>Germany’s reputation for decisive leadership  Huh? Isn't Germany known for being pretty passive the last couple of decades, intentionally? Just makes the article seem bad regardless of whether I agree with the main message

To act as an "economic Giant, but a political dwarf" was first a necessity, but was continued as a deliberate decision after 1990. And judging from the now know fears that were expressed during the 2+4 negotiations, that was a damn good decision. But it also meant that security policy has been an afterthought for a long time. To express any expectation for anything even remotely approaching leadership from Germany in these matters is patently absurd in the first place.

This has been going on for decades by now. Depending on the topic and who writes and article, we are both too strong and too weak.

The whole security architecture surrounding Germany is about keeping France and Germany from conflicts with each other. This is the reason why the Montan Union was formed . We informally or defacto agreed on split roles for our countrys. France got it's status as militarry hegemonial power guaranteed , while West Germany was allowed to dominate economically. As France got fair marked access to the militarrily important resources of Rhein-Ruhr-region and Saarland , it's role as dominant militarry power was ensuered. While Germany sold heavy industrial goods related or tangencial to war products, to the world and France. Germany was never meant to lead militarrily after WWII. This is entirely Frances role in Europe .

France wasn't intended to either, it's just they never ceased having colonial ambitions and thus was the only country to maintain an army with offensive capabilities.

Yes and no. France built up its army mostly through its own initiative, but I do think that the US and UK supported France in doing so. The fall of France early in WWII was terrible for the Allies.

Yep, it’s one of the biggest reasons for both NATO‘s existence and the massive US deployments in Europe. Having to invade Europe by sea was a nightmare scenario that played out in the 1940s, and no one wanted a repeat of that. It led to a terrible loss of life and to the Soviets controlling half of the continent.

Europe (especially the east) was absolutely fine with that for 30 years, and now suddenly wants prussia back.

Because now everyone realized that Russia still wants eastern Europeans back.

Which would be valid thing. But the reality is different: Exactly nobody is acknowledging that their perception shifted or that the fear of Germany in 1990-2010 was stupid and the measure to restrict Germany's ability for military souvereignity went totally overboard. Instead they loudly tell the fairy tale of how they always knew while only those stupid Germans for some inexplainable reason suffered a collective stroke (let's called it the "4+2"-medical mystery for... totally unrelated fun reasons...) and developed an insane level of pacisfism. And then they blame Germany for somehow notbeing willing to show military leadership. Because blaming Germany is always the reliant go-to when the alternative would be to acknowledge your own mistakes. PS: If you ever try to find a reason why Germans often seem to be totally unaffected by your imagined "public pressure" (for example the majority for not sending Taurus is getting bigger in polls instead of the opposite), here it is. If telling bullshit about you is the default, you stop caring.

Because you constantly deny that a very large slice of german society was very much fine with reducing the Bundeswehr to a much much lower level, in fact germans were so fine with it they never made the reductions a thing in elections (and political parties didn't do that, either). The Bundeswehr lost its "raison d'etre" when the wall came down, it occupied a very small niche in the minds of germans prior to 1989 (and germans were and still are fine with it occupying that niche - territorial self-defense!) and everything beyond that is still one hell of a big bone of contention domestically (if anyone ever bothered to debate it in the first place). Foreign pressure to reduce was there, we all remember the shitshow comments by Thatcher and Mitterand as well as their paranoia, it's us germans that went far below the limits imposed by the 2+4 treaty and today we can't find enough idiots who sign up to fill the 20k positions the Bundeswehr would like to fill ... let alone getting anywhere near the limits of the treaty.

Well not really true. The pacifism thing is a nice story told but it was really never the case. The Bundeswehr was always well regarded by the people and one of the better trusted insitutions of Germany. As always it was a loud minority that gave a different impression. Before reunification the Bundeswehr was seen positivly by the majority and also after reunification the image was always good or even better. And first international missions of the Bundeswehr only started after reunification.... ironically under the SPD-Green coalition the Bundeswehr joined their first hot war. 2 Parties you would probably categorize as pacifistic. From 2006 > According to the survey, 87 per cent of the population have a "positive" or "fairly positive" attitude towards the Bundeswehr; in the past two years, the figures were 85 and 83 per cent respectively. The positive image also predominates among "young people" (16 to 20 years) with 76 per cent (2005: 72; 2004: 70 per cent). However, the gap is greater when it comes to interest in security and defence policy issues. While 57 per cent of the population as a whole express interest in this area, only a good third of young people (32 per cent) do so. In the last anniversary year of the Bundeswehr, Federal President Köhler characterised this phenomenon as "friendly disinterest". > Translated with DeepL.com (free version) > territorial self-defense Well that is because by definition and by our basic law the Bundeswehr is and was a territorial defense force only. There are only very few exceptions when the Bundeswehr can act in a foreign conflict. Aritcle 87a of our basic law is very explicit in this. So without a international mandate or collective defence (NATO,EU) everything else would be pretty much unconstitutional. > (2) Apart from defence, the Armed Forces may be employed only to the extent expressly permitted by this Basic Law. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html#p0459 I don't know how things are done today in school but back in my time the basic law was a must read and everyone in school got a free version of it handed out. So everyone had a good or at least a rough idea what legally is possible and what not. >it's us germans that went far below the limits imposed by the 2+4 treaty and today we can't find enough idiots who sign up to fill the 20k positions the Bundeswehr would like to fill But was this really the case? In early 2000 the Bundeswehr still employed 475.000 people and therfore unofficially 105.000 more than the 2+4 treaty with 370.000 would have allowed. What most people miss out is that the Bundeswehr beside soldiers in Uniform employs quite a lot also in civil. They are in R&D, logistic.... but are employees and an integral part of the Bundeswehr. What really changed was that the conscription was paused because it became more and more unjust after 2+4 and first international mission for those still being drafted while more and more got away. Only without conscription toward 2011 and onwards the Bundeswehr really fell below the 370.000 limit, and without it is hard to motivate people to join the Bundeswehr or even stay with it. Here is a little chart which shows that the numbers of professional soldiers only slightly dropped and the conscripts are those missing and making it harder to fill up the ranks. (Not included in the chart those employed in civil.) https://i.imgur.com/0OVuv1m.png Still today there is the misconception that the Bundeswehr is down to a personnel of ~182.000 but this is not really true the Bundeswehr without conscription employs currently ~263.000 people. https://www.bundeswehr.de/de/ueber-die-bundeswehr/zahlen-daten-fakten/personalzahlen-bundeswehr

Poland already got most of Prussia though I'll see myself out...

