Source
r/germany•
celestec

Gysi talks about Crimean Crisis and I'm curious: are his views the views of the average German?

Hi,

A colleague of mine fowarded me this video as an example of a "balanced" opinion of the Crimean Crisis, meaning one that explains both the Russian and EU viewpoints. I would not call this speech "balanced," but my colleague has lived in Germany longer than I have and am not completely fluent in the language and culture here. Any thoughts?

English translation of the speech: http://pastebin.com/0h2ybPvN

Posted Mar 17, 2014, 12:21 PM UTC · edited

3171
Kirschkern•

I am surprised by all the downvotes in this thread.

Whether or not you agree with Gysi, he most certainly does not represent the average german citizen.

21
Vik1ng•

That doesn't mean a speech he holds can't represent them.

If he holds a speech about data protection or privacy probably everybody on this sub would agree with it even if they don't agree with him in general.

3
mars20•

And it still might not be the

views of the average German.

And that is what OP asked for.

5
Vik1ng•

A colleague of mine fowarded me this video as an example of a "balanced" opinion of the Crimean Crisis...

1
mars20•

If he holds a speech about data protection or privacy probably everybody on this sub would agree with it even if they don't agree with him in general.

That is what my comment was aimed at - therefore I put it as an answer to it.

0
verduns•

As someone who agrees wholeheartedly with the speech, what exactly makes it biased or imbalanced?

Besides, why does the West expect Russia to take them serious or at least as a trustworthy enough partner to make any kind of agreement when they spend the last 20 years breaking their promises and fucking them over?

If you look at the Russian perspective, they are the ones who spend the last 20 years impotently appeasing an aggressive West that drove them into the corner and only since 2008 put their foot down and told them that enough is enough.

19
Afirejar•

Please elaborate on how exactly the West drove Russia into a corner. I doubt you can do it without resorting to the usual "it's so unfair that they don't get to have all of Eastern Europe as satellite states anymore".

5†
verduns•

As said before in this thread, Russia agreed to the reunification of Germany under the premises that the eastward expansion of NATO would stop there and effectively relinquished any claim on the eastern bloc, especially on the Baltic Republics, with their huge Russian minorities. So, it's basically the West promising Russia this huge, neutral bloc, as long as Russia stops meddling with it and then spits in their face and does the opposite when they are powerless to do anything against it. It's not unfair, it's politics, it just shows that the West doesn't feel any obligation towards its promises and Russia gets thrown under the bus, if they believe them.

Then you have what has been termed "The New Great Game" in Central Asia, traditionally Russia's backyard and again with huge Russian minorities, where the West and Russia + China compete over influence. American bases in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan are more than too close for comfort for Russia, just as Russian bases in Canada or Mexico would be too close for America.

In most if not all former Soviet republics, former bloc countries and traditional Russian allies you'll find Western NGOs like the "National Endowment for Democracy" which sole purpose it is to promote the candidate Washington deems suitable, offer help on campaigning and in general to "throw money at the problem" until the preferable outcome is achieved. Long story short, isolate Russia wherever possible.

If you want you can also count the actions against the firmly pro-Russian Serbia as an attempt to negate Russian influence in the Balkans. Last I heard before the Georgian War broke out that Western NGOs are trying to create a separatist movement in Voivodina to further compromise Serbia, but don't quote me on that.

21
_garret_•

that the eastward expansion of NATO would stop there and effectively relinquished any claim on the eastern bloc, especially on the Baltic Republics, with their huge Russian minorities.

What do you think where these huge Russian minorities came from? Oh yes, because of the joys of russification. So, for some strange reasons the Baltic Republics are not especially friendly towards Russia. Thus, speaking of NATO "claiming" the Baltic Republics just sounds wrong. It just sucks to be a small country that is located next to a huge country you slightly dislike.

History is complex. The reaction to a one-sided view shouldn't be the extreme opposite.

3
verduns•

I fail to see how russification = entering NATO, should I hold my breath for Tartarstan, Siberia or Transamur? Besides, I said that the Russians gave up their claim on the Baltics and none of what you said changes the fact, that the West promised Russia one thing and did the exact opposite. If you feel that what I wrote is pro-Russian propaganda, please tell me where I am factually wrong.

