Germany is doomed because of this grave mistake
Berlin did not just turn against Russia – it forgot what made it successful in the first place

By Nadezhda Romanenko

For decades, Germany was the envy of the world: a shining example of how a war-torn nation could rise from the ashes to become Europe’s economic powerhouse. This success was no accident. Germany’s prosperity rested on three key pillars: access to cheap Russian energy, unfettered free trade with the United States and other Western allies, and minimal military spending thanks to American security guarantees during the Cold War. These factors allowed Germany to build an unparalleled industrial economy, maintain a generous welfare state, and dominate global markets.

But Germany’s decision to sever ties with Russia following the Ukraine escalation threatens to dismantle this carefully constructed foundation. By aligning itself entirely with the US-led NATO strategy against Moscow, Germany has unwittingly sealed its economic fate. The consequences are already visible, and the worst is yet to come. Germany is doomed because of this grave mistake.

The German economy has always been a giant built on energy-intensive industries like chemicals, automobiles, and heavy manufacturing. These industries relied on one key advantage: affordable Russian natural gas. For decades, Berlin fostered a close energy relationship with Moscow, importing vast quantities of cheap gas through pipelines like Nord Stream. This mutually beneficial arrangement kept Germany’s factories humming and its export economy highly competitive.

That relationship is over. In response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Germany abandoned Russian energy almost overnight, shutting down Nord Stream and scrambling for alternatives. The result? Soaring energy prices and a manufacturing crisis that is crippling German industry. Without cheap energy, the very sectors that made Germany an industrial giant – automotive, steel, and chemicals – are no longer globally competitive.

To make matters worse, Germany’s ideological commitment to a rapid green energy transition has only exacerbated the problem. While renewable energy has its merits, it is nowhere near ready to replace the reliable baseload energy that Russian gas provided. Germany’s decision to phase out nuclear energy – a reliable and carbon-free power source – further undermines its energy security. The result is an economy that is buckling under the weight of its own short-sighted policies.

The second pillar of Germany’s success was its reliance on free trade and global markets. As a leader in exports, Germany thrived in a world of low trade barriers and open markets. Its economic model depended on selling high-quality goods – cars, machinery, and chemicals – to countries like China and the US.

But the world is changing. The rise of protectionism, US-China decoupling, and increasing trade tensions have disrupted the global order that Germany relied on. Berlin’s economic dependence on China – its largest trading partner – has also become a liability as geopolitical tensions rise between Beijing and the West. Germany now finds itself in a precarious position, caught between its trade interests and its political alliances.

Even Germany’s vaunted trade relationship with the US is under strain. American policymakers are increasingly skeptical of European freeloading, particularly Germany’s refusal to shoulder a fair share of defense costs. Germany’s export-driven economy, which has long benefitted from free access to US markets, is vulnerable to rising trade barriers and growing American resentment.

The third pillar of Germany’s post-war prosperity was its limited military spending. Protected by the American nuclear umbrella during the Cold War, Germany was free to focus its resources on economic development rather than defense. For decades, Berlin’s defense spending hovered below 2% of GDP – well below NATO’s target. This allowed Germany to invest heavily in infrastructure, social programs, and industrial innovation.

Now, Germany is being forced to change course. The Russia-Ukraine war has exposed Europe’s reliance on American military power, and Germany is under intense pressure to increase its defense budget. While this may please NATO allies, it will strain Germany’s already stretched finances. Berlin’s promise of a €100 billion defense fund is a stark departure from its post-war strategy of economic prioritization. The opportunity cost of this shift will be enormous, as funds that could have gone to rebuilding German industry or modernizing infrastructure are diverted to the military.

Germany’s decision to make Russia an enemy has turned one of its greatest assets – cheap energy – into a glaring weakness. Its over-reliance on global free trade is proving unsustainable in a more protectionist and fragmented world. And its newfound focus on military spending threatens to undermine the very social and economic stability that made it a model for others.

What’s worse, Germany’s leadership seems blind to the scale of the crisis. Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s government is doubling down on policies that will only accelerate the country’s decline: an overzealous green agenda, strained relations with China, and an uncritical alignment with US geopolitical goals. These decisions may earn Germany praise in Washington and Brussels, but they are condemning its people to a future of economic stagnation and declining living standards.

