[pastacacioepepe]

> It was Schröder

Northstream 2 was planned under Merkel.

> Merkel decided in a completely irrational overnight move to just phase out nuclear.

No, it was an almost unanimous vote where even the opposition agreed with the government[0]. Nothing irrational about it, they decided to go for renewable instead of nuclear.

- 0: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/30/germany-end-nu...

[looping__lui]

Oh, Merkel certainly made it worse, but Schröder had a leading role… https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/world/europe/schroder-ger...

The opposition agreeing - you mean like the Green party who wanted to end nuclear like forever? Merkel had essentially absolute power in Germany and was leading some major changes that are hard to believe now… 1) shut down nuclear, 2) abolish compulsory military service, 3) open the borders for an uncontrolled influx of male refugees, 4) completely ignore Corona at first and then bulldoze over our Basic Law.

[pastacacioepepe]

> The opposition agreeing - you mean like the Green party who wanted to end nuclear like forever?

No, I mean pretty much everyone: 513 yes to 79 no.

> abolish compulsory military service

hard to believe? I guess we agree to disagree.

[looping__lui]

You need a viable military in an advanced and wealthy society. If you disagree you are imho naive.

A military coup is one of the largest risks to any society. The “best” people to serve the military are the young people that stand to lose their country and have a million things that they get excited about - except going to war and fighting.

A society itself needs to protect itself.

[pastacacioepepe]

Coups always happen through a complicit or indifferent army. Having no army (except some small elite corps) seems the best way to prevent coups to me.

Also you don't need weapons and war to resist. It's much more effective to perform civil disobedience on a mass scale. Paralize the country and refuse to obey. Gandhi docet.

It's also what Ukraine should do instead of sacrificing entire generations of their men and women to protect some hundred square miles of land, destroying any value those lands might have in the process.

[htfu]

That'll work as long as the attackers are unwilling to simply murder civilians. Did you somehow miss Bucha?

They're not protecting their land, they're protecting themselves. If a significant portion gets shot either way it's better to at least be able to shoot back, no?

[pastacacioepepe]

> Did you somehow miss Bucha?

Wars tend to allow for this kind of tragedy to happen. Much harder to slaughter people during a civilian disobedience act that is globally covered by media. Brutal repression of demonstrations also causes much more outrage, basically backfiring if your intent is to stop them. Any dictator worth a shot knows this very well.

> If a significant portion gets shot either way it's better to at least be able to shoot back, no?

False dychotomy. People who protest the war in Russia are being arrested, not shot in the streets. So why do you think that would happen in this case? Because "Russians are Orcs"?