Butschi

Letting the AfD become strongest party in the last election is not a career booster. You have to understand that AfD is to CDU rougly what Die Linke is to SPD. Without going into too much detail: Die Linke was co-founded by renegade SPD members which took with the a not unsignificant part of voters. But because the other founding faction was PDS, i.e. the follow-up party to SED, the ruling party of the GDR, this was always a lever the CDU could use to prevent a left wing alliance - every election campaign involved a stern warning the SPD would form a coalition with the ex-SED which meant that at the very least, the SPD always had to early on distance itself from a potential ally.
The situation between AfD is similar in that under Angela Merkel the CDU was not hardcore conservative enough for many. When the AfD was founded, many disappointed CDU voters went over to the AfD. But because they quickly allied with Nazis and others less than savory elements, allying with the AfD was a no-go for the CDU and so became a possible attack vector for SPD. In short, losing your state to your nemesis is not a good recommendation if you have ambitions to lead your party.
Re: Putin appeasers, IMHO you misread CDU and SPD a little here. Apart from Schröder and friends, I think it was never about Putin but about business. At the risk of greatly oversimplifying things: For the CDU, it is all about German economy. If the guy helps Germany Inc. (big business) he is their friend. SPD was always proud about their Ostpolitik (so, good diplomatic relations with Eastern European countries including Russia) but it is also: If it helps the job situation, the guy is their friend. Not unlike most other Western countries, we happily traded with dictators and autocrats as long as it was profitable.

I'm sorry but the connection of green movements and environmentalists with Putin and Saudi dictators sounds very trumpish to me and not something I would expect to read in this forum. 
 

Again, I will not take the bait and aggravate Steve by rekindling this discussion. I have a PhD in physics, so when I tell you to challenge your preconceptions and actually check facts, it isn't for any ideological reasons but because I feel qualified to say what is nonsense in that regard and what isn't. 'nough said, let's move on.

I must say you sound wise for your years. 

Ah, very good point. Occam's Razor agrees. That could also explain Mr. Schröder's "vacation" in Moscow. Secret negotiations with e.g. Siemens?

Letting the AfD become strongest party in the last election is not a career booster. You have to understand that AfD is to CDU rougly what Die Linke is to SPD. Without going into too much detail: Die Linke was co-founded by renegade SPD members which took with the a not unsignificant part of voters. But because the other founding faction was PDS, i.e. the follow-up party to SED, the ruling party of the GDR, this was always a lever the CDU could use to prevent a left wing alliance - every election campaign involved a stern warning the SPD would form a coalition with the ex-SED which meant that at the very least, the SPD always had to early on distance itself from a potential ally.
The situation between AfD is similar in that under Angela Merkel the CDU was not hardcore conservative enough for many. When the AfD was founded, many disappointed CDU voters went over to the AfD. But because they quickly allied with Nazis and others less than savory elements, allying with the AfD was a no-go for the CDU and so became a possible attack vector for SPD. In short, losing your state to your nemesis is not a good recommendation if you have ambitions to lead your party.
Re: Putin appeasers, IMHO you misread CDU and SPD a little here. Apart from Schröder and friends, I think it was never about Putin but about business. At the risk of greatly oversimplifying things: For the CDU, it is all about German economy. If the guy helps Germany Inc. (big business) he is their friend. SPD was always proud about their Ostpolitik (so, good diplomatic relations with Eastern European countries including Russia) but it is also: If it helps the job situation, the guy is their friend. Not unlike most other Western countries, we happily traded with dictators and autocrats as long as it was profitable.

Kretschmer is the MP of the state of Saxony and member of the conservative CDU. This state has a large proportion of right wing nut-job pro-Russian AfD members. The results of the general election in Germany have put the AfD in 1st and CDU in 3rd place in that state. So Kretschmer is now desperately playing for these parts of the voters.
Germany wide Kretschmer has no influence.
Yes. Revolutions in Germany usually start from the top, and it doesn't look like that.
What do you think is the likelihood for the Republican Party in the US to forbid private ownership of guns?
That is about the likelihood of the Greens going pro-nuclear.
I really do hope the French will have it warm in winter. Because if they don't get the other half of their reactors running, we will all have a problem.
Likely it is the other way round. You cannot just stop gas production. That could permanently damage the sources. They can also not just burn it (a bit too much gas) and there is no other place to deliver it than Europe.
I really wonder what would happen if _we_ closed the pipe. If the Russians would just blow the methane into the air, we needn't worry about cold winters anymore... 😐
The Russians have more than enough money, but they cannot buy anything useful with it.

