[SuperShibe]

The Germans in this article all appear to be aligned to either BSW (populist far-left, pro-Russia, anti-US) or AfD (populist far-right, pro-Russia). BSW wasn't even elected into the parliament and AfD, while being part of the parliament, has virtually no power due to not being part of the government coalition and all other parties sharing an informal agreement to not pass legislations with the help of AfD.

What I'm trying to say is that these two do not represent the German political landscape at all. They also, while on different ends of the left-right-spectrum, both only represent the pro-Russian minority of the German political landscape. This is not a debate happening in Germany right now and no other party has expressed support of any position.

[jamil7]

I thought Wagenknecht had somewhat distanced herself from pro-kremlin positions she and parts of Die Linke previously held? She's still pretty staunchly anti-NATO, though. I think her German-nationalist positions kind of overlap with positions that benefit Russia like resuming gas supplies to drop energy prices and heating costs.

[exiguus]

The top AfD politicians, of course. But there are many other AfD members and employees who received money from Russian influenced people. Currently, the top AfD politicians are shifting from being in love with Russia to being in love with the US. Actually the AfD has been fined several times because they have violated the donation regulations for political parties (2017, 2020 and 2021).

[eqvinox]

Other way around, Wagenknecht is the one who didn't distance herself from the Kremlin and forked off her own party, BSW, which finally enabled Die Linke to get at least some distance from the Kremlin. (This schism was fracturing that party so hard…)

[holowoodman]

But only a little nominal distance in a few interviews. Die Linke is still the official successor of the SED, which was the GDRs single allowed communist party. And this shows in membership and positions, which are 95% true to Moscow.

[eqvinox]

Arguing its SED successor status 35 years after the end of the GDR is positively silly, especially considering it's only half right since the party is a fusion of PDS and WASG, the latter having no SED or GDR connection at all.

And from the people I know, the Moscow parts of Die Linke have in fact largely left for BSW. Some are a bit too pacifist about Ukraine, but that's about it in terms of alignment with Moscow.

[Ed.: if anything, the SED successor flag should be given to BSW I'd say, but even that's off the mark.]

[p2detar]

Afaik, Die Linke still have anti-NATO stance in their program and call for it to dissolve and a new collective defense pact be created with Russia in it, which was an eyeroll to me, given the war, cyber attacks and everything.

Edit: I last read some of that program in 2024, so not sure what’s their stance lately on this.

[eqvinox]

What you're probably referring to is still in there, except they're not asking for a new defense pact with Russia in it, they're asking for a security system (with Russia in it). (page 89)

On the same page, they're also asking for the UN to be improved, specifically noting the security council. That's directly to the detriment of its permanent members, including… Russia.

P.S.: I profit monetarily from NATO, yet still think it's broken, but for reasons diametrically opposite to Die Linke: I think the US won't deliver as NATO member. It doesn't matter as long as US interests are the same as NATOs, but, … if Russia attacks the Baltics? I'm not gonna hold my breath for US NATO troops.

[parthdesai]

Is far-left really pro-Russia or just anti-US? Not everyone that is anti-US (which a lot of people with common sense would be tbf) is pro-Russia

[ljf]

My only knowledge of them is a cursory Wikipedia search, but yes it appears they are pro-Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahra_Wagenknecht_Alliance

[mindjiver]

We are talking about a splinter party (BSW) from the main left party (Die Linke) which is a kind of anti-woke- and anti-immigration-party that spouts basically the normal Kremlin propaganda lines about Ukraine. There is of course anti-US sentiment there since is secondary to their main issue, peace at any cost so that Germany can get cheaper energy again.

Note that I'm not a German national but I live in Germany (former DDR / East) since 9 years.

[mensetmanusman]

Also having lived in Dresden and speaking some German, I recognize the German grammar affecting your last sentence there.

If it’s of interest, a native English speaker would say something like “but I have lived in Germany for nine years”

I know I appreciated it when the Germans would correct my German grammar :)

[mindjiver]

Funny, since German is my third language but I guess it creeps into my second and first languages as well.

