| ▲ | Tade0 12 hours ago |
| Schroeder lobbied for Germany to remain dependent on Russian gas. Huge net negative in the long run. |
|
| ▲ | usrnm 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Genuinely curious, what alternatives were there in the 2000s? Did dependency on Russian gas doom German manufacturing or did it provide it 20 additional years of artificial life support? |
| |
| ▲ | thyristan 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Nuclear. The Schroeder government initiated the German nuclear phase-out (which was later reverted and re-reverted by Merkel). But rumor has it that the nuclear phase-out wasn't only motivated by the greens being anti-nuke, but also by Schroeder being interested in pushing gas instead. Btw., after his chancellorship, Schroeder got a post at the Russian state gas supplier Gazprom. | | |
| ▲ | Tade0 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Germany's gas problem wasn't purely about energy, but the availability of feedstock to produce chemicals. Natural gas, being 90% methane, is a valuable source of hydrogen. | |
| ▲ | ricardobayes 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's just the energy part of it, German heavy industry needs petroleum-derived products as raw materials. |
| |
| ▲ | mft_ 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | His direct involvement with the Russian oil and gas sector (and, most likely, influence on their behalf) is a lot more recent than just 'the 2000s' [0][1]. [0] https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/ex-german-chancellor-sc... [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der#Rosneft | |
| ▲ | Tade0 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Diversifying just a little bit would go a long way. When Russia invaded Ukraine suddenly several LNG terminals gained regulatory approval, even though previously those projects were in bureaucratic purgatory for years. | |
| ▲ | iamflimflam1 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The alternative was to aggressively pursue nuclear power. |
|
|
| ▲ | Towaway69 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In the context of the times it was the aim of Europe to integrate Russia into the EU zone. Who gave Russia all that money to convert to capitalism after the fall of the wall? The US. Who wanted Russia to become a capitalistic nation? The west. That it failed is in whose interest? And who is scared of Chinese influence? And who outsourced all their manufacturing to China? Sometimes context does matter. |
|
| ▲ | ErneX 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| My guess is OP was being sarcastic. |
| |
| ▲ | jojomodding 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | You can never know. People in Germany have wildly divergent takes on what would be good for the country right now and some things that are acceptable to say in mainstream circles seem batshit insane to me. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | dachworker 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| At the time it was a perfectly rational decision that followed the liberal foreign policy dogma of the time, which advocated that we tie up unstable countries with economic trade, so they become less incentivized to create havoc. Let's please not rewrite history. |
| |
|
| ▲ | asd-1287 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