4. Maybe Russia is having a hard time keep the gas flowing because sanctions are hurting their ability to maintain their energy industry output while they really, really need the money. That would explain the seeming schizophrenia of their behavior. They want to sell the gas, are having hard time maintaining the flow and don't want to admit it. 

You already quoted the difference yourself there. The quote is about labor camps. It talks about the concentration camp part of Auschwitz. Not the extermination camp. Those were rather unique, I think. You can argue that if they compare mortality, who cares about how they did it. I still think, there is a difference in forced labor, not caring that people die in the process and sending them directly to the gas chambers.
Anyway, we should not get into a competition on who had the bestest evil empire.
And I still stand by what I said earlier: modern day Russia, as bad as it is, is not on par with Nazi Germany and also, I think, not with the USSR under Stalin. We don't do us any favour if we neglect to see nuances.

I'm also still puzzled. As I wrote above, I think the best strategy to hurt us would be to just go back to 100%. That would entirely divide the German society. All the usual suspects would start trumpeting how we did unjustice to Putin who obviously is still a trustworthy partner, while the US do everything to destabilize Europe in order to sell us their dirty fracking gas. Many would listen, not just on left and right fringes of the political spectrum but especially those with prosperity as ersatz-religion and who don't give a damn about the world as long as they can continue their well deserved good life. The second best strategy would be to close the valves entirely. Every bit of gas they send us gives us room to maneuvre, more options to mitigate the effects. By law private heating has priority and people will be reluctant to freeze at 10°C in order to keep the economy running. But every degree closer to adequate heating makes it easier to convince people. 
No, I really think the Kremlin dropped the ball on this one. My take is, there are three possible reasons:
Putin et al. are really getting delusional and now believe their own propaganda. Far from impossible but frankly this is my least favourite answer just because were are sometimes way to close to become this echo chamber where it is awesome, competent west vs. incompetent stupid Russia. I prefer to overestimating my opponent over underestimating him. This has nothing to do with us. It is a show entirely for the home front, to show the people the Kremlin is in control. They want to keep the money flowing in the long term: Off the top of my head, there is a substantial minimum payment clause for at least 20 years (?). Germany has already said that they want to get rid of the dependency on Russsian gas, so in the long run they won't sell more than that, anyway. But that money will only get paid if the contract is upheld. We have told the Russians the several times that they have to honour the contract, so we can't very well just break it. The only way to get around that is either Russia violates the contract or there is a general gas embargo. The latter is not likely to come any time soon, the former... well, the Russians keep delivering the stuff but due technical problems, maintenance, you name it they just can't send enough. That way they hurt us some but retain some long term trade income. Sounds too constructed? Just my thoughts.

Yes, let's not because implying that the Bundesrepublik Deutschland of 2022 would somehow not honour their obligations because the 3rd Reich didn't either is such utter BS that its bot worth discussing. I mean, seriously, why did Finland want to join NATO in the first place? UK and France didn't help Poland, either, after all.
Really, I've said it before this is not the time for pet peeves and bashing each other, this is just making Putin's work easier.

Thanks for the post. Sometimes when I write here I get a lot of replies I can't follow. I feel like I'm shot from different directions, so sometimes I have to leave a debate unresolved or like waving hand as you say. It's really exhausting sometimes. 
The fact I'm posting here and not in some pro russian forum tells me that I can sense where I mostly belong. But I like to challenge the dominant line. I did this with the Iraq War here when everyone was going Gung ho, and you can't imagine the flak I took. Everyone was so certain about the WMD the AL qaeda links and so on, only to accept some years later that they were wrong. Bush Jr was joking as well and life went on as usual. And people were again posting facts, excel sheets, analysis from reliable sources but nobody predicted the mess that followed. So, whatever firm facts we are looking for, might not be that firm sometimes. 
But I still come here, because it is still one of the best sources of info on the internet about the war. I'm sorry that I'm not contributing to that so much. I have been posting since 2002 here and I appreciate that despite heated discussions from the Iraq war, to Gaza, Syria and Ukraine I was allowed to voice my half baked opinion. 
 
