GER politics thread

[Skybird]

FOCUS writes:
---------------------
Confidence in Chancellor and Government Plummets Drastically

Trust in political institutions in Germany has fallen sharply compared to the previous year. Especially Chancellor Olaf Scholz does not come off particularly well in the current trend barometer.

The latest RTL/ntv trend barometer shows a drastic drop in trust in all ten political institutions surveyed in Germany. In the forsa institutions trust ranking, which has been conducted for 15 years, the biggest drop in trust can be observed in the two institutions of the executive branch at the federal level - the chancellor (33%) and the federal government (34%) - with a drop of 24 and 22 percentage points, respectively.

Trust in political institutions at the turn of the year 2022/23 in percent.
In parentheses, change compared with turn of the year 2021/22 (percentage points)

Federal President 63 (-12)
State government 46 (-9)
Mayor 44 (-11)
Municipal council 43 (-9)
City/municipal administration 43 (-9)
Federal Parliament 37 (-13)
Federal government 34 (-22)
Federal Chancellor 33 (-24)
European Union 31 (-7)
Political parties 17 (-7)

The Bundestag (37%), the Federal President (63%) and the mayor (44%) all show a drop of more than 10 percentage points. At the turn of 2022/23, trust in state governments (46%), municipal councils (43%) and city and municipal administrations (43%) is 9 percentage points lower. The decline in trust is somewhat smaller, at 7 percentage points each for the European Union (31%) and the political parties (17%).

At the turn of the year 2022/23, as in all previous years, the German president (63%) enjoys the highest level of trust among political institutions. Just how drastically trust in the institution of the German chancellor has fallen is shown by a comparison with the trust rating Angela Merkel received at the turn of the year 2020/21 at the height of the Corona wave: at that time, 75 percent had great trust in the chancellor. At the turn of the year 2021/22, 57 percent still had great confidence in her successor Olaf Scholz.

At the turn of the year 2022/23, trust in political institutions also differs in the eastern and western states. With the exception of institutions at the local level (municipal representation: 44%), East Germans' trust in other political institutions is lower than that of West Germans. The difference between East and West is particularly large when it comes to trust in the Federal President (East: 53%; West: 65%) and in the European Union (East: 20%; West: 33%).

However, clear differences in the degree of trust in political institutions can also be seen between the supporters of the individual parties, especially between the governing parties. In particular, supporters of the Greens and the FDP have less trust in the chancellor, the federal government and also the Bundestag than supporters of the third "traffic light" party, the SPD.

As in previous years, AfD supporters have by far the least trust in all political institutions. Only 2 or 3 out of 100 AfD supporters have confidence in the chancellor, the federal government, the Bundestag or the European Union.

-------------------------------------
You should have seen some of the violence in Berlin's New Years Eve. First responders got deliberately targetted. Emergency cars and ambulances got ambushed and deliberately set aflame with crews on board, got broklen open and polundered while beign forced to stop. Fireworks got fired through police cars' windows from 2-3 meters away, with crew inside. Fire extinguishers were thrown onto ambulances in an attempt to shatter the windshields so that the crew could be brought under fire from fireworks, thnakfull the wiodnshields broke, but did not shatter completely. Faked emergency calls trapped responders: police and fire fighters, to beat them up in ambushs and chase them thorugn the streets. The police expected the worst new years eve ever after two locked-down years, but still got surprised by the scale of pure, disinhibted hate. Well, its Berlin, as failed state. Police says most violance comes from recently imported migrants who refuse integration alltogether. Interestingly this is not reflect much by our state media, instead the narration is that it is political right extremism challenging the rule of "democracy".


Its has beocme common habit that crews of ambulances and firefighters, whenever they get called to an emergency, are being attacked, are spit at,. beign thrown at with rocks and sotned, get kicked, beaten, bitten, and attacked with slur words. Its absolutely common in Gemany now, it is no exception anymore.


Both ^ things described above, are linked to each other, though the full context is wider, of course.


The deal between governemnts and citizens is no more existent: the givenrment dleivers on it sobligaitosn to serve and protect the citizens,m the citizens therefore pay for that anbd are loyal to the polcital system. The givenrments fail to fullfill their dutiesk instea dopprutnstically amke thigns ever worse, and are ignoring unwanted realities. Therefore citizens turn away and do not see an obligation anymore to stay loyal to the governments. I am talking about the numbers in the Focus article, not about the violence in Berlin: that is predominantly caused simply by non-integratable criminal scum and clans imported from other, southern, oriental and African countries, and homegrown anarchists. The desastrous ideological energy goals of the coalition around Bubble-Olaf of course further attributes to the citizens turnign away: not all Germans are that stupid, you know. Many see quite clearly the abyss they get pushed into. I only wonder why they react this lame, and this late only.


Why Dampfplauderer (=steam chatter) Steinmeier gets so high scores, is beyond me. In reality, he's just spinning empty, twisting garlands of words. Catchphrases are his primary and only competence.

[Skybird]

FOCUS again:
--------------------------
Let's be honest: What if there's nothing left to integrate?

Beyond the appealing declarations of indignation: What are the lessons to be learned from the Berlin riot night on New Year's Eve? One would also have liked to know whether a new anti-state caste is just emerging: migrant autonomists, for whom the German state is only a willing victim.

It is one of those helpless substitute discussions with which the political establishment throws sand in the eyes of its horrified citizens. What good is a ban on firecrackers when a young, male, autonomous subproletariat nonchalantly arms itself with stones, sticks and fire extinguishers to attack police officers and firefighters?

Franziska Giffey [tight-left SPD mayor of Berlin, Skybird] announces "consequences." What? An expansion of firecracker ban zones in the city, she says. What's interesting is what the governing mayor of this ungovernable city isn't saying: here's my plan to restore law and order throughout the city.
Firecracker riots in Berlin: what if there's nothing left to integrate?