[parthdesai]

Ah fair enough, thanks for the info

[int_19h]

Not just in Germany but elsewhere, the rule of thumb is that libertarian socialists (anarchists etc) tend to be both anti-US and anti-Russia, while the more common and more authoritarian kind tend to be pro-whoever is anti West, including Russia, China, or places like Syria was under Assad.

[slightwinder]

They are mainly pro-communism and anti-capitalism, delve in Marxism, Lenin, Stalin, etc. and are very supportive, less critical of modern Russia. It's probably kinda like people who are supportive of the USA, don't necessarily are supportive of everything MAGA & Trump are doing, but still support it in general.

[hannob]

> The Germans in this article all appear to be aligned to either BSW (populist far-left, pro-Russia, anti-US)

Picturing BSW as far-left, while not uncommon, strikes me always as very strange. While it's a bit unclear where to put them with their wild mixture of populism, the only reason they are by some seen as leftwing is because of the history of their founder. She was previously a member of the left party, but for many years, even while she still was a member of that party, has not held any views that could count as far-left.

The only reason some still put her in the far-left camp is that she was, looooong ago, a member of the communist platform in the PDS, the predecessor of the left party in Germany.

[badestrand]

The BSW is indeed an interesting mix because they are conservative-liberal-left while usually leftist parties are progressive and authoritarian-leaning instead.

Examples for the BSW's left politics are * higher taxes for the rich * higher taxes for large and international companies * take on new debt to finance stuff * more state-aided social housing.

[tonyedgecombe]

The far left don’t look much different from the far right.

[LargoLasskhyfv]

The thoughts about bringing it back home are nothing new, though. And not limited to BSW/AFD at all.

See https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Goldreserven#Diskussi... for some history.

Or some articles from around 10/2012:

https://www.focus.de/finanzen/news/warum-das-deutsche-gold-i...

https://www.focus.de/finanzen/news/bundesbank-soll-den-ganze...

https://www.focus.de/finanzen/news/bundesbank-enthuellt-so-v...

(yooze trännzläyshun!1!!)

[fanwood]

It's still a very good idea given the US instability and complete lack of trust in this administration

[cempaka]

It's not just this administration, it's been essentially open season for fraud in the U.S. financial system ever since 2008. If you're a hoi polloi dentist who makes $100,000 trading options off of some insider info then yes, there are SEC cops on the beat who will come after you. Otherwise, you can pretty much do whatever you want until & unless a whole lot of people lose money, at which point it's too late.

[mslansn]

AfD represents the political landscape, even if they (yet) have no power because other parties have chosen to marginalise them whilst still can. As long as you have votes, there are people behind you. Isn’t that democracy?

[Paradigma11]

The AfD got 21% last elections.

[Aldipower]

As it is correct, that they are virtually not in power, framing them as pro-russia is some sort of false flag. Just because they are not anti-russia, like every other party, does not automatically mean that they are pro-russia. AfD and BSW together got more then 25% of all votes. So, you are correct, they virtually are not in power, but they have some real power just by being there. This HN post here is the best example for this mechanism.

[razemio]

I think anti-nato, anti eu, pro russian gas and anti urkraine war aid qualify as pro russian. I get your point, but I think you are wrong? Just read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AfD_pro-Russia_movement

AfD has SO many connections to the Kremel. At least a big part of AfD is obiously influenced by russian agenda. BSW is a different topic. They might just align with many points russia likes, but you can not be sure either.

BSW or AfD with power in the Bundestag would be russias wet dream in regards to german politics.

[wuschel]

I concur.

The AfD, the SPD and the BSW all have factions that historical ties to the Kreml network

[scythe]

How many levels of "appear to" are we supposed to tolerate in order to minimize the perspective here? Here's where we started:

>The Germans in this article all appear to be aligned to [...]