 

Very bad. It could seriously tank our economy. The government is frantically trying to find alternatives but if it was easy it would already have happened.
 
Of course we plan for the worst. But everything on top of that gives us a little more room to maneuvre. Pride is a bad advisor and should never guide a government. And while I fully agree that we should get rid of the stuff asap, on a rational level I have to concede that the better strategy is to take what gas we can now while we are busy finding alternatives. Even if we were to stop buying anymore gas now, we'd still have to get the energy from somewhere. Germany is a rather wealthy country, so I assume we will be able to obtain it. But with limited supply that means we are putting more money on the table than someone else who then will just go without energy. Darwin sends warm regards.

I'm also still puzzled. As I wrote above, I think the best strategy to hurt us would be to just go back to 100%. That would entirely divide the German society. All the usual suspects would start trumpeting how we did unjustice to Putin who obviously is still a trustworthy partner, while the US do everything to destabilize Europe in order to sell us their dirty fracking gas. Many would listen, not just on left and right fringes of the political spectrum but especially those with prosperity as ersatz-religion and who don't give a damn about the world as long as they can continue their well deserved good life. The second best strategy would be to close the valves entirely. Every bit of gas they send us gives us room to maneuvre, more options to mitigate the effects. By law private heating has priority and people will be reluctant to freeze at 10°C in order to keep the economy running. But every degree closer to adequate heating makes it easier to convince people. 
No, I really think the Kremlin dropped the ball on this one. My take is, there are three possible reasons:
Putin et al. are really getting delusional and now believe their own propaganda. Far from impossible but frankly this is my least favourite answer just because were are sometimes way to close to become this echo chamber where it is awesome, competent west vs. incompetent stupid Russia. I prefer to overestimating my opponent over underestimating him. This has nothing to do with us. It is a show entirely for the home front, to show the people the Kremlin is in control. They want to keep the money flowing in the long term: Off the top of my head, there is a substantial minimum payment clause for at least 20 years (?). Germany has already said that they want to get rid of the dependency on Russsian gas, so in the long run they won't sell more than that, anyway. But that money will only get paid if the contract is upheld. We have told the Russians the several times that they have to honour the contract, so we can't very well just break it. The only way to get around that is either Russia violates the contract or there is a general gas embargo. The latter is not likely to come any time soon, the former... well, the Russians keep delivering the stuff but due technical problems, maintenance, you name it they just can't send enough. That way they hurt us some but retain some long term trade income. Sounds too constructed? Just my thoughts.

Very bad. It could seriously tank our economy. The government is frantically trying to find alternatives but if it was easy it would already have happened.
 
Of course we plan for the worst. But everything on top of that gives us a little more room to maneuvre. Pride is a bad advisor and should never guide a government. And while I fully agree that we should get rid of the stuff asap, on a rational level I have to concede that the better strategy is to take what gas we can now while we are busy finding alternatives. Even if we were to stop buying anymore gas now, we'd still have to get the energy from somewhere. Germany is a rather wealthy country, so I assume we will be able to obtain it. But with limited supply that means we are putting more money on the table than someone else who then will just go without energy. Darwin sends warm regards.

The first three Gepards have arrived in Ukraine:
Not connected but Russia will halve the gas delivery to Germany to 20% nominal from tomorrow. Reason is another defective turbine. Looks like they don’t even bother being creative. No one believes this anyway.

I said nothing of that. I said Russia is evil, I didn't give Russia the benefit of the doubt, I said they are bad. Period.
It was your quote. 🤷‍♂️ I don't think you tried to fool me, though.
 