CDU state leader Kai Wegner demands that these "crimes" be consistently investigated and punished. The FDP's domestic policy spokesman in Berlin's House of Representatives is more correct in his analysis: "For decades, the Berlin Senate has failed to make it clear that the state has a monopoly on the use of force," says Björn Jotzo. For "decades" should probably mean: The CDU has not done any better.

In view of the riot, Jens Spahn speaks of "unregulated migration" and "failed integration." But the vice chairman of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the Bundestag does not ask the really painful question: What if there is nothing left to integrate?

Because, as his North Rhine-Westphalian CDU party colleague from the European Parliament, Dennis Radtke, analyzes, "in some neighborhoods, right across Germany, we're dealing with a mix of failed integration, poverty, unemployment, frustration and rejection of the system." CDU social policy expert Radtke calls the mix "highly explosive."

The chaotic rioters not only rioted in Berlin. But also in Paris, just again, on Boxing Day. The scenario has been known there for some time - the class of the outcasts from the ugly suburbs, the banlieues, where French people no longer want to live, give vent to their blind rage against the state - then the cars burn and state police and firefighters are lured into traps with burning garbage cans, where they are then really attacked.

As on Hermannstraße, where 25 hooded violent criminals attacked a fire engine of the "volunteer fire department" - asocials against volunteers, so was the asymmetrical order of battle on New Year's Eve on the Neukölln Magistrale. Migrants say laughing into running cameras, they came from a war, what they experienced here is not to be compared with it.

For the protection of foreigners and immigrant nationals, it must be said: this often migrant mob is a minority, a very small one at that; some are the lost children of their long-integrated parents for this society. This has its own tragedy. Anyone who spends time in migrant milieus, whether in Berlin, Hamburg or the Ruhr area, knows that anyone who wants to gather votes for a tougher state that finally takes action, locks the mob up or deports them immediately, only has to hold his microphone here once.

"They're destroying everything we've built up here" - you often hear this phrase, whether at the "Späti" in the narrow streets of Neukölln or at the bus station in Mülheim, in places where Germans have long been in the minority. And young men from Africa and the Middle East dominate the scene. Only North Rhine-Westphalia's Interior Minister Herbert Reul openly states that most of the perpetrators come from the immigrant milieu.

The German police union's call for a "relentless political clarification of the events, also with regard to the origin of the perpetrators" will probably be met in vain. What can one expect from "clarification" when the Berlin police leadership instructs its officers to speak only of "West Asians" and no longer of "southerners". Because otherwise they could come under suspicion of racism from the Red-Red-Green Senate.

As for "West Asians," we now know where it is: East of the Tempelhof/Schöneberg district and west of Treptow/Köpenick. Will the new name for Neukölln catch on? And what do the West Asians, according to the United Nations: Vorderasiaten, to it, if they are discriminated in Berlin in such a way?

End of irony, but: For a deeper understanding of the events, a few lines from the reportage that the autonomous poet Sebastian Lotzer wrote on the radical left blog platform "non-copyriot.com" about the Berlin New Year's Eve:

"Everyone who wanted to know knew what was going to happen. Anyone walking the streets of this city, moving outside their bubble of comfort, talking to proletarian youth, knew that the night of reckoning had come. Almost three years of pandemic state of emergency, everywhere harassment, repression and cops, now the next solidarity effort of society, all have to make sacrifices for the just war. Where the coal is not enough at the end of the month anyway, it is not even enough for half the month. The everyday racism of the cops, the poverty that you only escape if you earn your money in a creative way beyond the bourgeois rules of the game. You are the dregs of society, uneducated sounds different from antisocial milieu, but means the same thing."

The political left is droningly silent about what really happened in Berlin and elsewhere. Social Democrats, Leftists and Greens have their victim cult narrative ready, they repeat it without ceasing: they talk about discrimination BY migrants. Not a word is heard from them about discrimination BY migrants.
For these people, the German state is simply weak.

A responsible federal government would talk differently. Not of the "immigration country Germany", whose also consequences one could study at the turn of the year. But about the limits of migration. About undesired immigration, about uncontrolled migration, about fighting migrant criminality and about how to deal with an asocial subproletariat at all.

For these people, the German state is simply weak. A potential victim. In Berlin, they are experiencing it again right now - all 100 of those arrested are on the loose again for the time being. In a defensible state, this would not have happened.

For the time being, one hears nothing more from the Reichsbürger. But we will hear from the other state-haters again. In Berlin, at the latest on the night of May 1.
-------------------------------

[Jimbuna]

German minister's 'tone deaf' address on 'war raging in Europe' drowned out by fireworks

AGerman minister's video address to mark the new year has been drowned out by fireworks. The minute-long clip, which was filmed on the streets of Berlin, also drew criticism for its "tone-deaf" message.

German Defence Minister Christine Lambrecht was barely audible above the sound of exploding fireworks when she reflected on a year which ended with "war raging in the middle of Europe".

In the video uploaded to her personal Instagram account, Ms Lambrecht said that the conflict in Ukraine had led to "a lot of special experiences" and the chance for "many encounters with great and interesting people".

Liberal broadsheet Der Tagesspiegel said the address failed to "hit the right note" and made Russia's invasion of Ukraine sound like an "exciting professional experience".

Conservative tabloid Bild claimed the message "shamed" Germany, according to the Telegraph.

Fireworks had been banned for two years due to the pandemic but this year revellers were once again able to set off rockets and firecrackers.

However, the scenes appeared to provide an uneasy backdrop as Ukraine continues to face Russian airstrikes.

