The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Posts by Tacitus  

Joined: 6 Jul 2017 / Male ♂
Warnings: 2 - QQ
Last Post: 19 hrs ago
Threads: 2
Posts: 1,233

Displayed posts: 1235 / page 38 of 42
sort: Latest first   Oldest first   |
Tacitus   
26 Oct 2017
News / How will BREXIT affect the immigrants in UK and Poland. [1114]

I'm correct and you know it or at least you should know it. If you just lying or if you're misinformed that would be still is your problem not mine.

You claim that Merkel said that all people who reach Germany were refugees and that the German government would change the criterias for political syslum on a whim. Both are objectively false, or can you provide us with a source for these claims. You are either lying or intentionally misinformed.@Dirk diggler

@Dirk diggler

10 30 or 100 years old...Doesn't change the fact swedes have to pay almost 100k a DAY to rent a cruise ship to house migrants, according to Swedish sources.

Yes, because those buisness men exploit a desperate situation. We had cases like this when e.g. a hotel owner charged for completely run down rooms more than 200€ per night. And why do we have this situation? Because a few countries have to deal with all refugees.

The Taliban was the literally the internationally recognized government of Afghanistan before the US invasion

Another false claim. The Taliban were only recognized by two countries: Pakistan and Saudi-Arabia.

@gumishu
Tacitus   
26 Oct 2017
News / How will BREXIT affect the immigrants in UK and Poland. [1114]

@SigSauer

ok we made that deal, but we are not going to put our citizens in danger.

You aren't. As explained before, refugees from Syria are no more likely to become criminal than others. Going that logic, you would have to ban immigration alltogether.

Excuse me if I am wrong in my assumptions, but your posts sound like you are cheerleading the destruction of your own culture.

I don't know where you are from, and like you I don't want to make any assumptions, but it seems to me that your assumptions are based on a very distorted picture of the migrant situation, probably based on media coverage. I have noticed this while studying the media coverage of the refugee crisis in the British tabloids that most of them paint a completely exaggerated or even wrong picture of the situation here. Starting with the supposed content of Merkel's "invitation" in 2015. I recently talked with a few people from Sweden who told me something similar about the press coverage of their countries.

I mean honestly, two weeks ago an American student asked my professor whether or not it was safe for him to travel to Germany "because of the terrorists". Just after an American had killed almost 60 people, several times the number of Germans who have died so far because of Islamic terrorism.

There are certainly challenges here, but none that would qualify as "existential" to our culture. And a few thousand refugees would certainly be no threat to Poland's culture. This is just something eurosceptic parties are using as a pretext of rallying against the EU. By doing that they are betraying everything European values stand for (rule of law, morality).I just wished they would stop pretending to adhere to christian values at least.
Tacitus   
25 Oct 2017
News / How will BREXIT affect the immigrants in UK and Poland. [1114]

@Ironside

Dude, your lovely Merkel and your wonderful gov insisted for almost two years that ALL illegal immigrant on route to Germany and already in Germany are ...kid you not - refugees.

You are either misinformed or lying here. Merkel never claimed that all people reaching Germany were refugees. In fact she stated already in September 2015 that only those who suffer from political prosecution and are fleeing from a warzone have any claim for political asylum. Something the English speaking press failed to draw attention to.

If that suit German gov they're refugees and if not they are economic migrants.

Another lie or misconception.

Contrary to the Germany gov that follows its authoritarian impulses and breaks the law with impunity.

Another objectively wrong statement. When did Germany break the law with impunity? Poland is of course violating European law by not honoring the refugee deal.

Is this how you like to argue? With lies and wrong accusations?

By the same token Ukrainians in Poland are either economic migrants or refugees. T

Poland cares currently for 6000 refugees from the Ukraine. Not more, no less. All the others have not been acknowledged as refugees and are thus not entitled to any help by the Polish state.
Tacitus   
25 Oct 2017
News / Poland has accepted over a million Ukrainian refugees. Why does the EU keep telling propaganda about Poland? [290]

You are trying to point out a mere technicality in the number of processed and approved asylum applications.

So Poland managed to process only 6000 applications in 3 years? No,the rest are simply not refugees, but economic migrants. Which is fine, because they are tremendously helpful to the Polish economy, but they are a dishonest argument in the refugee dispute.

think that countries who voted for an ECONOMIC UNION,

The EU has always been more than an Economic Union, even from its' very origin. This argument is already ridiculous for those who favoured for Brexit, and it is especially ridiculous for the countries who joined the EU in the 2000s.