Germany’s mistake was not just turning against Russia – it was forgetting what made it successful in the first place. The road ahead will be long and painful, and unless Berlin rethinks its approach, the German economic miracle will become a cautionary tale of hubris and strategic folly.

https://www.rt.com/news/609998-germany-mistake-russia-doom/

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

HYPOCRISY ISN’T ONE OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS SINS.

HENCE ITS POPULARITY IN THE WEST…

The opinion editor at Germany’s leading newspaper Die Welt has resigned over the decision to publish an op-ed by Elon Musk, in which he defended the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.

“I have always enjoyed running the opinion pages of Welt and Welt am Sonntag. Today, an article written by Elon Musk appeared in Welt am Sonntag. I handed in my resignation yesterday, after it went to print,” Eva Marie Kogel wrote on X.

The billionaire owner of SpeceX, Tesla and X (formerly Twitter) wrote the article after praising AfD on social media. In his op-ed, the major ally of US President-elect Donald Trump hailed AfD as “the last spark of hope” for Germany. The billionaire insisted that its “pragmatic” approach will usher in a revival of the country, while arguing that other parties are out of touch with regular people. 

“The traditional parties have failed Germany. Their policies have led to economic stagnation, social unrest and an erosion of national identity,” Musk wrote. “Despite being far-right, AfD represents political realism that resonates with many Germans who feel that their concerns are being ignored by the establishment.” 

Musk further defended the AfD, stating that “their portrayal as far-right is clearly false.” 

According to German media, the publication of the op-ed sparked intense debates among the staff at Die Welt, with some viewing it as meddling in the snap parliamentary election, which is scheduled for February 2025. 

Jan Philipp Burgard, Die Welt’s senior reporter, penned a rebuttal to Musk, calling his praise of AfD “fatally flawed”and arguing that it was “a big mistake” not to label the party as far-right. 

Another Die Welt journalist, Franziska Zimmerer, insisted in her own op-ed that the text written by Musk “should not have appeared” in the paper. “Election appeals, no matter the party, have no place in independent media,” she wrote.

Founded in 2013, AfD has been pushing for the tightening of asylum laws and fighting organized crime and Islamic extremism. The party has become more popular in recent years, winning its first regional election in Thuringia in September. 

The 2025 election was called after the ruling three-party coalition collapsed due to the conflict over budget. 

https://www.rt.com/news/610147-musk-op-ed-sparks-controversy/

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

HYPOCRISY ISN’T ONE OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS SINS.

HENCE ITS POPULARITY IN THE ABRAHAMIC TRADITIONS…

PLEASE DO NOT BLAME RUSSIA IF WW3 STARTS. BLAME YOURSELF.

28 December 2024, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)

Germany was a great manufacturing nation, and Russia is the world’s giant in natural resources; so, the result of these two marrying would be enormous benefit to both. However, America’s billionaires — who control the U.S. empire (of which Germany is a colony) — benefit hugely from preventing that alliance, and so the U.S. Government (which U.S. billionaires control) blew up the Nord Stream pipelines and imposed sanctions punishing any nation that trades with Russia, via not only these anti-Russia sanctions etc., but via these individuals’ control over the U.S. Government and media (to fool voters not only in the U.S. but in its colonies, so that Germans and the subjects in America’s other colonies would view Russia, instead of  view America’s billionaires, as being their enemies); so, there hasn’t been any such marriage between Germany and Russia; and, ever since 2022, there has instead been a U.S.-forced divorce (by sanctions etc.) termination of the economic ties that did exist between Germany and Russia.

Here are excerpts from a comprehensive (though, as is obvious, biased against Russia) article documenting Germany’s, and the EU’s, high dependency upon Russia for its fuel-needs prior to the post-24-February-2022 U.S.-and-colonial sanctions to replace these inexpensive Russian supplies to Europpe, by far costlier supplies mainly from the U.S.:

https://thelondonfinancial.com/economics/emea/gazprom-and-europe-attached-at-the-hip

“Gazprom and Europe: Attached At The Hip?”