2
tekaiHamburg, Stadt im Norden•

tl;dr Russia is the victim of western bullying, there is no democracy unless it's Washington approved, the concerns of East European states are to be completely ignored and this is why Russia has to strive for a CCCP 2.0.

imho Russian politics look like a massive victim complex, leading to nationalism, gloryfication of the past and a false east/west divide

1
verduns•

TIL: West didn't do nuthin', pumping millions into your guys campaign fond in foreign countries lets liberty ring and make bald eagles cry tears of joy, Eastern Europe can't feel safe with just the EU and their own alliances like Visegrad and when Russia pursues her geopolitical interests they are the evil empire by default.

1
WendellSchadenfreude•

The West has done nothing whatsoever against Russia in the past 20 years. And don't get me wrong: that's a good thing. But your claim that the West has been "fucking Russia over" is a ridiculous lie.

Making sure that Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and other Eastern-/Central-European countries don't have to fear Russian intervention is not "driving Russia into a corner" - we're not meddling in Russian affairs, we are at best trying to stop them from meddling in other nations' affairs.

-1
verduns•

The West has done nothing whatsoever against Russia in the past 20 years. And don't get me wrong: that's a good thing. But your claim that the West has been "fucking Russia over" is a ridiculous lie.

Since collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia has tried to develop a market economy and achieve consistent economic growth. In October 1991, Yeltsin announced that Russia would proceed with radical, market-oriented reform along the lines of "shock therapy", as recommended by the United States and IMF.[1] However, this policy resulted in economic collapse, with millions being plunged into poverty and corruption and crime spreading rapidly.[2] Hyperinflation resulted from the removal of Soviet price controls and again following the 1998 Russian financial crisis. Assuming the role as the continuing legal personality of the Soviet Union, Russia took up the responsibility for settling the USSR's external debts, even though its population made up just half of the population of the USSR at the time of its dissolution.[3]

As far as I know, IMF loans and every other form of help were given under the condition of enacting economic shock therapy, which fucked Russia over pretty good and in a way made the rise of someone like Putin possible in the first place.

Making sure that Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and other Eastern-/Central-European countries don't have to fear Russian intervention is not "driving Russia into a corner"

That would be achieved by having them join the EU which would be more than enough to guarantee their independence. Letting them join NATO and erecting missile shields to make Russia a sitting duck in the, thank god, more than unlikely event that ICBMs would ever fly is compromising Russian national security and driving them into the corner. What important strategic goals does the West have in Central Asia that couldn't be achieved by the US air base in Pakistan and the several bases in Afghanistan aside from projecting power toward Russia?

2
WendellSchadenfreude•

So what you're saying is that the West "fucked Russia over" by giving them loans to support their transition to a market economy.

Of course this transition didn't work very well. Communist economies that are forced to compete with real economies crash badly. This also happened in Eastern Germany, and we didn't try to fuck them over (either).

No country was forced to join NATO, they all wanted to. Russia isn't affected by this at all.

(Yeah, sure: Russia is affected by this as it reduces their ability to bully these countries. I'm not accusing the Russians of wanting to do that; but they certainly have no right to it, whether they want to or not.)

2
verduns•

That is not at all what happened or what I said. Gorbachev's vision when he enacted the perestroika was that of a mixed economy after the Western European/Scandinavian model, that was also what in a way what the West signed up for when they signalized Gorbachev that they were willing to help and gave him the go forward.

When push came to shove after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Yeltsin needed the help if Russia was not to become a failed state it came with strings attached, namely the economic shock therapy, which worked out so well in Yugoslavia and Latin America. So instead of the mixed market social democracy they got full on neoliberalism and plummeting standards of living. In my mind the term "fucking them over" does this way of looking at the events justice, your mileage may vary.

Furthermore, I don't think the comparison with the GDR is fair, last time I checked there weren't East German Billionaires Clubs in London whose members got rich by stealing from the people and Russia didn't exactly get the help of one the strongest economies in Western Europe. China shows that a fairly smooth transition from planned economy to capitalism is possible, so why did Russia need to crash and burn?

Where did I ever say that countries were forced into the NATO? No eastwards expansion WAS one of the promises of the reunification of Germany, which Russia could have blocked and which would have opened a giant can of worms. The eastward expansion of the EU which included the Baltic Republics, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary was decided in 1997, the same year NATO offered these countries to join. Do you seriously think Russia would dare to invade or bully an EU member state? And yes, this does affect Russia the same way it would affect the USA if their ability to retaliate against a theoretical nuclear attack would be compromised.

