Thomas, I mostly like your writing and analyses a lot, although I disagree with some of your foundational political views, but read you anyway to broaden my horizon. So first - thanks a lot for your work.
With this piece though, there are so many inaccuracies - I will need to take more time tomorrow to point some of them out. I admit I might be biased (as a left/green voter in Germany), but I will try to dive into the specific points deep enough to see where I am biased and where it might be you.
But for now: The CDU always made a coalition with the CSU (as the "Union"), as this is the general agreement of both parties. The Union was in power for over 16 years before the last three years of "Traffic Light Coalition" and, although providing some sort of stability, that came with a huge cost to innovation, making Germany completely dependent on Russian oil and gas, which led to the surge in energy prices after the invasion of Russia in Ukraine. The last three years have been a major overhaul of many parts of society and economy, and I agree that many of these policies have not been going as smoothly as many would have wished. However, the responsibility for the recent recession lies at least by a large part on the former Union-led governments.
Also, all energy providers say it would not be feasible nor economical to restart nuclear power plants or return to nuclear power - that train has long left the station. It might have been possible 3 years ago - I will dig into that. Union and FDP know that its not by now and are still claiming it is, but that is populistic.
As for freedom speech - I am curious for your article on that, as I find the recent outrage from the US very amusing. I feel free af to use my right to speak up in Germany, we have more freedom of the press than the US according to the WPFI, the only things you are not allowed to publicly express are personal insults and hate speech - which I agree with. I guess that is just a cultural difference between the US and Germany (and some other parts of Europe), but we value for many to feel safe expressing their opinion more than for few to express every crazy hateful thought they want to. What might be a problem is that the norms of what you can say or think might be shifting - with identity politicians and activists inciting rage over unpopular views (this is coming from all political extremes). I will read your next article with great interest.
I don't disagree with most of what you say, and I don't think the article does either. The bad position in which Germany finds itself with regards to energy and Russia is a direct cause of what the CDU did under Merkel. The full open doors policy for immigration is its fault too. I didn't mean to convey anything else. The SPD and its allies have worked to untangle themselves from Russia, and that was really good. It largely succeeded from an energy standpoint, and reached the 2% military threshold. All of this is indeed quite good, and the reason why I don't directly criticize the SPD or the FDP, but rather the Greens, who led the most toxic initiative.
I don't know if the most recent economic downturn can be attributed to Union. The traffic lights coalition has been in power for 4 years and has presided over the biggest event that Germany had in control, which is the nuclear closures. It could also have reversed anything that it didn't agree about CDU mgmt. I would be interested in a case that can fully blame the CDU, but for now my prior is that the traffic lights coalition has a good share of blame.
Of all the topics I touch in this article, the one I know the best is the nuclear issue. This was my deep dive on it:
I've tracked this since then, and I believe my original assessment is accurate. I have confirmed since that several plants could be reopened, and the only reason why operators have said it's not worthwhile is because they would need to approve the nuclear power plants operating for over a decade to make it profitable (all the refurbishments plus retraining and stuff are expensive). The Greens didn't want to extend nuclear for so long, so they said no to this condition, and what people saw on TV is the reaction from the energy bosses who said no to the costly ask of extending the reactors' lives by just a few years.
Looking forward to your thoughts on the freedom of speech article!
The upshot: CSU was integral to all 3 Merkel coalition governments, not just 1.
I suggest this rewrite:
"The CDU and her Bavarian sister party CSU which form a permanent joint caucus in the federal parliament had three coalitions, two with the center-left SPD (Social Democratic Party) and one with the liberal FDP (Free Democratic Party)"
2. Nuclear power
You misrepresent the decision makers: In short: Nuclear power was phased out by the Merkel/CDU-led government in 2011, not by Red-Green.
The details below show: Red-green had decided a first phase-out in 2000, but was reversed by Merkel in 2010.
Then Merkel re-reversed her government due to the Fukushima accident.
As a physics Ph.D., she had understood that the remaining risk of accidents after all safety measures was not zero.
A second reversal and reopening of the last 3 nuclear plants in the future isn't considered feasible even by industry leaders. Related CDU election promises are thus an empty diversion.
Replied to the nuclear thing in another comment in this same thread. I stand by my assessment. The key is that the industry would want to reopen the reactors if they get enough time (like 10+ years) but the greens didn't want to do that.
My compatriots are correct in pointing out the "coalition with the CSU"-mistake. As a voter of the FDP, naturally, I disagree with some of their other takes and would like to add other details:
1. The SPD and its stance against Putin - is sadly ambivalent. Many high ranking SPD-politicians are "FROGS" - FRiends Of Gerhard Schröder - the former head of German government 1998-2005 who was hired by Putin just weeks after Schröder had lost an election. Since then, he makes 5 times his old salary. And never fails to defend Putin. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/world/europe/schroder-germany-russia-gas-ukraine-war-energy.html He is not the only one.
When Scholz refuses to give efficient arms to Ukraine (TAURUS, before Leo II and most everything except steel-helmets), this MAY be less about "Besonnenheit" (Sophrosyne?) and more about malalignments of the party-leaders. Our president - Schröder`s pal Steinmeier is even worse. In the now-ended coalition, the Greens and the FDP were strongly advocating for better armaments of Ukraine. (And as I worked and lived several years in Russia and Ukraine, I feel very strongly about this issue.) While the SPD is ambivalent, the AfD, the BSW and LINKE are openly in "Team Putin". It sure pays well.
2. Nuclear: the Greens were founded as an anti-nuclear-power-party. As you well know. The CEOs of the big energy-companies know better than to provoke the ruling government. They got compensated well for exiting nuclear. I expect new statements from them after tomorrow`s election. But sure, they need long term commitment - and they may not trust Merz to provide it. I doubt I will see new nuclear power stations in Germany in my lifetime (me boomer). But we could buy from the French.
3. Solar: We need most energy in winter, when their is least sun. And with more e-mobility and heat-pumps this will only get worse. Last Dezember there was a "Dunkelflaute" (dark+no wind) that pushed the spot-price of one MWh from 2.30€ to 932 € - and the monthly average to 145. Several industrial companies halted production.
4. Free speech in Germany: Germans who do not vote AfD do not see censorship. Sincerely. The other 20% do. I could list dozens of rules that hinder a nazi in Germany to proclaim he is a nazi (If one lives in Itzehoe, no way to get a car plate: IZ-AN for example. I do know the owner of "HF-AH 1939" though.) Insulting a German politician is: against the law. Applies to tweets, too. Shouting "From the River to Sea – Palestine will be free“ can be a hate-crime too. Denial of the holocaust always is. And if the offender is a 80+ old granny, to prison she goes. And yes, most of us agree. Even me. Somewhat. If you like, I am happy to provide the links.
I fully agree with your take: this post was so choke-full of oversimplifications, cherry-picked examples, and misrepresentations it was a painful read. Sentences like: "free speech is being more and more supressed every day" are so grotesquely wrong and JD Vanc-y. In Germany, during the height of the corona crisis, critics could literally walk up to Merkel during town hall meetings and tell Merkel to her face how much you hated her and her policies.
