Netanyahu is also Merz’s daddy.
You must log in or # to comment.
“It’s complex”
translation: “It’s very simple, it was illegal. But I won’t ever say it. That’s my job, you see.”
Isn’t the legal classification is complex some diplomatic version of you fucked up, but we’re ready to believe your lawyer?
Adding an acceptability benchmark to it, feel like preety critical considering the strong tie between US and Germany.
You’re not wrong but pushing the intended conclusion anyway (regime change) is pretty egregious imo
I read that as trying to be a yesman is hard (legally)
Merz is mentally ill and needs therapy. The narcissistic p.o.s. is not fit to do the job he was elected to do. Sadly, most of the Germans are dumb enough to not see a problem with that.
/a German
Seems like German politicians come in only 2 types: neo-nazi or wet cardboard.
(I hope I don’t offend you, I am not German, just telling an outside perspective)
Actually there is a third category… Elon Musk!
Wait… wait… no that’s just the first category again :/
no offense taken. as others have pointed out, we do however have capable politicians, it’s just that the majority of Germans are too dumb to vote in their own interest (not particularly a German trait, I suppose).
Habeck was pretty good actually
He was too good for our shit political landscape :(
I feel you
Wanna like him but he is complicit in genocide so that’s a hard no.
He is?
He was a minister in the last government that has delivered weapons to Israel, violently silenced anti-genocide protestors and discourse in general, and pledged to defend Israel in the genocide case at the ICC.
Also he is a Zionist: https://x.com/BMWK/status/1719757619471008148
I hadn’t heard of him. My apologies, he doesn’t fit into those categories I outlined.
The Greens, the Left and partly the SPD ate building different, though. Check what they say. Peace.
We have others, but they don’t get elected as chancellors.
Well I mean he managed to get the lowest approval rating of any chancellor ever. I wouldn’t say that Germans in general are too dumb to see the issues with Merz.
Enough people were stupid enough to get him elected even when all the intelligent people knew he would screw the nation. We could have had Habeck, but germany was too stupid.
We could have had Habeck, but germany was too stupid.
A fellow Sarah Bosetti enjoyer? ;)
We are too dumb to elect someone else, though. And IMO, Merz isn’t that much worse than his party colleagues, his party (and all other German rightwing parties) just sucks, and Germans are definitely not voting less rightwing these days.
not fit to do the job he was elected to do
But he was elected to do what he is doing!
Netanyahu is also Merz’s daddy.
Great ML slop.
You, “ML guys” are funny /s. And just as obsessed with Europe as the Trumptaitor. Now please ELI5 again how the " ML daddy" is much better than Merz?
I don’t even like Merz but that’s not the point, is it?
Relationship status: it’s complicated
The Mossad has tapes of him eating sloppy Bockwurst on the Autobahn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Élysée_Treaty
Just two months after the signing of the friendship treaty, a new controversy between France and West Germany occurred. President de Gaulle intended the treaty to make West Germany distance itself and eventually separate itself from its American protector. He saw West Germany (and the other member states of the European Economic Community) as vassalized by Washington. The treaty was notable in that it made no mention of the United States, United Kingdom, NATO, or the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).[9]
However, after US President John F. Kennedy expressed his displeasure about this to the West German ambassador to the United States, the Bundestag ratified the treaty with a preamble which called on France and West Germany to pursue tight cooperation with the United States; the eventual admission of the United Kingdom to the EEC; the achievement of a free trade accord in the framework of the GATT; and for the West’s military integration in NATO under US leadership.[10] This effectively emptied the Treaty of any sense (in Gaullist understanding) and put end to General de Gaulle’s hopes of building the EEC into a counterweight to the US and the USSR. “The Germans are behaving like pigs. They are putting themselves completely at the Americans’ service. They’re betraying the spirit of the Franco-German Treaty. And they’re betraying Europe.”[11] Later, in 1965, the General told his closest aides behind closed doors: “The Germans had been my greatest hope; they are my greatest disappointment.”[12]
This shit has been going on since 1963…
As much as I like the French surrender jokes, they have been the greatest advocates of a strong and independent Europe for the last 80 years, from de Gaulle then to Sarkozy now (domestic popularity aside). They are on to something…
France has been the most succesful military power in Europe for 1.5 millenia. IIRC they were temporary occupied just once.
