“In one of them, a soldier apparently told another that they had just shot a person on a bicycle,” Melanie Amann, Matthias Gebauer and Fidelius Schmid, wrote, describing Russian military radio traffic intercepted by German intelligence. “That corresponds to the photo of the dead body lying next to a bicycle that has been shared around the world.”
Der Spiegel on Thursday detailed what it said is evidence that Russian soldiers did, in fact, execute civilians in Bucha, the site of an apparent massacre that sparked international outrage and prompted Joe Biden to suggest Vladimir Putin should be put on trial for war crimes.
The article claimed Germany’s foreign intelligence service, the BND, is in possession of “gruesome new insights” into the alleged atrocities. German lawmakers were briefed on Wednesday.
Citing sources familiar with the audio, Der Spiegel said the material “suggests the troops spoke of the atrocities as though they were simply discussing their everyday lives… indicat[ing] that the murder of civilians has become a standard element of Russian military activity, potentially even part of a broader strategy [of] spreading fear among the civilian population and thus reducing the will to resist.”
Germany has been criticized for its reluctance to countenance a complete embargo on Russian energy, generally seen as the only step with the capacity to truly cripple Putin’s regime. Economy Minister Robert Habeck is at pains to accelerate plans aimed at reducing the country’s reliance on Russian fossil fuels, but generally speaking, Olaf Scholz has balked at the suggestion Germany should jeopardize its near-term energy security.
Hungary, meanwhile, will remain opposed to a gas ban, and not just because the country is “still heavily dependent,” as Dora Zombori, ambassador-at-large for energy and climate, said Thursday in Budapest. Viktor Orban’s victory at the polls left him free to claim domestic support for his stance on the conflict, which one might generously describe as “on the fence.”
Bruno Le Maire on Thursday said France is ready to back an embargo on Russian oil imports, but wants to ensure any such move is coordinated with other European countries. That, he said, could “take a few more weeks. “What makes us strong is acting as 27, united, because that is what hurts the Russian state and Vladimir Putin the hardest,” he told France Info radio. “I’d rather we take a few more weeks to get a ban on importing Russian oil so we do it together in a coordinated way.”
Approval for an EU-wide ban on Russian coal may be delayed for a month until August. “The EU Commission had initially proposed a wind-down period of three months for existing contracts, meaning that Russia could effectively still export coal to the EU for 90 days after sanctions were imposed,” Reuters said, adding that, “once approved, it will be the EU’s first ban on any import of energy from Russia.”
It scarcely matters. The coal ban is a joke. Guy Verhofstadt has seen enough. “You know why your strategy doesn’t work?”, he asked his colleagues, in an irritated harangue. “It doesn’t work because the fifth package is, what, coal? It’s ridiculous. This is only 3% of imports from Russia.”
He wasn’t done. “SWIFT, the ban, ridiculous. More than 50% of the financial institutions are still outside the ban,” he said. He posted the full speech to social media (below).
Your strategy of incremental sanctions doesn’t work. Cannot work…
That’s why 212 members of Parliament demand a special #EUCO meeting to decide on full sanctions immediately!
My speech?? pic.twitter.com/MFCtmboaf4
— Guy Verhofstadt (@guyverhofstadt) April 6, 2022
Verhofstadt called on the EU to “change its strategy,” warning that as currently calibrated, the sanctions will “prolong the war.” He singled out Germany. “I expect leadership,” Verhofstadt demanded. “Leading by example, and not dragging their feet as we see it today.”
On Wednesday, Scholz told the Bundestag the government is doing what it can to reduce its dependency on Russian gas. He insisted on justice for Bucha, telling lawmakers that the “perpetrators and those who commissioned them have to be held accountable.”
But Scholz’s words are likely to ring hollow in Ukraine — and not just because parts of the country have been hollowed out by Russian shelling. If Germany’s goal really is to ensure Russia “does not win this war,” as Scholz put it, a decision in Berlin to cut off Russian gas is the best way to achieve that end.
Of course, there are domestic political considerations. Germans are likely to view themselves as immune to Russian military aggression, and as such may view their own energy needs as paramount. So, for now, Germany will send weapons to Ukraine, while buying gas from Russia, thus perpetuating the conflict on both sides.
Meanwhile, as Russia readied the next phase in Putin’s “operation,” Dmytro Kuleba had a relatively straightforward ask as he arrived in Brussels for talks with NATO leaders. “My agenda is very simple. It only has three items on it,” he said. “It’s weapons, weapons and weapons.”
Germany’s selfishness is disgraceful.
Then again, it is the times we live in. No one wants to sacrifice anything. No one can credibly promise to coordinate such a sacrifice to make it as fair as possible. We’ve lost both the will and the skill.
Sanction Gerhard Schroeder.
Germany is our long-time friend and ally. As such, they deserve our respect and patience. They’ve gotten themselves into a Russian pickle because of decisions previously made by Angela Merkel to tie Germany to Russian oil and gas as a way to influence Putin’s better judgement. But she failed to take into account Putin’s will to power and isolationism.