An intelligence update from the Ministry of Defence on New Year's Eve said: "On December 29, Russian forces launched another wave of long-range strikes across Ukraine, once again primarily targeting the power distribution network.

"Since October, Russia has sustained a general pattern of conducting an intensive wave of strikes every seven to ten days.

"Russia is almost certainly following this approach in an attempt to overwhelm Ukrainian air defences.

"However, there is a realistic possibility that Russia will break this pattern to strike again in the coming days in an effort to undermine the morale of the Ukrainian population over the new year holiday period."

The criticisms come after Ms Lambrecht faced questions about Berlin's somewhat sluggish support for Kyiv.

Lambrecht was mocked last year after she made an announcement about sending 5,000 helmets to Ukraine.

The package came when Ukraine was pleading for heavy weapons to halt Vladimir Putin's troops.

A spokesperson for Berlin's defence ministry refused to comment on Ms Lambrecht's "private video" during a regular press conference.

However, he did say that "no official resources" were used in the production of the clip.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...7de18bb263814c

[Skybird]

Berlin police says of 145 arrested young vandals who attacked first responders on NY (and who all are set free again already...), 35 were Germans - the rest all were migrant nationalities.

The SPD mayor of the anarchistic senate in Berlin said she will draw "strong and strict consequences" from the events. She explained what she means by that: a thorough analysis of the police's plans and work. Aha!

The political left on national level leaves no word on the events. The violence seen is not matching their idea of le bon sauvage . It was much the same with the sexual mass attacks on hundreds of women on NY in Cologne 2016.

[Skybird]

Der Tagesspiegel on the Puma-debacle:
--------------------------

Some three weeks after the mass failure of Puma infantry fighting vehicles at a military training area, Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht (SPD) has submitted a one-and-a-half-page report to the Bundestag on the state of affairs. Without going into detail, it raises doubts about the weapon system's suitability for deployment, but also highlights its qualities as a "technologically high-quality weapon system" with "promising performance data."

All but one tank had basically been repaired, he said. The brief presentation provoked some heated opposition from members of the government and coalition. For example, the budgetary spokesman for the Green Party, Sebastian Schäfer, said that Lambrecht's report "does not provide any answers to the many unanswered questions about the Puma. The ministry continues to grope in the fog about what led to the failure of the systems."

The defense policy spokesman for the Union faction, Florian Hahn (CSU), told the F.A.Z.: "We had to wait more than two weeks in the defense committee for this extremely narrow briefing on the Puma." AfD defense politician Rüdiger Lucassen spoke of an "extremely meager briefing."

While the defense industry had spoken of "trivialities" at the beginning of the week, which had already been repaired except for one damage, the Lambrecht report contradicted this. The report states that there is a "differentiated picture of predominantly minor and medium damage, but also some more serious damage". And further: "The failure of individual high-value parts as well as fire damage, however, require further investigations."

The restoration of full operational readiness "also requires further work in some cases". These are "currently being worked on at full speed." In addition, the ministry is issuing an updated interim certificate to the overall system that is insufficient with respect to its actual wartime capability: "At present, the system can only be operated in a closely interlocked system of troops, army maintenance logistics, project management and industry."

So the Puma can only be sent into combat if the Army, two agencies and industry cooperate closely at all times. That might be difficult to implement under combat conditions. For example, the failure of an overheating electronic component would be technically trivial and easily repaired outside the battlefield. In combat, however, even such a "triviality" could be fatal for the crew.

After Minister Lambrecht initially failed to immediately inform the Defense and Budget Committees about the failure of all 18 Pumas, she promised on December 20 to submit a damage report by the end of the year, but failed to do so. Parliament had approved a bill for 850 million euros to modernize more Pumas one day after the failures, but before they became known.

The mass failure at a company practicing for the NATO Rapid Deployment Force (VJTF) means that all the Pumas intended for it will be replaced for the time being by some 50-year-old, albeit modernized, Marder infantry fighting vehicles. Green Party politician Schäfer said it was "very regrettable that Germany can only fulfill its obligations to NATO with Cold War material - despite spending billions on a new infantry fighting vehicle."

AfD defense politician Lucassen said the ministry's task in the current situation "is not to protect the political survival of Christine Lambrecht, but to restore the operational readiness of the German armed forces."

Florian Hahn (CSU), the defense policy spokesman for the CDU/CSU, also assigned responsibility to her: "One thing is certain: the handling of the Puma is yet another communication disaster on the part of Ms. Lambrecht. Instead of first getting to the bottom of the facts, she immediately went way out on a limb, followed by the typical Lambrechtian attempt to obfuscate, cover up and divert attention from her own responsibility as minister." The minister is "completely out of place in the Ministry of Defense."

There is at least agreement between industry and the Bundeswehr that they want to continue using the infantry fighting vehicle, if only for lack of an alternative. In the advertising lines of the Lambrecht report, it is stated that the Puma has the basic ability "to give the troops superiority in combat. However, it also requires robustness and reliability.
-----------------------------
The Puma is an overbred, too sensitive and delicate prima donna. A firefight of mechanized infantry is not a surgical procedure with a scalpel, delicate craftsmanship and subtle music in the background, but generates brutal force that a tank must be able to reliably withstand. The Puma is obviously not up to it. Much too overbred. I have been distrusting this thing for years. As I read somewhere the other day: Engineers want to breed racehorses, but military men need reliable working buffaloes.

[Skybird]

Die Welt comments:
-----------------------
Marathon on approval of tanks - A symbol of the chancellor's systematic dithering

The German government is celebrating its decision to deliver armored personnel carriers to Ukraine after all. But the spectacle that preceded the Marder deliveries shows once again that the chancellor's hesitation follows a system that allows only one conclusion.