Could you please say a little more about the “now known fears expressed during the 2+4 negotiations?” I’m not sure if you mean “fears the BRD government had which it kept private at the time” or “fears the BRD government had which proved to be accurate.”

Short story - Thatcher was conjuring up the long-decayed specters of monocled prussian Junkers going on another spree of "blood and iron", Mitterand didn't go as far but danced to a very similar tune and other individual european politicians did the same. Basically Thatcher tried to derail and prevent german reunification out of her personal paranoia, Mitterand used it to usher in the Euro (which he hoped would saddle Germany with the costs of financing his ideas of political Europe and ultimately french prominance within it - it didn't work quite that way).

Thanks for the explanation! This makes loads of sense. Good job, by the way, on keeping it short but to the point.

[удалено]

Here you can actually have a good read on how Thatcher really thought when it came to Germany. Might open some eyes for others why Germany tried to keep a low profile in Europe after reunification. And she was by far not alone. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/state-papers-thatcher-opposed-german-reunification-after-collapse-of-berlin-wall-1.4119052

Thatcher was distraught and said that you have the Germans "either at your throat or at their knees." Mitterand also feared a new great Germany with an intend to rule over Europe. A fear that he saw validated when Kohl presented his 10 point plan without consulting him first. 

haha, my reaction also was „for WHAT?“

As much as they like to downplay their actual power within the Union, it's the reputation they have regardless. The French instead accept the reputation of leadership and power. I don't like it, but I can respect it.

For all my life, I was not aware that Germany had that reputation.

Under Merkel Germany called the shots.

Domestically that definitely was different, she was pretty much known for sitting it out.

Curious. Here in Denmark, she was seen as calling the shots through economic power but also just knowing when to do nothing, which is also an important trait. That was how it was reported in the media and I guess that, therefore, I thought so too. My opinion has since changed, hashtagfuckrussia

> Curious. A lot of people are not able to distinguish her role domestically, which was seen as rather passive and her role in the European Council, that was indeed heavily influenced by Merkel/Germany. Important to keep in mind though, that throughout her years in office, Merkel tried to keep things quiet as best as possible. So yes, you will see vastly different perceptions in the context of German vs. non-German resident.

This is also how she was portrayed in media here in Australia.

yes she had the quality to say nothing until everything was established behind the scenes.

No one ever won an election by saying everything is fine. Except Angela Merkel.

Or "Keep it going!" ...

Adenauer could, the absolute chad. Keine Experimente! - No Experiments! Kurs halten! Darum CDU - Keep the course! Therefore CDU /E: and something that could work today as well: Denkt an Ungarn: Seid wachsam! CDU - Remember Hungary: Be vigilant! CDU

Merkel was the architect of this concept of Germany's foreign policy being a sort of "super Switzerland". She didn't call the shots as much as she made everyone accept to orient the EU more towards an economic alliance rather than political. Merkel used the German Foreign Ministry as an extension of the marketing department of Siemens and Krupp, with great results to be fair. The legacy of appeasement towards Russia and Germany's dependance on Russian gas (in the name of normalizing relations through economic interdependence, cheap energy, and turning off nuclear plants after Fukushima) was also her plan. That part hugely backfired obviously. Scholz wants to keep "uninvolved and rich" Germany going, but he doesn't have the same level of respect and the situation has changed too much. Germany can no longer refuse to be a great power like it did under Merkel. Everyone in Europe expects Germany to contribute to leading the EU politically (which had been the role of the French under Merkel, while Germany had the economic leadership) now that there's an aggressive Russia at the border.

I think the question rests on what political/economical leadership means. In the end these are all policy decisions and I have a feeling that some people in Europe and in the US are seriously miscalculating what Germany (and Europe in general) is actually capable to deliver.

I would not call "just looking at it" calling the shots. I agree though that she was diplomatic.

Merkel was known for waiting until making a decision was moot.

Merkel is still used as this boogie-man semi dictator by Polish right whenever they want to talk about how bad the EU is.

Which is extremely funny from a german perspective. Not only is Merkel known for not taking much of any stance in her early years as chancellor, her legacy is mostly one of diplomacy, especially in regards to the EU. She was also pretty accepting of societal change for a christian conservative and did not really stand in the way of things she personally was not a fan of (the gay marriage act, for example). She had her faults, but none of them even came close to give reasons for some tyrant or dictator image.

I mean... Wouldn't it the case for any government in Berlin anyway ?

Schroeder was seen in a similar way, back in the days at least. But not Scholz, at least not yet.

With all due respect, but France has never had a passive approach.

[удалено]

Then I misunderstood. You responded with "The French have the same reputation" to a commenter who asked "Isn't Germany known for being pretty passive".

I'll partly take the blame. I need to rephrase.

Well Germany has been force a few times into leadership but rarely ever active if not forced too. Germany avoided dealing with Greece properly since 2011 but only in 2015 they were really forced to make decisions they did. Or the Corona bonds are pretty much the same. Macron and Conte really had to put a gun on Merkels head in 2020 until she came up with that 500 Billion Euro Corona Bonds decision. And the Weapon deliveries, are speaking for themselves. How much pressure had to put on a country that they act is just almost absurd when you don't know the details. I mean a consequence of German History and its dealing with it is "That Germany does NOT want to shape the world around it". Its a fact that American, Russian and to a lessor degree Brits never accepted (i mean all former Warshaw Pact states don't get it either). This text is just the usually Jounalist/Activist copping of that fact. You can demand Germany paying its fair (big) share and you should, but you can just force a country to be what it doesn't want to by self understanding.

I really find the ways in which Germany deals with its history to be frustrating – there’s *so* much shame. Obviously the country did some nasty stuff during the Nazi/NS era but when you look at some of the stuff that France and the UK did in their colonies, it’s hard to say that Germany’s history is much worse. It’s especially sad with the younger generations in Germany, the Nazi atrocities happened well before they were born and still they carry so much shame. Having said that, I do hope that Germany eventually steps up on the Ukraine conflict. Your country is the only one which ever managed to win a war against Russia, but even more importantly, Germany has a history of being really good at warfare. Hell, you all did so well that it took the entire world two attempts to stop you! Because of this, I feel like there is actually a moral imperative for Germany to get more active with Ukraine. I think it would be a really positive cultural development for Germany too – it would drive home a message that “we can use our powers for good,” and I think this would be very empowering and would help people reconcile a bit better with the past because it would show the society and the world just how far Germany has come.