They were briefly occupied at the end of the Franco-Prussian war, and the War of The Sixth Coalition ended with foreign powers sitting in Paris picking France’s new government.
Thanks, you’re correct. Three times. Still one of the most successful military powers in Europe.
Can’t wait to see what all those spineless politicians will say when Trump appoints a Governor of Venezuela.
He already did - kind of. He acknowledged the Vicepresident of Venezuela, Delcy Rodriguez, as acting President, and stated pretty bluntely, that they can treat her like Maduro if she doesn’t submit to his demands. I’d view this as appointment as governor Trumpi gratia.
As an American, it’s complex in that it’s definitely illegal, but it went faster than expected and we aren’t really in a “just put them back and apologize” situation. So now what?
Nobody wants him back…but he wasn’t the keystone of the regime, so…now…they just go on…until murica strikes again…or the regime sells out to tramp.
Hopefully Venezuela doesn’t pull an Israel and flatten Manhattan to “get their hostage back”.
It is complex because international law is only based on consent and there is no authority to enforce it (at least not against the USA). So nobody can really punish this but many will adapt their procedures now in all kinds of ways and nobody knows what exactly the others will do.
It is not complex in the sense that this isn’t new. The USA always were above certain international laws, like not acknowledging the International Criminal Court. The USA have a long history of meddling in other countries. Prisoners in Guantanamo were/are a similar “cannot just put them back and apologize” situation.
After the cold war, the USA acted as the global police for a “rules-based world order” but apparently they don’t want to anymore. That isn’t even a Trump thing. Biden was also less “rules-based” than Obama, for example. Thus, we are shifting to a multi-polar world and I don’t see that shift stopping any time soon. Some say that China and Russia are “challenging” the rules-based order but in my opinion the change is also pushed on by the USA.
“this is not the time to comment on the legality of the recent actions.” …
Many people disliked Gaddafi, are Libian people better off now than they were before the homicide of Gaddafi?
I genuinely don’t know. Are they?
The state is now divided among different contending military governments. It’s basically been in a perpetual state of civil war since the fall of Gaddafi. The situation is stable enough that they can have some international relationships, but not very much. They’re one of the destinations of migrants from other African countries, who intend to cross the sea to Italy. However most of them are not allowed to cross it and thus fill the country.
I can’t say much more regarding day to day life, as I have never been there.
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2025/country-chapters/libya
If population suffering, brutality, corruption are the reasons, every other country in the world has the justification to take out Trump.
What the fuck?
They seem content to inform the rest of the world that they like to gurgle the combined balls of the group of narcissistic idiots who currently are speedrunning the 4th Reich from the white house.
If they are this brazen with it we’re probably about to go into what seriously could be a modern recreation of the dark ages.
What would you do? With russia being an active threat, with Ukraine desperately needing supplies, with the EU replacing russian gas with US gas, etc., etc., what would you do in this situation, while knowing that the guy who ordered the attack is a malignant narcissist with dementia?
I know I wouldn’t try to appease someone who clearly doesn’t give a fuck either way. Someone needs to tell him to fuck off for a change, I bet he’d be confused for a solid 24 hours afterwards.
Granted, I live right next door to Russia, and as such have less to fear from the US than most.
Someone needs to tell him to fuck off for a change, I bet he’d be confused for a solid 24 hours afterwards
That doesn’t work on malignant narcissists.
Check out this video interview (and here is a short with “the gist of it”) with a psychologist who explains what malignant narcissism means in the context of Trump.
Not in the long run. It’d be interesting to see how he’d react in the moment.
He’s a malignant narcissist for sure, but he’s also in severe mental decline at this point. He’s also not used to getting bullied, although there’s some of that from his childhood buried down there as well.
He might not react like you’d think due to those two factors alone.
The fact that he has dementia works as a disadvantage for the sane world.
People with dementia often react with anger and violence when they get confused. So, it’s not “his malignant narcissism being restrained by his dementia”, it’s “his malignant narcissism is being boosted by his dementia”.
He knows as well as anybody that the US’ military power is unprecedented and unstoppable. There’s literally nothing the EU could do if the US decides to take Greenland by force, so the only hope we have is to placate him until midterms, and pray to all the gods that the Democrats win a sweeping victory.
Never said he’d be restrained, especially after he’s done processing to whatever degree he’s able to. Anyway, it was a thought experiment, nobody is going to tell him to fuck off until it’s too late. Everyone will be too busy “placating” him.