I assume, you know no more about my background than I know about yours. So you could at least give me the benefit of the doubt (here it would make sense, I think). I highly value your knowledge and your opinion. You are very welcome to tell me where I err. But I politely ask you to do it in a less disparaging way. I am certain you know more about Russian concentration camps than I do which is probably really not that much more than a history textbook.
I freely admit that I am by no means an expert. Like most here, history is some kind of a hobby for me. Still, I am rather certain that I know quite a lot more about our history of 1939-45 than the average European school textbooks and also more than the average German textbook. If you have some kind of first hand knowledge about German concentration camps or have an academic degree in history of the 20th century I apologize. The "normal" German concentration camp was much like you describe the Russian ones,  inmates there were meant to die eventually. Still, a "real" extermination camp was, in my opinion, a different level of evil. With that in mind, when I talk about nuances, my intention is not to relativize past or present Soviet/Russian deeds. I don't say this as a German who might feel obliged to say we were the worst because we were taught to. I think that the Nazis were there own level of evil because of how they institutionalized and industrualized atrocities that maybe others commited too but in a less organized way. I feel these nuances are things we should be more precise about and I don't like the way everything evil above a certain threshold is immediately likened to the Nazis. I honestly think, the modern day Russians aren't there yet and I haven't seen proof that could convince me otherwise. That doesn't mean they are not evil in a very bad way. It only means, they could still be worse. Saying this does not trivialize them or their victims.
WWel, that is my opinion and I think I am entitled to it - but I am very open to discuss it and be convinced that I am wrong.

Valid point but keep in mind that many of us here are not native speakers, so don't interpret too much into single words/sentences. Also what you describe can be used as a way to manipulate your audience or just be an attempt at trying to find a common ground in order to lessen tensions a bit, as some topics we discuss can be really emotional to some.

Grigb, I sense you and your family have a personal inflicted wound from soviet times or today's Russia. Because you are really passionate about hating your own country in a way I haven't seen before. It's true I can't debate that, from my safe western corner of fantasies. But I can spot the personal side. The thing is, don't worry the message is getting across and we are not actually that passionate to defend Russia's actions. Maybe we are just playing the devil's advocate to try to challenge our own mindset and seek the truth. Its not changing the course of history. Even if we think that evil or backwards countries still have national interests or rights when even criminals have the right in court to defend themselves and not get them straight to the electric chair. 

Even if we were to consider them the sole (or even primary) reason for the Japanese surrender, I don't think the atomic bombings can be considered a counterexample to the lesson that terror bombing does not work. The 20s and 30s theory of terror bombing was that bombing cities would break the populace's will to resist and drive them to rebel or flee. This is not what happened in Japan...one can argue that the atomic bombings pushed the political and military leadership to a decision point, but not that they broke the civil population's will in any way that forced the government's hand.
As far as the USSR's entry into the Pacific war is concerned, I think it's both-and, not either-or, and even then there are other factors which probably played a major role. Contrary to the "official narrative" having been that the atomic bombings led to the surrender, there has always been a school of thought that the naval blockade was the real reason for Japan's capitulation (one can guess the inter-service rivalry affiliation breakdown of that debate). I think it's probably safe to say that the collapse of Japanese war industries due to the combined effects of the blockade and bombing, the appearance of nuclear weapons in the equation, the Soviets entering the war, impending famine due to the blockade and U.S. diplomatic signalling that the Allies would let Japan keep the Emperor as a constitutional monarch all contributed to some degree...

You already quoted the difference yourself there. The quote is about labor camps. It talks about the concentration camp part of Auschwitz. Not the extermination camp. Those were rather unique, I think. You can argue that if they compare mortality, who cares about how they did it. I still think, there is a difference in forced labor, not caring that people die in the process and sending them directly to the gas chambers.
Anyway, we should not get into a competition on who had the bestest evil empire.
And I still stand by what I said earlier: modern day Russia, as bad as it is, is not on par with Nazi Germany and also, I think, not with the USSR under Stalin. We don't do us any favour if we neglect to see nuances.

And that is really the point. Even if 90% of one side don't go boom are intercepted or whatever and all the warheads of the other side explode on target, so one side can technically say they have won, they will still have lost millions. Congrats for your great victory. Nuclear war means that both sides lose, just maybe one side loses more badly than the other.

You already quoted the difference yourself there. The quote is about labor camps. It talks about the concentration camp part of Auschwitz. Not the extermination camp. Those were rather unique, I think. You can argue that if they compare mortality, who cares about how they did it. I still think, there is a difference in forced labor, not caring that people die in the process and sending them directly to the gas chambers.
Anyway, we should not get into a competition on who had the bestest evil empire.
And I still stand by what I said earlier: modern day Russia, as bad as it is, is not on par with Nazi Germany and also, I think, not with the USSR under Stalin. We don't do us any favour if we neglect to see nuances.