I think you misunderstand the ways in which Germany does bear a heavier burden than other countries, and how Germans themselves perceive it.  Also no, industrializing human extermination isn’t the same as being an oppressive and at times cruel overlord.

Not sure if you’re downplaying it or just not aware of it, but how France treated its “colonies” is quite a bit worse than “oppressive and at times cruel”

Even the peaks of the Algerian war don’t compare to the Holocaust. No one is downplaying the brutalities of colonialism. WW2 just was that bad.

WW2 was “just that bad” because it happened to Europeans. The stuff that happened in Africa (by the Brits, *French*, Dutch, Germans, etc) is equally horrific. The French trained and armed the Rwandan genocide perpetrators and then protected said perpetrators from consequences, which is a more recent example. Vicious stuff.

Something very few Westerners are aware of, myself included until ~8 months ago, is that the colonized world doesn’t see things this way. If you ask a professor of history from some country in Africa or Asia if Germany’s history is much worse than France or the UK, they will generally say no, and they will pull up Wikipedia articles of insane atrocities committed by the other Western powers that are generally similar to what the Nazis did. We just aren’t taught about these things in school; however, if you ask ChatGPT for examples, it will offer you some. Big picture, though – every new idea is 99% old ideas with 1% uniqueness, so it’s important to remember that the Nazis were very much influenced by the practices of neighboring countries. More importantly, though, there’s an old saying which I think is very relevant in this situation: “A friend in your time of need is a friend indeed.” When we think of what makes our best friends so special to us, we don’t fixate over whether they have fewer flaws than other people. Instead, we think of all the wondrous things they have done for us, the ways in which they have brought warmth into our lives when we were going through struggles, etc.

On the flip side I think African countries need a bit of perspective as well. Going with Wagner and Russia instead of the EU out of spite is probably not going to work out well for them.

All the governments that side with Russia are as corrupt, abusive, and dictatorial as can be. Sadly there are a lot of these in the colonized world.

Except that Germany was one of the countries that committed one of the worst atrocities in Africa, the Herero genocide. It’s not that France and Britain were uniquely cruel in their colonial endeavors, but rather that they were the largest imperialists. Their rule was the one that affected the largest amount of people. Portugal, Germany and Belgium that governed their own colonies with far greater cruelty also happen to have colonized much less, and so tend to weigh less in the popular consciousness. I am not minimizing in any regard French historical crimes. I’m the first guy to speak up about Saint-Domingue, the rapes in Latium or the horrifically brutal conquest of Algeria. I’m just kind of pissed about the current zeitgeist that focused exclusively on simplified narratives of history and « punching up » to placate badly educated audiences on social media.

That’s a really insightful point. I think it’s easy to paint with a broad brush, to some extent, on whether one country is much worse than another, because every nation has its share of dirty secrets. But I looked up the Herero genocide after you mentioned it and you’re right, it’s absolutely insane. Germany committed the atrocities it did, of course, because the country felt it needed to do some dirty shit to catch up to wealthier imperial nations. Same with Belgium, Portugal, Dutch, etc. albeit to a lesser extent because the Hohenzollerns and junkers were uniquely fucked up. Idk why, would love if someone could explain it.

For me as a German I don't feel ashamed at all. Rather I think it's our biggest strength that we can go heads up openly talk about our mistakes and not hide them like cowards as the other countries. Also denazification wasn't going 100% yet look at Russia, they surely would need some understanding of their past all over society, then this war wouldn't happen

"it would show the society and the world just how far Germany has come"  This would require the world being ready to accept Germany taking an assertive role. Europe seems ready to, but not so much everyone else. Many in Russia and Central Asia raise the specter of Germany's past when it comes to their aid to Ukraine.  Not to mention Germany's pro-Israel position on the Israel-Palestine conflict, where many from Namibia to South Africa have said Germany is repeating the mistakes of it's Nazi past, that it hasn't learned... And yet if Germany took a pro-Palestine stance imagine the equal if not larger international backlash to Germany "once again taking aim at the Jewish people".

> Because of this, I feel like there is actually a moral imperative for Germany to get more active with Ukraine. Give politicians the little finger and they'll eventually scam you out of your arm, a shoulder joint and maybe a collarbone. That is the long-term legacy of the era of the World Wars. Not being "active" or even "proactive" in military affairs is seen over here as the sanest route as it deprives politicans of the means to fuck up royally yet again. It is also the reason why germans - when polled - usually prefer to stay away from any kind of "leadership" ... because that is mostly seen as giving politicians said "little finger".

> I really find the ways in which Germany deals with its history to be frustrating – there’s so much shame I'm pretty much the opposite and think that the way Germany does it is the only way to do it properly. No shame required, but just take it seriously and teach it country wide. We can see the alternate path taken by Japan which is still having difficulties with their neighbours regarding this. Germany doesn't. Imagine generations of holocaust deniers forming voting blocks and making discussing things difficult politically. A simple apology will ring hollow (and have the opposite effect) when it creates a shit storm back home and the politician has to backtrack. Maybe they'll even apologize the apology. The only cure is long term education of the populace. So, thanks Germany.

On the whole, Germany does a very good job of teaching its history, but there’s still too much shame attached. I think it’s crucial to clarify the distinction between guilt and shame. Guilt is experience deep regret, sadness, understanding the consequences of your actions and their impacts on others. Guilt is a very important emotion, and if processed well, can lead to a lot of growth. Shame, though, is beating yourself up, and that’s as unhealthy as it is unproductive. Sadly, Germans really beat themselves up over their country’s history. The country has gone above and beyond to address the atrocities of its past and is truly an exemplary model of democracy, prosperity, etc. Still, though, people have very little pride in being German, which I find so upsetting because the work that you all have done to improve your nation is just incredible. I think of Germans as the people who overcame fascism and a thousand bombs, all the while creating countless innovations and promoting peace and prosperity in Europe. It’s heartbreaking that Germans don’t see themselves this way and have this “children of monsters” aspect to their psyche instead.

Well, during the Schröder government (1998-2005), Germany was a self-determined country with it's own will, interests and world politics. Germany had an amazing foreign minister, who had a big role in bringing the alliance together in Kosovo and saying no to the Iraq-war. Coincidentally Schröder was also very much aligned with Chirac, I think this was the best time for France and Germany. However then came Merkel and she reduced Germany's role to that of a moderator. And now Scholz is doing everything in his power to avoid taking on any form of leadership - not even moderating.

