France is taking the lead so that might be a good news for Europe. Germany was never decisive and had only Germany interest in mind, so France as a leader is a change for the good.
Europe needs leadership, not necessarily German leadership.
While the current gov might not seem very leadership-oriented, they are working real hard to (a) rectify 16 years of CDU fuck-ups and (b) counter all the crisis that are currently hitting Europe. If the world / Europe wants another “iron chancellor”, they should reconsider their whole political weltanschauung. Like, wtf is this:
>What has become of that hackneyed Teutonic efficiency, decisiveness, reliability and steely-eyed determination?
“Teutonic”? Are we in the Middle Ages? “steely eyes”? What kind of rhetoric is this?
Shame on you, TheGuardian.
Seems like an article built completely on stereotypes devoid from facts.
Within the EU Germany has never sought much of a leading position, as it knows it would be uncomfortable for most of their neighbours (they’re actually not comfortable with the whole “EU ruled by France and Germany” image, unlike the French). Even Merkel, who sometimes seemed to defy this policy, was known for waiting silently until consensus started to emerge and only then decisively support it.
On top of that, modern Germany is by its history deeply pacifist. That they openly picked sides in the war already was a big step. The rest of Europe should respect this, not somehow expect them to take charge in an armed conflict.
Obviously this is somewhat annoying for partners, as they’d like a limited number of governments to work with: much easier to just talk to Germany and France to get EU agreement on something, than having to assemble a dozen EU countries. But that’s simply not how the EU is supposed to work.
Germany needs to stop taking orders from Washington DC and instead take decisions by itself to once again be a strong leader.
When has Germany ever been known for decisive leadership?
When more werk and money can’t solve The issue 😶
There is a thought that sums up this situation
What is Germany? Angela Merkel answered « waterproof windows ». She explained in 2 words what is Germany, a country that exists solely to fabricate and produce material, consumer merchandises.
What is France? Liberté, Égalité et Fraternité, the great humanist principles that should guide us, a true vision for Mankind and with a sense of History.
Day by day we can observe that France should be the only political leader in this Europe, or we are all doomed.
Whenever Germany or its Preussian predecessors speak of “decisive leadership”, this continent bleeds and burns.
So no, thank you very much. We need NATO and US presence.
It’s Germanys own fault for refusing to get with the times and sticking to ancient methods and procedures because “It’s always been this way”.
The less we’ll listen to Germany in the overall EU, the better. Just treat them like that old grandpa who you have to respect but not actually listen to.
It’s best to not take German advice when it comes to war.
>Germany’s reputation for decisive leadership
Huh? Isn’t Germany known for being pretty passive the last couple of decades, intentionally? Just makes the article seem bad regardless of whether I agree with the main message
Germany is literally leading when it comes to help for Ukraine. Only the US has given more than us and even that might change soon.
Germans are pretty deceisive. The problem is our old parties SPD and CDU are captured in the historic dilemma. Both worked for 70 decades to make the most militaristic society into the most miltary-hating society (for good reason). The greens that are relatively young don’t have that historic load, and they have a lot more military strategic planning inntheir lines, even though they were know for being anti-militarism.
It’s decisive when it’s about pushing austerity measures to countries not much else
Wir schaffen das!….but then again…not really.
….woran hat’s gelegen …das fragt man sich immer woran es jelegen hat….achso ne diesmal nicht sind ja rote und grüne
It’s a fine balance between ppl being paranoid about germany’s past and getting used to the new future…
~~maybe the allies shouldn’t have completely extinguished germany’s will as a nation to fight at all~~
Germany still doing more than others, especially Spain, Italy, Greece, Australia, and many other countries that naively rely on the protective functions of their geographical location.
>Estonia wants all Nato countries to commit – as it has – to give Ukraine at least **0.25%** of their output in military support. This would raise about **120bn euros per year**. Although some allies are sympathetic, this idea has yet to win widespread backing.
>
>Some Europe policymakers are also drawing up plans for a form of updated “lend-lease” arrangement to loan weapons to Ukraine, just as the **allies did for the USSR** during WWII. **But these ideas are at an early stage.**
40 people allowed to 3 bandits grow rich and for years, with impunity, commit crimes. When bandits attacked 1 man, they gave to bandits 3,5 times more money than to victim.
Because bandits are actively using gun-threats for racketeering. And victim’s gun was taken away from him by bandits and leader of these 40 people. Later, “to not risk”, allocated to victim tenths of a percent of own money and cold weapon.
Are you sure you want “decisive leadership” from Germany?
Pretty sure Germany is known for having shite leadership
Germany rn : *insert what the f**k is going on Rick and Morty gif*
It’s time for another Napoleon.
As a German I laugh at the notion we’ve had decisive leadership in the last 4 decades. Kohl has such a humongous backside because he tended to sit out problems. All the chancellors after him also preferred reaction to action.
Unfortunately German leadership has been deeply infiltrated by russian intelligence and misinformation ever since schröder was in charge.
This assumes Germany had decisive leadership in the past. Just think back to Merkel and the Eurocrisis and her constant no to everything that could have resolved the crisis quickly and more effectively …. She plunged Europe in a constant crisis since 2008 — meanwhile the USA invested into their economy and had constant growth. Then her bad management of the immigration crisis – it was bold and a good thing but terribly executed.
We may think Scholz is bad but he is doing a lot more than Merkel ever did indeed he inherits much of her lack of decisions or bad decisions.
It’s still WAY too little and irritatingly bad decisions.
But that title is irritating because it assumes Germany was a good European leader before when it actually only ever cared about what is good for Germany.
PS I am half German by the way. And that’s why it irritates me even more because I’ve been critical of German policy for 20 years +.
