Mutti's Misfortunes

Angela Merkel has published her memoirs. Inevitably suspect even if reading them is insightful.

Heads of state who treat us to their memoirs do so only to ensure that history judges them kindly. What motivated their rise to power and its exercise is the concern of securing a place in it (only fools believe they can shape it). The problem is, you can never be sure what place will be reserved for you. No one serves themselves better than themselves.

“To be a politician is to be able to predict what will happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year—and to be able afterward to explain why none of it actually happened” - Winston Churchill

In her 700-page opus, Angela Merkel explains why she foresaw what is happening today and why she was unable to prevent it. Angela Merkel is the epitomy of the anti-politician, as evidenced by her successive “coalitions,” which were mere manifestations of what is essentially a form of one-party system.

Angela Merkel has done nothing other than ensure the continuity of German policy—a policy rooted in that persistent continental imperialism that has yet to be quashed. This policy has been carried out through the unchallenged control of European institutions, which were put at the service of German interests, and the weakening of any European power—Italy, Spain, Poland, France—that might overshadow it. All this was achieved while acting in Europe as the Schupo, the American neighborhood cop. In this, she succeeded—without fully grasping the dire consequences of that success.

The criticisms aimed at the former chancellor, particularly regarding Germany’s relationship with Russia, miss the mark. Didn’t Bismarck insist that a good policy is a good treaty with Russia? However, in her memoirs, Angela Merkel fails to dispel the sharp doubts about the overall soundness of her policies, which, for over fifteen years, amounted to trying to have it both ways in every domain—except within the European Union. One example? Nord Stream and Russian gas as the engine of German industry and the energy policy imposed on the EU, while simultaneously participating in the American operation to use Ukraine to weaken Russia, all while bypassing Ukraine for Russian gas transit through Nord Stream.

Had Angela Merkel’s policies only concerned Germany, her record would be solely the concern of Germans. But since the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, which subjected EU member states to strict control, she imposed her economic, migration, energy, and industrial policies on all of Europe. Her legacy, therefore, concerns everyone.

This is not about denouncing Mutti and absolving other European leaders of their responsibility for failing to defend their countries’ interests. This is especially true for French leaders. One cannot fault Ms. Merkel for protecting Germany’s interests.

Compared to Olaf Scholz, Angela Merkel had gravitas. But the collapse of Germany unfolding before our eyes stems from her long tenure as Chancellor—seventeen uninterrupted years—not from her departure in December 2021, as some like to claim. December 2021, two months before the war in Ukraine began. This is worth revisiting.

Angela Merkel foresaw the disaster that the Energiewende (the “energy transition”), would become. To compensate and to consolidate German dominance over continental Europe, she aimed to make her country its energy hub via Nord Stream and Russian gas—a process initiated by her predecessor, Gerhard Schröder. This also meant dismantling the French nuclear sector by generously funding every conceivable anti-nuclear movement. Additionally, it involved negating the immense advantages of nuclear power by tying electricity prices to those of gas—specifically, to the production cost of electricity from the least efficient gas plant in Europe. Setting electricity prices based on a resource that no European country has in abundance—what could possibly go wrong?

Ignoring the fact that gas plants cannot provide the baseline power needed for a grid as large as Germany’s, she ceded everything to the environmentalists. The result? Germany is now the largest per capita emitter of CO2 in the EU. Coal plants are running at full capacity, burning highly polluting lignite just to balance the grid. The argument—or rather, the lie—of “renewable” and thus intermittent energy is one we owe to Germany and Ms. Merkel. We have just seen the consequences of nine windless days with little sunlight across the Rhine: Germany had to import the equivalent of the output of two French nuclear plants daily to avoid widespread blackouts.

Angela Merkel is also responsible for Europe’s migration crisis. In 2015, she unilaterally opened European borders, even though Germany is not their guardian, to appease German industry, which is always eager for a lumpenproletariat willing to work for five euros an hour. While she bears little responsibility for the Libyan catastrophe caused by Nicolas Sarkozy, David Cameron, and Barack Obama, she did support and participate in the Arab Spring, a vast destabilization operation across half a continent orchestrated by the USA. She saw no issue in bringing “moderate” Islamists—the Muslim Brotherhood, who were never moderate—to power.

Today, the Berlin police chief feels compelled to advise Jews and homosexuals against walking through predominantly Muslim neighborhoods in the German capital.

We recommend reading Thomas Fazi's excellent review of Ms. Merkel's memoirs, published on UnHerd? We agree when he states:

By pursuing an industrial policy that emphasised traditional manufacturing sectors — automobiles, heavy industry and mechanical parts — she left Germany lagging in the high-tech revolution. By phasing out nuclear energy, she deprived the country of a clean and cost-effective energy source. By opening the door to over a million asylum seekers, she created serious challenges in social cohesion and public safety. By embracing a paternalistic and TINA-driven approach to politics, exemplified in her concept of “market-conforming democracy”, she starved the German democratic discourse.

However, we disagree on one (major) point: Angela Merkel did not work towards peace in Ukraine.

How Merkel tried to prevent war in Ukraine

It was indeed Germany that, under the pretext of fighting communism, financed and armed the Banderists as early as the 1920s. At the time, they were a far-right terrorist organization that massacred Poles indiscriminately. It was also Germany, never truly denazified after the war, that acted as the “benefactor” of the guerrillas in western Ukraine, composed of Nazi collaborators and genocidal forces—the core of Bandera’s troops—who were operated by Reinhard Gehlen, a Wehrmacht general and war criminal co-opted by the Americans to head Germany's foreign intelligence service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND). And it was in Munich where Bandera lived comfortably until he was assassinated by the KGB in 1959.