On April 1 of last year, Olaf Scholz received a short-notice visit. Ex-boxing world champion Wladimir Klitschko, brother of Kiev mayor Vitali, had come to the German capital to address the chancellor's office in person. The central concern of the athlete, who led a delegation of Ukrainian politicians: the delivery of Marder infantry fighting vehicles to Ukraine. Olaf Scholz knew what the Ukrainian visitor was talking about.

Because about a month earlier, shortly after the chancellor's "turn of the century" speech, Germany's largest arms manufacturer, Rheinmetall, had offered the German government 100 decommissioned Marder vehicles for delivery to Ukraine. However, the German government ignored the offer - and even Klitschko was unable to change Scholz's mind.

Then, in mid-April, Rheinmetall submitted an official offer to export the 100 Marder tanks to the German government. Every German arms export must be approved by the Federal Security Council under the leadership of Chancellor Olaf Scholz. But this application also remained in the Chancellor's Office - for a very long time. Only now, on Thursday evening, did the green light come for the delivery of Marder tanks to Ukraine. More than eight months after the request.

The marathon approval process for the Marder tanks is symbolic of the chancellor's systematic dithering on Ukraine weapons assistance. Although the German government announced the decision in a solemn tone, saying it had been agreed upon in a phone call with the U.S. president. "President Biden and Chancellor Scholz expressed their joint determination to provide Ukraine with the necessary financial, humanitarian, military and diplomatic support for as long as necessary," a statement from the German government said.

But criticism was not long in coming. "That Germany is now finally supplying Ukraine with tanks is good," foreign policy expert Norbert Röttgen (CDU) wrote on Twitter on Thursday evening in a reaction to the Marder announcement. "But the image that foreign policy gives in the process cannot satisfy us. From leadership no trace. It is again only acted on pressure and when there is no other way."
France had announced on Wednesday evening that it would itself supply AMX-10 RC infantry fighting vehicles, while the U.S. announced the delivery of Bradley fighting vehicles. In what appears to be a concerted effort among the three countries, Germany is also delivering. The Chancellor had always stressed that Germany would not supply modern Western-designed tanks until its allies did the same.

But there were always obvious contradictions in this justification. Already last April, the German government announced the delivery of Gepard anti-aircraft tanks, which are also of Western design. And whether the decades-old Marder can be called "modern" is at least a matter of opinion.

The argument regularly put forward by the German government that the delivery of tanks could be understood by Russia as an escalation has always been illogical as well. Infantry fighting vehicles are primarily used for the safe transport of soldiers - their firepower is less than that of the Gepard tanks or the Mars II multiple rocket launchers that Germany has long since supplied. The argument that Germany only wants to deliver in step with its allies has also long since been dispelled by the USA. The U.S. government has repeatedly made it clear that every allied country is free to choose the type of weapons it supplies to Ukraine. Olaf Scholz, however, stuck to his no to Marder exports over all these months.

It is unclear how quickly the infantry fighting vehicles will now reach Ukraine. Rheinmetall had started early on its own to repair the Marder tanks in order not to lose any time until the green light was given by the German government. In October, 40 of the tanks were sent to Greece in a so-called ring swap - Athens, for its part, sent 40 Soviet-designed infantry fighting vehicles to Ukraine. This means that 60 of the Rheinmetall Marder tanks should still be available for direct delivery to Ukraine.

So far, the German government has not disclosed how many Marder tanks in total will be handed over to Kiev. It is also unclear how many tanks have already been refurbished by Rheinmetall. Another unanswered question is whether the Marder are to go directly to Ukraine or whether the Bundeswehr will deliver from its own stocks and then fill the gaps with the industry's tanks. The German government said Thursday evening that Germany will train Ukrainian forces on the Marder. This, too, will take time. Ukraine had to wait many months for infantry fighting vehicles due to German hesitation. During this time, Ukrainian soldiers often moved around the front lines at high risk in unarmored vehicles, some of which were civilian.

With the Marder, however, Olaf Scholz remained true to the tactics he had already shown with the delivery of the Cheetahs, the multiple rocket launchers or the air defense systems. He waits as long as possible and only delivers when the allies do so and the pressure on Germany becomes too high. Thus, the chancellor clearly wants to take a middle position between those in his party and in the population who demand arms deliveries - and those who believe that the aid unnecessarily prolongs the war.

At least the new Ukrainian ambassador to Germany, Oleksiy Makeyev, can now claim a first success in the matter of arms deliveries. Unlike his predecessor Andriy Melnyk, he has recently avoided publicly pressuring the German government - and emphasized that he is instead conducting constructive negotiations behind the scenes. Whether the ambassador played a major role in the Marder decision, and what exactly, is difficult to judge. One thing is certain: Makeyev, who took up his post in October, was privy to the details of the wrangling over the Marder tanks long before. He had previously been in Berlin as part of Vladimir Klitschko's delegation, which had made an unsuccessful visit to the Chancellor's Office.
--------------------------------


Dont trust the Germans.

Bubble-Olaf does not want the ukraine to get a clear victory. He does not want Russia to suffer a clear defeat. He wants to instruct and convince the Russians, he wants to educate them so that they will understand and comply with reasosn and he can then be celebrated for his pedagogical educational success and for the radiance of his socialist civilizational superiority that can do without the barbary of war. Meanwhile, everyone else has realized that it only works to punch the Russians in the face until their snouts are so full of blood that they can no longer snort and therefore stop. But that is way too indelicate for our supercivilized carricature of a chancellor. And not profitable for German industry. And does not support gender-newspeak, climate missionising, German solo world-rescueing. Nanana, thats not the rtight things for our fine sensible smart chancellor. Different to all others, who all are all so wrong, he knows it better. He always knew everything better, since always. So it is only natural that he lectures the world.

Until today he has never used the words "Ukrainian victory" and "Russian defeat". Never, not one single time.

