I'm not familiar with this notion (or much of German's political scene). Can you elaborate why the Greens are known fronts for the CIA there? (as in, what are giveaways?)
The way they immediately threw away their pacifism in favour of US-led interventionism when the Cold War ended. Unsurprisingly, it was also them screaming for military support for Ukraine instead of pushing for talks. Scholz at least feigned reluctance for a while.
The deindustrialization of Germany they are spearheading.
Remember, in the words of its first Secretary General, the purpose of NATO (and US posture towards Europe in general) is “to keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” That has not substantially changed. A hypothetical alliance between Germany and Russia is a nightmare for them and they would (and in fact do) go to great lengths to prevent it.
And where is the alleged connection to the CIA there?
The quote you pulled from the first(!) Secretary General of NATO is from 80 years ago. At the time it was said, 80 years ago was 1870, shortly after the American Civil War, just to give some perspective.
> Unsurprisingly, it was also them screaming for military support for Ukraine instead of pushing for talks.
Maaaan, that is just in the interest of Germany and generally any Western country. It was also the only moral and ethical position. One does not need to be paid by CIA to see this invasion and genocide for what they are.
If you think it through, the only reasons this “I’m a pacifist but” dime store morality can be entertained at all is because of the idea that Ukraine is winning, and because Western audiences (and to an extent even Ukrainian) have largely been isolated from the true costs of this war (to both sides; and also to Western economies and arsenals).
Ukraine is winning
I do not intend to litigate this again right now; we’re going to find out, most likely within a year, probably less.
Should Ukraine in fact lose, I hope you will remember then that a generous deal was on the table (no loss of territory except obviously Crimea), and so hundreds of thousands will have died (and in fact have already) for much less than nothing.
> If you think it through, the only reasons this “I’m a pacifist but” dime store morality can be entertained at all is because of the idea that Ukraine is winning, and because Western audiences (and to an extent even Ukrainian) have largely been isolated from the true costs of this war (to both sides; and also to Western economies and arsenals).
So your telling me if your family was in the occupied parts of Ukraine, being tortured by the Russians, raped, etc you’d be happy to hand over that territory to the Russians and just let it all go?.
> Should Ukraine in fact lose, I hope you will remember then that a generous deal was on the table (no loss of territory except obviously Crimea), and so hundreds of thousands will have died (and in fact have already) for much less than nothing.
Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians haven’t died yet so you’ll have to wait a bit longer for that to come true im afraid.
Atrocity propaganda is great for eliminating opposition at home. It doesn’t win you a war, though. And it bears repeating: the thing about wars is you actually have to win them.
The curious thing is that historically it’s always the good guys that have won, so I’m certain the Russians will not only prevail militarily but also in the moral dimension.
> Atrocity propaganda is great for eliminating opposition at home. It doesn’t win you a war, though. And it bears repeating: the thing about wars is you actually have to win them.
That’s not an answer to the question, then again I don’t think you’ll ever answer it.
> The curious thing is that historically it’s always the good guys that have won, so I’m certain the Russians will not only prevail militarily but also in the moral dimension.
Considering that Russia is doing similar things in Ukraine that they did in the first Chechen war, which they lost both on the battlefield and morally with their filtration torture camps.
This bodes well for Ukraine.
If you think the country that is raping and torturing children, committing genocide, committing crimes against humanity and razing entire cities to the ground is moral then you have a very different definition of moral than most people.
It is just not true that historically good guys always won. And looking at Russian history, they quite rarely won in the moral dimension. Even their past victories are rarely in the "morally good ones won" category.
Past Russian victories involve massacres, genocides, engineered famines and even staggering amount of own victims to the meat grinders of various kind.
The true cost of Russian occupation is torture, massacres, rapes, stealing of property including whole factories and what not. It is oppression, language suppression and literal genocide. It is children taken away from parents to be Russified and abused.
> I hope you will remember then that a generous deal was on the table (no loss of territory except obviously Crimea
This is a lie. There was no nice believable deal.
In the first place, Russia did not had to start yet another war after lying about them not wanting it, but here we are.
> If that’s what you’ve let yourself be convinced is the present then, boy, are you not going to enjoy the future.
The only one who's convinced themselves is you, you've convinced yourself that the Russians are saints who only do good and not the imperialistic, genocidal invaders that they are in reality.
The deindustrialization of Germany they are spearheading.
Remember, in the words of its first Secretary General, the purpose of NATO (and US posture towards Europe in general) is “to keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” That has not substantially changed. A hypothetical alliance between Germany and Russia is a nightmare for them and they would (and in fact do) go to great lengths to prevent it.