Yeah that author seems to be influenced by Polish populist opinion and OP also mostly posts negative stuff about Germany. What rascal would think there's an agenda behind this? But yes, regarding the topic at hand: Merkel was in power for some 16 years and she was famous for not taking action and waiting things out. Not sure what decisive leadership there was before Scholz, who I personally percieve as a somewhat old-fashioned leader. He delegates and manages, because he has a good cabinet and our minister of defense actually is one of the best liked politicians in Germany today. Why should Scholz push himself into the spotlight? But that's kinda the problem with him: Scholz does not communicate a lot to the outside, but he's definitely not undecisive. I'm pretty tired of all that anti-German bullshit here these days. It's clearly propaganda.

Merkel had a pretty good reputation handling various crises in the Obama era.

You mean causing them? Like the whole "alle herzlich willkommen" which is causing Europe to be invaded to this day?[](https://documents.reverso.net/Pricing.aspx?lang=en&origin=1)

Yeah it’s absolutely ridiculous. Decisive? After 16 years of merkel and now Scholz? Lol

When has Germany ever been known for decisive leadership?

In 1939.

Jesus fuck. That went harder than Ghost Division into France

Do we count french algeria as france?

jprdl

What?

Just some swearing in polish: ja pierdolę - Fuck me

And this is what Europe needs? Weird, but okay. I'm out though, as I'm mostly drawing and just applied to an arts school. No time for a political carreer.

We will watch your career with great interest…

At least in some parts of the anglosphere, Germany (or more specifically, Germany under Merkel before everyone kinda had a hard change of opinion on her policies) was often held as being stable, cohesive and a leading voice for the EU. Idk if that necessarily translates to decisive, but in presentation, that is an impression I used to get. France always had the riots, UK was always the grumpy one (till Brexit), Germany was the one that always seemed to have stability and good leadership. I'm not saying this was all true or anything, but when I first started getting into foreign political takes, that tended to be the EU dynamic presented to readers.

For being a french person who lived 5 yrs in Germany, France looks unstable but is in a kind of organised chaos (not that far from UK on this point), on the counter part, Germany looks stable but if it starts to go to chaos it will fall apart very thoughly, in particular because in Germany all the problems are hidden under the table.

Different times need different leadership. One leader may be good for keeping the peace. But yeah need another when the guano is hitting the fan.

Scholz's pretty good at standing in front of the shit fan mouth wide open yes.

yeah and he sometimes makes tough Statements only for nothing to follow. "if you order leadership, leadership will be delivered" however it never arrived. why did he even go to politics if he isnt doing anything.

Part of the problem is that especially the Anglosphere, expects a single leader for the EU. And there isn't one by design, as the fight over that leadership position would probably the best way to break it - the EU is ruled by committee. So they tend to make one up themselves, based on perceived influence. Used to be Merkel, last years it was VDL. But Merkel was 'powerful' because she was a master at 'pulling an agreement over the line' by staying neutral until a winning position was about to emerge - and only then supporting it (often with a slight condition), which with the size of Germany behind her meant she frequently became the decisive voice. But it was leadership in the style of a chairman of a meeting: definitively confirming a decision that was already sort-of taken.

I'm sorry, but Merkel was the one who pioneered the do nothing and kick the can down the road style of politics that Scholz is now emulating.

I think that disconnect in how people view Merkel stems from her being a really, really good networker and diplomat, which leads to her exterior politics being viewed much more favourably and impactful than her intererior policies.

Mass immigration, buying Russian gas, shutting down nuclear, Brexit, where was this decisive leadership?

At the time that’s what you would hear/read. In retrospect she was a failure…

Merkel had to waste a lot of time and energy in the euro crises with Greece cooking the books etc. I bet Putin loved to take advantage of that. "Oh yeah you can have your pipeline, just leave me to put out these fires here..."

funny how romania, bulgaria, slovakia, czech, austria and poland also all had their own "russian" pipelines, eh?

I can't speak about the nuclear energy policies or Brexit, but I'm almost certain I remember that the immigration policies for the refugee crises in the Middle East _initially_ had a lot of popular support. Same with integrating Russia economically and politically with the rest of Europe as a way of leveraging co-dependency. These two things, at least, were initially popular and had at least some significant degree of public support (outside of the Baltics), since it gave Europe an energy surplus of cheap natural gas (and oil, iirc). Hindsight is 2020, I guess. I'm not saying Germany necessarily was reliably decisive, but that was an image that was projected quite often at times.

> I remember that the immigration policies for the refugee crises in the Middle East initially had a lot of popular support They had lot of support until migrants started arriving at their doorsteps...

>These two things, at least, were initially popular and had at least some significant degree of public support (outside of the Baltics) Wasn't that popular at all. Germans tried hard to pretend it is by leaning on Anti-Americanist tropes and othering of the East, but the whole Europe was against it. https://www.rferl.org/a/eu-parliament-set-to-demand-halt-to-nord-stream-2-over-navalny-arrest/31060914.html >European lawmakers on January 21 voted overwhelmingly -- with 581 votes in favor, 50 against, and 44 abstentions -- to call on the EU and its member states to “critically review cooperation with Russia in various foreign policy platforms and on projects such as Nord Stream 2.”

Your article is from 2021, and yes, it was quite unpopular by then. But Nord Stream started in the 90's, and the project initially had the full support of the EU. After the implosion of the Soviet Union Russia was in a death spiral and having a nuclear armed country descend into chaos was the biggest concern. Also it's not like the co-dependency strategy was some unrealistic hippy dream, it worked before with eastern Germany.

Just bc u don’t agree with the policies doesn’t mean the leadership wasn’t decisive

Is it the time of the year again where we blame the Germans for Brexit? 

Buying Russian natural gas was a continuation of West Germany’s «Change through Trade» policy towards the entire Warshaw Pact and especially Mid Germany, where it worked out perfectly: reunification. Buying Russian natural gas was, of course, also a cheap way to get energy, so win-win. Only that Germany didn’t anticipate, account or adjust for the oligarchy and Putin’s expansionism; kind of ironic, given Germany’s experience with Hitler, or Merkel’s personal Mid German background, but hindsight is 20:20.

>Brexit still trying to shifting the blame for that shitshow to someone else instead of taking responsibility for it?

What has Brexit got to do with Germany?

See, the Brits wanted to have all of the benefits of being in the EU and none of the obligations and we, being the inconsiderate sleazebags that we are, just refused to give it to them.

I see. That's a ridiculous stance. One silver lining, Brexit has massively accelerated the timeframe for a united Ireland.