I find it bemusing with what non-chalance anglosaxon pundits often make the most sweeping of statements about German politics, based on knowing about 10 politicians and none the domestic politics dynamics
I think Americans have 'norms' against 'insults' and 'hate'. Most people don't live on twitter and discussions usually follow these norms. But most of us also realize that giving the government the power to decide what is 'insulting' and 'hateful', and to enforce that via fines or prison - well, that's just a very bizarre definition of 'freedom.' Same goes for 'banning' political parties. This infrastructure you are building for monitoring and controlling speech and banning political parties will not always be in the hands of people you agree with.
It is not the government which decides what counts as insulting and hateful, but independent courts (actually more independent than US courts, because usually the government doesn't decide on judges with party alignment), in combination with the legislation, which is elected parliaments (which in turn elect the government).
As for the infrastructure - there is little surveillance in all this process, but people being insulted or observe an insult suing those who insult or incite hate crime. Somewhat like when you would observe a robbery and call police. Prison sentences are very very rarely given, it's usually a fine and thats it.
And for context: Please search for some examples of "free speech" that was sentenced in Germany - they are disgusting. Surprise: Not all Nazis suddenly disappeared from Germany after WW2... They just adapted to current circumstances and their (ideological and actual) heirs now feel confident enough to reappear in public discourse because of a worldwide shift in opinion to the right and "anonymous" platforms.
As for the banning of political parties: This is the ulima ratio of our constitution (we call it "wehrhafte Demokratie", which means somewhat like defensive democracy) to protect the "free democratic constitutional structure", which consists of basic human dignity, democracy and rule of law. Parties which try to overthrow these three principles can indeed be banned, but even then only when there is sufficient evidence that they indeed try to overthrow these AND are large enough that there is a sufficient change that they might succeed. So it has only happened twice, in 1952 and 1956. Even now, as the AfD seems to qualify for all these criteria, those with the constitutional power to start such an attempt of a ban are very hesitant and still prefer to win that battle politically.
So the US has basically a two party system, so the banning of a party might seem like a crazy thing to do, except Germany has a proportional voting system and as such many political parties, so banning one does not mean banning all possibilities to express divergent opinions. And think about why we have these mechanisms... Maybe they don't seem as crazy when you think about 1933ff.
And by the way - arguably your two party system without mechanisms to ban certain political ideologies has led to the US currently being at risk of losing even those principles of rule of law, democracy and basic human dignity (possibly in that order)...
People seem to have forgotten or don't seem to understand that democracy is not a natural state of affairs in human societies. To maintain it requires continuing, conscious effort and part of that effort must be educational
Some agreement: I fully understand that it made sense for Germany to ban certain political parties and certain speech in the aftermath of ww2.
But I think it is dangerous to allow that to continue indefinitely. Many of us view free speech itself (legally and culturally)as a key component to a viable long term democracy. In part that is because nothing draws attention to dangerous extremism more than suppressing it by force.
In recent years in the US we flirted a lot with (mostly cultural) banning of words and opinions. I feel like we became lazy- in the sense that it became easier to lean on that instead of actually discussing issues. Now we are living with the reaction to those mistakes.
This reminded me of the paradox or tolerance, as formulated by Karl Popper: A tolerant society must tolerate all viewpoints and behaviors to remain truly tolerant. The problem is, if a society tolerates intolerant groups or ideologies (e.g., those that oppose liberty, democracy, or equality), those groups may eventually destroy the very tolerance that allowed them to thrive. Hence, to preserve liberty, you have to be intolerant to a certain extent (there is the paradox). In other words, a society must sometimes limit the freedoms of those who use those freedoms to destroy liberty itself.
This is accurate, I think. Ultimately the disagreements in this discussion probably come down to degrees. For example, I am defending free speech but I do believe in laws about fraud (words are involved), and even genuine cases of slander or libel. Also you could put copyright infringement in this category. Where it gets a little tougher is 'inciting violence.' Advocating 'violent overthrow of the government'. We should be intolerant of these too, but the definitions are tough. My sense is that many people / countries have moved very far on this spectrum such that impolite speech suddenly becomes 'inciting violence' because someone somewhere will see the insult and become violent. The laws against violence, or clearly conspiring to engage in violence, should do all the work here -- not speech/thought control.
I agree it is tough and I believe there is no "mechanical" solution to it. Its a walk on the tightrope and the dangers lie on both sides of the spectrum. No law can ever provide a clear-cut, black-and-white judgment. As the German constitutionalist Böckenförde once put it: The liberal state depends on conditions it cannot itself guarantee. This is the great risk it has taken for the sake of freedom. As a liberal state, it can only endure if the freedom it grants to its citizens derives from the inner moral discipline and self-restraint of those citizens and is exercised by them with a sense of responsibility toward the common good and the whole. In the long run, the state cannot enforce this level of inner moral discipline and community-oriented responsibility; it must presuppose them and can only encourage them, but it cannot guarantee them. In that sense, it seems, we depend on the evolution of our own culture. As history shows, there are ups and downs and political systems can change, not always to the better. Rome shifted from republic to empire repeatedly and the German example is not far away.
Well, as an accomplished astronaut, do you think someone with 200 million social media followers should be allowed to call you an "idiot" and "retard" just because you pointed out a false statement he made?
Do you think that's fair and both sides are on a level playing field?
Because some of his followers then become more aggressive, first online and then, possibly, in real life.
Or do you think, the platform should be forced to remove such unfounded insults?
In short: Should freedom of speech be limited if it infringes on someone else's freedom?
"In short: Should freedom of speech be limited if it infringes on someone else's freedom?" Thank you for pointing out the most basic question of free speech. It constantly amazes me that people who appear to consider themselves intelligent and fair-minded don't understand what you have just said.
My freedom to speak is no guarantee that I will be believed, supported, or befriended. Nor should I expect that guarantee.
Many people are more influential than I am, but I am used to that. No crime there.
If a super famous person insults me, that would be very weird and most people would probably see him for the idiot he is - although that might depend on why he insulted me. Some platforms might just let that go, others may not allow it.
But look, I just don't see the need for the government (courts, police, whatever) to have a role.
I'm glad to hear that (the second bit, not the feeling insulted bit! 🤣). But what about people who are NOT interested in honest discussion and engaging with different viewpoints? Some of those people use speech to seek power over others and to impose what they think is "right" on them against their will. How should we deal with that issue?
A good question. And tough to answer. But I have thoughts! I don't always know when people are being 'honest ' in their words - what I mean is everyone always speaks from at least some point of self-interest. Even me! The important thing is the marketplace of ideas. An active community of people (yes that might include bad actors!) freely discussing issues is a better way to sort through ideas than figuring out how to censor. And, I insist, far safer in the long term.
What about giving non-government organisations the power to decide what is "insulting" and "hateful"? Do you think that is a good idea? Most enforcement in a society does not happen via fines or prison.
What if the infrastructure for monitoring and controlling speech is already in the hands of people I don't agree with?
