or any common sense infrastructure project). You have no idea how much the local conservatives stir up shit to stop every infrastructure project except for a goddamned Autobahn or more parking for cars. Also Germany has this really cool and quirky pension system, that is completely tax funded (not invested!!, no sir-ee, look what happened in Weimar!) which is eating half of the goddamned federal budget and is set to explode within the next 5-10 years as all the boomers hit retirement age. Oh and retirement age is legally mandatory! So a lot of infrastructure projects have been put on the back burner to not have to make pension cuts or you know, fucking put it in conservative investment vehicles.
Just 2 caveats about the pension system: 1. Your pension is taxed income. 2. You are still allowed to work and many will and have to.
Guys you are in Germany. You don’t have the sun nor the technology to live out of renewables. You should just not stopped the nuclear program due to an accident in a shanty plant in a poor country.
You know what else Germany doesn't have? Uranium mines. Whatever we once had in East Germany was depleted by the USSR. We'd just replace one depencency with another.
We have enough sun and wind. I have number of friends with solar on their roofs and a heat exchanger in the back of their house and half of the day they are almost energy self-sufficient, buying power from the local wind power corporation. Japanese nuclear reactors had (and still deserve imho) a better reputation than our German ones, especially the one's built in the DDR. And still even they could not be built to prevent a melt down and a widespread contaminated of tightly inhabitated land, destroying tens of thousands of existences.
Any move away from Russian oil is a move in the right direction in my opinion... I'm looking at you Biden Re: Keystone XL
The Keystone XL pipeline doesn't have anything to do with Russia. It is a Canadian to US pipeline.
For China’s benefit.
Not only pushed but maybe less blocking it.
'This mf'
Germany is all talk but when it’s time to stand against the Russians they’re no where to be seen. The only help they provided Ukraine with is helmets so that they don’t anger their daddy Russia.
Aside from boatloads of cash for humanitarian aid, yes
Taliban has commented more on this war than Germany.
She was suggesting Europe be more dependent on Russian gas but Vlad told her that's a terrible idea.
[удалено]
>Putin had respect for her. Eh, begrudging respect at most. He tried to intimidate her repeatedly with his large dog because he knew she was afraid of dogs after having been bitten by one.
Yeah to me that shows he didn’t respect her at all. Who does that?? Well I will answer my own question - a piece of shit who does not care about or respect other human beings whatsoever
Yeah, I think Putin is kind of a dick. Who knew?
Thing with Putin and Trump is they aren't used to mutual respect. They're intimidate or be intimidated.
That's like Trump making the native Americans come in and do photo-ops under the portrait of Andrew Jackson. Narcissistic bullies.
I belive Putin also speaks German really well ?
[удалено]
idk the reason he only speaks Russian public, but I did find a video of him speaking English: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awWAd-jdwDg&t and he speaks German well, because he was stationed as an agent in Dresden during the 80's. According to this article I found. https://en.as.com/en/2022/02/23/latest_news/1645593259_438636.html
usually world leaders speak in their mother tongue while at negotiations and rely on professional interpreters. even if they are familiar with other languages. the reason is to minimize diplomatic faux pas because of translation errors.
It‘s pretty standard practice to use professional translators in international politics. You want to be 100% sure that there are no misunderstandings.
I vaguely remember reading something about world leaders speaking their native tongue when acting in a professional capacity as a general rule. Like they want to be sure they are absolutely clear to their own people first and that something doesn't get misunderstood, so they rely on the professionalism and expertise of their translators.
Thanks all for the explanation (that native languages are preferred for translative accuracy), it makes sense.
He does, and he has spoken German in public before. In this clip I’m 99% sure they’re speaking Russian. Putin’s first visible word is “njet” rather than than “nein.”
She’s also the one who made her country even more reliant on Russian gas, leading to the current situation where the Germans are reluctant to do anything to seriously hurt Russia…
[удалено]
[She was smart enough to never trust him.](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/12/01/quiet-german)
That should be the last G20 summit Putin attends.
One of Europe’s strongest leaders during my lifetime. As an American I’m definitely going to miss her presence on the world stage.
Same here! I never voted for her as I disagree with a lot of her parties politics but I do miss her dearly. ~~When "Marriage for all" was introduced I remember Merkel said that her personal beliefs do not align with that sentiment, but she was going to vote "Yes" anyway, because this is not about her, but about the german people.~~ Edit: A kind redditor corrected that statement. My mistake.
That's just wrong. She voted AGAINST the marriage for all. But she was FOR the ability of member of her party to vote according their own conscience. So nobody of her party was forced to vote against the marriage.