Again I ask you, why does NATO need more and more bases closer and closer to Russia if by all standards it is more than contained and outclassed on every front?

1
[deleted]•

Totally agree with Gysi here. I'm not always agreeing with him, and certainly not always agreeing with his party but he has my 100% support on this issue.

7
1_048596Haltern•

Hey u/celestec ! To answer your opening question: No, it's not the "average" German view of this situation. There are several reasons for this: First you have tv channels as for example ARD, ZDF and 3Sat which heavily criticize most of Russia's actions on a daily basis. Homophibic agendas, imperialistic behavior, corruption, a stagnant human rights development, mass media related brainwashing - all of these issues are portraied as typical "Russian" problems. In this regard the ZDF might be Russia's biggest detractor. I'm not judging any of these issues concerning their credebility or relevance - I'm just saying that these things stick to the average German mind. In general "we" don't like Putin just as "we" didn't like Bush. To the Germans they are warmongers, liars and the leaders of wicked superpowers.

So whenever Gysi mentions "die russischen Interessen" which neither Germany nor the Nato/EU ever seemed to consider for making their decisions he speaks contrarily to the average German opinion. The average German just thinks "Why should we regard their interests? They are invading a weak country! They are wrong and need to be punished!" Merkel's course covers their opinion much better (sadly).

And you need to consider the German history- which leads to a strong pro-americanism and a view of Russia (and China) as our "foes" since they don't even accept human rights and such. The world is painted in black and white and the average German likes it this way. Germany's former Chancellor Schröder (SPD) changed his profession and signed for Gazprom (what a silly decision for a former chancellor!). This dickmove decision dealt a serious blow to the "image" of the SPD. Any other left-wing-parties like for example "Die Linke" never had a huge support whithin the German news-agencies or voters to begin with. Hence Germany's relations with Russia are mainly influenced by the right-wing CDU or at least by the opinion of their leading politicians anf their view of Russia.

If anyone shares Gysis opinions it would be comedians, cabaret artists (Pispers comes to my mind), young educated people and mostly people from the city. People who weren't involved in any war - let it be cold or hot. Just look at Gysis latest election result: His party got about 10%. This should indicate how few actually seem to share his reasonable view.

Edit: Grammar

7
Nemace"Satanic" Swabian•

Well keep in mind that i am not going to vote for him if i agree with the parties interests only on a few points. So the 10% don't really show how many people share his view on this matter.

2
1_048596Haltern•

It's just an indicator. You can't deduce the popularity of a single politician's opinion from his/her party's election result. I'd agree on that - but to me it seems reasonable to asume at least some validity offered by these results. If you take a look at Gysi's election district you might be tempted to believe that he's pretty popular. The question remains whether it's the party's fault ... does it really drag down Gysi's credebility? I don't know... ¯|(ツ)/¯

1
osten2703•

Perfect answer for this thread, I agree 100%

2
1_048596Haltern•

Thank you.

1
pfdwxenon•

One should remind the readers and listeners that Mr. Kissinger did state the very same arguments as Mr. Gysi in the NYT last week-and most of them are quite sound. Nonetheless is a comparison to Yugoslavia an insult, and he surely knows how to attack the gouvernment on this issue.

6
pfdwxenon•

Correction: it was the Washington Post

2
BaiersmannBaiersdorfNiedersachsen•

Kissinger also appeared on Fareed Zakaria's 'Global Public Square' together with other experts on this issue. I found him not quite convincing there.

1
joseph_the_shortHessen•

He is a leading member of the most leftist party in the German parliament. So, no. Most Germans I talked to about the conflict seem to be very much against Putin at the moment.

3†
etherinmylungs•

Gysi in fact is against Putin's actions as well.

31
Dat_FriendNordrhein-Westfalen•

The left party is mostly against violence and weapons.

10
BaiersmannBaiersdorfNiedersachsen•

The left party is mostly against realpolitik.