Your last question is a good one - i think the implication being that there is some sort of monopoly in charge of the flow of information and opinion. That is theoretically possible. But what is that monopoly? It used to be (for us) the NYTimes/mainstream media. But then it was facebook. And then twitter. And then tik tok. and soon maybe AI systems. I dont like all these things, and they all vary in 'power'. And that power rapidly rises and falls. But I see a pretty wide range of opinions and information. And I certainly don't see how anointing one institution to police them all would improve things (indeed I would view that as highly dangerous).
Tomas, can you please slow down that map of Germany so that I can actually look at what is going on? It refreshes every second and I can’t see what it’s actually showing me.
I do like the multiple thinks in a single image maps for a summary as they do show a corollary, but I too want to drill down and see the details (at least on some of them). In this case the image flipped by so fast that I missed several layers entirely. Downloading the image and looking at each layer got what I wanted but means I have to read your pieces on a computer where I have GIMP handy instead of on my phone when I am cooling my heels.
I'm not sure if it is worth the effort, but you could leave the multi-layer GIFs in place and provide links to the individual frames in the footnotes or the like (not a substack author, so I don't know how to provide both versions in a time efficient to compose manner).
Thomas, you packed a lot of meat into this one post. I think you get the Russian threat directionally right. There might be nuances, but it is very clear to any rational observer, that Putin claims his zone of influence - Polish, Ukranian of EU sovereignty be damned. Not seeing what Russia is doing is tantamount to putting one's head in the sand. Putin told all of us in 2007 at the Munich Security Conference what he was going to do. He has been true to his word. Europe and the US were in denial for a long time.
I am keen on hearing your thoughts to this - in my view - completely misguided attack as Germany not allowing free speech. A couple of comments from somebody who has European and US passports and lives since 30 years on both sides of the Atlantic.
Germany has laws against hate speech and holocaust denying. Germany also has mechanisms put in place after the Nazi experience to prevent Nazi resurgence. Arguably Germany has dealt with its Nazi past better than any other country in Europe - Austria has never faced its Nazi past and you can see the results, nor has Italy its fascism - conveniently hiding behind the Nazi atrocities. France is still dealing with the aftermaths of Vichy and collaboration. All of this to say that when Germany puts an entity (AFD party Youth, or AFD itself in different degrees) 'under observation' this is not some obscure secret service activity, not some politburo driven action, but action that is driven by courts transparently, that can be appealed and litigated. It is out in the daylight. Fact is the AFD is allowed to run in elections, to campaign and to get funds.
Showing up in Munich, as JD Vance did, and blasting Europe for anti-democratic tendencies is misinformed at the very least, most probably disingenuous and for sure arrogant - coming as it does from a GOP that still denies the election loss of 2020, guts the judiciary, guts army and government and is offering Ukraine - and with it Europe - up on a sliver plate to Putin.
It comes straight out of the autocratic playbook to accuse the others of exactly what oneself is doing - Orban docet, Trump's coterie is following the same play.
What you might want to consider as you form your views on 'free speech' are different historical approaches to tolerance and speech. Here are my views on this topic.
1. The US concept of free speech is extreme. Libel is practically unenforceable, hate speech is nearly impossible to react to. All of it coming from the history of 13 rebel states fighting an overwhelming empire. This goes so far that all the safeguards that were built into law over time are being dismantled - just consider that up to nineties US broadcasting was monitored for 'balance'. Then this fell away and we got FOX. Then came the internet and the platforms were allowed not to bear any responsibility for the content they present and - worse - the amplify with their algorithms. What we got is a cesspool of conspiracy theories, radicalization, Christian nationalism, Neo-Nazis and Antifa. Social media are weapons of mass destruction given to lunatics. But - free speech - is sacrosanct - damn the consequences, storm the capitol, create alternate realities with Anti-Vaxx, holocaust denial etc.
2. The French have their "laicite' " - a concept coming from their history as a formerly catholic dominated Monarchy which was overturned in the revolution. By forcing a strict separation of religious practice and politics it creates the free space for every religion to thrive. US christians would probably see this as discriminating against Christians. I actually think there is a lot of value in this concept.
3. Germany's history wisely gave birth to the way they handle freedom of speech and hate speech - beware of the Nazi resurgence seems prudent to me after all that happened.
4. The EU has blended all its historical experiences into its legislation on free speech and regulations. When the EU Digital Services Act and other regulation in the platform space is criticized, take into account economic motives. All the EU says is that what applies to printed media should apply to digital media too - in terms of speech, liability and facts.
When facebook, Google, Twitter - to name a few of the dominant ones complain about it, it is because it causes costs for their predatory business model. Remember - all their services are for free and monetization is through advertising. They hate additional cost.
5. You might also want to look at how Singapore handles free speech - ' free to speak, but not to offend' - maybe a wise view in a country that has to manage ethnic diversity on a very tight space - but surely more restrictive than US or EU.
Keen to hear where you land in your view on free speech indeed.
Thank you for your thoughtful and balanced comment.
"is misinformed at the very least, most probably disingenuous and for sure arrogant".
I can't say I know JD Vance very well, but judging from what is publicly available about him it would seem unlikely that he is misinformed, but highly likely that he is disingenuous and arrogant
A very thought and discussion provoking article. Your lens is mostly clear as well as cloudy in some area, and you have recognized some of these areas. The world public needs more of this type of research and discussion to understand the areas our respective leaders should focus on to sustain a successful and sustainable world economy and peace. Thank you for sharing your insights.
Tomas, I typically very much like you pieces. This one contains many inaccuracies and mistakes. Does this mean the other ones about topics that I don't know so much about do, too?
The worst: Taking JD Vances POV on "freedom of speech" is very problematic from my point of view and IMHO just wrong and dangerous - just look at Elon Musk. Just because of that paragraph, I am very close to removing myself from your mailing liste but as you promised to elaborate on the matter, I will read your next piece on freedom of speech. BTW, in Germany, it is call freedom of opinion, which is something different.
Freedom of speech ends when it becomes a crime.
Freedom of opinion ends when wrong information and false "facts" are classed as opinions.
You write that you have no real clue about German politics and their parties. So, why do you write this piece and mention false and unproven messages like freedom of speech is aggressively under attack every day more and more. What a stupid stuff. As a German living in Germany I can only say, let’s come here before you publicly announce nonsense. Until of today I thought most the time that your articles are very thoughtful, but this one about Germany is definitely the opposite. Not to know how a partially fascist party like AfD thinks about free speech or immigration is so poor and a total lack of knowledge. Maybe you should speak to people with knowledge about the topics before you spread false information to your subscribers.
I enjoy reading your articles a lot. This time - being German and therefore naturally an expert on Germany - I found a number of mistakes. Some are just less significant details - e.g. talk of a coalition between CDU and CSU. There is no such coalition as they form one group in parliament. They don’t compete with each other as one is confined to Bavaria and the other is running in the rest of Germany. More significantly you put the blame on the decision to stop nuclear energy on the wrong parties. It was actually a coalition of CDU/CSU and FDP (your dream coalition!) that made this decision in June 2011 (right after the Fukushima accident). Also a lot of the migration and economical decisions you blame the SPD for were made in coalition governments led by CDU/CSU. So things are bit more complicated and nuanced as portrayed in your article.