Instead he indicated to German industry leaders two weeks ago or so that after the war they can hope things would return to businesses with Russia as normal again.

[Skybird]

Weapon aid for Ukraine.

[Skybird]

From our series "Being nicely dumb": the Berlin lunatic asylum management has issued new house rules to dumb down the public and conceal unwelcome truths.

https://www-focus-de.translate.goog/..._x_tr_pto=wapp


Thank God the Berlin police has nothing better to do then to learn this BS. The total crime number in Berlin is 2.5 times as high as the national average, and around twice as high as in the second and third placed federal states. That gives Berlin the lonely and undisputed lead despite its limited population. Reframing is the way to solve high crime rates!

[Skybird]

A politcal bomb has just burst in Berlin. FOCUS writes:
-------------------------------------
According to a media report, Finance Minister Christian Lindner is threatened with the loss of his parliamentary immunity. The background is a video speech of the FDP politician for a bank, which in turn finances his house purchase.

As reported by the "Tagesspiegel", the public prosecutor's office is examining the cancellation of the parliamentary immunity of FDP politician and Finance Minister Christian Lindner. At issue is a piquant video in which Lindner participated. In the video, a ministerial greeting for a private bank in Karlsruhe, Lindner concealed the fact that he himself had financed his house through that bank. According to the report, he even had another loan given to him after the greeting.

The corruption department of the general public prosecutor's office Berlin examines at present the cancellation of the immunity Lindners. In addition a criminal procedure threatens because of Vorteilsnahme.
------------------------
Meanwhile, our great Federal Chancellor, who is the envy of the world, is involved in one of the biggest financial scandals of Germany's post-war history, but conveniently can never remember anything in investigative committees.
Not that these figures are the first culprits in such misdeeds. They are, in fact, not rarely sown.


Its also possible - imo at least - that the revelations now are a coup by SPD and Greens against FDP man Lindner to get rid of him as finance minister who wants to put a foot on the brake for new debts. If it is so, they would go all risk in, however, because if that gets known (that it is a coup), it is likely the end of the coalition - the small FDP could not afford to not react to such a political assassination. So: i mention a reasonable possibility, not saying it is like this for certain.

[Skybird]

FOCUS:
------------
The latest headlines on alleged Russian espionage by a German BND agent have "far from surprised" CIA expert John Sipher. Rather, the renowned espionage expert assumes much more far-reaching Russian infiltrations - at all levels.

Moreover, he claims in an interview with FOCUS online: The intelligence services of other countries have long been concerned that German agents would pass on their secret information to Moscow.

Sipher is one of the most experienced intelligence experts in the United States. As the CIA's Russia operations officer, he led missions in Moscow that were classified as highly dangerous. For 28 years, he was an agent trainer and served in leadership positions for CIA counterintelligence.

As a member of the Senior Intelligence Service (a U.S. intelligence leadership team for global CIA operations), Sipher was responsible for missions in Europe and Asia until 2017, along with intelligence agencies from other Western countries.

>>> FOCUS online: Two men were arrested in Castrop-Rauxel who may have planned a terrorist attack using cyanide and ricin. The US secret service FBI had led investigators on the trail of the suspected chemical bombers. Could German intelligence services have prevented the attack without the FBI's help?

John Sipher: I don't know. But if the attacks were also planned outside of Germany, I doubt it. It's normal for international intelligence agencies to share their information. We would hope that the Germans would do the same to protect American lives.

As you know, of course, the September 11 terrorists operated out of Hamburg. In a perfect world, the Germans would have let the Americans know that, and then both sides could have brought their various capabilities together to prevent the attacks.

>>> What does the work of U.S. intelligence agencies in Germany look like?

Sipher: It's normal for foreign intelligence agencies to pass tips to the police. The CIA and FBI basically share their information with German authorities and intelligence services. German foreign intelligence is small and relies on this cooperation and support. The U.S. intelligence services reach all over the world and uncover everything possible. If something poses a threat to Germany (or anywhere else), we share that information.

>>> What were your reactions when you heard about the alleged spying for Russia by an agent of the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND)?

Sipher: It didn't surprise me one bit. The Russians have spared neither time nor effort to penetrate German facilities at all levels. Russian intelligence has been relentless and has benefited from the weak counterintelligence sentiment in Germany.

Other Western intelligence agencies were certainly not surprised either. Rather, they probably assume countless more Russian infiltrations into German intelligence services and into the German government. This was precisely one of the reasons why the CIA and other intelligence agencies did not want to cooperate with the Germans on Russian matters: There was always a concern that German spies would pass the information on to Moscow.

>>> Your work experience with the BND was conceivably negative. In an earlier interview with FOCUS online, you accused the German intelligence services of arrogance, bureaucracy and incompetence. Your accusation: With regard to Moscow, the BND even deliberately buried its head in the sand. Do you feel vindicated?

Sipher: As I said before, it was quite obvious that the German government did not want to anger Moscow. When it came to Russia, the BND was simply not taken seriously. The Germans were anything but helpful there. The CIA has cooperated with many other European governments and intelligence agencies, but with the BND, cooperation on Russian targets was simply perfect.

>>> Let's talk about the recent case of Carsten L.. The BND employee was exposed as a suspected Russia spy. How does it happen that an agent changes sides? Is it blackmail? For money, fame or political convictions? How does something like that happen?

Sipher: Intelligence agencies know that you can motivate people with different factors. Anything can play a role: Ego, greed and ideologies. Intelligence services can very slowly obtain more and more personal information from German officials. They can find out everything about their private lives, political views and personal problems. The respective weaknesses are then exploited.