I will have to laugh at the idea that Poland's previous government made that deal, so of course the new one has to honor it

This is how the EU works. It could not function otherwise.

two of the biggest powers in the world do not honor their agreements,

Firstly, Poland is no superpower and thus is not above consequences. Secondly, this example is completely irrelevant for the topic at hand.
The EU was founded precisely on the idea to avert this. The EU works on the principle that all countries work together and try to reach a consensus on decisions, on mutual trust. Sure some countries have more influence than others, but it rarely happens that countries get completely outvoted, and this is usually because those countries refuse to alter their position even a little.

I just hope that the Polish people remember this when the consequences of this become clear. I have recently read a few articles about how Southern Europe wants to retaliate. Curbing the structural funds and instead redirecting them for dealing with the refugees in the future is almost guaranteed to happen, once the countries start negotiating in 2019. But apparantly Italy and Greece have also decided to use their influence in Nato for advocating a reapproachment in Russia, and the Italian government has secretly stated that it would veto any further Nato troops in Europe because of this.
Tacitus   
25 Oct 2017
News / How will BREXIT affect the immigrants in UK and Poland. [1114]

Poland has taken over ONE MILLION REFUGEES since 2014. 1.1 million Ukrainians actually.

False. Poland has accepted approx. 6000 refugees as this article points out: ft.com/content/aeda9ebe-3afa-11e7-ac89-b01cc67cfeec

Little over 6,000 Ukrainians have sought asylum in Poland since 2014, according to official figures.

Right, whether they were Syrian or North-African, and I'm not sure how you could know their nationality since the majority of them were not arrested

Those who were arrested/suspected paint a very clear picture. This is also important because Syrians are genuine refugees who might stay permanently, whereas less than 1% of the North Africans qualify for asylum. Those who have a claim for asylum are less likely to commit crimes than the average citizen, since they don't want to spoil their chances.

dw.com/en/are-refugees-more-criminal-than-the-average-german-citizen/a-38371284

Poland is a SOVEREIGN COUNTRY

And as sovereign country it decided to join the EU with the implicite consent to adhere to its' rules.
Tacitus   
24 Oct 2017
News / Austria's swing to the far right on Poland? [214]

@SigSauer

I'll just leave this morsel right here for you to ponder, as we watch liberals heads spin trying to explain away the massive amount of sexual assaults that happened in Cologne.

Cologne is a regrettable exception, not the rule. The culprits were also not from Syria, but North Africa.
Tacitus   
23 Oct 2017
News / Polish-German Reconcilliation Seminar [491]

Diesel submarines produce less noise and are thus better suited for the Baltic Seas anyway, since we need stealth there.
Tacitus   
23 Oct 2017
News / How will BREXIT affect the immigrants in UK and Poland. [1114]

Those homeless are warfare tourists but those middle eastern and African you pay 100 euro a day or thereabout and give them hotels and nice places to live in are refugees

Refugees are those who can prove that they have claim for political asylum, those who don't have claim are not refugees. The welfare tourists from Eastern Europe are not refugees (and they don't claim to be ones, since they have access to the welfare system of Germany simply because they are EU citizens). But well, this is the wrong thread to discuss this.
Tacitus   
23 Oct 2017
News / How will BREXIT affect the immigrants in UK and Poland. [1114]

@Dirk diggler

Please read a book about the negotiations. Wikipedia is nice, but it gives only a very short overview.
This is all very well documented. It was Germany to overcame French objections, if Germany had sided with France, the enlargement would not have happened.

So no, Germany was absolutely not the only responsible party for bringing Poland in.

I have never said that they were the only resposnible party, just they key responsible party. If France and Germany had objected enlargement, it would not have happened. Simple as that.
Tacitus   
23 Oct 2017
News / How will BREXIT affect the immigrants in UK and Poland. [1114]

To say that Germany was directly responsible for Poland's ascension into the EU and Poland wouldn't of joined the bloc without Germany is an exaggeration.