28 June 2022, By Advait Lath, Contributor to The London Financial

… [Though] it may be a futile exercise to be able to pinpoint the origins of an impending global crisis, chances are, a clandestine Russian gas behemoth, Gazprom, may have something to do with it.

Russia’s Leviathan Role in the Energy Economy

Russia is the leader in global fossil fuel extraction, refining and production. The vast transcontinental landmass that makes up the country is endowed with surfeit natural resources. It is no surprise that it is one of the world’s top three crude producers, along with Saudi Arabia and the USA. According to the IEA, 45% of Russian federal revenues were based on oil and gas in 2021. While supplying 14% of global oil output (11.3 million BPD as of January 2022), Russia heavily exports a large proportion of its total oil produce (7.8 Million BPD) predominantly to China (20%) and Europe (60%). In comparison, US’ total oil production was 17.6 Million BPD and Saudi Arabia’s 12 Million BPD. Through its extensive crude pipeline capacity, exemplified by the protracted, 5,500 Kilometre long Druzhba pipeline network, Russia transports 0.75 Million BPD of crude to Eastern and Central European refineries. Following an Asia-centric energy policy pivot, Russia launched a 4,740 Kilometres, 1.6 Million BPD pipeline to China and Japan in 2012, as a measure to reduce dependency on European exports.

Behind only the US in terms of natural gas production, Russia is home to the world’s largest gas reserves and is the largest exporter of natural gas in the world (See Fig. 2). In 2021 the country produced 762 bcm of natural gas and exported approximately 210 bcm via pipeline. Around 67% (140 bcm) of that gas was imported by the EU in 2021, with an additional 15 bcm of LNG being imported by the EU from Russia. The aforementioned gas imports from Russia represented 45% of the EU’s gas imports. According to the EU’s energy market report (Q4 2020), Russian pipeline supplies covered 49% of extra-EU net gas imports – nearly double the Norwegian pipeline gas, which was the second most prominent source at 22%. Given the European dependency on Russian gas exports, war in Ukraine has complicated matters on the diplomatic and economic fronts. 

Sanctions on Russian gas and crude exports will lead to a systemic and skewed shock on the EU. Bruegel, a European think tank, estimates that a phased embargo on Russian crude oil and oil imports will quantify into a sanction of 30% of EU crude oil imports and 15% on oil product imports. This is neither desirable nor optimal. Russia is the EU’s fifth-largest trading partner for exports and third-largest for imports. Any unilateral move for sanctions on imports could mean a retaliation. Recent complete shut-offs for Poland, Finland and Bulgaria illustrate the need for a well-thought-out plan. The REPowerEU aims to make the EU independent of Russian fossil fuels “well before” 2030. The plan includes a diversification from Russian gas imports, tackling rising energy prices and focusing on enhancing EU gas storage in the near term. This also includes a plan to cut dependency on Russian gas imports by two-thirds by the end of the year, which may be costly for Europe given the heavy and rigid pipeline infrastructure already set up with Russia in mind. …

Even before the 2022 imposition of the ‘anti-Russia’ sanctions, economic analyses of what the impact upon Europe — and particularly upon Germany — would be if Russia were cut off as being a fuel-supplier, all showed that this would approximately double those European fuel-costs. The main reason for this is that pipelined oil and (especially) gas is far cheaper than trucked or shipped (or especially than LNG compressed, canned, and shipped, gas). Germany’s manufacturers have especially been relying upon Russia’s pipelined gas, and so their fuel-costs, now using LNG (mostly from America), are in some cases as much as four times higher than before the anti-Russia sanctions were imposed.