The Russians are professionals and have enormous resources to obtain such information and recruit spies inside German facilities. Especially when there is hardly any defense. Russian agents can bribe German citizens. Moscow has countless spies in Germany. Many pose as diplomats or businessmen. They make financial offers to the people they are targeting.

>>> What impact does it have on a team when a colleague is exposed as a spy for the enemy?

Sipher: When a trusted person in the intelligence community is exposed as a traitor who was spying for an enemy power, the consequences for the work climate can be devastating. The CIA experienced this when Aldrich Ames was exposed (Editor's note: CIA agent Ames was exposed as a KGB spy in 1994). Numerous investigations followed. A mood of mistrust prevailed. Then new steps were taken that facilitated the FBI's insights into the CIA's work.

>>> So lessons were learned?

Sipher: Yes. It can take years to get over a breach of trust like that. But at the same time, it was good that the CIA took these threats more seriously from then on. Measures were put in place to better protect against such attacks in the future.
----------------

[Skybird]

Thank you FBI - for the job Germany is too good for! Focus writes:
---------------------------------------------


Without the help of the USA, the German police would not have been able to arrest the suspected Iranian terrorists of Castrop-Rauxel. It is not an isolated case: our strategic dependence in security matters is self-chosen.

The decisive terror warning about the two Iranian citizens arrested in Castrop-Rauxel came - once again - from the Americans. This is no coincidence. One of the two was convicted of attempted murder three years ago - but still got off. That, too, is no coincidence.

The FBI tip on the suspected terrorists of Castrop-Rauxel is only the latest case in a long chain of comparable cases. Half of the Islamist attacks planned in Germany could only be prevented with the help of foreign intelligence services. Which for NRW Interior Minister Herbert Reul, as well as for the Union faction in Berlin, has this cause:

"Our services are much more limited in their legal powers than others," says CSU interior politician Jana Schimke. As far as information gathering on the Net is concerned, "we in Germany are very cautious," formulates CDU man Reul, in whose state the Ruhr area town of Castrop-Rauxel is located.

The last dispute between the ruling traffic light coalition and the CDU/CSU over search methods was only a few weeks ago. It was about the retention of IP addresses to combat serious crime, which does not only include terror. Liberal Justice Minister Marco Buschmann opposes this, as do the SPD and the Greens. The CDU/CSU sees it as a considerable security risk.

The tip-off from the Americans was probably possible because they could eavesdrop on Iranian citizens' online communications with each other and with whomever. In Germany, such wiretaps - usually involving imminent danger - have to be well justified and elaborately authorized. As a result, German ministers regularly (have to) thank the American police and intelligence services for their great contribution to internal security in the Federal Republic of Germany.

The fact is that little or nothing happens in Germany without the Americans when it comes to countering Islamist attacks. German governments' self-imposed curtailment of law enforcement has a long history; it is one of the consequences drawn from National Socialism: Never again should the police, the army and, anyway, the secret services be able to be a state within the state. That is why there is a right to informational self-determination for each individual citizen.

In the U.S., on the other hand, there is no precedence of individual data protection over criminal prosecution. The Federal Criminal Police Office is only allowed to use intelligence resources with great restraint in comparison to the American Federal Police. And the agents of the German foreign intelligence service BND, unlike their American CIA counterparts, are basically unarmed.

It's a serious difference in security philosophy that has already put a strain on intergovernmental relations - when the Americans bugged Angela Merkel's smartphone and the German government declared that bugging between friends was not possible.

But while Germans consider spying among friends immoral, Americans consider not knowing immoral. This is why German complaints about American practices sometimes seem so bigoted: German governments and German citizens regularly benefit from the increased security provided by the meticulous data collectors of the FBI and CIA, while Germans hide behind data protection.

U.S. intelligence is a formidable geopolitical instrument of power, in stark contrast to German intelligence. The "New York Times" reports that the U.S. is able to precisely locate Russian command posts in the Ukraine war - and then passes this data on to the Ukrainian army. This makes them partly responsible for the sometimes spectacular successes of the Ukrainians in their defensive struggle against the Russians.
The Recklinghausen case has a special punch line in store: about German resocialization policy.

Back to the case of the two Iranians, which still holds a special punchline: about German resocialization policy. Both came to Germany in 2015, as asylum seekers. One of the two was sentenced to seven years in prison in Dortmund three years ago, for attempted murder. He had, as the public prosecutor's office confirmed to the Bielefeld "Westfalenblatt," apparently out of "frustration" thrown a thick branch from a highway bridge on the A 45 onto a car, injuring and severely traumatizing a female driver.

Because of his addiction, the Iranian was transferred from prison to an addiction clinic in Hagen, which he was then allowed to leave at the weekend to spend the night with his brother in Castrop-Rauxel. Where the brothers have now been arrested.

Federal Interior Minister Nancy Faeser, who always speaks of right-wing terrorism as the greatest threat to Germany, now says that Germany is in the "target spectrum" of Islamist terror. However, it has been for a long time. The first person to complain, so to speak, in government terms about cases in which asylum seekers became terrorists was then-Federal Prosecutor General Peter Frank. That was in 2017.

Since then, the number of Salafists in Germany has once again increased sharply. However, that didn't stop Faeser from shutting down the expert group on "Political Islamism" in the recent summer, and he did so without a sound. At the time, CDU Vice President Carsten Linnemann warned that he hoped that "this naiveté would not one day fall on our feet.

It fits into the picture that the German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock persistently refuses to classify the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a "terrorist organization. This break with the terror regime in Tehran is now being demanded not only by the CDU/CSU, but also by the FDP's traffic light partner.

Finally: Now that Germany's strategic dependencies are always being discussed with concern:

Our military dependence on the USA is self-chosen and a consequence of: Prosperity before security.