Surprised at the strength of your first section "The Russian Threat" which doesn't acknowledge alternative perspectives which better reflect reality in my view. John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs are excellent on this topic. Putin does not want to recreate the Soviet Union and doesn't have the capability even if he wanted to.
The claim that Putin wants to recreate the Soviet Union is extraordinary and we all know extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Genuinely look forward to your post on this.
Incidentally, I disagree with Sachs particularly on China but 'clueless' is no way to describe him.
I suppose this counts for some evidence: during the whole period of post-Soviet Russia, now and then some of their politicians mention that of course one day we must claim back the Baltics or some other area, and this doesn't cause any domestic pushback at all. The Church supports this, and the people generally feel it. So unfortunately it's not about Putin. It's the national mythology or narrative of the people that these lands will be theirs again. Such narratives (all nations have them) are not much argued against or disputed within the nations holding them.
Occasional political rhetoric and Russian sentiment (manifested in a lack of pushback against those statements) does not seem like strong evidence to me. Could there be more drivers to the (unlawful) military attack? I hear a lot about what the Russians desire, fear, or intend, and little about facts. Like the very specific statements of Putin on Ukraine since 2008. Or the cables of US Ambassador Taylor in Moscow. Or the phone call between the Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador Pyatt in Kiev, days before the shootings on Maidan. Or the trade agreements offered by the EU and Russia to Ukraine prior to the Maidan and the comparison of both. Or the civil war in the regions Luhansk and Donetsk (including the UN-certified war crimes committed by the Ukrainian troops). And the Minsk Agreements and Merkel’s statement on the incompliance with those. Just as the rationale of Merkel and Sarkozy to not support US wish to take Ukraine into NATO in 2008. Or the (disputed) verbal agreements between the 2 + 4 powers at the moment of German reunification, and the later NATO expansion. Or Brzezinski´s geopolitical vision for the Ukraine region (the "Heartland"). Or the aborted peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia in Turkey, in March 2022. Or the underlying US policy of expanding its zone of influence (over 700 foreign US military bases around the globe). And the history and the demographics of Ukraine. I believe all these points (excuse the wild order) play into this topic and deserve to be looked at.
Partly agree. Tomas´analyses are usually brilliant, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. But I agree that the Russian section seems to lack objectivity and depth.
"According to the prevailing wisdom in the West.... he may eventually go after the rest of Ukraine". So is this not exactly what happened? That seems like fairly strong evidence that the writer was wrong in his opinion at the time.
As for Putin not having the capability to to recreate the Soviet Union, what if he had Chinese or perhaps even American assistance?
Tomas, thoughtful and provoking as always. I'm reading comments on German free speech limits by European readers with much interest. I think Germany's approach has lessons for the US. I agree that hate speech and msinformation should not have the same protection as other speech with which one might disagree. Trump is the type specimen of what can happen in a democracy when hate speech and misinformation are protected and amplified by social media. I don't see his election as a sign of anything positive. I am not as upbeat about nuclear as you are and we exchanged comments in your excellent series on that topic. What really leads me to comment today is my discomfort over your comments on immigration. You tread very closely to cultural profiling with your graphic showing crimes by immigrants from different countries. Not that far from Trump's bigoted talk about "the right type of immigrants", which for him apparently means whites from Scandinavia and occassionally models/escorts from Slovenia. I thought your portrayal of crimes committed by immigrants lacked context. The great majority of Aghan and other immigrants to Germany don't commit crimes. The lack of opportunity for immgrants in Europe may contribute to the anger and disaffection that lead some individuals to commit these crimes. And I think the AfD presents a much bigger threat to Germans' safety than immigrants do. Now, I know that you are NOT of like mind with Trump and have a far more informed and nuanced view of complex issues like migration than he is capable of. I'm just advising more careful messaging here.
'Before WW2, the eastern side of Germany was more developed than the west.' - this is not accurate, you didn't take into account the big montane industry of the West. Actually it was more a North -South divide.
A part of Germany ( Eastern Germany aka DDR aka DDR) wasn't part of Soviet Union, but it's politics and politician were highly controlled by the Soviet Union and it was part of USSR-led Warsaw Pact.
Those who fear Russia expansion to current NATO member states seem to have very little faith in NATO ability to defend itself. What is your basis for such an extraordinary claim? 1. Lack of a unified European commitment to its defense, or. 2. Doubt of American resolve to defend a continent that seems not to care? Because If the first is true, the the 2nd certainly is also.
"the values of the West... are thrown on the ground and trampled"
by this is meant the "rules-based international order" and liberal democracy? as in decision making by non-political expertocracy? I lost faith in these ideals during Covid, sad to say. This blog is the last place I can read analysis that maintains faith in that ideal. Every publication I used to read now argues the #1 priority is "defeat right-wing extremism" and no longer talks seriously about reducing deficits, improving the lot of regular working people, or reforming liberal-democratic institutions that are steadily getting more expensive and less effective
a few realizations that brought me to this tragic loss of faith
. liberal democracy lacks the power, as an ideal, to defeat nationalism. the end of history is just too boring. nationalism leads to war- it must be defeated. here Thomas has the right answer - abundance and space frontier MAY be powerful enough to defeat it. but who else says this? Matt Yglesias, Noah Smith, Nate Silver? all now in camp 'defeat the right'. Marc Andreesen, Peter Thiel and Elon believe this and they're camp Trump
. non-western peoples cling to tribalism. i'm canadian and support immigration b/c of declining birthrates, but canada is uniquely situated to select immigrants with western liberal-democratic outlook and education. this model is failing.
. the global south rejects liberal democracy. africa is not catching up - it imports 80% of calories! the arab spring turned into a nightmare. across the global south democratic parties represent ethnic subgroups or promote Marxism/ressentiment. technocratic managerialism is nowhere on offer
Your source for you China expansionism beyond Taiwan claim was a Twitter video of Palmer Luckey? A tech bro that is now of the US’ biggest military contractors? Seriously?
Thomas, I mostly like your writing and analyses a lot, although I disagree with some of your foundational political views, but read you anyway to broaden my horizon. So first - thanks a lot for your work.
With this piece though, there are so many inaccuracies - I will need to take more time tomorrow to point some of them out. I admit I might be biased (as a left/green voter in Germany), but I will try to dive into the specific points deep enough to see where I am biased and where it might be you.
But for now: The CDU always made a coalition with the CSU (as the "Union"), as this is the general agreement of both parties. The Union was in power for over 16 years before the last three years of "Traffic Light Coalition" and, although providing some sort of stability, that came with a huge cost to innovation, making Germany completely dependent on Russian oil and gas, which led to the surge in energy prices after the invasion of Russia in Ukraine. The last three years have been a major overhaul of many parts of society and economy, and I agree that many of these policies have not been going as smoothly as many would have wished. However, the responsibility for the recent recession lies at least by a large part on the former Union-led governments.
Also, all energy providers say it would not be feasible nor economical to restart nuclear power plants or return to nuclear power - that train has long left the station. It might have been possible 3 years ago - I will dig into that. Union and FDP know that its not by now and are still claiming it is, but that is populistic.