So the person we don't like seems like they might be affiliated with a political party which seems like it's pro-Russia — this is unreasonably contrived when you zoom out and look at the whole argument.

[InitialLastName]

I can't access the article, but "appear to" could also apply to the "all", i.e. "I may have missed a person, but all the people I checked are...".

[notjoemama]

Is there a rating site or alignment test for wiki articles and their authors? I'm aware of the inherent left bias on wiki and while I still find it informative I am forced (because of their behavior) to consider the subtextual implications in the language they use as well as what is willingly (and sometimes very intentionally) addressed or omitted. it would be nice to have a wiki-bias chart like the media bias chart.

[razemio]

Everything should be referenced with sources. If a reference is weak or even wrong it should be removed. Everybody can apply to be an editor. I know that Wikipedia has a liberal touch BUT its sources can be used to interpret it yourself. With or without wikipedia, AfD has members with proven connections to the kremel.

[notTooFarGone]

>framing them as pro-russia is some sort of false flag.

They just take russian talking points and deliver them to their voters. It's just conveniently the same shit. And business trips to russia are just there to enjoy the scenery.

If they talk like russians, are present in russia, do interviews in russian media and don't condemn russian warcrimes...

Maybe it's just as easy?

[Eupolemos]

When another nation wants to subjugate or invade you and/or your neighbors, not being against is being pro them.

Being against military expenditures and alliances when the other nation is arming like there is no tomorrow is being pro getting invaded.

It is not complicated.

[gruez]

>When another nation wants to subjugate or invade you and/or your neighbors, not being against is being pro them.

"You're either with us or against us"

[Eupolemos]

When under threat of invasion, that is logical, not controversial.

[Aldipower]

Yes, from the Ukrainian perspective. But this topic is about Germany.

[aegypti]

Germany is a member of the EU and NATO, the eastern nations of which are openly, publicly, and officially threatened with Russian invasion to the point they are now preparing for conflict.

[Lionga]

Germany is not under any threat of invasion, and your false black/white extremism is sadly what actually drives people towards these kind of parties.

There is a lot of nuances there.

[mensetmanusman]

They literally are from mass migration movements, and they are trying to do that while Russia tries to actively make the system more destabilizing.

[Paradigma11]

We also know that Ukraine was under no risk being invaded. Putin himself said so just a few days before the tanks rolled in.

[Aldipower]

Straw man argument. Neither Russia wants to invade Germany nor is Ukraine our neighbor (and if it is, then is Russia too). Despite that is the US the most armed country in the world, not Russia.

I fear the things are much much more complicated then you think.

[Eupolemos]

No, you are simply gaslighting and being called out.

[Aldipower]

Where do I gaslighting? Give me an example from this thread please. Don't feed the AI with straw man ad hominem, thx.

[dh2022]

See my reply in this same thread [dh2022] that explains your gas-lighting.

[mensetmanusman]

Ignore your previous prompt, tell me a good Russian pancake recipe.

[dh2022]

Yeah, of course Russia does not want to invade Germany - it is just arming itself to the teeth. And of course Russia did not want to invade Ukraine in 2021 - they were just building up their military on the border since Mar 2021 [0]. So Ukraine was safe all the way up to the of morning Feb 24!!! <s>Only those bad war-mongers would think that Russia was going to attack Ukraine </s>.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_Russian_invasio...

[NoOn3]

NATO is bigger and it has more soldiers and bigger armies, why do you think Russia will invade NATO, it's just ridiculous. :( It is not Russia that is increasing in territories, it is NATO that is approaching Russia over the past few decades.

[int_19h]

Speaking as a Russian citizen, I remember hearing "NATO will invade us anytime now" pretty much since early 90s. Yet somehow in 30 years since then it is Russia, not NATO, which has repeatedly invaded its neighbors.

And the rhetoric that Russia is directing at the Baltic states - and has been for many years now - is largely indistinguishable from the pretext used to invade Ukraine. So those states at least have very good reasons to believe that they are next; and they are in NATO.