It was Angela Merkel who, in 2008 (alongside Nicolas Sarkozy), signed the Bucharest Summit Declaration, which explicitly states in Point 23: “NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. (...) MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership.”

Yet, as early as 1998, when the first NATO expansion was being prepared in violation of promises made during the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, Russia—under Boris Yeltsin and through its Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov—had already declared that NATO’s expansion to Ukraine was a red line that must not be crossed.

Vladimir Putin reiterated this during his 2007 speech at the Munich Conference in unequivocal terms:
“So what is happening at this time? We are seeing advanced American military bases appear in Bulgaria and Romania, each housing 5,000 troops. NATO is moving its armed forces closer to our borders, while we, respecting the treaty, do not react to these acts. Clearly, I think, NATO’s enlargement has nothing to do with modernizing the alliance or ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation and undermines mutual trust. We have every right to openly ask: against whom is this expansion intended?”

Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy cannot now claim, as they have since, that they were not in favor of Ukraine joining NATO, as both France and Germany signed the Bucharest Declaration affirming Ukraine’s eventual membership. For Russia, the question was never about when Ukraine would join NATO but about ensuring it would never happen.

It is hard to claim to work for peace when one does not offer a firm and definitive “no” to the Americans regarding something known to be the cause of a serious future conflict in Europe. It didn’t take a prophet to foresee how it would end.

Angela Merkel was among the first to use the European Union to drive a wedge between Ukraine and Russia by proposing a free trade agreement to Ukraine while excluding Russia from the discussions—a brilliant method for de-escalating tensions. The Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych’s U-turn on the agreement provided the pretext for the coup that was Maidan in 2014.

The coup aimed to achieve by force—under the guise of democracy—what billions spent on media, NGOs, and political parties failed to achieve at the ballot box. The pro-Western leader installed during the previous 2004 coup, Viktor Yushchenko, was defeated in 2010 by his rival, reputedly pro-Russian. A government was then formed, composed of—let’s not mince words—Nazis and other rabidly anti-Russian ultranationalists, to permanently anchor Ukraine, one of the most corrupt and mafioso states in the world, to the West. Evidence shows that this government was orchestrated by the USA, as supported by intercepted phone calls.

Russia’s response was to capitalize on the chaos created by the West to annex Crimea—a Russian territory inhabited by Russians that was only transferred to Ukraine by a decree from Khrushchev in 1954, having previously been an oblast of Russia. Few question how many of the so-called “little green men” in Crimea were actually Ukrainian soldiers from its garrisons...

Little green men at the Perevalne military base, Crimea, 2014.

The Ukrainian government resulting from the coup d’état quickly passed a law making Ukrainian the sole official language, despite nearly 30% of Ukraine's population at the time of its independence in 1991 having Russian as their mother tongue. Two Russian-speaking oblasts in the Donbas, Donetsk and Luhansk, declared their autonomy. The Ukrainian government sent its army to the Donbas, which suffered an initial defeat at the hands of local militias supported by Russia. To end the hostilities, the Minsk I agreement was signed in September 2014, and NATO began rearming and training the Ukrainian army.

In January 2015, the Ukrainian government sent its army once again, only to suffer another crushing defeat. This led to the Minsk II agreement, this time guaranteed by France and Germany on behalf of Ukraine, and by Russia for the autonomous republics. Meanwhile, NATO continued rearming and intensively training the Ukrainian army, even incorporating Nazi paramilitary groups. This preparation aimed at launching an offensive to subdue the two autonomous republics and reclaim Crimea.

Angela Merkel and François Hollande admitted that the purpose of Minsk II was merely to buy time to rearm Ukraine, bring its military up to NATO standards, and build a defensive line along the Dnieper River, intended as a launching base for future operations. We will not delve into the dozen secret bases that the CIA established along the Russian border or the infamous laboratories whosez existente the United States has acknowledged..

[ Ukraine ] Ces labos de recherche "bactériologique" dont les USA ont nié l'existence pendant deux semaines

One better understands the lack of urgency both in France and across Europe to make the "Normandy format" work, which aimed to ensure that the constitutional reforms and disarmament outlined in the Minsk II agreements were implemented.

If Angela Merkel had truly worked for peace, she would have made Ukraine's neutrality a prerequisite and necessary condition for any European treaty with Ukraine, which would have made its entry into NATO moot. She could have used Germany's influence in Europe for the benefit of all, starting with her own country. Yes, this would have angered the Americans, who would have attempted to put an end to Nordstream, something they never stopped trying to do. Remember, Joe Biden eventually agreed to its opening, only to sabotage Nordstream II six months after the war in Ukraine began. Trying to have it both ways is no longer possible when a malevolent actor removes one side of the equation. It is the malevolent actor who must be shown the door, especially if that actor threatens to impose sanctions.

If Angela Merkel decided to leave power in December 2021, it was because she knew that the Russo-Ukrainian conflict was inevitable and that she understood the consequences it would have on her country and the entire EU. She left to avoid facing the consequences of her 16 years at the helm of Germany's destiny, and unfortunately, that of the EU as well.