In the longer term, if we can escape this terrible situation without expanding the fighting war beyond Ukraine’s borders, we all can be much better for it. The war provides excellent, numerous reasons for Germany to explore more deeply how to diversify its energy sources. Dare I say it, modular nuclear reactors to power German businesses and homes, and broad networks of charging stations for EVs, including trucks, can make a huge difference in their reliance on Russian oil and gas. It will take time. But the war provides clear reasoning to accelerate this necessary change.
“…she failed to take into account Putin’s will to power and isolationism.”
I think what she failed to account for is the possibility that the very second she was no longer chancellor, he’d do something dangerous. For all the (legitimate) criticism of Merkel, I’ve long maintained that when she finally stepped down, the world would start to unravel. And here we are. She may have helped create an unstable world, but she was the only thing holding it together.
? Why would Merkel be holding the world together? She never seemed to do much (Euro/PIGS crises in 2011 and 13) and what she did do was disastrous (refugee crisis in Europe)
Taking in refugees is never “disastrous.” To the extent you believe normative considerations count (and not everyone does), it’s a moral imperative. Two of the most vocal online critics of Merkel’s refugee policies in 2015 were immigrants, one of whom came from one of Europe’s poorest countries and was welcomed to America with open arms. And your reference to the sovereign debt crisis (below) seems to be inconsistent with your contention (also below) that if a country “asks for it” it should suffer whatever fate befalls it. The periphery gave up its right to print money and then lacked fiscal discipline. Economically speaking, that’s as disastrous as it gets.
Thanks for replying to my points (more below) but I still don’t get why you think Merkel was holding up things together. Despite my writing style, I am open minded and willing to recognise my mistakes.
On refugees – your point is well taken and I was a bit fast. Europe could afford, technically, to take on the refugees and it’s obviously the moral things to do and norms do count. OTOH, these points are pretty irrelevant if the influx of refugees end up getting right wing fascists elected or, at minima, Brexit. Sure, I can wish for a better electorate but that’s not how democracy works.
On country “asking for it”. Again, point well taken but you’ll note that I also pointed out we have to forgive whatever stupidity got a given country in a particular mess. It may annoys my sense of right and wrong but there’s just no upside to suffering. No one ever learns anything – short of Depression + WWII where I think we did manage to learn a couple of lessons, more or less. But that’s a pretty highly priced lesson…
Blame rests more squarely on Shroder
I don’t think there was any deliberate planning there. Infeoding yourself to an enemy isn’t exactly an effective deterrent for that enemy…
I suspect it was expediency/lack of choice. The German Greens hate nuclear (for reasons!) and, for a long while, they’ve preferred burning (mostly German, I imagine?) coal but, eventually, the irony of burning coal to help save the planet was too much and they switch to burning (Russian) gas.
After that, they were caught in a trap of their own making.
Unless I am substantially wrong about the above, it’s hard for me to have pity on the Germans. It’s like asking for pity for the Irish after the housing bust in 2007-2008. You asked for it. Now, expediency still requires we work with you (the Irish then, the Germans now, whatever) to improve things as there are no upsides to harsh economic cratering and people never learn anyhow.
That’s a charitable way of looking at it considering Shroder’s ties to Gazprom and Rosneft as well as his personal relationship with Putin.
I am all for modular nuclear reactors.
The last time I looked it up, renewables were only about 12% of energy- and that was just in the US. For the entire world, the only way to save ourselves is to use small nuclear reactors and “give” that to the rest of the world. We do not have enough time to make renewables a reality.
Hopefully, Bill Gates continues to make progress in this area. If Elon could figure out how to get “unblock-able” internet to the world, we might have a chance.
+1
“She may have helped create an unstable world, but she was the only thing holding it together.”
Made me think of Bismark.
Does stability always and in all things lead to instablility?
You did chose Heisenberg as your pen name.
Good one….
April gas receipts to Russia are expected to be $12B higher than in previous months, based on higher gas prices. As long as the money keeps flowing to Russia, this is nowhere near being “over”.
From what I have read, the occupants of Crimea and many other occupants of Ukraine actually support Russia because economically Russia provides a better place to live than Ukraine.
The Russian GDP per capita in 2020 was $10,127 ( in USD) and Ukraine was $3,726. In addition, Russian pensions are reported to be much higher than they are in Ukraine. Food prices were also lower in Russia.
I think taking in refugees should be seen , not just as a positive moral and soft power choice, generally, but also as the ingestion into a country of massive potential, skills and initiative, where refugees , at least in my country are much more likely to work hard and become sucessful.
Global population is forecast to peak anywhere from 2050 to 2080 and refugees are a huge economic input after the short term support. Educated and skills laden, in general Ukrainians are a huge gain for countries that take them in , over time. Remember Primo Levy’s the drowned and the saved’. It takes courage, initiative and capacity, as well as good luck and kindness, to escape and survive