Our dependence on the U.S. in the fight against Islamist terror is self-chosen and a consequence of: We don't want to get our own fingers dirty.
---------------------------

[Catfish]

@Skybird:
As long as "Das deutsche Recht" remains what it has been reduced to after WW2 ...

[Rockstar]

Jan 12, 2023

Who Wants to Be Led by Germany?
The coalition parties in Berlin have no doubt: The country is destined to lead, certainly in Europe. Sadly, they have no comprehension of what that involves.

Stefanie Babst

https://ip-quarterly.com/en/who-wants-be-led-germany

“Why should anyone be led by you?”

When I first heard this question, I was electrified. I sat in a London Business School seminar and listened to Rob Goffee and Gareth Jones, two “leadership gurus.” They explained their concept of authentic and inspirational leadership. Being willing to lead by example is one core prerequisite. But an inspirational leader should also empower and motivate his or her followers, demonstrate real empathy, and focus on solving a problem, not describing it.

Back at NATO headquarters in Brussels, I had 20 copies of the 2006 Goffee/Jones bestseller in my luggage, which I offered to my peers. We were all responsible for large, multinational teams. What, I thought, could be more important than introducing the notion of inspirational leadership to NATO? Their reaction, however, was sobering. My colleagues appreciated the gift but immediately dropped it in their desk drawers, stressing they were too busy to read it.

This attitude has not changed. Today, the culture of “business” still dominates NATO corridors; and inspirational leadership has remained a nice-to-have but remote concept.

Since the outbreak of Russia’s ruthless war against Ukraine, my thoughts have increasingly turned to the smart book by Goffee and Jones. Their question “Why should anyone be led by you?” already provokes considerable uneasiness in quiet times. It obliges leaders to question their approach: Are my followers still with me? Do they trust me? And do I communicate my vision clearly enough?

In times of war, inspirational leadership is even more important. Political leaders must not only address fears and uncertainties in society, but they must be able to clearly pronounce what is at stake; and, above all, they should present a compelling strategy for how they seek to navigate the country through stormy seas.

Leadership in War

Let's look at the leadership qualities of some of the main protagonists in the Ukraine war. There is not much to say about Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping, their Iranian counterpart, Ebrahim Raisi, and other authoritarian leaders around the world. The term “inspirational leadership” simply does not exist in their universe. Their concept of leadership is confined to manipulating and threatening people and, if necessary, using terror.

For Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, on the other hand, credible leadership is a matter of national survival. Without Zelensky’s courageous and motivating leadership, the spirit of resistance in Ukraine, battered by Moscow’s brutal war, would be significantly lower. Whether standing in front of members of the US Congress, Ukrainian orphans, or front-line soldiers in Bakhmut, Zelensky communicates his messages clearly and with empathy. He can provide purpose. As Ukrainian president, he does not stand distanced from the people, but rather, he is in their midst. For 11 months now, he has been leading Ukraine's heroic fight against the Russian invaders.

And in Germany? On New Year's Eve, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz appeared in front of the camera for the traditional New Year’s address, hands folded and wearing a starched white shirt. He stiffly read from the teleprompter what his advisers had written down. Words that faded away. I don't know anyone in my neighborhood who can remember what Scholz said two weeks or so ago.

If Scholz has a vision for how Europe will be able to cope with an aggressive and kleptocratic Putin regime in the future, it was buried by empty words. And then there is Germany’s Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht who is happy to have had “so many great conversations” this past year. If she had given her short video speech in Kyiv and not Berlin, I would have said: finally, here comes a clear sign of solidarity with the Ukrainians. But her “firecracker video” raised even more doubts about her leadership qualities. And how about the other members of the traffic light government? Can the pro-business Free Democrats (FDP) or the Greens present a coherent strategy on how to defeat Putinism in the future? I am not aware of any.

Aspiring to a Leadership Role

Yet, Germany wants to lead. It wants to assume “a leadership role in Europe.” Policymakers from Scholz’ Social Democrats (SPD) continue to make this claim—SPD chairman Lars Klingbeil, for example. Or SPD foreign policy spokesman, Nils Schmid, who believes that Germany cannot choose whether it wants to be the leading power in Europe or not. Germany, according to Schmid, has already assumed this role.

Defense Minister Lambrecht shares his view. Germany’s size, its geographic location, its economic power, in short, its weight, would make it Europe’s natural leading power, including in the military domain, she said in a keynote speech at the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP) in fall 2022. To comfort any skeptics, she said: “We, Germans, must not be afraid of this new role. Germany can do this.” Unsurprisingly, Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier (SPD) has also joined the “leadership chorus.” As one of the big players in Europe, German leadership “is expected from our country,” Steinmeier said.

Which leads to the serious question: Which of Germany’s European and transatlantic partners does the government seek to lead based on what strategy and capabilities? With only very limited military power? With a highly embarrassing procrastination when it comes to providing Ukraine with weapons and military aid? Without demonstrating any serious self-reflection about Germany's fatal Russia policy? A policy that for decades relied on importing cheap Russian fossil fuels but turned a blind eye to an aggressive and authoritarian Russia? And which even now, a year after Moscow launched its war against Ukraine, does not offer any vision of what European security could look like as long as a terror-spreading regime reigns in Moscow?

The reality is that our allies are not eager to experience German leadership. Neither in Warsaw, London, nor Ankara, Riga, Vilnius, nor Tallinn, let alone in Paris.

Familiar Lines

Broadly speaking, all the three governing parties of Scholz’ coalition want to uphold the rules-based international order and defend democratic values. Surely, there's nothing wrong with this, but how exactly does Berlin intend to do that? “Partnerships of trust,” “islands of cooperation,” and “sustainable cooperation with the countries of the ‘Global South’” run as flowery vocabulary through the SPD’s latest internal foreign policy document (seen by IPQ); yet the Social Democrats fail to offer anything concrete.