I wonder how your scenario plays out if they decide you don’t really need midterms, or more presidents for that matter? Just a dictator, and when that old fuck dies who do you think will take over? The couchfucker? Not likely, he’s even more of an idiot.
It’s likely that a strong EU or whatever is left of NATO after ya’ll fuck off is the only hope for a chance in hell for some kind of peace somewhere on the globe for a little while more.
Of fucking course now is the time. When would that be, in a couple of months when all is done and settled?
Colonialism/Imperialism in a nutshell.
unimaginable suffering
I mean, I know he was shitty but really? Because my imagination for suffering has increased quite a bit over the past year.
I mean, it is embarrassing but the strategy is clear here. Don’t piss off Daddy in hope to prolong the support for Ukraine (or preventing the support for Russia).
The EU and especially Germany has been grabbed by the nuts by the speed the US is leaving the show in Europe. Germany is doing as much for building up the military as the German society can take, it was admired for this strategy some time ago.
But they need a couple of more years to gain real independence (if they succeed). And for this time, they are vulnerable.
I see the hipocrisy, sure, but I don’t think it’s just stupid, but a strategy. I am genuinely interested, what would you guys do?
The fact that so many people don’t understand this is nuts to me. There’s the military gear support for Ukraine case, the Greenland case, the tariffs case, the AI tech case, all the IT services case - all of that crap that Trump, sufficiently annoyed, can just take away from the EU. It’s clear that Congress is no longer functional and US slid into dictatorship, so there’s nobody who could stop him. Which means that, when we see him illegally invading a sovereign country, we say “it’s complicated”.
My brother in Christ, we’ve known that since the beginning.
Reliance of defense on the US without owning nukes was bad, but digital services should have never left the continent.
US was two steps from fascism at least since the 2001.
I don’t see how the same people in EU will change the course. Because I don’t believe they want to.
And I worry only the alt right will benefit from it.
The trouble is that on a lot of topics, the German government and especially Merz’ party clearly aren’t interested in independence. It’s very obvious with digital services.
Just look at Merz’ employment history and you know why. He is bought by the US investment firm Black Rock. It’s as complicated as this.
And for this time, they are vulnerable.
I have yet to see a comparison of military capabilities of the EU and Russia, or Nato without the US and Russia that shows that Russia could win.
I see through your strategy and won’t do you the favor and disprove your claim, but ask you to do the opposite - show us that Russia is no threat towards the EU.
If you read military experts like for example Sönke Neitzel or Carlo Masala, you will come to the conclusion that Russia is indeed a threat. Comparing pure numbers of soldiers or dollars is a naive fallacy.
Sönke Neitzel or Carlo Masala
Thanks for the reference.
show us that Russia is no threat towards the EU
What would be the strategic goal? Using a war to conquer the Baltics for security is stupid.
The EU could unlock Russia’s resources and be the security partner to protect those resources against American interests.
The future of the world is in the east. It is a waste of resources to expand further in the west.
The tricky question is why Ukraine was then important at all. I think it wouldn’t be if things like Iraq, Syria or Venezuela wouldn’t happen. The US are developing starshield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starshield . Nukes don’t guarantee security anymore and Europe could be a sacrifice that the US is willing to make so some territorial buffer was needed.
What would be the strategic goal? Using a war to conquer the Baltics for security is stupid.
Putin stated very clearly, that his goal is to rebuild the Russian Empire. He claimed more than once all land a Russian soldier ever set foot on as genuine Russian possession - That would be the old Warsaw Pact.
The EU could unlock Russia’s resources and be the security partner to protect those resources against American interests.
That’s exactly what Putin’s Erasian doctrin aims fore Only problem. The European ideas about human rights, democracy &c are incompatible with the idea of an authocratic Russian hegemony over Eurasia. If he made peace and cooperated with the EU, these ideas would destroy his autocratic rule. He needs vasall states, not partners.
He claimed more than once all land a Russian soldier ever set foot on as genuine Russian possession - That would be the old Warsaw Pact.
Do you have a quote for that?
I have checked his essay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Historical_Unity_of_Russians_and_Ukrainians and it doesn’t sound that extensive.
Putin’s Erasian doctrin
Which doctrin?
He needs vasall states, not partners.
The way the EU reacted to Venezuela, it couldn’t get much worse. But is that really the Russian objective?