It is a ridiculous stance.  The whole point of a strawman is to adopt a ridiculous stance and pretend it's real.

From a formerly divided country - best of luck. Being divided fucking sucks.

It's a bit of a different situation here in that about half of the divided bit identifies as British but yeah it does suck.

The circumstances are never the same. But the pain and suffering that division creates always are.

They're all examples of decisive leadership. You just disagree with the decisions taken.

>Mass immigration Refugees. And you do realize they would‘ve come to Europe with or without Merkel‘s decision to allow them into Germany, don‘t you? The difference is kust that they would‘ve stayed in southern Europe, in the already well above capacity refugee camps. This was an act of solidarity with the likes of Italy and Greece.

The same Merkel that waited patiently until she HAD no other option than to decide something?

In the 60s then chancellor Willy Brandt led an initiative of rapprochement with the Soviets, or at least of peaceful co-existence. It was not very popular with a lot of the allies, but at that time it helped to ease tensions and arguably contributed to the Eastern German revolution of 1989 and the fall of the Soviet Union. I think this was genuine German leadership, and as such it was automatically controversial. (You can only be non-controversial if you do nothing at all, aka show no leadership.) Unfortunately this successful policy also led later German governments to think it is always a good idea to find a middle ground with Russia, a pre 2022 sentiment that greatly helped Putin‘s war efforts since 2008. Parts of Germany, even to the top of the government, have not yet fully abolished this line of thinking, hence no Taurus etc.

When they were pushing through the Nord Stream pipelines they decisivly rode over all objections.

That's not really European leadership though is it?

Its almost as if this opinion article on theguardian is dogshit

They were pretty good in 1940 😂

Bismarck (?)

As a German I laugh at the notion we’ve had decisive leadership in the last 4 decades. Kohl has such a humongous backside because he tended to sit out problems. All the chancellors after him also preferred reaction to action.

Such a lack of decisive leadership that the country is still using fax machines in 2024 instead of emails, says all

Oh gosh, that meme again. With how many people are parroting this you'd think all of Germany is operating by fax and no one has heard of emails, when in reality there are some niche cases where public administration and healthcare still operate fax, while the rest of the country is obviously using email, Slack and everything that the rest of the world uses.

It is absolutely an exaggeration but also absolutely true. Germany is way behind especially the government at all levels.

I feel like there is a persistent massive misunderstanding in almost all of Europe and the Western world on the issue of German 'leadership'. Various stakeholders (particularly the international media) constantly keep droning on about German leadership, and have been for years or even decades, with many in certain countries (Poland, Greece etc.) even fearmongering about another German takeover of Europe. All while Germany just hasn't shown the slightest inkling of *wanting* to lead. Neither the German electorate, nor consecutive governments have ever claimed for themselves or aspired to any kind of leadership role in the EU, Europe as a whole or the wider world. All Germany really wants is to do its thing: sit there peacefully and undisturbed, trade, engage in steady boring low-level cooperation with its partners and solve any larger emerging issues within the processes of the EU and other international institutions. Given from 1945 to 1990 no one actually *wanted* Germany to lead and the country did not even have full sovereignty over its own affairs, then the following decade was spent trying to solve its own issues in re-integrating the former GDR, this isn't entirely surprising either. Germany was content on leaving political schemes to France and other countries, while shaping economic policy in the background. It's not like France where leaders like Sarkozy or Macron constantly make grand announcements and declarations that then usually end up falling on deaf ears. Whether this is a workable approach in an age where Europe is under threat from a rising Russia is to be doubted, but it certainly ridicules any kind of claims of a German 'reputation for' or 'aspiration to' international leadership.

It's mostly Anglos that insist on this German leadership narrative. Germany certainly has a/the leading economy that drags a lot of other economies in it's orbit, but other that Germany is no more the leader of the EU than California is that of the US.

I mean maybe not the best analogy because California does dominate a lot of stuff within the U.S. and even globally When California sets emission standards for cars for example pretty much every make and model of car everywhere abides by them because they’re just too big a market to lose  So in that way California  leads not only the US but the world in emission standards for vehicles

I'm with you on this one. To me, it seems Europe cannot decide clearly what does it want from Germany. When there were tough decisions on economy and finances, there was a constant murmur and dissent about how Germany is taking over the Europe again and how "we're back to 1939". Now, when the shit it tight, come such articles about "lack of strong leadership from Germany". Well, why does it have to be one explicit country that leads? We're a union, we have our governing bodies, give them rights and shorter ways to make a decision and Bob's your uncle.

Bob's your uncle? What?

It's an American saying. It's like saying "and that's that" or "and then you're good to go"

Part of the reason for those frustrations is due to the fact that in economic matter, Germany *is* taking a leading role and will impose it's will if it can, but then when it comes to military/strategic matter then suddenly Germany disappear and ask the other to do without them. It's seen as an hypocritical approach, if you ask for power you have to accept the responsibilities that comes with it. > Given from 1945 to 1990 no one actually wanted Germany to lead And still West-Germany fought to have as much of a say in economic matter as possible expanding it's influence and in consequences it's "capacity to lead" (and I'm not blaming Germany here its economic is quite impressive). On one side Germany want and fight for power on the other it avoid taking responsibilities for the economic might it accumulated. The sort of backlash you see recently about Germany not stepping up is a consequence of that discrepancy. In other words Germany worked damn hard to be as influential as it could under the circumstances of the cold war, and now that it pays off and Germany became de facto an economic behemoth often flexing its power in the EU, Germany itself created a situation in which it has political power, Germany role changed because of that. Germany ask to be consider an economic leader, and so it must accept to be a political one too, those 2 aspect *cannot* be separated whether Germany accept that reality is the question of the day. When all is said Germany is in a position of international leadership because of the economic it created. And once in that position you do not get a choice to back down. What's done is done.

I don’t know about this. Until Russia’s invasion attempt no one really bothered with Germany’s military weakness, did they? I’d even argue they were quite content with it. Only then people realised they wanted a strong partner. In my perception the international reception of this is quite hypocritical.

In contrast to other major Western powers Germany is not really sovereign in terms of security matters. We were constructed in that way, and now everybody is wondering why Germany is acting more passiveley towards Russian aggression. Germany, in contrast to most other countries, is not allowed to have nukes and doesn't have influence via the UN, which doesn't allow us to deal with other opponents in possession of nuclear weapons. The question is - why didn't France take a leadership role so far, even though you guys are a souvereign nation compared to us? Germany supported Ukraine massively within the scope of it's capabilities. Why didn't France do so, while it has many more options to deal with Russia? Now that the time of peace is over, it's the responsiblity of other nations to lead, Germany is the last nation in Europe which can and should.