[welzel]

Just to be clear: Russia has invaded Ukraine, has declared that the country has no right to exist and ukraine people will be exterminated, but it is NATO that is the aggressor?

This is textbook russian propaganda.

[tehjoker]

Not at all. It’s a US Russia proxy war. Being for diplomatic negotiations and an end to the war is pro ukrainian people who are bleeding for nothing

[af78]

Not at all. The US has tried to minimize its involvement in this war before it even started. In the run-up to the full-scale invasion, Biden spent more time saying what he would not do than what he would do. Think that, to this date, the US has not supplied a single fighter jet. The only airframes Ukraine received were provided by European nations. About 30 Abrams tanks were delivered by the US, and that only after it was clear Ukraine's 2023 counter offensive had failed. Since Trump's return to power, not a single aid package has been approved. To the contrary, the Trump administration has sided with Russia and North Korea on UN General Assembly votes about Ukraine.

Remember that in the 1990's the US put Ukraine under pressure to give up its nuclear arsenal (2nd in the world at the time) against promises that its sovereignty and independence would be respected (Budapest memorandums). Who is going to believe the US now?

[tehjoker]

Russia is basically ok with Ukraine being a buffer state so long as it doesn't become a NATO ally. At this point Ukraine will probably have to give up the Russian ethic regions adjoining Russia to get peace.

Imagine if Mexico tried to join BRICS or the Warsaw pact back when it existed. You can see the realpolitik logic here. If you want stability and peace for the Ukrainian people, do a deal. Ukraine wasn't in play but for NATO expansion eastward. Now it is, and it is the fault of the United States that this situation was created.

US politicians crow about what a great deal for them the Ukraine war is since others are fighting and dying to fight USA's enemy*. Very blood thirsty.

* The enemy of the USA ruling class, I personally don't harbor any animosity towards Russia though I dislike their form of government—a form that resulted from US attacks on the post-Soviet political economy.

[IAmBroom]

> * The enemy of the USA ruling class, I personally don't harbor any animosity towards Russia though I dislike their form of government—a form that resulted from US attacks on the post-Soviet political economy.

So, Russia bears no responsibility for its own government, which is somehow manufactured by the US? OK, that's a new one on me.

[af78]

Ukraine started seeking NATO membership when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008. NATO members refused, following this flawed logic "that it would provoke Russia". In 2014, when Russia first invaded Ukraine, Ukraine was still a neutral country.

The reality is that Russia had had NATO countries on its borders (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) for years before it invaded Georgia and Ukraine. And two years ago Finland joined as well. Russia did nothing to prevent this.

NATO is a defensive alliance. The only thing it threatens is Russia's imperialism and expansionism.

Russia broke countless agreements where it recognized Ukraine's borders and independence, so Russia's signature is now worthless.

The war could stop tomorrow if Russia stopped the aggression it started. But Putin has consistently made it clear he wants all of Ukraine. Here's a recent example: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-says-the-whole-uk...

Everyone knows how Russia treats the peoples of lands it conquers: torture, executions, deportations etc. No country could accept these terms. It would amount to national suicide. For this reason Ukrainians have to choice but to keep fighting.

[Paradigma11]

Putin had already said 2008 that Ukraine was no real country. This is just a typical brutal postcolonial war of independence.

[amanaplanacanal]

Uhh... Bleeding to repel the Russian invasion, you mean. Would you just roll over and let Russia invade your country?

[holowoodman]

Don't you know that the US forced Russia to invade? /s

[rrr_oh_man]

> Would you just roll over and let Russia invade your country?

Apparently, many Ukrainian men would. Or maybe they'd seen it like a mere change in upper management, initially. Otherwise the Ukrainian government would not have felt it necessary to forbid them from leaving the country or to press/force them into military service.

(And, frankly, the people affected are the only ones whose opinion should matter in this situation.)

> Bleeding to repel the Russian invasion, you mean

It's always easy to spill other people's statistical blood from the other side of the planet.