Why would France and Germany alone not be stronger than Russia? Apart from Nukes, if Russia aligns with Europe, e.g. like Norway, wouldn’t that shift power to the EU?
<He claimed more than once all land a Russian soldier ever set foot on as genuine Russian possession - That would be the old Warsaw Pact.
Do you have a quote for that?
Sure, at 03:23:21
Thanks for the correction.
The context in the debate is the rejected peace treaty. It puts pressure on Ukraine to sign as soon as possible. Russia was willing to stop and sign the treaty earlier which should show that expanding the territory is not the primary goal.
The Indonesian president afterwards mentions the influence of the media. It’s not as obvious as with Venezuela but the Ukraine war is also a big western resource grab. Framing Putin as an unreasonable imperialist hides that in plain sight.
It’s not about Russia winning against the EU, they can barely progress meters a month in Ukraine. Every Intel report the US withholds from Ukraine has the potential to cost Ukrainian lives, German equipment, French support, UK morale, etc.
The complete destruction of Europe is not the only thing we are worried about, every tantrum thrown by the orange toddler has very serious consequences.
It’s much easier to complain that to acknowledge real world complexities. Ukraine cannot, not could most of Europe, survive Russian agression without American command and control systems as that’s how NATO has run for decades in part to avoid costly duplication.
Now, a gangater is using that alliance as a point of vulnerability to shakerown “allies” and people get whiny about the digital services stuff. Europe has a really brutal hand to play right now and it sucks.
Legally trivial, morally complex and very much dependant on the outcome.
Same post when Greenland’s taken presumably?
Seems like it’s always the same. Dictators push borders and take over lands -> “Oh that’s illegal and very bad, but they’ll be satisfied with that and stop there” -> dictators take over another country -> “Oh that’s illegal and very bad, but they’ll stop there” -> rinse and repeat until it’s close enough to your country. “Who could have seen this coming?!”
How many examples outside of WWII are there in which such a mechanism started a war?
Ukraine?
Debatable: while countries did enter NATO that is not the same as getting acquired by a dictator. The resources of such countries were not taken by the “occupying” forces.
As an exercise I’ll take this as a valid case. That still makes them only 2 examples throughout human history, does that count as a common way in which wars start?
I think there are many examples, from the top of my head, I’d say Macedonian Expansion under Philip II, Napoleonic Wars, Second Punic War, Great Turkish War , Second Boer War, Caucasian War, Franco-Prussian War, Gulf War
Does it count if just a new head of state is installed that hands over the resources of the country to the companies of the dictator?
It counts under the first point in the list above. However, it sounds to me like you’re referring to current events; how would that address my question? My question is regarding historical examples to treat such mechanics as an established and common way in which wars appear.
I don’t remember too many wars starting that way, but I may be very wrong.
Can’t wait for the Chicago agreement where France and Germany let the US annex Greenland but America has to super pinky promise not to annex the rest of Denmark
And in the same breath Denmark buys 300 F-47s
Yeah, how dare he not declare war on a nuclear superpower over a Venezuelan dictator!
I think Putin already showed how little the world is willing to go to war to defend the weak.
That’s a strawman and you know it.
Even just saying they condemn the kidnapping would have been enough.
That’s just the international equivalent of “thoughts and prayers”
What they need to do is put out an arrest warrant for Trump in the Hague where he should get a fair trial and a chance to defend himself on the legality of the invasion. If he fails, Europe should collectively embargo the US.
Let there be some real world consequences for once, not just a condemnation
Nobody is able to embargo the US. Not Europe, not China, not Europe and China combined. It would be catastrophic, we simply don’t have the domestic capacity. Tech, certain medications, military hardware, spare parts, etc.
Sure, we could get a passable replacement for everything in 5 years or so, but until then it would literally cost lives.
None are able to embargo the big ones like China, the EU or even India.
BTW this is how you know Russia is not one of the big ones.
A machine translation is unacceptable. They tend to warp what was said or get it wrong entirely. At least use a good translation service if you are gonna do that.
What an asinine thing to say. Do you mean I should hire a human translator to read and repost a tweet in a language I understand but assume you don’t?
In my experience machine translation often have different, nonsensical or even opposite meaning when compared to the original. I.e. yes. You have no right to yell at a foreigner over things they may not have said in another league not directed at you.
Trying to sow doubt, are we?