As for freedom speech - I am curious for your article on that, as I find the recent outrage from the US very amusing. I feel free af to use my right to speak up in Germany, we have more freedom of the press than the US according to the WPFI, the only things you are not allowed to publicly express are personal insults and hate speech - which I agree with. I guess that is just a cultural difference between the US and Germany (and some other parts of Europe), but we value for many to feel safe expressing their opinion more than for few to express every crazy hateful thought they want to. What might be a problem is that the norms of what you can say or think might be shifting - with identity politicians and activists inciting rage over unpopular views (this is coming from all political extremes). I will read your next article with great interest.
Thank you for your kind and thoughtful comment.
Yes, you're right on the CSU. Corrected. Thanks!
I don't disagree with most of what you say, and I don't think the article does either. The bad position in which Germany finds itself with regards to energy and Russia is a direct cause of what the CDU did under Merkel. The full open doors policy for immigration is its fault too. I didn't mean to convey anything else. The SPD and its allies have worked to untangle themselves from Russia, and that was really good. It largely succeeded from an energy standpoint, and reached the 2% military threshold. All of this is indeed quite good, and the reason why I don't directly criticize the SPD or the FDP, but rather the Greens, who led the most toxic initiative.
I don't know if the most recent economic downturn can be attributed to Union. The traffic lights coalition has been in power for 4 years and has presided over the biggest event that Germany had in control, which is the nuclear closures. It could also have reversed anything that it didn't agree about CDU mgmt. I would be interested in a case that can fully blame the CDU, but for now my prior is that the traffic lights coalition has a good share of blame.
Of all the topics I touch in this article, the one I know the best is the nuclear issue. This was my deep dive on it:
https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/why-germany-wont-keep-its-nuclear
And this follow-up:
https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/will-the-german-nuclear-reactors
I've tracked this since then, and I believe my original assessment is accurate. I have confirmed since that several plants could be reopened, and the only reason why operators have said it's not worthwhile is because they would need to approve the nuclear power plants operating for over a decade to make it profitable (all the refurbishments plus retraining and stuff are expensive). The Greens didn't want to extend nuclear for so long, so they said no to this condition, and what people saw on TV is the reaction from the energy bosses who said no to the costly ask of extending the reactors' lives by just a few years.
Looking forward to your thoughts on the freedom of speech article!
1. Sebastian is right on CDU/CSU:
Both are "sister-parties": CSU in Bavaria, CDU in the other 15 federal states.
In the "Bundestag" (federal parliament) they form a permanent "Fraktionsgemeinschaft" (joint caucus) since 1946 (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDU/CSU-Fraktion_im_Deutschen_Bundestag#Geschichte). It is called CDUCSU-Fraktion.
The upshot: CSU was integral to all 3 Merkel coalition governments, not just 1.
I suggest this rewrite:
"The CDU and her Bavarian sister party CSU which form a permanent joint caucus in the federal parliament had three coalitions, two with the center-left SPD (Social Democratic Party) and one with the liberal FDP (Free Democratic Party)"
2. Nuclear power
You misrepresent the decision makers: In short: Nuclear power was phased out by the Merkel/CDU-led government in 2011, not by Red-Green.
The details below show: Red-green had decided a first phase-out in 2000, but was reversed by Merkel in 2010.
Then Merkel re-reversed her government due to the Fukushima accident.
As a physics Ph.D., she had understood that the remaining risk of accidents after all safety measures was not zero.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany#Changes_to_phase-out_schedule
A second reversal and reopening of the last 3 nuclear plants in the future isn't considered feasible even by industry leaders. Related CDU election promises are thus an empty diversion.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/nuclear-plant-operator-rejects-ideas-restart-germanys-reactors-economical-grounds
Thanks on CDU!
Replied to the nuclear thing in another comment in this same thread. I stand by my assessment. The key is that the industry would want to reopen the reactors if they get enough time (like 10+ years) but the greens didn't want to do that.
My compatriots are correct in pointing out the "coalition with the CSU"-mistake. As a voter of the FDP, naturally, I disagree with some of their other takes and would like to add other details:
1. The SPD and its stance against Putin - is sadly ambivalent. Many high ranking SPD-politicians are "FROGS" - FRiends Of Gerhard Schröder - the former head of German government 1998-2005 who was hired by Putin just weeks after Schröder had lost an election. Since then, he makes 5 times his old salary. And never fails to defend Putin. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/world/europe/schroder-germany-russia-gas-ukraine-war-energy.html He is not the only one.
When Scholz refuses to give efficient arms to Ukraine (TAURUS, before Leo II and most everything except steel-helmets), this MAY be less about "Besonnenheit" (Sophrosyne?) and more about malalignments of the party-leaders. Our president - Schröder`s pal Steinmeier is even worse. In the now-ended coalition, the Greens and the FDP were strongly advocating for better armaments of Ukraine. (And as I worked and lived several years in Russia and Ukraine, I feel very strongly about this issue.) While the SPD is ambivalent, the AfD, the BSW and LINKE are openly in "Team Putin". It sure pays well.
2. Nuclear: the Greens were founded as an anti-nuclear-power-party. As you well know. The CEOs of the big energy-companies know better than to provoke the ruling government. They got compensated well for exiting nuclear. I expect new statements from them after tomorrow`s election. But sure, they need long term commitment - and they may not trust Merz to provide it. I doubt I will see new nuclear power stations in Germany in my lifetime (me boomer). But we could buy from the French.
3. Solar: We need most energy in winter, when their is least sun. And with more e-mobility and heat-pumps this will only get worse. Last Dezember there was a "Dunkelflaute" (dark+no wind) that pushed the spot-price of one MWh from 2.30€ to 932 € - and the monthly average to 145. Several industrial companies halted production.
4. Free speech in Germany: Germans who do not vote AfD do not see censorship. Sincerely. The other 20% do. I could list dozens of rules that hinder a nazi in Germany to proclaim he is a nazi (If one lives in Itzehoe, no way to get a car plate: IZ-AN for example. I do know the owner of "HF-AH 1939" though.) Insulting a German politician is: against the law. Applies to tweets, too. Shouting "From the River to Sea – Palestine will be free“ can be a hate-crime too. Denial of the holocaust always is. And if the offender is a 80+ old granny, to prison she goes. And yes, most of us agree. Even me. Somewhat. If you like, I am happy to provide the links.
I fully agree with your take: this post was so choke-full of oversimplifications, cherry-picked examples, and misrepresentations it was a painful read. Sentences like: "free speech is being more and more supressed every day" are so grotesquely wrong and JD Vanc-y. In Germany, during the height of the corona crisis, critics could literally walk up to Merkel during town hall meetings and tell Merkel to her face how much you hated her and her policies.