Not an exaggeration, just the truth. There are many books out there that describe the negotiations before the EU enlargmenent. I once wrote an university paper about this. The UK wanted an Eastern Enlargement, because they needed more workers and more crucially, wanted to prevent deeper European integration. France was fiercely opposed because the wanted deeper European integration before further enlargement. It was up to Germany to act as tie breaker. If Germany had sided with France, the EU enlargement would not have happened so soon.
Tacitus   
23 Oct 2017
News / How will BREXIT affect the immigrants in UK and Poland. [1114]

the UK acted as an unconditional ally and earned a huge amount of good will that still exists because of that. Germany and France decided they didn't need Poland as an ally and took another track. But that has consequences.

Germany is still welcoming Polish migrants while the UK has decided to curb Eastern European imigration and even threatens the rights of Polish residents. Interesting that you believe that they played a more positive role than Germany in this.

All the more reason for not engaging in expensive misguided Germany can afford them. Poland can't

Poland has to live up to its' obligations to the EU. It won't be able to avoid this without consequences. Consequences that will be far more expensive than caring for a few thounsand refugees. Poland receives several bns each year because of European solidarity. It demands Nato troops on its' territory out of solidarity. Yet when Southern European faces a refugee crisis, it has no intention to show solidarity. This might cost Warsaw dearly in the future. Why should countries like Italy show any interest in increasing their defence budget, or agree to more Nato troops on European soil when they were betrayed by Eastern Europe?

I didn't intent to argue about Poland and Germany in this thread. I just wanted to point out that one key argument of the Brexit campaign was based on a deliberate lie, it was not he EU who forced on them Eastern European migrants, it was the British government who made this decision. This argument is even more nonsensical if you consider that most of their muslimic immigrants are from the former Commonwealth (the culprits in Rotterdam were Pakistani) and that the Brexit campaign promised closer ties to the Commonwealth (which seems very unrealistic to me in the first place).
Tacitus   
23 Oct 2017
News / How will BREXIT affect the immigrants in UK and Poland. [1114]

Germany and France created a lot of bad will by their fear of Polish labor.

A fear that was fully justified though. Germany had already high unemployment in the earls 2000s when the decision was made, and considering the problems we already have with welfare tourists from Eastern Europe even now (there is currently a debate about homeless Eastern Europeans in Berlin parks), it was a necessary step.

and have done approximately nothing since then to repair it.

Poland would not have been able to join the EU without the support of Germany, that alone should have earned Polish gratitude. Nevermind that even with this limitation, Germany has become the main destination for Eastern European migrants, and with Brexit will probably see a further surge of immigration.

However we were talking about the UK here, and as pointed out, that so many Polish migrants came to the UK was not due to the EU, but thanks to the British government.
Tacitus   
23 Oct 2017
News / Polish-German Reconcilliation Seminar [491]

At least the Germans still use the Iron Cross as their insignia. Quite frankly, I'm surprised the SJW's and Co haven't made a fuss about that.

It helps that the Nazis used the swastika as insignia whereever they could and that it has a history that goes back several centuries ago.

However, it's too far from the borderlands. Germany really should focus more on deploying its troops inside the country to control the terror attacks and protect the borders, even patrol no-go high crime areas.

We don't use soldiers for police duty in Germany and ther e is no need for this anyway.
Tacitus   
23 Oct 2017
News / How will BREXIT affect the immigrants in UK and Poland. [1114]

The fact that UK chose to accept EU migrants, which included Poles, was because of the EU allowing movement of people and goods throughout the continent.

The UK could have chosen to limit the movement of people for several years like many other countries did, e.g. Germany. But the British government wanted cheap labour and thus decided against it. So blaming the EU for this is objectively wrong.
Tacitus   
23 Oct 2017
News / Poland supporting potential new EU members - Georgia and Turkey [32]

Not that Turkey nor Georgia have any realistic chance of becoming an EU member. Turkey is btw. so large that it would require a plebiscite in every EU member state to join, and considering the opposition among the population in many states, there is no way that all would vote in favour. And this is even disregarding the whole Cyprus problem.... .
Tacitus   
21 Oct 2017
News / Polish-German Reconcilliation Seminar [491]

I'll write a longer response tomorrow. Here is a recently published article that might be very interesting for the topic at hand:

NATO Grapples with Serious Organizational Shortcomings
spiegel.de/international/world/nato-faces-serious-shortcomings-in-command-revamp-a-1173947.html

Germany might very well become the host country for the facilities that would be needed to organize the defence of Eastern Europe.
Tacitus   
20 Oct 2017
News / Poland supporting potential new EU members - Georgia and Turkey [32]

I guess arresting people who plot coups and overthrows (wouldn't be surprised if this was another far left, soros type of funded campaign) is considered violating rule of law by the EU rofl... What a joke

It is once it becomes apparant that those arrests are solely made to weaken domestic opposition and are not upholding basic legal standards. Furthermore there are many foreigners arrested and denied due process because Erdogan wants to use them as hostages against other countries. Dozens of foreigners are currently arrested on ridiculous charges and Turkish officials prevent them from meeting with attorneys from their home countries, which is basic international law.