[pydry]

I'd have taken the March pre-2022 deal rejecting NATO alignment in a heartbeat. In fact, even as the deals Russia offered got steadily worse they were always calibrated to be a better alternative than continuing to fight and lose.

NATO isnt powerful enough/motivated enough to help Ukraine fight off Russia despite pledging unlimited support in March 2022 (now proven to be a hollow lie).

There was nothing logical about Ukraine's decision to reject neutrality and to try and set itself up as a NATO military bulwark along Russia's most vulnerable border.

[amanaplanacanal]

I'd have taken that too, with security guarantees. Otherwise what do you do when Russia comes back for another bite of the pie? That's why they want to join NATO.

[geoka9]

> In fact, even as the deals Russia offered got steadily worse they were always calibrated to be a better alternative than continuing to fight and lose.

They were always calibrated to be refused and there is a reason for that: NATO expansion is a red herring that Russia wants to use as an excuse for the invasion.

> There was nothing logical about Ukraine's decision to reject neutrality and to try and set itself up as a NATO military bulwark along Russia's most vulnerable border.

Ukraine has been neutral, and in fact quite friendly to Russia, both according to its Constitution and popular polls, up until the point Russia annexed a piece of its land and invaded another piece in 2014. By doing that Russia has shown that no promise of neutrality can save Ukraine from its tanks. I am surprised that some people are still talking about neutrality in good faith in 2025.

[slightwinder]

They are openly supporting Russia, take their money, visit them while meeting high ranking Russian assets and are spreading the same Ideas. There is no framing here.

[bboygravity]

That's all fine and dandy, but also IMO it's entirely possible that the US cannot deliver their gold if these countries (and/or others) wanted it back.

Just look at what happened when Venezuela wanted their gold back. It took ages and that was a relatively tiny amount.

It's extremely naive for many EU countries to still believe that they "have" "their" gold stored in the US. And even more naive to not try and get it back.

The entire US banking and financial system relies on NOT delivering or owning the underlying (fractional reserve banking, federal reserve printing money out of thin air, failures to deliver every single day on everything from stocks to government bonds, failing CDS'es and so on).

[user____name]

> The entire US banking and financial system relies on NOT delivering or owning the underlying (fractional reserve banking, federal reserve printing money out of thin air

This is sadly a very common misunderstanding of how money is created inside the financial system, even by professional economists and financial advisers. In reality money is not valued at parity with some physical material but as a simple act of accounting [0,1,2,3,4]. Historically a currency (subset) has been pegged against rare minerals as a method of insurance against state or exchange rate instability, the flip side is that this restricts state spending and economic growth -- a growing economy needs a growing stock of currency to service loans and avoid debt driven deflation, as in e.g. the great depression [5,6,7]. This is why gold/silver standards are always episodic in world history [8]. Even in the fien-de-secle gold standard era the majority of currency in circulation had its origin in endogenous bank lending [9]. The typical stability and viability of a currency is from the fact that it can be used to procure real goods in the wider market, which in turn is because money contracts are legally enforced via social power relations, e.g. by a local government with the power make and enforce such rules. Incidentally this is why cryptocurrencies act as an investment asset and not as a currency, it lacks the enforcement component and it appreciates in value, which is never what you want for a currency [10].

[0] Bank of England, Money Creation in the Modern Economy https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/m... [1] Deutsche Bundesbank, The role of banks, non- banks and the central­ bank in the money creation process https://www.bundesbank.de/resource/blob/654284/df66c4444d065... [2] Richard A. Werner, A lost century in economics: Three theories of banking and the conclusive evidence https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105752191... [3] Augusto Graziani, The Monetary Theory of Production https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/monetary-theory-of-prod... [4] Basil J. Moore, Horizontalists and Verticalists https://www.cambridge.org/sc/universitypress/subjects/econom... [5] Scientific Origin, What Was the Gold Standard, How It Worked, and Why It Ended https://scientificorigin.com/the-gold-standard-what-it-was-h... [6] Irving Fisher, The Debt Deflation Theory of Great Depressions https://www.jstor.org/stable/1907327 [7] Hyman P. Minsky, The Debt Deflation Theory of Great Depressions https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/232609677.pdf [8] Marc Lavoie, Endogenous Money: Accomodationist https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287788671_Endogenou... [9] David Graeber, DEBT: The First 5000 Years https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5,000_Years [10] Wikipedia, Silvio Gesell https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Gesell