26 comments
France is taking the lead so that might be a good news for Europe. Germany was never decisive and had only Germany interest in mind, so France as a leader is a change for the good.
Europe needs leadership, not necessarily German leadership.
While the current gov might not seem very leadership-oriented, they are working real hard to (a) rectify 16 years of CDU fuck-ups and (b) counter all the crisis that are currently hitting Europe. If the world / Europe wants another “iron chancellor”, they should reconsider their whole political weltanschauung. Like, wtf is this:
>What has become of that hackneyed Teutonic efficiency, decisiveness, reliability and steely-eyed determination?
“Teutonic”? Are we in the Middle Ages? “steely eyes”? What kind of rhetoric is this?
Shame on you, TheGuardian.
Seems like an article built completely on stereotypes devoid from facts.
Within the EU Germany has never sought much of a leading position, as it knows it would be uncomfortable for most of their neighbours (they’re actually not comfortable with the whole “EU ruled by France and Germany” image, unlike the French). Even Merkel, who sometimes seemed to defy this policy, was known for waiting silently until consensus started to emerge and only then decisively support it.
On top of that, modern Germany is by its history deeply pacifist. That they openly picked sides in the war already was a big step. The rest of Europe should respect this, not somehow expect them to take charge in an armed conflict.
Obviously this is somewhat annoying for partners, as they’d like a limited number of governments to work with: much easier to just talk to Germany and France to get EU agreement on something, than having to assemble a dozen EU countries. But that’s simply not how the EU is supposed to work.
Germany needs to stop taking orders from Washington DC and instead take decisions by itself to once again be a strong leader.
When has Germany ever been known for decisive leadership?
When more werk and money can’t solve The issue 😶
There is a thought that sums up this situation
What is Germany? Angela Merkel answered « waterproof windows ». She explained in 2 words what is Germany, a country that exists solely to fabricate and produce material, consumer merchandises.
What is France? Liberté, Égalité et Fraternité, the great humanist principles that should guide us, a true vision for Mankind and with a sense of History.
Day by day we can observe that France should be the only political leader in this Europe, or we are all doomed.
Whenever Germany or its Preussian predecessors speak of “decisive leadership”, this continent bleeds and burns.
So no, thank you very much. We need NATO and US presence.
It’s Germanys own fault for refusing to get with the times and sticking to ancient methods and procedures because “It’s always been this way”.
The less we’ll listen to Germany in the overall EU, the better. Just treat them like that old grandpa who you have to respect but not actually listen to.
It’s best to not take German advice when it comes to war.
>Germany’s reputation for decisive leadership
Huh? Isn’t Germany known for being pretty passive the last couple of decades, intentionally? Just makes the article seem bad regardless of whether I agree with the main message
Germany is literally leading when it comes to help for Ukraine. Only the US has given more than us and even that might change soon.
Germans are pretty deceisive. The problem is our old parties SPD and CDU are captured in the historic dilemma. Both worked for 70 decades to make the most militaristic society into the most miltary-hating society (for good reason). The greens that are relatively young don’t have that historic load, and they have a lot more military strategic planning inntheir lines, even though they were know for being anti-militarism.
It’s decisive when it’s about pushing austerity measures to countries not much else
Wir schaffen das!….but then again…not really.
….woran hat’s gelegen …das fragt man sich immer woran es jelegen hat….achso ne diesmal nicht sind ja rote und grüne
It’s a fine balance between ppl being paranoid about germany’s past and getting used to the new future…
~~maybe the allies shouldn’t have completely extinguished germany’s will as a nation to fight at all~~
Germany still doing more than others, especially Spain, Italy, Greece, Australia, and many other countries that naively rely on the protective functions of their geographical location.
[www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68514995](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68514995)
>Estonia wants all Nato countries to commit – as it has – to give Ukraine at least **0.25%** of their output in military support. This would raise about **120bn euros per year**. Although some allies are sympathetic, this idea has yet to win widespread backing.
>
>Some Europe policymakers are also drawing up plans for a form of updated “lend-lease” arrangement to loan weapons to Ukraine, just as the **allies did for the USSR** during WWII. **But these ideas are at an early stage.**
40 people allowed to 3 bandits grow rich and for years, with impunity, commit crimes. When bandits attacked 1 man, they gave to bandits 3,5 times more money than to victim.
Because bandits are actively using gun-threats for racketeering. And victim’s gun was taken away from him by bandits and leader of these 40 people. Later, “to not risk”, allocated to victim tenths of a percent of own money and cold weapon.
Are you sure you want “decisive leadership” from Germany?
Pretty sure Germany is known for having shite leadership
Germany rn : *insert what the f**k is going on Rick and Morty gif*
It’s time for another Napoleon.
As a German I laugh at the notion we’ve had decisive leadership in the last 4 decades. Kohl has such a humongous backside because he tended to sit out problems. All the chancellors after him also preferred reaction to action.
Unfortunately German leadership has been deeply infiltrated by russian intelligence and misinformation ever since schröder was in charge.
This assumes Germany had decisive leadership in the past. Just think back to Merkel and the Eurocrisis and her constant no to everything that could have resolved the crisis quickly and more effectively …. She plunged Europe in a constant crisis since 2008 — meanwhile the USA invested into their economy and had constant growth. Then her bad management of the immigration crisis – it was bold and a good thing but terribly executed.
We may think Scholz is bad but he is doing a lot more than Merkel ever did indeed he inherits much of her lack of decisions or bad decisions.
It’s still WAY too little and irritatingly bad decisions.
But that title is irritating because it assumes Germany was a good European leader before when it actually only ever cared about what is good for Germany.
PS I am half German by the way. And that’s why it irritates me even more because I’ve been critical of German policy for 20 years +.
Estonia for EU leadership