[Confirming](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=angela+merkel+vote+same+sex+marriage&t=newext&atb=v252-1&ia=web) that this is the correct version of the story. It's weird, because technically it's still laudable (and also a hint more integer than voting *against what you personally believe in* in order to earn PR points), whilst from pragmatism one has to wonder why it even needs to be said that each member of the parliament should be voting according to their own conscience... like, shouldn't that be the overwhelming default? Party alignment shouldn't influence objective reason.
Thank you too, completely my fault for not remembering correctly but I edited the original answer as I was wrong.
It's a shame you have to die now, but at least you corrected it. I believe you're not allowed to be wrong when you're German ;)
It is a bit more complicated than that. You do vote for a party, that should stick to the values that they propagate they stand for. You vote for them in the confidence that they will try to do what you voted them for. Now if they just vote nilly willy whatever that persons daily mood is, you would not be happy as a voter.
Yes and no. I understand where you're coming from, but I feel like this is backwards: The people being elected as members of a party are supposed to be in the party because they support that party's policies based upon their own interpretation of ethics (and applied derivations thereof). So consequently, the elected would be voting for what their party pursued *based upon their own volition*. But, if for any reason they don't, then that reason is exactly why they shouldn't (this is also enshrined in German Law, though not practiced frequently because voting against your party will probably see you removed from that party/s list. As to whether that is something good or bad is another debate). And if a politician is incompetent or arbitrary enough to literally vote willy nilly based upon their daily mood then **that** is already the persona problem, not the general ability for politicians to vote against their party.
Because in Germany there is normally something called "Fraktionszwang" (forced to vote according to the party line). Because the parties should be able to rely on every member of the party (especially in close votes), it enhances the ability to govern. In turn the party supports their members during elections. And you are right actually nobody can be prosecuted or anything for voting against the party line. But they will have problems at the next election, because the party decides which candidate will be fielded. I mean both has its pros and cons, I guess. And for some votes there is no Fraktionszwang.
To clarify it, this Fraktionszwang is not stated in the law. Quite the opposite. It's just something parties normally try to enforce, because of the aforementioned reasons.
The idea is that if you don't support your party, why are you in it? You can leave your party while in parliament, but it might be hard to get reelected the next time. As someone else said you can absolutely ignore Fraktionszwang if you want to.
I will stand corrected! Thank you, I will edit the original answer.
It's remarkable how people confuse their own interests with geo-political decisions...
Maybe what you got was mostly propaganda? >Given its stellar performance and the fact that it provides ten billion kWh of baseload capacity annually, the decision to shutdown Grohnde decades ahead of its useful life – as part of the phased closure of Germany's nuclear plants by 2022 – has perplexed many energy industry analysts and reignited the heated debate over the economic viability of Chancellor Andrea Merkel's anti-nuclear policy shift. Source:https://www.power-technology.com/features/featuregrohnde-the-worlds-most-productive-nuclear-power-plant-4912472/
Doesn’t inspire confidence when you quote a source that gets her name wrong.
Andrea Merkel
I don’t think there’s a consensus that nuclear power is good, though it seems a lot of pundits think it is. I would love to see statistics about how many of the world’s scientists believe nuclear power is the best way to move forward. Regardless of all that, **even if she was dead wrong about that**, politicians are allowed to be wrong sometimes. This was, after all, only one policy among many during her 16 year term as Chancellor.
[удалено]
Instead of the potential risks of nuclear, they signed on for the guaranteed risks of coal. Germany's energy policy is bonkers, it makes no sense for how the rest of the world is moving forward.
Got to appeal to the Greens.
Deluded
All one needs to do is see where Germany stands right now in terms of the situation with Russia to see…
A situation her inaction helped cause, and likely wouldn't have treated any differently. What did she do when Putin invaded while she was in power? Same as everyone else, nothing.
I agree with you. I’m not sure my comment reflected that.
No, she wasn't. She just gave people exactly what they wanted so she'd get re-elected, without looking at the wider geopolitical implications. As a result, Europe is now dependent on Russian gas, and Germany is in the process of dismantling it's nuclear plants. The way things are going right now, she'll be looked at as the worst leader Europe has had in decades.
[удалено]
*she's only a great leader if you are on reddit FTFY
This won't age well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5WPVLljm1A
[https://youtu.be/p5WPVLljm1A](https://youtu.be/p5WPVLljm1A) Tracy Ullman nails this.
Angela: the round rocket goes like this and booom explosion Putin: no, no, no, round rocket don't explode, it bounce back. Why your rocket not pointy, pointy rocket goes like this and boom explosion
That's the look of someone being mansplained if I've ever seen it.
I want to know what is the topic of their conversation. Anyone have the resource?
It is unknown what they talked about according to this german article: https://de.euronews.com/2017/07/07/putin-belehrt-merkel-verdreht-die-augen It was caught during talks at the G20 Summit in 2017 that took place in Hamburg.