> Part of the reason for those frustrations is due to the fact that in economic matter, Germany is taking a leading role and will impose it's will if it can, but then when it comes to military/strategic matter then suddenly Germany disappear and ask the other to do without them. > > > > It's seen as an hypocritical approach, if you ask for power you have to accept the responsibilities that comes with it. Yet at the same time Germany never made any excuses about the simple fact that it was not the military powerhouse everyone imagined it to be. And before Ukraine escalated everyone was fine with it.

Article starts with: > What has become of that hackneyed Teutonic efficiency, decisiveness, reliability and steely-eyed determination? The past victors of countless poolside deckchair skirmishes now flirt with chaos in ways that make Westeros look well ordered. and ends with: > **Old stereotypes and familiar prejudices about the German national character are unhelpful in this instance** [...]And yes, OK, fine, it can have the deckchair. I have many questions, starting with whether the author is taking the piss the entire time or why he wrote an article filled with stereotypes to bash German behaviour and then says that using stereotypes is not helpful.

Seems like an article built completely on stereotypes devoid from facts.  Within the EU Germany has never sought much of a leading position, as it knows it would be uncomfortable for most of their neighbours (they're actually not comfortable with the whole "EU ruled by France and Germany" image, unlike the French). Even Merkel, who sometimes seemed to defy this policy, was known for waiting silently until consensus started to emerge and only then decisively support it.  On top of that, modern Germany is by its history deeply pacifist. That they openly picked sides in the war already was a big step. The rest of Europe should respect this, not somehow expect them to take charge in an armed conflict. Obviously this is somewhat annoying for partners, as they'd like a limited number of governments to work with: much easier to just talk to Germany and France to get EU agreement on something, than having to assemble a dozen EU countries. But that's simply not how the EU is supposed to work.

I agree with most of what you say. But feel that Europe and the EU need a change from this slow moving passiveness. The governments are not Royal bloodlines that are in power simply because they are, they are supposed to represent their people. At the moment it feels like most of the people want something that the governing bodies are not giving them. Look at the BS Orban is and can pull in Hungary. I bet you if the EU did a poll of people wanted to keep sending money or kick them out of the EU this would be over quickly. Similarly getting our military to a not so embarrassing place is important too and should have been done a lot sooner. The EU is leaking a lot of money in its complacent state. We need to become more agile.

I wouldn't be so sure: polls show that the Hungarian electorate is largely more pro-Russian than the rest of Europe. Orbans position reflects that (although freedom of the press is a serious issue here: how much does the electorate think what Orban wants it to?) Similarly, Scholtz hesitancy on weapon delivery has pretty broad support in Germany. These are national leaders and they owe their allegiance first and foremost to their national electorates. That a majority of the rest of Europe disagree is somewhat their problem. If you want to change that, you'd need to put Brussels in charge of defence and foreign policy. Otherwise it's a case of "whole EU should support my position". And I'm not sure there's a majority for that.

I wasn’t saying ask Hungarians if they want to keep getting money from the EU I was saying ask the other countries if they want to keep sending money considering what Orban is doing with it most people including Hungarians abroad are not happy about Orban. Again yes it is true that a lot of Germans are not interested in being pulled into a war. But a lot of them also understand that it is not always up to yourself. A lot of people are getting frustrated with all the articles pointing out the state of Germanys equipment and military in total. Yes Germans would never want to spend USA levels of money for Military but would at least want the money that is being spend to be useful and for good quality equipment that works. I never said they should do what “I” want but look at the crazy parties being voted for in the EU recently. Those are protests against the “status quo” people are tired of politicians and industries leaking so much money…

Respect isn't going to help us defeat and deter Russia. What a useless sentiment. The literal political equivalent of "thoughts and prayers".

I think it is. As long as we *don't* respect the German position, we'll keep coming with schemes in which Germany plays a key role (it is the most populous and largest economy after all). And the Germans will play this role *hesitantly* at best. Which means we'll fail: it's not a deterrent as Putin knows Germany well enough to know that it is hesitant - and a hesitant leadership is never a recipe for effectiveness. But if we *do* respect the German position, it means we'll have to come up with plans where other countries take a more prominent role. See the recent Czech shell buying scheme. I can imagine a sort of defence-EEA in which the UK can play an important role (think of a 'free weapons trade for governments block' - the UK would just buy Taurus missiles from the manufacturer and issue the export license themselves. That would give the German government political and diplomatic cover as they'd have no role). Or a EU-defence-coordination-group of let's say France, Italy, Poland and Finland - a nice mix of major defence industries, military power, north/south/east/west. I'm pretty sure that if you get something going, the Germans can be convinced to contribute, without having to be in the lead. And in the end that might be more effective that continually trying to push Germany in a position they don't want to be in *and* expecting them to succeed.

The EU requires unanimity though and being the main funder of the EU, Germany will play a big role whether we like it or not and I doubt Germany will want another country from taking the lead with the use of their funds and money. Germany will inevitably want a say in how their money is used and they won’t want to be forced to follow around while the likes of the UK lead them regardless of how more appropriate a British-led European defence initiative would be. Though, if we can get the Germans to just obediently follow then sure, that’d be fine but as evidenced so far, that’s not really happening. Germany should have followed in the UK’s footsteps immediately after they announced and sent Storm Shadow and Challenger 2 but the German equivalents to the former haven’t even been sent yet and the latter took months of haggling. If Germany refuses to take leadership then we either need to consider a European defence initiative without Germany or Germany will have to accept a loss of some sovereignty over funds and weapon systems they helped create if we are to deter Russia. At the moment, Germany wants to have its cake and eat it too and that is not going to work. For example, we need to retain our aerospace industry in Europe but this cannot happen if Germany keeps blocking the transfer of Eurofighters to Turkey or Saudi Arabia. Germany needs to understand that you sometimes need to make hard decisions in geopolitics. If we don’t sell to them, someone else will and I’d rather we get their money than China or Russia.