I find it bemusing with what non-chalance anglosaxon pundits often make the most sweeping of statements about German politics, based on knowing about 10 politicians and none the domestic politics dynamics
I think Americans have 'norms' against 'insults' and 'hate'. Most people don't live on twitter and discussions usually follow these norms. But most of us also realize that giving the government the power to decide what is 'insulting' and 'hateful', and to enforce that via fines or prison - well, that's just a very bizarre definition of 'freedom.' Same goes for 'banning' political parties. This infrastructure you are building for monitoring and controlling speech and banning political parties will not always be in the hands of people you agree with.
Some corrections:
It is not the government which decides what counts as insulting and hateful, but independent courts (actually more independent than US courts, because usually the government doesn't decide on judges with party alignment), in combination with the legislation, which is elected parliaments (which in turn elect the government).
As for the infrastructure - there is little surveillance in all this process, but people being insulted or observe an insult suing those who insult or incite hate crime. Somewhat like when you would observe a robbery and call police. Prison sentences are very very rarely given, it's usually a fine and thats it.
And for context: Please search for some examples of "free speech" that was sentenced in Germany - they are disgusting. Surprise: Not all Nazis suddenly disappeared from Germany after WW2... They just adapted to current circumstances and their (ideological and actual) heirs now feel confident enough to reappear in public discourse because of a worldwide shift in opinion to the right and "anonymous" platforms.
As for the banning of political parties: This is the ulima ratio of our constitution (we call it "wehrhafte Demokratie", which means somewhat like defensive democracy) to protect the "free democratic constitutional structure", which consists of basic human dignity, democracy and rule of law. Parties which try to overthrow these three principles can indeed be banned, but even then only when there is sufficient evidence that they indeed try to overthrow these AND are large enough that there is a sufficient change that they might succeed. So it has only happened twice, in 1952 and 1956. Even now, as the AfD seems to qualify for all these criteria, those with the constitutional power to start such an attempt of a ban are very hesitant and still prefer to win that battle politically.
So the US has basically a two party system, so the banning of a party might seem like a crazy thing to do, except Germany has a proportional voting system and as such many political parties, so banning one does not mean banning all possibilities to express divergent opinions. And think about why we have these mechanisms... Maybe they don't seem as crazy when you think about 1933ff.
And by the way - arguably your two party system without mechanisms to ban certain political ideologies has led to the US currently being at risk of losing even those principles of rule of law, democracy and basic human dignity (possibly in that order)...
People seem to have forgotten or don't seem to understand that democracy is not a natural state of affairs in human societies. To maintain it requires continuing, conscious effort and part of that effort must be educational
Some agreement: I fully understand that it made sense for Germany to ban certain political parties and certain speech in the aftermath of ww2.
But I think it is dangerous to allow that to continue indefinitely. Many of us view free speech itself (legally and culturally)as a key component to a viable long term democracy. In part that is because nothing draws attention to dangerous extremism more than suppressing it by force.
In recent years in the US we flirted a lot with (mostly cultural) banning of words and opinions. I feel like we became lazy- in the sense that it became easier to lean on that instead of actually discussing issues. Now we are living with the reaction to those mistakes.
This reminded me of the paradox or tolerance, as formulated by Karl Popper: A tolerant society must tolerate all viewpoints and behaviors to remain truly tolerant. The problem is, if a society tolerates intolerant groups or ideologies (e.g., those that oppose liberty, democracy, or equality), those groups may eventually destroy the very tolerance that allowed them to thrive. Hence, to preserve liberty, you have to be intolerant to a certain extent (there is the paradox). In other words, a society must sometimes limit the freedoms of those who use those freedoms to destroy liberty itself.
This is accurate, I think. Ultimately the disagreements in this discussion probably come down to degrees. For example, I am defending free speech but I do believe in laws about fraud (words are involved), and even genuine cases of slander or libel. Also you could put copyright infringement in this category. Where it gets a little tougher is 'inciting violence.' Advocating 'violent overthrow of the government'. We should be intolerant of these too, but the definitions are tough. My sense is that many people / countries have moved very far on this spectrum such that impolite speech suddenly becomes 'inciting violence' because someone somewhere will see the insult and become violent. The laws against violence, or clearly conspiring to engage in violence, should do all the work here -- not speech/thought control.
I agree it is tough and I believe there is no "mechanical" solution to it. Its a walk on the tightrope and the dangers lie on both sides of the spectrum. No law can ever provide a clear-cut, black-and-white judgment. As the German constitutionalist Böckenförde once put it: The liberal state depends on conditions it cannot itself guarantee. This is the great risk it has taken for the sake of freedom. As a liberal state, it can only endure if the freedom it grants to its citizens derives from the inner moral discipline and self-restraint of those citizens and is exercised by them with a sense of responsibility toward the common good and the whole. In the long run, the state cannot enforce this level of inner moral discipline and community-oriented responsibility; it must presuppose them and can only encourage them, but it cannot guarantee them. In that sense, it seems, we depend on the evolution of our own culture. As history shows, there are ups and downs and political systems can change, not always to the better. Rome shifted from republic to empire repeatedly and the German example is not far away.
Well, as an accomplished astronaut, do you think someone with 200 million social media followers should be allowed to call you an "idiot" and "retard" just because you pointed out a false statement he made?
Do you think that's fair and both sides are on a level playing field?
Because some of his followers then become more aggressive, first online and then, possibly, in real life.
Or do you think, the platform should be forced to remove such unfounded insults?
In short: Should freedom of speech be limited if it infringes on someone else's freedom?
https://www.msn.com/en-in/technology/space-exploration/astronauts-return-to-earth-takes-an-ugly-turn-elon-musk-sparks-outrage-after-hurling-shocking-insult-at-famed-astronaut-who-called-him-out/ar-AA1zxdfG
"In short: Should freedom of speech be limited if it infringes on someone else's freedom?" Thank you for pointing out the most basic question of free speech. It constantly amazes me that people who appear to consider themselves intelligent and fair-minded don't understand what you have just said.
I feel insulted! But actually my freedom hasn't been infringed at all!
Seriously, I am interested in honest discussion and engaging with different viewpoints.
As in my example, if someone with a bully pulpit insults you he also limits your freedom because others may
- believe him and reject you or
- be afraid to associate with you or
- shy from supporting causes you support because you are "marked"
My freedom to speak is no guarantee that I will be believed, supported, or befriended. Nor should I expect that guarantee.
Many people are more influential than I am, but I am used to that. No crime there.
If a super famous person insults me, that would be very weird and most people would probably see him for the idiot he is - although that might depend on why he insulted me. Some platforms might just let that go, others may not allow it.
But look, I just don't see the need for the government (courts, police, whatever) to have a role.
I'm glad to hear that (the second bit, not the feeling insulted bit! 🤣). But what about people who are NOT interested in honest discussion and engaging with different viewpoints? Some of those people use speech to seek power over others and to impose what they think is "right" on them against their will. How should we deal with that issue?
A good question. And tough to answer. But I have thoughts! I don't always know when people are being 'honest ' in their words - what I mean is everyone always speaks from at least some point of self-interest. Even me! The important thing is the marketplace of ideas. An active community of people (yes that might include bad actors!) freely discussing issues is a better way to sort through ideas than figuring out how to censor. And, I insist, far safer in the long term.