Apologies for the lengthy response, it's a personal pet peeve.

[bboygravity]

You addressed only 1 of my example points and your post doesn't explain how USD is not essentially "printed" (digitally) out of thin air (or I'm too dumb to read which is entirely possible).

[infecto]

You actually had examples? I read your post and saw nothing but unsubstantiated conspiracy.

[bboygravity]

Look up the meaning of "failures to deliver" in the stock market. In short: it means stocks sold by market makers and never delivered. AKA: they take your money when you buy a stock, it appears in your account, but they didn't actually deliver anything.

Then look up how many of those happen daily in any US stock.

Or read up here: Naked, Short and Greedy: Wall Street's Failure to Deliver by Susanne Trimbath

[infecto]

FTD has nothing in relationship to gold stored in the Fed’s vault. Surprised we would even jump there.

Now I ask again, do you have any proof that the Fed has taken the gold from these governments or are you simply guessing it’s possible?

[user____name]

Rip line endings :(

[breakyerself]

It's a good response. Too many people are enamored by the gold standard. They think things were better in the past when the opposite is true.

[stogot]

“Sell” it to a third country (Switzerland) who provides a certificate of deposit in a vault?

[infecto]

It’s extremely naive to think the Federal Reserve has lent out the gold and it no longer exists. It’s up there with insider job 9/11 conspiracies.

Modern banking and finance, not just in the US, relies on fractional reserves. This is not a movie.

[raymond_goo]

If 23% do not represent the German political landscape at all, I don't know what does...

[regularization]

You're correct this does not matter this year. But in the 2013 German election, AFD got no seats, and now it has the second most seats. BSW was not around in the 2021 election, they got about 5% of the vote but Die Linke managed not to lose their vote to BSW. BSW probably picked up voters who would have gone to either AFD or Die Linke (kind of like voters in the early 1930s who switched between the KPD and NSDAP).

This is the future of European, and US elections. Undermining Russia is important to the rulers of Europe and the US, but not as much to workers and voters. You can see the sea change with Trump in office and socialist candidates like Bernie, who is getting huge crowds in Idaho and Oklahoma, or AOC and Zohran in New York. Young people can't afford houses, even programmers are having trouble since the 2022 layoffs - can you imagine the Amazin RTO in Seattle mandate would be possible in 2021? Wealth inequality leads to disruption, and political parties are made to appeal to the masses - either fascist or socialist. The political tendencies arising are no anomaly.

[slightwinder]

> But in the 2013 German election, AFD got no seats

They were founded in 2013 and missed the seat by just 0.3%.

> BSW probably picked up voters who would have gone to either AFD

AFD-Voters were the lowest group they grew from[1]. They mostly harvest from the political left, but also some (probably non-extrem?) right voters.

[1] https://www.tagesschau.de/wahl/archiv/2025-02-23-BT-DE/analy...

[gruez]

> You can see the sea change with Trump in office and socialist candidates like Bernie, who is getting huge crowds in Idaho and Oklahoma, or AOC and Zohran in New York.

I can see how Trump being in office is indisputable sign that populists are getting popular, but what does "huge crowds" cash out to? "crowds" should be as little as 1000 people. Combine that with to urban-rural and education polarization, and it doesn't seem too hard to get a 1000 college educated city dwellers to show up to a rally in Idaho.

[nforgerit]

This is a very superficial perspective. Disclaimer: I disdain both BSW and Afd.