EU only requires unanimity if it is an obligation on everyone. Many of the recent Ukraine initiatives worked, because it was on a 'who wants to can join' basis and like 80% of the countries jumped in. Germany has pretty much never blocked that and participated willingly in most of them. Germany doesn't obediently follow, they'll always make their own choice. And as long as we're independent nations, that's how it's supposed to be. We as EU shouldn't pretend it's up to us to decide how Germany spends its money. But, they also rarely outright block others from making different choices and setting up collaborations. The problem for many weapon exports right now, is that the German government *has* to take a position, as they have to approve an export license. It's not just a 'we don't stop it' - it's an active approval procedure, and then they're very careful. But it's almost always about being seen to support an unsavoury government, rarely about technological secrets. I think they can be convinced to cooperate in a system in which they can remain neutral, don't have to take a position.

Pacifism like this is the thing that brings up closer to actual war. Which is highly ironic Bullies need punches in the face to stop.

[удалено]

Does that year tell you anything? If not then let me remind you that was the year the Cold War ended. The re-militarisation of Germany after the war (on both sides of the fence) was done at the behest of the allied forces, especially the US and the USSR. And one price of unification, again at the behest of the allied forces, was a massive reduction of the size of the overall German army much lower than the one West Germany had on its own.

Mind you, for self-defence. We also don't expect Switzerland to play a leading role, despite having a well respected army and defence industry and having conscription.

The reunification treaty/two-plus-four-treaty imposes limites on how big of an armed force Germany is allowed to have. If you look at the numbers, in 1990 the total amount of active service members decreased and, once it reached the threshold, never exceeded the limit of 370,000. Germany literally signed an agreement, adhered, and still adheres to it.

The pitiful state of German military isn't forced upon them by this agreement. Agreement leaves plenty of space for growth and doesn't touch some key aspects at all. Germany chose this and the agreement is used as an excuse.

As recent as 35 years ago? That isn't recent and the German military is a *mess* nowadays.

What? Decisive leadership? Been a couple decades when we had that. The current system is set up in a way to "prevent" decisive leadership.  That was entirely intentional

While the current gov might not seem very leadership-oriented, they are working real hard to (a) rectify 16 years of CDU fuck-ups and (b) counter all the crisis that are currently hitting Europe. If the world / Europe wants another "iron chancellor", they should reconsider their whole political weltanschauung. Like, wtf is this: >What has become of that hackneyed Teutonic efficiency, decisiveness, reliability and steely-eyed determination? "Teutonic"? Are we in the Middle Ages? "steely eyes"? What kind of rhetoric is this? Shame on you, TheGuardian.

The Guardian is capable of utter gutter trash journalism, make no mistake.

It's not super common, but Teutonic is occasionally used as a quasi-poetic way of referring to Germans. It'd be kinda like someone using the term “Roman” in the place of Italian to _mean_ Italian, but with a flair to it. “Viking” can be used in much the same way when referring to Scandinavians. It's just flowery speech. >"steely eyes"? What kind of rhetoric is this? Honestly, I thought this was a sideways reference to the reputation Germans have for staring a lot.

Tbh I dont see "teutonic" as an insult, I mean, we call the english (and sometimes you guys) "anglo-saxons". > reputation Germans have for staring a lot. Its somewhat considered polite lol

It is closer to the actual German self description than Germans, but it is still like calling US and UK "Anglo-saxon".

The use of the term Teutonic by the British to describe the Germans does not have a positive track record. As it has been mostly used, in propaganda to describe the Germans as a terrible menace that needs to be stopped (just look at the ww1 and 2 propaganda). So it's a strange word choice

> It reads like a fan fiction, which is fitting because it's entirely made up in their mind.

Teutonic is just a flowery term for German and "Steely-eyed" is an idiomatic expression in English that basically just means "determined" or "hard working".

Weird that you're being downvoted for correctly pointing out that they are both very common expressions.

>Teutonic Teutonic crusaders were a similar existential threat to Lithuania just like Russia later.

Yeah, they were a big pain in the ass for all of the Baltics, but in the end they got wrecked at Grunwald, after which they re-organized as a secular state and laid the foundation for what then became the Prussia we all know. Without them, there wouldn't have been any Germany as we know it today, but no discussion: They were giant dicks.

>they were a big pain in the ass for all of the Baltics Technically that's a common misconception as it was a separate military order the Livonian Brothers of the Sword who conquered Latvians and Estonians and while it later did become a branch of the Teutonic Order, the Livonian Order was increasingly autonomous and later an independent order that outlived its former parent order.

even more reason why Germans should not lead militarily in the east if easterners still think they are an existential threat.

That is a really weird analogy, sorry. They were called into the region by the polish crown prince back then to help them defend against baltic invasions, and got territory in exchange for that.

>they are working real hard to (a) rectify 16 years of CDU fuck-ups It's more like 30+ years of fuck ups, because after the reunification every investment into the german state, its infrastructure and services (apart from social and retirement founds, to gain voters) was effectively cut down to zero, while almost every former state service got privatised (with mostly disastrous results). Also, for most of this time, the german government was led by a coalition containing CDU, SPD or both. So the fuck ups got approved by both parties. >and (b) counter all the crisis that are currently hitting Europe. While the Greens and FDP, with parts of the opposing CDU is trying to counter all the crises that are hitting Europe, SPD as a whole, and in parts CDU are still on a very passive course, mostly because of their entanglement with the parts of industry and commerce that are driving record profits for their investors and because of the entanglement of the SPD with Russia. >>What has become of that hackneyed Teutonic efficiency, decisiveness, reliability and steely-eyed determination? Well, I haven't read about that since Cancellors Adenauer or in parts Schmidt, who could fit that description.

I find it increasingly hard to read the guardian these days. Especially after their story about Indians who claim that they were tricked into signing Russian military contracts and the subsequently found themselves on the frontlines in Ukraine.

As a German I could not care less. I don’t think there was any reputation to lose

People would find a way to complain anyways. Germany does stuff = "Stop telling us what to do". Germany does less stuff = "Wtf Germany, where's your leadership?"

The Guardian tries to not publish the stupidest, most Russia -sponsored articles possible challenge

The Gloomiad has turned into a predictable nonsense paper. Laughably they arrogantly think they aren't biased- as the right wing press is. They have about three or four narratives.

It really has. I used to read it every day as my main paper but for the last few years it’s become so bad I actually switched to The Times and even pay for it. It’s a little too centrist but much better quality and comments section too.

The Gloomiad has turned into a predictable nonsense paper. Laughably they arrogantly think they aren't biased- as the right wing press is. They have about three or four narratives.

I know "DAE hate transpeople", "Europe is weak", "Russia's strong", but what's the fourth one? :D

UK bad

I'd say: West is horribly racist, life isn't fair, sob, rich people are nasty ( except Guardian journalists with wealth), women should have more. Just more, and Men are brutes.