Prior to Obama’s slapping sanctions against Russia starting in 2012 (the Magnitsky Act sanctions based upon lies) and then the many subsequent rounds of anti-Russia sanctions (all based on lies), Germany had cooperated with Russia by co-ownership of the Nord Stream natural gas pipelines, and by Russia’s being Germany’s by-far-lowest-cost energy source for its factories and consumers, so as to keep German manufactured goods cost-competitive with other nations, and keeping down German inflation. But all of that disappeared in 2022, and Germany’s economic plunge since then started and has continued ever since, largely as a consequence of the U.S.-and-allied anti-Russia sanctions, which ended up hurting European economies — especially Germany’s — far more than hurting Russia’s. Ever since 2022, there has been a rush of German and other manufacturing jobs into the U.S., which — like Russia — has low-cost gas and oil, and which, in addition, has far lower taxes on corporate owners than Europe does, and which, furthermore, has far less regulation of corporations, and lower standards, than Europe does. Though Europe’s living standards are higher than in America, America is better for billionaires than Europe is; and, now, with America siphoning off so much of what’s good for the European public, Europe’s living standards are declining too, and will long continue to decline, especially because desperate European countries are needing to sign long-term contracts with American producers of condensed canned cross-Atlantic-shipped gas that is over three times the price that formerly was supplied to Europe by Russia’s natural gas (and oil) pipelines. In order to stay in the U.S. Empire, European countries must comply with America’s sanctions against Russia — sanctions which are strangling European economies and forcing up the cost of living, while driving down Europe’s living-standards.

An article was posted on 28 December 2024 titled “Freedom Declaration Of The Sovereign And Oppressed Nations Across The World” but (as-of this writing) provides no means by which readers may sign it. Not only should people in the countries that the U.S. Government imposes sanctions against (such as Russia, China, Venezuela, Iran, etc. — the targets of America’s regime-change campaigns) be signing it, but ALSO Europeans, Japanese, and other U.S. colonials should sign it, because the U.S. regime is YOUR enemy too. But the document provides no opportunity to sign it. That is obviously an amateurish effort, and much better than that will be needed, and it must include public campaigns against NATO, as being what it is and always has been: the U.S. Government’s imperial military organization to conquer ultimately Russia and any nation that isn’t hostile toward Russia. The U.S. Government is not only behind the current genocide against the Gazans but also against peoples everywhere who resist joining the U.S. empire; and, as such, NATO must be stopped, because the U.S. regime endangers the entire world. It must be promptly ended. All of America’s ‘allies’ (colonies) must abandon it, because they abandoned their own people by continuing to participate in it after 1991. Do you know that 65% of the entire world’s miilitary spending is being done by the U.S. Government alone? Only 35% of it comes from the world’s other 200 countries — and the U.S. Government wants the non-U.S. NATO member-nations to increase THEIR military spending. Guess whose pockets the profits from those increased military sales would be going into. It would be mainly the billionaires who control corporations such as Lockheed Martin.

The reality is more gruesome than anyone talks about. Maybe that’s because the media are likewise controlled by the biggest beneficiaries of the existing situation. So, I encourage you to click onto any linked term or phrase here, if you want to see what my ultimates sources are, regarding any assertion here.

PS: If you like this article, please email it to all your friends or otherwise let others know about it. None of the U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media will likely publish it (nor link to it, since doing that might also hurt them with Google or etc.). I am not asking for money, but I am asking my readers to spread my articles far and wide, because I specialize in documenting what the Deep State is constantly hiding — what the ‘news’-media ignore if they can, and deny if they must. This is, in fact, today’s samizdat.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

https://theduran.com/germany-either-will-further-decline-or-else-will-ally-with-russia/

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

HYPOCRISY ISN’T ONE OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS SINS.

HENCE ITS POPULARITY IN THE ABRAHAMIC TRADITIONS…

PLEASE DO NOT BLAME RUSSIA IF WW3 STARTS. BLAME YOURSELF.

The joint election manifesto for the Christian Democrats (CDU) and their Bavarian allies, the Christian Social Union (CSU) includes security guarantees for Ukraine that Germany could make good on along with the US and its European partners in NATO.

"Ukraine also defends us," the manifesto reads. "If Ukraine falls, there is the threat of an attack on another EU country."

The CDU and CSU consider it possible that Germany would participate in negotiations toward a ceasefire in Ukraine, even if that were to mean the deployment of Bundeswehr soldiers to keep the peace. Politicians for the parties are reluctant to talk about that part, as security is not a high priority for voters in February's election.