-3†
kawumm•

realpolitik...

you mean flat-out lying to the people and or presenting stuff in an obscure way? because most don't understand or care enough about politics, and decisions are made based on logical factors, i.e. what economy, lobbyists and other countries demand from them?

who says the left party can't do that as well once it's part of a government?

4
thaken•

Where realpolitik means all those things that can be achieved with violence and weapons.

-1†
YouBWrong•

Most people who don't have weapons are.

But seriously, their pacifism is disingenuous. German pacifism, generally, is about looking for diplomatic solutions but being prepared in diplomacy fails. That's a sound policy. But Die Linke only assume pacifism so that they can criticize the United States. Ask him how pacifistic he was when he was in the East German Communist party and his country was armed to the teeth.

-16
noholdsICH HAB EINEN LÖWEN IN MEINEM FLAIR!!•

Do you even know anything about the person Gysi?

4
YouBWrong•

Of course he is. How could he not be, but he still has to find a way to blame this on other people too. It's like those people after 9/11 who said, well I guess those terrorists sure are assholes, but you really need to rethink your support for Israel.

-12
TrichosMünchen (Munich)•

This "promise" is nothing but a vaporous talking point. I would agree, though, that the EU's role in the conflict is blemished insofar as they did not act impartially during the ousting of Yanukovich, and Barroso's either-or ultimatum was indeed utmostly foolish.

Still, that doesn't make the invasion of another country or a referendum at gunpoint any more legitimate. And the fact that we have to stand by like Neville Chamberlain has, I have to admit, purged me of lots of pacifist sentiment I once held.

2
YouBWrong•

Why should the EU have been impartial to the people rising up to reject crooked leaders who happened to also have been pro-Russia? In fact it's pretty frigging selfless of them to have sided with the protesters. This whole crisis has hurt the EU more than it could possibly help it. The new government is going to cost us a lot of money in aid that we never would have had to spend, and now we have to worry about where to get cheap gas from. Plus there probably are going to be a lot of sanctions raised against Russia, and Germany especially will lose money on that.

-4
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
notmynothername•

I believe we in the US have a great deal of natural gas to spare these days that we would be happy to sell you. Our environmentalists are against it, but it seems yours are happy as long as it isn't nukes.

1
Popanz•

But wouldn't it take years and hundreds of billions to build the infrastructure to move gas from the US to the EU? We'd need a whole fleet of ships, ports that can "unload" gas, and new pipelines that move it throughout the EU. EU reserves would maybe last a few months, and price would probably increase dramatically.

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
WendellSchadenfreude•

Gysi is a smart man and a convinving speaker. Listening to him, you'll often think that he's making good points - and I say that as someone who disagrees with Gysi on almost anything.

But no, he does not represent the average German. Certainly not in general, and not in this matter either.

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
Iwantmyflag•

Certainly not the views of the average German.

There is some sentiment towards that Crimea should have a right to referendum, secession, independence or more autonomy but at the same time the whole process is viewed as Russia enforcing its interests and thus a charade. The question if there is some blame on NATO and the comparison with Kosovo is not very common.

1
emk2203Baden-Württemberg•

http://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&prev=_dd&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiegel.de%2Fpolitik%2Fdeutschland%2Fumfragen-zur-krim-krise-deutsche-zweifeln-an-sanktions-strategie-a-959679.html

1
Afirejar•

The biggest problem I have with this is that he criticizes allowing Poland and the Czech Republic into NATO despite promises given to Russia, and his demand that Ukraine should not be admitted into NATO. Sure, that's against Russian interests, I get it - but Russia is not in any way involved in this. That's between NATO and those countries. It's nothing more than calling for appeasement, calling for the foreign policy of Eastern European states to be dictated by Russia. In my opinion, that's unacceptable. If Russia feels threatened by their neighbors joining a defensive alliance, then they should either man up and openly declare their intent to invade those countries eventually, or admit that it's none of their concern and shut the fuck up.

-2†
tobiasu•

It helps to read the source: http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/2plusfour8994e.htm or https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Zwei-plus-Vier-Vertrag

Recognizing that those principles have laid firm foundations for the establishment of a just and lasting peaceful order in Europe;

Determined to take account of everyone's security interests;

Convinced of the need finally to overcome antagonism and to develop cooperation in Europe;

Who cares, it's just a goddamned piece of paper.

6
Afirejar•

Who cares, it's just a preamble.