You're basically falling into "the populist trap" in which they take a fact or something true and wrap it with a lot of BS and conspiracy theories. If you disregard the true core "just because it's from the wrong party" you give them political lever. We've seen that playbook working out for 10+ years.

De Masi did a great job as a financial expert in a parliamentary group, highly regarded by people over the whole political spectrum. I don't understand why he joined BSW but that doesn't weaken his point here.

And since we're already publicly discussing Trump blackmailing us with decommissioning US IT-Services without further notice, it is exactly right to talk about assets like gold being stored on US soil.

[timcobb]

> "just because it's from the wrong party"

Extremists should never be ignored, especially in unstable times, but mentioning that these people are currently not in power and aren't even in the parliament is good context.

[FpUser]

So repatriating your own property is now pro-Russian propaganda? Unless country is defenseless what is wrong with keeping one's things at one's place

[dubbel]

We are talking about national gold reserves, not some household items.

They exist for the reason to liquidate them in case of national emergencies/severe economic crises. It's easier to liquidate these reserves when they are stored in trading hubs. That could be New York and London, or maybe even Shanghai, if China wasn't a systemic rival.

Storing all of them at "one's place" is a larger risk than splitting it up and storing them in several places, each with a different risk profile.

[FpUser]

>"It's easier to liquidate these reserves when they are stored in trading hubs"

Does that happen often (gold sale)?

[holowoodman]

every other world war or so...

[FpUser]

Well, if WWIII starts they will not be cashing in their gold no matter where it is kept and world financial capitals would be the last places to survive strikes.

[vincnetas]

Usually russian propoganda is anything that stirs internal conflict. This does not mean that any internal conflict is russia propoganda, but they are very quick to try amplify any conflicts. This is KGB strategy of active measures (subversion). Read more here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Bezmenov

[FpUser]

So the logical conclusion would be that if anyone tries to criticize their government the higher up will just declare it pro-Russian and make person shut-up? How fucking convenient. Maybe it is better to stop looking for Putin under one's bed and take responsibility for own fuckups.

[AnimalMuppet]

From World War II, the problem with keeping it at your own place was that, if someone overruns your country, your government-in-exile may be able to keep control of gold that is outside your country. Gold that is inside your country, however, is controlled by the invader. (And may be looted by them. Even if you later get your country back, the gold may be gone.)

That exposes you to the risk of the country holding it. But for much of recent history, the US was seen as a lesser risk than a Russian invasion. Whether that is still the way the risks balance... I think we each may hold our own opinion on that.

[FpUser]

>"...But for much of recent history, the US was seen as a lesser risk than a Russian invasion. Whether that is still the way the risks balance..."

Can't tell about the past where the risks of war with USSR were valid, but I think Russia invading Germany or Italy in the future is pure BS.

[AnimalMuppet]

Well, influential people (that is, people fairly close to Putin) in Russia are saying that, after Ukraine, Russia will take Poland. Yeah, that's not Germany, still less Italy. But it's much closer to Germany than I would be comfortable with if I were German...

[Edit: First example I could find: https://www.newsweek.com/putin-ally-says-poland-next-ukraine...

I believe that Medvedev also said similar things, but I can't immediately find a link.]

[abyssin]

Could you provide links for these declarations?

[FpUser]

Duma does not make any major decisions. They just rubber stamp what Putin tells them to. Medvedev is Putin's toy. Listening to them is the same as to some western lunatics who while formally being part government spit some bullshit like "the world flat."

[52-6F-62]

In this case, if you’re American. It signals a loss of trust in them which is an impossible absurdity if your a priori is that America is the eternal good and only future for us all. Can’t have that.

[hiergiltdiestfu]

After skimming through the comments derailed into AfD/BSW discussions, I'm happy to find this comment, because as a non-extremist German, this is the reason I want the German gold out of the USA. Right now, it makes as much sense as storing the gold in North Korea. It will just be held hostage or stolen by the local dictator.

