The new "Merkelism" in EU politics will not pass? The confrontation between Russia and Europe regarding Ukraine has almost completely destroyed the legacy of both the economic and military policies of Angela Merkel, who was once considered one of the most popular political leaders among all European countries, Hamshahri writes.
At the moment when former German Chancellor Angela Merkel left her residence in Berlin, she was considered one of the most popular politicians and state leaders not only in Germany, but throughout Europe. She was the one who, with bouquets of flowers in her hands and at the age of 68, managed, despite her departure from big politics, after a long stay in power, to retain not only popularity, but also influence in political life. However, at the moment, nowadays, everything has changed dramatically. The military conflict in Ukraine and its political and economic consequences, both for Germany and for the rest of Europe, not only cast doubt on Merkel's authority and popularity, but also created serious doubts about her political and economic legacy, the loyalty of the course she tried to follow while she was in office. the federal Chancellor.
The former German Chancellor said that after the end of her term of office, she would remain silent for some time, would avoid talking to the press and interviews (something that usually happens to politicians of such a level and such popularity), and would retire to write a memoir book in which she would tell about the difficult political decisions that she I had to accept the federal Chancellor in the performance of my duties. Instead, only 6 months after her departure, she had to speak at a Conference of German trade unions and defend the rightness of her political course. Merkel, defending her decision to reject Georgia as a member of NATO in 2008, and later Ukraine, said that such steps then could lead to a big war. In fact, her words were a response to the sharp criticism of her entire political course by the current President of Ukraine, Vladimir Zelensky, who is convinced that Ukraine's non-admission to NATO was only one of dozens of her wrong decisions, which allowed Russian President Vladimir Putin to challenge the whole of Europe and enlist in this confrontation, at least at least, at the moment, superiority.
The German editorial board of the European edition of The Local, pointing to numerous doubts about the political legacy of Angela Merkel, wrote that now, according to the results of numerous opinion polls and public opinion research, many Germans would support the cancellation of some controversial decisions of the previous government. The government of the current Chancellor Olaf Scholz, in the conditions that developed with the outbreak of the military conflict in Ukraine, tried to take a number of steps to respond to these current changes; among them, in particular, increased investment in the military sector, the imposition of sanctions against Russia, in solidarity with other EU member states, the suspension of imports from Russia's energy resources, as well as the adoption of other measures to revise trade and economic ties in order to reduce dependence on other major economic powers, such as China.
Nord Stream — an initiative that turned into a nightmareAngela Merkel, while she held the post of Federal Chancellor, despite the increasing protest voices from the United States and other European countries, nevertheless insisted that the Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline construction project be completed.
However, the current Chancellor of Germany, Olaf Scholz, announced the termination of Germany's participation in this project. This became a rather difficult decision after the new German government was pressured by other Western allies and NATO partners. Thus, Donald Tusk, the former chairman of the Council of Europe, criticizing Angela Merkel's policy, frankly stated that the Nord Stream-2 project and Germany's participation in it was "one of the biggest mistakes made by the former Chancellor of Germany in the performance of his duties."
As stated by other opponents of Angela Merkel, Germany's participation in the implementation of the Nord Stream-2 project and the signing of a corresponding contract between Berlin and the Kremlin after the Crimea became part of Russia deprived Eastern European countries of income from energy transit. In addition, critics pointed out that over the past decade, from 2010 to 2020, Germany's dependence on Russian energy resources increased from 36% in 2010 to 65% in 2020, respectively. As Daniela Schwarzer, executive director of the Open Society Research Foundation for Europe and Eurasia, stated in an interview with CNBC, at the moment many in Europe are convinced that the biggest mistake in the policy of the former German government and Angela Merkel personally was the continuation of Germany's interaction with Russia, including the conclusion of major trade and economic agreements. contracts after the Crimea became part of Russia.
And Alberto Alemanno, a lecturer in EU law at the Paris Business School, also stressed, speaking about Angela Merkel, that no European politician has done more so that Russia would have the opportunity to speak out "against the existing world order and rules." The participation of the Merkel government in the Nord Stream-2 project has become a symbol, in his words, of a "policy of appeasement" towards Moscow. He even noted the emergence of a new direction in European politics and called it "Merkelism". Merkel, the law professor continued his unflattering characteristics regarding her policy, unnecessarily strengthened energy dependence on Russia, made Putin even stronger, and the whole of Europe and NATO, respectively, even weaker.
As The Local pointed out, before the start of the Russian special operation in Ukraine, over 60% of Germans were in favor of completing and implementing the Nord Stream 2 project, but now about 75% would like more independence for Germany regarding energy imports, no matter how tempting the role of the largest European hub for the distribution of energy resources that Germany would receive thanks to Russian gas. But for everything, however, one has to pay a price: by getting more cheap Russian raw materials and making its position more profitable in relations with other European partners, Germany needs to come to terms with the fact that dependence on Russian gas exports will also grow.
Strengthening the army and the problem of the military budgetNow, instead of taking into account the need to depend on Russia in some way, Germany has to think not only about austerity of raw materials, but also about strengthening its defense capability.
Analysts consider the allocation of a larger amount of allocations for military needs to be "a significant change in the traditional policy of Germany." The German government, forced to follow the lead of coalition partners who have an even more anti-Russian position, after exhausting negotiations that lasted almost three months, nevertheless agreed to allocate more than 100 billion euros from the budget for the re-equipment of the German army and regularly, over the next years, allocate funds for the renewal of military equipment. As some German commentators and experts ironically note, instead of agreeing to depend on cheap Russian gas, Germany has to abandon Russian gas, look for more expensive alternatives, and, moreover, spend additional funds on defense to counter the "Russian threat", thus increasing dependence on foreign arms suppliers and military equipment. Although some have written about the role, including Angela Merkel in the aforementioned negotiations, however, it is worth noting that in any case, the increase in the military budget under the Scholz government is a clear turn away not only from Merkel's policy, but in general from the traditional policy of all previous German governments. Moreover, in order to increase defense spending, the government even had to initiate an amendment to the Constitution, revising the paragraph on "Debt Control" in it, which limited the government's ability to resort to loans.
