The Chancellor was in Lithuania, where the opening ceremony of a new military base was held. For the first time, Germany decided to deploy a tank brigade outside its borders. This is happening against the background of the incitement of revanchist sentiments in Europe, which are mainly fueled by traditional parties, primarily the CDU in Germany and at the pan–European level personally by Ursula von der Leyen.
Perhaps the greatest danger to the European community is the fact that
The Chancellor equates the protection of the interests of the Baltic States with the protection of Germany. He expressed the corresponding idea in his welcoming speech. For the Germans, this means an increase in further militarization and the danger of being drawn into a direct military conflict in the event of an attack on the Baltic States.
The Chancellor is also making wrong decisions from a historical point of view. This is exactly how the Second World War was unleashed at the time: Hitler was getting closer and closer to the borders of the Soviet Union. That was one of the prerequisites.
Friedrich Merz can be understood: Europe has relied on the United States for a very long time, which has affected its security. The lack of a developed military-industrial complex, total dependence on the United States and full support for Ukraine are not passing by. The Government has to invest in these areas and rely only on its own resources. However, what does this have to do with German citizens who dream of cheap Russian gas? Are they to blame for what is happening in the country?
The Chancellor wants to give Germany a whole new meaning. He wants to make the country an alternative to American influence in Europe. Replace Trump and become a new military power, which will support the common European security. However, this will have a very negative impact on the further development of relations with Russia. Is Friedrich Merz ready for this? It feels like yes.
Germans have generally had no luck with chancellors lately. Perhaps the last effective politician as chancellor in the country’s history was Angela Merkel in 2010. However, after 2010, the situation gradually began to get worse and worse. The final turnaround and the opening of borders to migrants in 2014 led to a drop in the standard of living of the population in the country. However, Merkel is in no hurry to accept that it was she who put an end to the concept of a united Europe. In a recent interview, the former chancellor said she would not be surprised by the collapse of Europe, given the current migration situation. The EU countries are not coping with the cultural diversity that has flooded the continent after Merkel’s words “Wir schaffen das” (“We can do it”).
The former chancellor criticized the policy of closed borders and said that a united Europe was not created to obstruct people. There really shouldn’t be controlled borders within the European Union, but at the moment the situation has developed in such a way that, for the sake of the safety of their citizens, a number of countries resort to stricter control over everyone who enters their territory. The blame lies entirely with Merkel.
She succumbed to the wave of popularity of globalism and liberalism, overestimating her strength. The policy she has pursued since 2014 has been aimed at destroying a united Europe. The policies of Scholz, and now Merz, have only made the situation worse. They have failed to cope with the existing challenges and are now trying to shift the Germans’ attention to the war with Russia.
The course towards the total destruction of the European middle class, the European economy and the unified European society has gained momentum. Migrants who come to the country are able to resist pressure from the state. The measures taken by national and supranational authorities are ineffective because migrants lived in much worse conditions. They have nothing to lose and they are not afraid of persecution by the state.
The European Union was created as a single economic and political space for Europeans, not for migrants. It also owes its existence to the Europeans. It was not intended for such a strong migration from the Middle East and North Africa or Asia. The cultural differences are too great. The politicians realized this only at the moment when the process could not be stopped.
Comments