This is very clear in the case of the arrested German-Turkish journalist Mesale Tolu. Her arrest is in itself against Turkish law (because the judge who ordered her arrest and later denied her bail are one and the same person, something that is expressively forbidden under Turkish law).

I don't think that Turkey is a good partner for Poland, even without those circumstances, since Erdogan has become a close partner of Putin, which should made the Polish government suspicious.
Tacitus   
18 Oct 2017
News / Austria's swing to the far right on Poland? [214]

Migrants deport, refugees give them jobs like cleaning toilets or sweeping streets,

The people in the low-wage industry would just love this... .
Tacitus   
18 Oct 2017
News / Polish-German Reconcilliation Seminar [491]

@G (undercover)

At its' peak Germany had a contingent of 5500 soldiers in Afghanistan. Germany also undertook offensive operation in which it suffered casualities. It is true that initially German soldiers were very much restrained in what they were allowed to do, but those legal restraints - which were in place partly due to the experience of WWII - have been gradually lifted. Afghanistan certainly was an important learning experience for Germany and in the end they lead a large Counterinsurgency Campaign.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterinsurgency_in_Northern_Afghanistan

German special forces also participated in military operations with the USA and others:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tora_Bora

We can argue about numbers all we want. And I am not going to downplay American involvement in Europe during the Cold War, because it was certainly crucial and expensive (although I would argue that the wars America fought elsewhere, e.g. the Vietnam War were significantly more expensive). That being said, the USA didn't protect Europe out of charity, but because it realized that the Cold War would be won in Europe. It's commitment there lead to the downfall of the SU and American global hegemony for more than a decade. And my point is, that the USA are the only member state who asked others to come to there defence, to which every country obliged. American soldiers didn't die in Combat Operations in Europe during the Cold War, but European soldiers died in Afghanistan on behalf of the USA. I understand that the USA wants higher defence spending in Europe, but I find it disrespectful to the soldiers who died in Afghanistan to marginalize their efforts. Btw. Germany will probably again increase its' number of soldiers again for mission Resolute Support.

Both of these "solutions" don't provide any value added. And the 3rd one...

It just shows you how nonsensical a firm adherence to the 2% target is. Not that paying soldiers more to attract the number of recruits needed is a bad idea mind you. The question is not how to spend more money, but how to spend it more efficiently.

- push Yanks out of Europe.

I very much doubt that this is the plan of the German political elite. I don't think hardly anyone is more unhappy about the decrease of American investment in Europe than the German politicians. That being said, we must be realistic. Even without Trump, even without the 2% debate, I believe that it would have been only a matter of time until the USA were to reduce its' activities in Europe in order to deal with the rise of China in Asia. The USA is not being pushed out, but decided to curb its' engagement in Europe of its' own free will. So down the line, Europeans will have to learn how to defend themselves, and a proper European army would be the best way to do it. As for the equipment part, it is way too soon to make any speculations about this. Fact is, that French and German military equipment, including tanks are already vastly used by many European Nato members, and e.g. Germany has recently sold a lot of armored vehicles to the Baltic states, so its' not like we need this competetive advantage. Furthermore even if things turned out like you describe - what I very much doubt - it would still be benefical for the smaller states, since they would not able to afford most of the stuff otherwise, and in a shared battalion would not have to pay in full for maintenance. Again, the main problem of European defence spending is not that it is too low, it is simply spread too thin because every country has to pay for their own air force et al.

- buy wind turbines from Siemens, tanks from Rheinmetall, airplanes from Airbas and (here goes a long list...) or else "EU army" will not defend you.

Aside from the fact that this would violate so many EU regulations that no sane government would try to attempt this, it is also very unlikely. It is not like the USA tried the same during the Cold War when Europe very much depended on it, so it is no realistic scenario for a European army, in which France and Germany would play a significantly smaller part, (there are e.g. other major countries like Italy and Spain) that their governments would use economic blackmail on other fields as well.