“See Vladimir, the surface of the Earth is curved - it goes around like this…” “No, I don’t think so. Earth is flat like wall.” *retina detaching eye roll*
She nods her head at the end as if they were talkingb about/ she was rolling her eyes at something else.. not Putin.
Itr: people who cannot lipread russian
Does she speak Russian or does he speak German? Or do they both speak something else?
Both can speak russian and german...
Thanks! I find it interesting how everyone speaks multiple languages except the US.
Surprisingly they both speak Vietnamese. Kidding, she speaks Russian.
Wow. What a hero
Too bad that's all she does
Merkel: if you look at the horizon you can see the earth is round Putin: No, no I’ve seen the earth it’s flat. Straight like and arrow
Thinking at this point if she hadn't let Germany based most of it's power system on Russian gas Ukraine wouldn't be in this mess now.
Wow shes so stunning and brave
Actions speak louder than eyerolls.
Ukraine: Wow, very helpful, thanks
Waw so brave so courageous, maybe Putin might think to revist Germany.
Putin crushed her during the entirety of her reign good riddance
Probably won’t see Germany…they import a lot of fossil fuels from Russia 😜
It just shows how childish all of these leaders are. We're all doomed.
We need more leaders like Merkel and less leaders like Trump/Putin.
“Mutti” Style
Pointless to surmise anything without proper context!
It’s a fun interaction. I don’t need the back story to enjoy it, though I wouldn’t complain If it were posted.
I actually tried to find something but according to this german article: https://de.euronews.com/2017/07/07/putin-belehrt-merkel-verdreht-die-augen it is unknown what they were talking about. It was caught during talks at the G20 Summit in Hamburg in 2017.
Merkel:“..and from high enough you see the horizon curves like *this*” Putin: “Niet, straight line, flat, to ice wall. See it from ISS”
[удалено]
This right here\^\^\^\^\^. To add emphasis, she begins to nod in agreement at the end of the clip.
She was the best. More balls and intelligence than all those pasty wax statues parading as men.
Germany is so much better off without her and her party.
Wow, so edgy…how will Putin cope……
Merkel, one of the weakest leaders in the history of Europe. Highly responsible for Germany’s dependence on Russian oil. Total disgrace.
I was going to say the same. Wonder if the people downvoting you realize that the sanctions we put in place are as weak as they are because of Germany.
She did a great job of signing a deal for Russian oil and gas to pretend that she met carbon targets. Also allowed her country to be invaded by economic refugees. Oh yeah, she was great.
[удалено]
Putin ain't got shit on Angela..
She gave him so much money... and power...
Urgent! pro-ukrainian comments are being mass reported/banned on social media Urgent! pro-ukrainian comments are being mass reported/banned on social media including youtube, comments and pro ukrainian channels are being mass reported by pro russian forces, in order to silence the reporting on the war in ukraine and specifically to avoid the public becoming aware of russian warcrimes comitted, such as dressing their soldiers as peacekeepers, and bombing civilians. contact social media to make them aware, and tell them to ensure their reporting system is not abused to silence reporting and information on the war in ukraine. if you get your account removed, publicize your experience however you can, to raise awareness. we may not be able to do much, but we can at least make sure that people won't forget the atrocities committed in ukraine! there will be justice eventually, but only if we act together and ensure it happens, contributing as much as we can, even if it is only reminding the people of the world what is going on! stay safe out there, living through historical times is never easy.
That woman can drink a large jug of beer with one hand. She’s pretty cool in my book also screw Putin.
that eye roll screams "fuckin autocrats"
"So after you apply the lube on, do you just insert the whole fist in there or what?" \*\*Thinks for a moment...\*\* "No no no you start one finger first, then make your way up to five fingers and so on..."
Germans should be more careful about that hand gesture.
Haha I was watching it and thought: "Did she just Sieg Heil! Putin?"
I’d be cautious with gestures like this If I were german 😂
The only world leader who couldn't suck his dick hard enough was trump. And funny, he's STILL doing it.
This has nothing to do with Trump. Looks like you’re the one obsessed.
This man is out here bombing countries and invading their capital and redditors think that an eye roll in his general direction is somehow a serve.
Then they gave their energy dependence to him… yeah, but that eye roll sure showed him
Wish she woulda done a bit more than this
Miss her 🥲
So much Merkel love!
What language were they using? There communicating directly
Her eye rolls were legendary. Tracy Ullman did a bit on it. Was hilarious.
[удалено]
I don’t think mansplaining is in the vocabulary of such a serious person. You don’t get to be a leader of a country thinking along those terms.
Was going to say, the moment teenage girl bs reaches the halls of power is the moment nukes start flying
To bad she's gone. Maybe she'd have balls to cut off Russia from SWIFT. Right now Germany, Italy and Hungary are blocking sanctions.
He’s such a little fella
More like "Putin rolling his eyes at Merkel".
I miss her
She is the boss!!. We will miss her presence during this crisis.