What about giving non-government organisations the power to decide what is "insulting" and "hateful"? Do you think that is a good idea? Most enforcement in a society does not happen via fines or prison.
What if the infrastructure for monitoring and controlling speech is already in the hands of people I don't agree with?
Your last question is a good one - i think the implication being that there is some sort of monopoly in charge of the flow of information and opinion. That is theoretically possible. But what is that monopoly? It used to be (for us) the NYTimes/mainstream media. But then it was facebook. And then twitter. And then tik tok. and soon maybe AI systems. I dont like all these things, and they all vary in 'power'. And that power rapidly rises and falls. But I see a pretty wide range of opinions and information. And I certainly don't see how anointing one institution to police them all would improve things (indeed I would view that as highly dangerous).
Tomas, can you please slow down that map of Germany so that I can actually look at what is going on? It refreshes every second and I can’t see what it’s actually showing me.
Ok I’ll add a slower version later when I’m back to my computer
I do like the multiple thinks in a single image maps for a summary as they do show a corollary, but I too want to drill down and see the details (at least on some of them). In this case the image flipped by so fast that I missed several layers entirely. Downloading the image and looking at each layer got what I wanted but means I have to read your pieces on a computer where I have GIMP handy instead of on my phone when I am cooling my heels.
I'm not sure if it is worth the effort, but you could leave the multi-layer GIFs in place and provide links to the individual frames in the footnotes or the like (not a substack author, so I don't know how to provide both versions in a time efficient to compose manner).
Thomas, you packed a lot of meat into this one post. I think you get the Russian threat directionally right. There might be nuances, but it is very clear to any rational observer, that Putin claims his zone of influence - Polish, Ukranian of EU sovereignty be damned. Not seeing what Russia is doing is tantamount to putting one's head in the sand. Putin told all of us in 2007 at the Munich Security Conference what he was going to do. He has been true to his word. Europe and the US were in denial for a long time.
I am keen on hearing your thoughts to this - in my view - completely misguided attack as Germany not allowing free speech. A couple of comments from somebody who has European and US passports and lives since 30 years on both sides of the Atlantic.
Germany has laws against hate speech and holocaust denying. Germany also has mechanisms put in place after the Nazi experience to prevent Nazi resurgence. Arguably Germany has dealt with its Nazi past better than any other country in Europe - Austria has never faced its Nazi past and you can see the results, nor has Italy its fascism - conveniently hiding behind the Nazi atrocities. France is still dealing with the aftermaths of Vichy and collaboration. All of this to say that when Germany puts an entity (AFD party Youth, or AFD itself in different degrees) 'under observation' this is not some obscure secret service activity, not some politburo driven action, but action that is driven by courts transparently, that can be appealed and litigated. It is out in the daylight. Fact is the AFD is allowed to run in elections, to campaign and to get funds.
Showing up in Munich, as JD Vance did, and blasting Europe for anti-democratic tendencies is misinformed at the very least, most probably disingenuous and for sure arrogant - coming as it does from a GOP that still denies the election loss of 2020, guts the judiciary, guts army and government and is offering Ukraine - and with it Europe - up on a sliver plate to Putin.
It comes straight out of the autocratic playbook to accuse the others of exactly what oneself is doing - Orban docet, Trump's coterie is following the same play.
What you might want to consider as you form your views on 'free speech' are different historical approaches to tolerance and speech. Here are my views on this topic.
1. The US concept of free speech is extreme. Libel is practically unenforceable, hate speech is nearly impossible to react to. All of it coming from the history of 13 rebel states fighting an overwhelming empire. This goes so far that all the safeguards that were built into law over time are being dismantled - just consider that up to nineties US broadcasting was monitored for 'balance'. Then this fell away and we got FOX. Then came the internet and the platforms were allowed not to bear any responsibility for the content they present and - worse - the amplify with their algorithms. What we got is a cesspool of conspiracy theories, radicalization, Christian nationalism, Neo-Nazis and Antifa. Social media are weapons of mass destruction given to lunatics. But - free speech - is sacrosanct - damn the consequences, storm the capitol, create alternate realities with Anti-Vaxx, holocaust denial etc.
2. The French have their "laicite' " - a concept coming from their history as a formerly catholic dominated Monarchy which was overturned in the revolution. By forcing a strict separation of religious practice and politics it creates the free space for every religion to thrive. US christians would probably see this as discriminating against Christians. I actually think there is a lot of value in this concept.
3. Germany's history wisely gave birth to the way they handle freedom of speech and hate speech - beware of the Nazi resurgence seems prudent to me after all that happened.
4. The EU has blended all its historical experiences into its legislation on free speech and regulations. When the EU Digital Services Act and other regulation in the platform space is criticized, take into account economic motives. All the EU says is that what applies to printed media should apply to digital media too - in terms of speech, liability and facts.
When facebook, Google, Twitter - to name a few of the dominant ones complain about it, it is because it causes costs for their predatory business model. Remember - all their services are for free and monetization is through advertising. They hate additional cost.
5. You might also want to look at how Singapore handles free speech - ' free to speak, but not to offend' - maybe a wise view in a country that has to manage ethnic diversity on a very tight space - but surely more restrictive than US or EU.
Keen to hear where you land in your view on free speech indeed.
Thank you for your thoughtful and balanced comment.
"is misinformed at the very least, most probably disingenuous and for sure arrogant".
I can't say I know JD Vance very well, but judging from what is publicly available about him it would seem unlikely that he is misinformed, but highly likely that he is disingenuous and arrogant
A very thought and discussion provoking article. Your lens is mostly clear as well as cloudy in some area, and you have recognized some of these areas. The world public needs more of this type of research and discussion to understand the areas our respective leaders should focus on to sustain a successful and sustainable world economy and peace. Thank you for sharing your insights.
Tomas, I typically very much like you pieces. This one contains many inaccuracies and mistakes. Does this mean the other ones about topics that I don't know so much about do, too?
The worst: Taking JD Vances POV on "freedom of speech" is very problematic from my point of view and IMHO just wrong and dangerous - just look at Elon Musk. Just because of that paragraph, I am very close to removing myself from your mailing liste but as you promised to elaborate on the matter, I will read your next piece on freedom of speech. BTW, in Germany, it is call freedom of opinion, which is something different.
Freedom of speech ends when it becomes a crime.
Freedom of opinion ends when wrong information and false "facts" are classed as opinions.
This is why, fact checking is so important.
Let's see, what you have to say next.
You write that you have no real clue about German politics and their parties. So, why do you write this piece and mention false and unproven messages like freedom of speech is aggressively under attack every day more and more. What a stupid stuff. As a German living in Germany I can only say, let’s come here before you publicly announce nonsense. Until of today I thought most the time that your articles are very thoughtful, but this one about Germany is definitely the opposite. Not to know how a partially fascist party like AfD thinks about free speech or immigration is so poor and a total lack of knowledge. Maybe you should speak to people with knowledge about the topics before you spread false information to your subscribers.