And even If we do, max 10 years later instead of Belarus and Ukraine, we will have Greater Russia (or whatever they will call it) across the bprfer as Russians will simply laugh at "EU army"

I very much doubt that. Ideally an EU army would also include nuclear weapons (by France) and should be large enough to deter Russia from any agression. it doesn't need to be as large as Russia's, it should simply be enough to mount a serious defence that would make an invasion far too costly to consider.

Also I contest that Germany and Poland have no common security interests. Poland wants security towards Russia. Germany wants Poland secure, because it is an important trading partner, and more importantly protects its' Eastern flank. Berlin is less than 100km from the Oder river away, and nobody wants the Russians on our border. The problem is however that their attitude towards Russia differs. Poland has lived under Russia's heel for more than 4 decades and is thus very hostile. It doesn't help that Poland's most powerful man believes in conspiracy theory that Russia killed his brother. Germany on the other hand was Russia's potential enemy during the Cold War, but it also made the experience that negotiations, diplomacy and trade policy can significantly reduce the risk of war and ease geostrategic rivalries in general (Ostpolitik). Of course we can argue that Putin's Russia is far more belligerent than the SU, but this experience is still important. We have to make a stand against Russia, but we also have to make sure that there is room for a diplomatic solution.

There are measures we can introduce that have a purpose, and those that are needlessy antagonistic. We stationed an international brigade in each Baltic state. This would be enough to combat any attempt of Russia to replicate the "Hybrid warfare" concept tested in the Ukraine. But it would not be sufficient to deter a full Russian invasion. However, not even a significantly larger group of soldiers (let us say 10.000 instead of 1000) would be enough in this case. Russia would close the Sulwaki gap, overrun the Baltics and probably try to defend its' new territory without invadind Poland. By stationing soldiers in the Baltics the Nato send a mesage that it would be willing to fight and die for those countries, but it did so in a size that would not be seen as provocation to Russia. The latter point is important because we must be honest here: Particulary in Western Europe, not only in Germany, public opinion is very much divided on those issues. Nato made a compromise that so far worked out.
Tacitus   
17 Oct 2017
News / Polish-German Reconcilliation Seminar [491]

The Germans already control an army of unelected EU commissars, EC court officials, numerous EU deputies, etc.

The usual conspiracy theories, I see.

Also, there are no "unelected" EU commissars, despite of what the Brexit press claims.

Esepcially as they switched national socialism to a quasi modern socialism and are eager to spread their ideology

Not that Germany is a particulary socialist country by European standards, but I hope you are not one those guys who believe that the Nazis practiced any sort of genuine socialism?

thoughtco.com/was-adolf-hitler-a-socialist-1221367

especially politically via brussels and that often leads to force...

Don't worry, we are all cuckhuld wimps after all.

any smaller state who doesn't agree being attacked to maintain territorial and political integrity.

Or we just have a group of friendly democratic states pooling their ressources together to get the most of it. Germany was asked by countries like the Czech Republic and Rumania for cooperation, because in times when equipment becomes more and more sophisticated and thus expensive, it becomes more and more difficult for smaller countries to maintain capabilities. The current problem is not that Europe does not spend enough on defence in total, it is simply done way too inefficiently. The Netherlands are highly trained in naval and landing operations, Germany has a lot of experience in tank warfare. So Germany will in the future probably provide tanks while the Netherlands will command Marines.
Tacitus   
16 Oct 2017
News / Polish-German Reconcilliation Seminar [491]

@Crnogorac3

In 1999 Germany violated its own constitution which states that German military cannot be used in operations outside NATO territory.

This is not true. The German constitutional court ruled in 1994 that the Bundeswehr could participate in missions that were included in a system of "mutual collective security " This includes Nato, but also a possible Common European Defence Policy. This is e.g. the reasoning for the Bundeswehr mission in Iraq and elsewhere after France triggered the European defence mechanism after the Paris attacks.

It was not approved by the UN Security Council.

It doesn't have to be for Germany to act, although it certainly helps.

If you are interested, an English translation of the entire ruling is here:

germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=3720

This was an illegal criminal act of aggression and Germany participated in it.

The ICJ decided otherwise. And frankly, although we know that fears of massacres were exaggerated, the outcome of the intervention has been so overwhelmingly positive for the stability of the Balkans, that this a moot point anyway.