Fixed that for you. Why didn't you quote the relevant part of the actual treaty? Is it maybe because you can't because that treaty is only about Germany? Maybe you should read it yourself some time.

-5
tobiasu•

The treaty is between DE, GDR and USA, UK, USSR, FR. That's why it's called "two plus four". The preamble matters. It's part of the treaty.

3
Afirejar•

The preamble doesn't matter. It's not part of the agreement. Notice how the treaty has a sentence "agree to the following:" that comes after the preamble. Preambles are worthless. I mean, seriously, I don't get how you can you actually quote that and seriously believe that kind of vague drivel would actually commit anyone to anything specific.

Also note how the treaty may be between the two Germanies, USA, UK, USSR and France, but it's about only Germany. Since this discussion isn't about Germany, it's completely irrelevant. It doesn't mention NATO, Poland, the Czech Republic, Ukraine or anything else that is remotely relevant to the discussion. And now stop explaining to me what's in it and actually read the fucking thing, because it doesn't say what you think it does.

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
YouBWrong•

Seriously. Poland and the CR owe zilch to Russia. They were essentially occupied for decades. If anyone doesn't understand why they want to belong to NATO now then they're an idiot or a liar. Gysi is a little of both.

-1†
dd63584•

No, it's not very balanced in that he is much more critical of the West and NATO. But you have to understand Gysi and the Linke (Leftists) who no one really takes very seriously anyway. The Linke are considered to be idealistic and a bit naive as well as inexperienced particularly concerning foreign policy. They have a vision of a "Freude, Friede, Eierkuchen" world which means "why can't we all just get along in peace and harmony". It's admirable and desirable but that just isn't practical.

-3†
Iwantmyflag•

More critical of the West and NATO than most other parties, yes. The rest of what you write is simply wrong.

2
Afirejar•

When you hear Gysi and his party talk about Russia, you can't help but be reminded of the fact that their party used to rule one of the Soviet-style dictatorships of the Warsaw Pact, and that Gysi was in the party during that time almost for longer than he has been after.

-3†
YouBWrong•

No. Gysi is a twat. Shifting blame for this to NATO is considered by any thinking person to be absurd, and most Germans are thinking people.

-27
osten2703•

He isnt shifting the blame entirely on the NATO, he is also saying that the EU played a significant role to create the situation we have now. And I think he is right.

The EU is behaving like idiots who havent learned anything from the cold war, and thats also what Gysi is saying: There can only be security and piece in the EU if we consider the interests of Russia.

Thats why Gysi and his Linkspartei are saying that nobody considered that Russia might feel threatened if Ukraine or the other surrounding countries get closer to the EU (which the Russian government already said years ago), because few years later there could also be the NATO in Ukraine.

Neither me or Gysi are saying that Russia pushing Janukowitsch to cancel the trade agreement with Europe was right in the first place, or that "invading" the Crimea and more or less annexing it is compatible with the law of nations. But once again, after the cold war we shouldve learned that you can only deal with Russia if you have a constructive dialogue and if you try to find a common ground, otherwise you will have a situation like we do now.

Thats what Gysi was saying from the start (trust me I watch all his speeches), and thats what every thinking persons opinion about this should be, but sadly Germans arent thinking people for the most part, especially when it comes to politics...

12
zekraut•

How can a country like Russia, with its massive army and the second largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world possibly feel threatened by a more western-oriented Ukraine? By the same logic, the US-invasion of Iraq was also justified because the USA thought Hussein had WMDs. Also, did the treaty of Munich and Sino-Japanese war not show that there are few chances of constructive talks with authorian/totalitarian governments if those talks are not backed up by considerable force? Lastly, may I remind you, who seems so sure about his superiority in political matters, that Russia has given a guarantee of territorial integrity to the Ukraine in exchange for the latter giving up its nuclear weapons?

-2†
YouBWrong•

Screw that. Nobody should have to consider the interests of the Russians over the interests of the Ukranian people as far as Ukrain goes.

-4
osten2703•

Well then lets have a third world war

2
YouBWrong•

Because those are our options? Either do what Russia wants at every stage or we're the ones who are bringing us closer to war?

1
Jolu-•

You are wrong on so many levels, its disturbing.

6
YouBWrong•

And yet you could not list a single one of those levels.

7