And here comes another familiar line: Germany’s Social Democrats also seek to strengthen Europe's sovereignty—something they have advocated in one form or another for the past 20 years, but contributed very little to translate into reality. What they refer to in their paper—an EU-led rapid reaction force and an EU operational command—is nothing new but part of the usual EU mantra.

It is not only the magnitude of empty phrases that makes this SPD paper? so uninspiring. The statements on how to deal with Putin’s Russia explain why some of Germany’s allies feel highly uncomfortable about the prospect of a German leadership role in Europe. While the Russian president continues to prepare for a long und brutal war in Ukraine, Germany’s Social Democrats talk about a possible rapprochement with the regime in Moscow. And while Putin can be expected to repeat his nuclear threats, the Social Democrats entertain the proposal of arms control discussions with Moscow and confidence-building measures with Russian civil society. Topping it all, though, is the chancellor’s level of arrogance: Apparently, only he knows what is best for Ukraine and Europe’s peace. He would not listen to “public excitement,” he said recently.

Does he suffer from cognitive dissonance? As long as the Putin regime prevails in Russia, Europe's security will remain directly threatened. Putinism is not only toxic for Ukraine, but for all of Europe and far beyond. Given the enormous scale of war crimes and violations of international rules for which Putin and his entourage are responsible, a return to any kind of political arrangement with Moscow is neither morally acceptable nor strategically sensible.

Rolling Back Putinism

Today's Russia can only be systematically limited in its scope of action. It can only be contained, functionally and geographically. Wherever Moscow managed to set foot in the past—in Europe, the Global South, Asia or in the Arctic—Germany and its allies must weaken its influence. Economic and technological sanctions against Putin’s regime need to be strengthened, the Kremlin’s attempts to play divide et impera must be denied.

First and foremost, Berlin and its partners must do everything to help Ukrainians liberate their entire territory. They need unconditional military support now, including German Leopard tanks. All this and more can only succeed if the Western allies can agree on a clear-eyed, robust, and long-term “Roll back Putinism” strategy. Many of our partners have already arrived at this logical conclusion—but not Germany.

Leading by example? No, the German “traffic light” government certainly does not fit into this category. Its authoritarian opponents can be pleased. Germany’s foreign policy remains predictable. It continues to drive with subdued parking lights and not with high beams. It continues to hide behind others and does not seem to have the political stamina to develop a vision on its own. If the government in Berlin really wants to claim leadership in Europe, it should start by asking itself the painful, but useful question in a quiet minute: Why would anyone want to be led by us?

Stefanie Babst, a former Deputy NATO Assistant Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Head of the Secretary General‘s Strategic Foresight Team, is a member of the DGAP Advisory Board (Präsidium). Her book “Sehenden Auges: Mut zum strategischen Kurswechsel” will be published in spring 2023.

[Skybird]

One flaw in the video: its maybe not too clever to use pictures from american streets to illustrate the conditions in Germany. But the verbal message is more or less correct.

[Skybird]

This too is the new reality in Germany: Die WELT:

----------------------

The electricity grid operator TransnetBW is calling on electricity customers in Baden-Württemberg to consume as little energy as possible on Sunday evening. There is a "tense situation" in the power grid. It is already the second warning within just over a month.

At shortly after half past ten on late Saturday evening, the warning message came via the app "StromGedacht" to the smartphones of around 100,000 users: "Tense grid situation in Baden-Württemberg on 15.01.2023 - help now!" Anyone who opens the app of the electricity grid operator TransnetBW learns that there will be a problem on Sunday afternoon.

Between 5 and 7 p.m., the citizens of Baden-Württemberg should reduce their electricity consumption as much as possible. Already in the morning, the app advises batteries better to charge now or to bring forward the use of household appliances to relieve the grid in the afternoon and evening.

A spokeswoman for TransnetBW emphasizes that there is no danger of a blackout in southwestern Germany despite the warning message. The situation is tense, she said, because a lot of wind energy is expected in northern Germany. "It's like a traffic jam on the highway," she explains. But because there is a lack of transmission capacity between northern and southern Germany, a lot of electricity also has to be made available in Baden-Württemberg to ensure the stability of the grid. To ensure that there is enough electricity for this so-called redispatch, additional quantities would have to be purchased in neighboring Switzerland - and that is expensive.

More than 500 megawatts would have to be delivered from the Swiss to Baden-Württemberg on Sunday. To reduce the costs for this, which would have to be borne by all electricity customers, consumption on Sunday evening should therefore be reduced as much as possible.

This is the second time in just over a month that the TransnetBW app has called for electricity savings. On December 7, "StromGedacht" had already reported a tense situation in the power grid, but at that time users were only supposed to reduce consumption for one hour in the early afternoon. On Sunday, this is likely to be much more difficult, after all, it will already be dark in the evening hours.

---------------------------

Add to this that although energy prices have dropped massively at the trading market places, the German end conumer still pays the insanely high prices that peaked last year. Propagandists now abuse this to say that energy cists less again. In reality that rwaches the households, this simply is not true, its a cheating claim. Andnot only will this nto chahge quuckly, but poriuces will soar even higher, due to the unique German energy costs design and the consequences of the left-green gang's energy policy.

--------------------

The now famous techno-thriller-disaster novel "Blackout" by Mark Elsberg

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blackout-Ma...ustomerReviews

has been turned into a TV series or movie. it will be broadcasted by the end of Frebruary on German TV. - It was no pleasant read. I am looking forward to the broadcast, though my hopes are muted, I do not hold high expectations of German TV productions. I will leave a note on the specific date and time once I know it.

(On a side note, "The Swarm" by Frank Sschätzing also has been turned or is being turned into a series, Notflix I think, but I still don't know specific info on it.)