Ffs, does anyone actually read these posts?

I usually try, but when the first few words are something like "Freudian cuckhold fetishism" I don't bother.
Tacitus   
15 Oct 2017
News / Polish-German Reconcilliation Seminar [491]

I believe reparations were brought up for ww2 damages but ultimately they for the most part just focused on sorting out a border line of Germany and Poland to form the more exact modern border today.

The issue of reparations was adressed in talks between Kohl and Mazowiecki and an agreement that was intented to be final was reached. There are very good books about this where you can read a lot of details. Hence why the issue of reparations is closed according to every neutral observer you may find.
Tacitus   
15 Oct 2017
News / Polish-German Reconcilliation Seminar [491]

The 2% benchmark has been in place since almost 20 years, you just kept ignoring it all the time

It was however not a binding agreement. That was only decided in 2014 and will only count starting 2024. How much each country spends before 2024 doesn't matter. The only reason why the USA brough it up because all that warmongering the ME became to expensive and they suddenly felt like the Europeans did not spend enough on their defence.

And nothing has been done so far to change it.

Not true, Germany has already increased its' defence budget during the last years and will continue to do so until it reaches 2% by 2024.

Schultz has been recently ranting that Germany is actually spending... too much on military.

Schulz party the SPD is out of government, so what he said during the campaign doesn't matter. The SPD is traditionally Russian-friendly, it was SPD-chancellord Schröder who negotiated North Stream.

Merkel said it's going to grow but no decisions have been made. In the end it will be likely raised from 1.2% to 1.3%.

Merkel has defended the military build-up during the campaign, although it is highly unpopular in Germany, so there is no reason to believe that she would not stick to it. The budget for next year is already passed and will again see an increase.

I may add that Poland DID ask for reparations early in the 90s

Could you please give some more details about this, because I have so far found no information about this. I know that Germany and Poland made a final agreement regarding the border and reparations in two treaties between 1990/91, but I have not read anything about a Polish government seeking reparations afterwars in the same decade.
Tacitus   
15 Oct 2017
News / Polish-German Reconcilliation Seminar [491]

Poland would be significantly worse off without all the assistance it received from Western Europe since the end of the Cold War. Arguing about this is pointless, only people who have obviously their own agenda would deny this. it is all written in the history books, how Mazowiecki and other Polish politicians asked mainly for German money, expertise, credits et al.
Tacitus   
15 Oct 2017
News / Polish-German Reconcilliation Seminar [491]

iven that Germany is the largest European NATO member and that this area is just next door, that involvement is minimal.

Germany is doing precisely what Nato expects them to do here. The involvement there is sufficient, nothing to brag about but also nothing to complain about.

Additionally, spending on military much below agreed minimal share of GDP, Germany is pissing off America.

The agreement is that all Nato members are expected to spend 2% of their budget on defence by 2024, Germany has pledged to do just that and is increasing its' budget for years now. Again, no reason to complain.

I can't blame them

Well, they spent approx. 1tn on their stupid invasion of Iraq. If they had listened to France and Germany who told Bush that this was a terrible idea, they might have been able to spend that money elsewhere. The USA is the last one to lecture others about their commitment to Nato, they are after all the only country who invoked Natos' help after 9/11, and many Europeans have since then died in Afghanistan.
Tacitus   
15 Oct 2017
News / Polish-German Reconcilliation Seminar [491]

@TheOther

Google "Resolute Response Mission" for a start...

Or "NATO Enhanced Forward Presence", and Lithuania....
Tacitus   
15 Oct 2017
News / Polish-German Reconcilliation Seminar [491]

ROFL!!!! Germany GAINED WAY MORE when Poland joined EU.

Even if that was true (which is very questionable), Poland benefited too. A perfect example where both interests aligned.

In NATO they are basically a Russian mole, If **** hits the fan we can count on them... blocking decisions regarding any deployment of forces.

Completely ridiculous, Germany under Merkel has been the only European adversary that Putin took seriously in the last 3 years.

Without Germany there would have been no coordinated European response to the Russian agression in the Ukraine.

Without Germany the sanctions regime would already have been lifted at the insistance of countries like Italy.

Without Merkel brokering the Minsk II peace agreement, the Ukraine would already have collapsed.

Germany simply draws the line at dangerous and senseless provocations. But no doubt history will acknowledge Merkel as Putin's most skilled and effective opponent.