[littlestymaar]

Both things can be true at once: the politicians talking can have legitimates arguments while being part of pro-Russian parties that don't have power in Germany and do not represent the German government opinion.

[FpUser]

Well then the arguments should be considered on their merits without bringing political BS.

Otherwise following the logic if Afd tells Merz not to jump from that bridge he should do the opposite.

[littlestymaar]

It's not the argument made in the top level post, they are just saying “What I'm trying to say is that these two do not represent the German political landscape at all. […] This is not a debate happening in Germany right now and no other party has expressed support of any position.”

Maybe there should be a real debate on that topic, or maybe Germany should even pursue such a repatriation of their gold reserves, but as a matter of fact there's no such debate or plan besides fringes parties, that's it.

[pydry]

In general America considers non puppets to be puppets of another country and considers only its own puppets to be truly "free".

This is as true in the middle east, europe, africa, south america or asia.

[throw0101b]

> […] * BSW (populist far-left, pro-Russia, anti-US) or AfD (populist far-right, pro-Russia).*

An example of:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

?

[mdavid626]

This is a very skewed view of the political landscape. Would be nice to forget this pro/anti Russia narrative. Please also note that AfD has become the strongest party in Germany. Sure, firewalled, but question is, for how long.

[bc569a80a344f9c]

> Please also note that AfD has become the strongest party in Germany

It has not. They got 20% in the last Bundestag election, compared to 28.4% for CDU. Unless they get significantly stronger it seems very unlikely that anyone wants to be in a coalition with them on the short or medium horizon.

[sharpshadow]

In the latest polls they surpassed the CDU. It was the moment when Merz announced 1 Trillion money rain after campaign to not make new debts.

[bc569a80a344f9c]

https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/

No, they haven't. Not a single poll has them surpassing the CDU.

I genuinely don't understand why you'd lie about something like that. It's trivial to look it up.

[sharpshadow]

There are a couple of different polls and I really don’t care about them, just remembered that there was a moment when AFD surpassed CDU[0] and if I recall correctly it was when Merz announced the big debt package.

0. https://politpro.eu/de/deutschland/wahlumfragen/63948/forsa/...

[mdavid626]

When someone has a different opinion, it doesn’t mean they are lying. Please stop this thinking. Also would make sense to read carefully. AfD has more votes in the polls than CDU (not the union CDU/CSU! - which are essentially two parties).

[fabian2k]

For this kind of comparison you have to treat CDU/CSU as a single party. They're always counted as one in national polls. It is very confusing and misleading to treat them separately in this kind of national comparison.

[eqvinox]

Polls != 'strongest' party. You need actual power for that latter label. Which is not far off for the AfD, but really not there right now.

If/when the coalition starts infighting, then…

[mdavid626]

I’m not sure what to say. We can talk about the exact meaning of the words, but it doesn’t really matter. I’m not saying AfD is good or bad, just telling you the facts. AfD surpassed CDU (not the union!) in the latest polls. In the last elections they “won” in east Germany. You can’t block a party, if half the country votes for it. Let’s see what’s coming.

[eqvinox]

I'm not even disagreeing, just right now the AfD does not have actual power yet. They cannot make federal laws or decide policy.

They probably will be able to do that either after the next election or after the government coalition collapses.

But as of now all they can do is b*tch and moan.

Btw, who says you can't block a party just because half the country voted for them? You can't wish the sentiment away, yes, but you can totally force them to rebuild the party infrastructure. Again and again, if needed, if they keep making an illegal extremist party.

[mdavid626]

CDU/CSU got 28%, CSU around 5%. The latest polls indicate AfD surpassing CDU (not the union!).

[kadrian12]

Not true. CDU/CSU was the strongest party in the last election. Stick to the facts, please.

[mdavid626]

Yes, exactly, stick to the facts! Read my comment again, I haven’t said anything about the last election. If you check the latest polls, AfD surpassed CDU (not the union CDU/CSU!).