The greatest skepticism about further arms deliveries to Ukraine comes from eastern Germany and the wealthy southern state of Bavaria.

So far, the government, led by Chancellor Olaf Scholz, of the center-left Social Democrats (SPD), has refused to supply Taurus cruise missiles on the grounds that Ukraine could use them to hit targets within Russia, which would make Germany a party to the war.

The US, the UK and France have already supplied similar longer-range weapons that allow Ukraine to strike targets across the border.

The argument that Germany should not allow itself to be drawn into the war was also used by Bavarian State Premiere Markus Söder, of the CSU, at his election campaign launch in Seeon.

But Söder did not respond to a question from DW about Taurus missiles, saying the decision would be up to the next chancellor. 

Thomas Erndl, a CSU deputy who sits on the Bundestag's foreign affairs committee, told DW that "the opinion has become entrenched among the population that arms deliveries fuel war, while stopping deliveries slows it down."

"We have to contend with this mood," Erndl said.

The CDU's candidate for chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has publicly declared his willingness to supply Taurus missiles, but only in consultation with European NATO partners. However, the CDU/CSU election manifesto stakes out no clear position on the issue.

In contrast, the neoliberal Free Democrats (FDP) are  in favor of "the immediate delivery of Taurus cruise missiles," while the SPD is clearly against it.

How decisively Germany's next government will ultimately act largely depends on two factors.

The first has to do with the geopolitical dynamics after January 20, when Donald Trump will be sworn in as US president for the second time. Trump is likely to put considerable pressure on Germany, both economically and in terms of security policy. 

Decisions would have to be made more quickly, and more money would be needed, a high-ranking CDU politician from eastern Germany told DW. "When the ceasefire in Ukraine comes," the politician said, "we will have to pay for it."

The populist-presenting parties, the far-right Alternative for Germany and the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance, have been particularly successful with their pro-Russia stance in eastern Germany.

The CDU and CSU have stated that they will not cave to Trump's demands that Germany spend 5% of GDP on defense, noting that the United States does not spend that much either.

The policy platform states that Germany would spend 2% of GDP on defense. The parties even advocate a target of 3% in a country where the arms industry holds considerable political sway.

The second factor on which Germany's security policy depends is the question of the makeup of any future coalition government.

"If the CDU/CSU were to govern with the SPD, security policy would proceed with the handbrake on," Gustav Gressel, a former senior research fellow with the European Council of Foreign Relations whose areas of expertise include Russia and defense policy, told DW.

Gressel said he expected members of the SPD who "continue the 'peace policy,' which is actually 'peace populism,'" to join such a government.

"The SPD would then fall back into its old position and use the fear strategy to distance itself from its larger coalition partner," Gressel said.

Merz would likely face critics on foreign and security policy issues both from within the coalition through the SPD and within the CDU and CSU, he said.

A coalition between the CDU/CSU and the Greens, the junior partners in the current government, could put Germany in a leading position in terms of security policy more quickly.

The Greens have done a complete U-turn on security policy since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The party, which has many pacifists among its ranks, used to categorically reject arms deliveries to crisis regions.

Now, the Greens are among the biggest supporters of military aid for Ukraine — including the delivery of weapons systems.

Though Taurus cruise missiles would not be a "game changer" in the war, Gressel said, they have become a powerful symbol of German angst.

Chancellor Scholz has "deliberately stirred up fear among the population with made-up arguments," Gressel said.

There is little doubt among experts and within the CDU/CSU that Germany would supply the Taurus missiles to Ukraine with Merz as chancellor as part of an overall effort to appear more robust on foreign policy than his predecessor.

This article was originally written in German.

While you're here: Every Tuesday, DW editors round up what is happening in German politics and society. You can sign up here for the weekly email newsletter Berlin Briefing.

https://www.dw.com/en/german-election-2025-ukraine-defense-spending-nato-cdu-csu-v2/a-71277591

READ FROM TOP.

SEE ALSO: 

the YD continuum since 2005....

PLEASE DO NOT BLAME RUSSIA IF WW3 STARTS. BLAME AMERICA.