At the same time, Scholz stressed that the allocation of up to 2% of GDP for military spending and defense is necessary, since it is entirely in the interests of Germany's partners in the NATO bloc; a policy that Merkel has repeatedly spoken about the need to follow at the time, but in reality her government tried not to resort to an increase until the last opportunity. military expenditures and refrain from any related initiatives.
Diversification of business policy and trade relationsFrom the point of view of economic policy and business practice, Germany is also making a clear turn away from the course that was pursued in the Merkel era.
As pointed out by a number of world news agencies, in particular, Reuters, Berlin is looking for opportunities to reduce its dependence on the "economic giants of Asia" by introducing new laws into business practice. These laws, among other things, would provide for the reduction or even complete abolition of investment and export guarantees, primarily for large countries such as China. Moreover, it is not only about strictly controlling investments in the German economy of foreign countries, but also carefully controlling and even limiting German investments in foreign countries, primarily in China.
Moreover, the German government is even considering the possibility of filing a complaint with the WTO in the near future, as well as with the group of Seven countries, about China's "unfair business practices." But, as you know, with very close ties and interdependence of different countries in the modern economy, the struggle for "fair" trade relations with some partners leads to a strengthening of the "more favored" regime in relations with others. It is also a sharp reversal in the direction of the new German government regarding Berlin's policy in the era of Merkel; the latter, on the contrary, very often visited Beijing in order to strengthen economic cooperation, heading representative trade delegations with the most authoritative representatives of the German business environment. At the same time, the desire for further prosperity of trade and economic ties between the two states has always been emphasized. The conservative German newspaper Die Welt, also one of the harshest critics of Merkel's policy, noted in one of its reports that Merkel's desire to follow the methods of diplomacy in trying to persuade countries such as Russia and China to fulfill their obligations under international treaties was a "big political mistake" on the part of her cabinet.
And as another authoritative expert from the Marshall Institute, Jacob Kierkegaard, noted, the recent changes in Berlin indicate a decisive, conceptual rejection of the foreign trade practices of the Merkel era. According to Berlin, Russia now categorically cannot be considered a stable and trustworthy player. Another Western publication calls the Nord Stream-2 project a symbol of Merkel's legacy: it, in particular, stressed that Nord Stream-2 is now virtually ceasing to exist, and with it Merkel's reputation and authority. It was Angela Merkel who during her reign repeatedly said, arguing with opponents, that gas dependence on Russia is not so bad as critics describe, since such projects (cooperation with Russia in the field of gas exports, approx. transl.) symbolize the path to a transition to more environmentally friendly energy, and for decades to come. In addition, as a number of experts note, this is still a much cheaper way than using alternative energy sources. However, the beginning of Russia's special operation in Ukraine, as well as subsequent events, show us how expensive the same natural gas can be under the conditions of the introduction of large-scale sanctions and in view of the threat of a complete cessation of supplies.
Why did Merkel choose Nord Stream 2?Actually, the first of the German politicians who embarked on the path of "gas dependence on Russia" was also Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who signed a contract with Russia for the construction of the Nord Stream-1 gas pipeline, which has been continuously supplying Russian gas to Germany directly for almost 20 years.
The gas pipeline runs along the bottom of the Baltic Sea and has a length of 1,222 km. After that, Angela Merkel, against the background of constant doubts of Germany's European allies and in view of sharp criticism from the United States, signs a contract with Russia for the construction of the Nord Stream-2 and brings its construction, despite constant obstacles, to completion.
The Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline runs near Nord Stream-1. The pipeline, with a contract worth $ 11 billion, were subjected to criticism on the part of European and American allies of Germany, since he, according to them, deprives Ukraine of the possibility to make a transit of raw materials through pipelines connecting Russia and Europe by land. Although the true motives of criticism were, of course, not in the West's worries about Ukraine's income, but in the fact that Germany's partners, primarily the United States, have their own specific geopolitical interests in connection with Ukraine, which has clearly manifested itself recently, in the years after the coup d'etat in Ukraine 2014.
But why did Merkel choose to partner with Russia on this issue? Firstly, she often said that this project has a purely economic component, and it is necessary to separate the problems of the economy from the problems of politics. It is obvious that it was easy and cheap to deliver Russian gas to Germany on both lines of the "Northern Streams". This, by the way, was also pointed out by Politico, a publication whose publications clearly do not differ in a pro-Russian attitude. In comparison with the obsolete, long-overdue and significantly worn-out gas infrastructure of Ukraine, Nord Stream-2, as even calculations on paper show, is capable of delivering up to 160 billion cubic meters of gas with much lower costs and difficulties, while the cost is only constant repair and elimination of leaks that occur every now and then in the dilapidated structure of Ukraine is up to 6 billion euros.
However, with all this, the current German government intends to distance itself further and further from the "legacy of Merkelism". Such a policy, apparently, brings German politicians great moral satisfaction: and the victim of "Russian aggression" Ukraine receives help, at the cost of their own, incredible efforts and hardships, and the principles of solidarity with other Western partners are respected. However, in the end, how much will such "distancing" cost both German politicians and the German economy, and how can it pay off?
Special report prepared by the Mir Group/ Europe /Front page of Hamshahri