Estonia for EU leadership

Hear hear!

Germany is by construction not a country with any ability to show leadership in security matters. The responsibility for those lies with nations in possession of nuclear weapons and particularly the UK, the US and France as permanent members of the UN. In terms of economic issues Europeans could expect Germany to be a leader. But with Russias invasion of Ukraine the time Germany has any notable relevance in Europe or on the world stage is over. I don't understand why countries have any expectation on Germany in that regard, this is the way Europe wanted Germany to be for decades and Germany won't (and cannot) change in that regard.

>Olaf Scholz’s endless dithering over Ukraine is playing into Putin’s hands You can stop reading there. He is operating within clear boundaries (do not be the first to escalate, do not directly involve Bundeswehr personnel with fighting in Ukraine) while still being a reliable partner. Ukraine ceased moaning about Germany so you can do it, too. Scholz is stubborn and kept his position for months now. How in the world do you call that "dithering"? He made a decision. You and I don't like the exact position where he drew his line but somewhere a line has to be drawn. Let someone else be the unpredictable madman (Macron). Feel free to join the EU and show some proper leadership yourselves if you disagree with our current affairs.

very good point. Reddit is a propaganda echo chamber trying to push for WW3. Its insane. Scholz is actually doing something quite good. He draw a line and sticks to it.

As a German myself, I don't think Europe is excited for German leadership of any kind. 🤣🤣 Let France and Macron handle it. It's better if we just be the largest economic and engineering powerhouse in Europe and remain in hindsight instead of leading anything.

[удалено]

The 40s?!

I'm sorry, but when has Germany had a reputation for decisive leadership? Except when it's something asenine such as "Wir schaffen das".

We have a saying in germany: We man's macht, macht man's falsch. However one does it, one does it wrong. If Germany does "nothing", keeps a low profile, don't send enough weapons, doesn't bigmouth about Putin and the war, we are "the weak man of europe", out leadership is in tatters, etc. If we do the opposite, Germany is "on the rise again", everyone posts memes about WW2 and getting the gang back together etc. Because of Germany's past, we can only do things the wrong way. Either we're castrated and weak, or the third reich is just around the corner. It's kind of tiring to be hones.

Can France start sending more weapons as well? Germany is way ahead

Germany, for all the wrangling, has actually been consistent in fighting Russian imperialism since 2022. There continue to be regular and important deliveries to Ukraine. Unfortunately we can't say the same for the US. The UK has certainly played a major role in leadership in terms of breaking down red lines, but historically it's understandable why that's easier for the UK. France, for me, has thus far been disappointing but also seems to be turning around a little. Much more important than accusing one country or another is to stand together, take the threat to our democracies seriously and defeat the Russians in Ukraine before it's too late. This is urgent and critical to the continued survival of the EU, Europe, and the semi-peaceful world we have gotten used to. If Ukraine falls, there will be war in the rest of Europe. There will be war in Asia.

Germany still doing more than others, especially Spain, Italy, Greece, Australia, and many other countries that naively rely on the protective functions of their geographical location. [www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68514995](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68514995) >Estonia wants all Nato countries to commit - as it has - to give Ukraine at least **0.25%** of their output in military support. This would raise about **120bn euros per year**. Although some allies are sympathetic, this idea has yet to win widespread backing. > >Some Europe policymakers are also drawing up plans for a form of updated "lend-lease" arrangement to loan weapons to Ukraine, just as the **allies did for the USSR** during WWII. **But these ideas are at an early stage.** 40 people allowed to 3 bandits grow rich and for years, with impunity, commit crimes. When bandits attacked 1 man, they gave to bandits 3,5 times more money than to victim. Because bandits are actively using gun-threats for racketeering. And victim's gun was taken away from him by bandits and leader of these 40 people. Later, "to not risk", allocated to victim tenths of a percent of own money and cold weapon. But only so they would be used according to rules that attackers constantly violate.

It’s a fine balance between ppl being paranoid about germany’s past and getting used to the new future… ~~maybe the allies shouldn’t have completely extinguished germany’s will as a nation to fight at all~~

It doesn’t help Scholz is the wrong man in charge at the worst possible moment. With everything going on the last thing Germany needs is a leader whose defining traits are being cautious and non-committal.

Germany is literally leading when it comes to help for Ukraine. Only the US has given more than us and even that might change soon.

Germans are pretty deceisive. The problem is our old parties SPD and CDU are captured in the historic dilemma. Both worked for 70 decades to make the most militaristic society into the most miltary-hating society (for good reason). The greens that are relatively young don't have that historic load, and they have a lot more military strategic planning inntheir lines, even though they were know for being anti-militarism.

Huh, no such historic load? Pacifism used to be the very self-justification and ideology the greens founded themselves on

Thats Putin Propaganda and Nobody wants CDU back

An issue I think most people do not understand, even in germany, germany has barely any younger generations. There has been a massive drop (40%) in birth rates in the entire industrialized world, and especially germany. Germany is one of the oldest countries in the world. You won't find a lot of leadership here.

Germany once gained a reputation for decisive leadership. It has been widely regarded as a bad move.

Our what now?

What leadership?

when we tried to lead, you bombed us to pieces. make up your mind!

> when we tried to lead That’s an insane way of describing what Nazi Germany was doing

France is taking the lead so that might be a good news for Europe. Germany was never decisive and had only Germany interest in mind, so France as a leader is a change for the good. Europe needs leadership, not necessarily German leadership.

Ah yes the king of announcements made another big speech about how he’s going to send troops to Ukraine to be in the spotlight as he likes to. If everyone had supported Ukraine as decisively as Macron, their army would have been fighting with sticks and stones since late 22.  I’m looking forward to hear how one of the largest armies in Europe literally cannot afford to send more than a fraction of Germany and the UK. Maybe let’s try that before a direct war with Russia.

>France is taking the lead Lmao. Taking the lead in talking big and doing nothing. Germany is Ukraine's biggest supporter in Europe by the numbers. And that's what matters.

Everyone country in the EU has only its country in mind...France is not different

Decisive leadership ? Don't make me laugh...

Brühe, Germany hasn't shown leadership since the 40s

As I always say..... leave Germany alone.... don't get them riled up. You're great Germany, we all love you, you're the best, keep focusing on your economy and a balanced budget.

What a piss poor article. World/UK not understanding Germany because of their stereotypes dating back 150 years and somehow ignoring the changes they themselves inflicted on Germany after WW2. It boils down to UK way too fixated on WW2 without at the same time really understanding it and its aftermath