Bucharest 2008 caught up with Merkel

Yesterday, the chair of the German Bundestag's Defense Committee, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, said that former Chancellor Angela Merkel is to blame for Russia's war in Ukraine. She did so categorically, telling two German TV channels her view of the behavior of Germany and France back in 2008, when Kyiv had every chance of becoming a NATO member at the Bucharest summit of the North Atlantic Alliance. But it did not, because Merkel, an influential leader and "unifier of Europe," decided it was too early.

That's why, according to Strack-Zimmermann, Germany should now "rewrite the history of Angela Merkel, especially the history of the last few years and the complete miscalculations."

“Merkel not only made it impossible for Ukraine to avoid many problems in its relations with its aggressive neighbor. She did not abandon her line even after Putin annexed Crimea in 2014 and effectively occupied Donbas”

The story, of course, is not very presentable. Merkel not only made it impossible for Ukraine to avoid many problems in its relations with its aggressive neighbor. She did not abandon her line even after Putin annexed Crimea in 2014 and effectively occupied Donbas. And I have to say that the "Merkel logic" is present in many public gestures of the German leadership, from the infamous Steinmeier formula to the recent strange statements of Olaf Scholz.

I have written many times about the motives of the former Chancellor and the reasons for her seemingly "incomprehensible" Russophilia. And I must emphasize once again that this is not about the "German guilt complex" invented by science fiction experts in relation to Moscow for World War II. Romanticism in politics is a rare and short-lived phenomenon. If Merkel ever mentioned that distant war, it only played into the hands of her "friend Vladimir" – that is, Putin – in his equally exotic policy of "victory madness" that, among other things, led to the February 2022 invasion.

“If Merkel ever mentioned that distant war, it only played into the hands of her "friend Vladimir" – that is, Putin – in his equally exotic policy of "victory madness" that, among other things, led to the February 2022 invasion.”

When all the archives of the German Stasi and the Russian KGB-FSB are opened, we will probably answer the question of why the father of the future chancellor, Horst Kasner, a pastor of a Protestant denomination, suddenly decided to emigrate from Germany to the communist-atheist GDR. And did this influence the worldview of Jungfrau Angela, who was committed to the ideas of communism from an early age? Finally, we learn about the role of Putin's then inconspicuous "intelligence officer" who, at the dusk of the USSR, worked in East Germany as a foreign intelligence officer under the leadership of Lazar Matveev. Didn't Moth’s (a nickname Putin had in the KGB – ed.) and Merkel's paths cross then? Of course, it was quite accidental...

Merkel defended Russia until the end, despite the obvious game of "her friend Vladimir" against Western civilization. And when they say now that the Germans were driven exclusively by mercantile interests (energy, Gazprom, Nord Stream), this is probably only part of the truth. No matter how much Merkel admits her mistakes as chancellor, such as her hard-won admission that NS2 was among Putin's arguments for a full-scale invasion, she will never tell the truth about what actually led her to be a de facto puppet of the Kremlin dictator.

“I think that Putin has kept the heavyweight of the European platform on a strong hook, just as he kept her predecessor Gerhard Schröder, by the way. And the term "Schröderization of European politics" will eventually take on its true meaning. These people were recruited by the KGB-FSB, were agents of their influence, obedient executors of sophisticated special operations”

I think that Putin has kept the heavyweight of the European platform on a strong hook, just as he kept her predecessor Gerhard Schröder, by the way. And the term "Schröderization of European politics" will eventually take on its true meaning. These people were recruited by the KGB-FSB, were agents of their influence, obedient executors of sophisticated special operations.

The same happened in Bucharest, where Merkel had to put her reputation and possibly her political career on the line to prevent Ukraine from receiving the Membership Action Plan (MAP).

We still see the metastases of "Merkelization" today. We wonder how Olaf Scholz is struggling to provide Ukraine with weapons in order not to lose face, but from time to time he plays the old song in a new way. The United States, together with its allies, decided that Russia had to lose this war on the battlefield, and Herr Scholz was among those allies. And the same Scholz (who is currently meeting with Joe Biden in Washington), after the agreements, in unison with Macron, is again calling for negotiations with Moscow.

Moreover, for some reason, Berlin and Paris are afraid of the collapse of Russia, the prospect of which Putin speaks of so "insightfully" and "tearfully". He can be understood: the fear of responsibility for crimes in Ukraine and for the actual collapse of Russia only increases the chronic paranoia of the Kremlin rat.

But why would Scholz want to do that? Is it because "the Merkel-Schroeder case lives on and wins?" Or maybe we should listen to Jaroslaw Kaczynski, who today suddenly voiced his version: there is a plan to unite Europe not as a federation, but as a centralized state under the leadership of Germany. "Chancellor Scholz does not hide this, he even speaks about it directly. This would mean the loss of Poland's independence," Kaczynski said.

And, of course, Ukraine, which does not fit into the configuration of "such a Europe" and, by default, would have to go to the imperial monster from the East.

About the author: Ihor Hulyk is a journalist, editor-in-chief of the Espreso.Zakhid website .

The editors do not always share the opinions expressed by the authors of the blogs.