As mentioned, the free speech article will come later this week
I enjoy reading your articles a lot. This time - being German and therefore naturally an expert on Germany - I found a number of mistakes. Some are just less significant details - e.g. talk of a coalition between CDU and CSU. There is no such coalition as they form one group in parliament. They don’t compete with each other as one is confined to Bavaria and the other is running in the rest of Germany. More significantly you put the blame on the decision to stop nuclear energy on the wrong parties. It was actually a coalition of CDU/CSU and FDP (your dream coalition!) that made this decision in June 2011 (right after the Fukushima accident). Also a lot of the migration and economical decisions you blame the SPD for were made in coalition governments led by CDU/CSU. So things are bit more complicated and nuanced as portrayed in your article.
Surprised at the strength of your first section "The Russian Threat" which doesn't acknowledge alternative perspectives which better reflect reality in my view. John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs are excellent on this topic. Putin does not want to recreate the Soviet Union and doesn't have the capability even if he wanted to.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2014-08-18/why-ukraine-crisis-west-s-fault
I am intimately acquainted with both of these positions. Mearsheimer is accurate but wrong, and Sachs is clueless. I am likely to write about it soon
The claim that Putin wants to recreate the Soviet Union is extraordinary and we all know extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Genuinely look forward to your post on this.
Incidentally, I disagree with Sachs particularly on China but 'clueless' is no way to describe him.
I suppose this counts for some evidence: during the whole period of post-Soviet Russia, now and then some of their politicians mention that of course one day we must claim back the Baltics or some other area, and this doesn't cause any domestic pushback at all. The Church supports this, and the people generally feel it. So unfortunately it's not about Putin. It's the national mythology or narrative of the people that these lands will be theirs again. Such narratives (all nations have them) are not much argued against or disputed within the nations holding them.
Occasional political rhetoric and Russian sentiment (manifested in a lack of pushback against those statements) does not seem like strong evidence to me. Could there be more drivers to the (unlawful) military attack? I hear a lot about what the Russians desire, fear, or intend, and little about facts. Like the very specific statements of Putin on Ukraine since 2008. Or the cables of US Ambassador Taylor in Moscow. Or the phone call between the Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador Pyatt in Kiev, days before the shootings on Maidan. Or the trade agreements offered by the EU and Russia to Ukraine prior to the Maidan and the comparison of both. Or the civil war in the regions Luhansk and Donetsk (including the UN-certified war crimes committed by the Ukrainian troops). And the Minsk Agreements and Merkel’s statement on the incompliance with those. Just as the rationale of Merkel and Sarkozy to not support US wish to take Ukraine into NATO in 2008. Or the (disputed) verbal agreements between the 2 + 4 powers at the moment of German reunification, and the later NATO expansion. Or Brzezinski´s geopolitical vision for the Ukraine region (the "Heartland"). Or the aborted peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia in Turkey, in March 2022. Or the underlying US policy of expanding its zone of influence (over 700 foreign US military bases around the globe). And the history and the demographics of Ukraine. I believe all these points (excuse the wild order) play into this topic and deserve to be looked at.
I forgot to mention the Russian naval base in Sebastopol.
Agree. Keen to know Tomas´ perspective.
I agree. His take on that section is so blind to facts it makes me reconsider the view he expressed on all the other topics.
Partly agree. Tomas´analyses are usually brilliant, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. But I agree that the Russian section seems to lack objectivity and depth.
Which facts?
Agree
"According to the prevailing wisdom in the West.... he may eventually go after the rest of Ukraine". So is this not exactly what happened? That seems like fairly strong evidence that the writer was wrong in his opinion at the time.
As for Putin not having the capability to to recreate the Soviet Union, what if he had Chinese or perhaps even American assistance?
Tomas, thoughtful and provoking as always. I'm reading comments on German free speech limits by European readers with much interest. I think Germany's approach has lessons for the US. I agree that hate speech and msinformation should not have the same protection as other speech with which one might disagree. Trump is the type specimen of what can happen in a democracy when hate speech and misinformation are protected and amplified by social media. I don't see his election as a sign of anything positive. I am not as upbeat about nuclear as you are and we exchanged comments in your excellent series on that topic. What really leads me to comment today is my discomfort over your comments on immigration. You tread very closely to cultural profiling with your graphic showing crimes by immigrants from different countries. Not that far from Trump's bigoted talk about "the right type of immigrants", which for him apparently means whites from Scandinavia and occassionally models/escorts from Slovenia. I thought your portrayal of crimes committed by immigrants lacked context. The great majority of Aghan and other immigrants to Germany don't commit crimes. The lack of opportunity for immgrants in Europe may contribute to the anger and disaffection that lead some individuals to commit these crimes. And I think the AfD presents a much bigger threat to Germans' safety than immigrants do. Now, I know that you are NOT of like mind with Trump and have a far more informed and nuanced view of complex issues like migration than he is capable of. I'm just advising more careful messaging here.
'Before WW2, the eastern side of Germany was more developed than the west.' - this is not accurate, you didn't take into account the big montane industry of the West. Actually it was more a North -South divide.
A part of Germany ( Eastern Germany aka DDR aka DDR) wasn't part of Soviet Union, but it's politics and politician were highly controlled by the Soviet Union and it was part of USSR-led Warsaw Pact.
Backing Sebastian N.s and Justus' comments: CDU/CSU made coalitions ever since after WWII.
Those who fear Russia expansion to current NATO member states seem to have very little faith in NATO ability to defend itself. What is your basis for such an extraordinary claim? 1. Lack of a unified European commitment to its defense, or. 2. Doubt of American resolve to defend a continent that seems not to care? Because If the first is true, the the 2nd certainly is also.
It is "debt brake", not "debt break". Anyway, there is sadly nothing that can salvage this article.
"the values of the West... are thrown on the ground and trampled"
by this is meant the "rules-based international order" and liberal democracy? as in decision making by non-political expertocracy? I lost faith in these ideals during Covid, sad to say. This blog is the last place I can read analysis that maintains faith in that ideal. Every publication I used to read now argues the #1 priority is "defeat right-wing extremism" and no longer talks seriously about reducing deficits, improving the lot of regular working people, or reforming liberal-democratic institutions that are steadily getting more expensive and less effective
a few realizations that brought me to this tragic loss of faith
. liberal democracy lacks the power, as an ideal, to defeat nationalism. the end of history is just too boring. nationalism leads to war- it must be defeated. here Thomas has the right answer - abundance and space frontier MAY be powerful enough to defeat it. but who else says this? Matt Yglesias, Noah Smith, Nate Silver? all now in camp 'defeat the right'. Marc Andreesen, Peter Thiel and Elon believe this and they're camp Trump
. non-western peoples cling to tribalism. i'm canadian and support immigration b/c of declining birthrates, but canada is uniquely situated to select immigrants with western liberal-democratic outlook and education. this model is failing.
. the global south rejects liberal democracy. africa is not catching up - it imports 80% of calories! the arab spring turned into a nightmare. across the global south democratic parties represent ethnic subgroups or promote Marxism/ressentiment. technocratic managerialism is nowhere on offer
Your source for you China expansionism beyond Taiwan claim was a Twitter video of Palmer Luckey? A tech bro that is now of the US’ biggest military contractors? Seriously?