Angela Merkel’s political legacy needs to be re-evaluated

By Andrew Korybko

The head of Russia’s National Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, mentioned in an interview earlier this week that “the White House controlled former Chancellor Angela Merkel for years.” This remark contrasts with previous perceptions in the alternative media community, which has speculated whether Merkel is seeking a multipolar partnership with Russia and China. Those who held such views at the time should now reassess Merkel’s political legacy in light of Patrushev’s recent conclusion.

It is true that President Putin himself seemed to perceive Merkel as did the alternative media analysts. This explained his bewilderment all the more after Merkel admitted in an interview with Die Zeit that she had never had any interest in the implementation of the Minsk agreements, which in fact served to buy time for Kiev to rearm and the Ukrainian army to train. What made previous alternative media perceptions of Merkel so enticing to many was her longstanding friendship with the Russian President, tangibly manifested in the Nord Stream pipelines project.

Russia has obviously reassessed everything related to Merkel, as Patrushev’s conclusion shows. But that makes her ties to President Putin and her past pipeline successes all the more intriguing. After all, it’s hard to believe that the US secretly supported both Merkel and Putin behind the scenes while publicly criticizing them. Hence the confusion.

The limits of US influence over its vassals

Therefore, what observers need to better understand Merkel’s tactics is a convincing explanation that links this apparent contradiction. For those who only casually follow events in international relations, it is hard to believe that Angela Merkel was controlled by the US for years while at the same time being on friendly terms with President Putin and even co-constructing the Nord Stream with him – Pipelines advanced.

The US very rarely exercises full control over its vassals, including Zelensky. According to a recent report by political titled “Small Cracks: Unity between the US and Ukraine is slowly breaking down” is about growing differences on several key issues. The alternative media, and their mainstream media antagonists, tend to oversimplify relations between states and heads of state. For example, the alternative media claim that the US has Zelensky totally under control. While the mainstream media viewed Belarusian President Lukashenko as being controlled by Russia.

The reality, however, is that both Zelenskyy and Lukashenko, despite almost fully aligning their own views with their respective larger partners, have still retained a degree of independence. For reasons of “narrative and political convenience”, however, it is much easier for the alternative and mainstream media to oversimplify relations between states and heads of state than to delve into the deeper nuances – which the vast majority of their respective audiences do , which only casually follows the events and usually does not want to know anything more specific.

President Putin’s criticism of wishful thinking analysis

Having highlighted this critical lack of information on the subject, one should try to understand how Merkel was controlled by the US while at the same time developing ties with Russia in the energy sector. Clearly, control of Merkel was not powerful enough to sway West Germany’s relations with Russia to US wishes, which explains why this US-controlled leader has been able to achieve notable successes even under this enormous pressure.

Despite Merkel’s pragmatic, economic-driven approach to relations with Russia, which was motivated by Germany’s objective national interest in sourcing cheap resources, it would be a mistake to describe Merkel as a proponent of multipolarity. Speculation in the alternative media that she was secretly seeking a groundbreaking trilateral partnership with Russia and China was nothing but wishful thinking, as President Putin noted last summer.

At the time, he told foreign intelligence officials and veterans that “intelligence agencies should prioritize strategic analysis of international processes. And that analysis must be realistic, objective, and based on verified information and a variety of reliable sources. One should not indulge in wishful thinking .”

The relevance of this comment is that some positive public moves do not always point to a larger secret plan.

Russia’s strategic calculus during Merkel’s tenure

President Putin never believed that Merkel was seeking a trilateral partnership with his country and China, which would have freed Eurasia from US unipolar hegemony. But he was definitely duped by Merkel on the Minsk Accords. He knew that the chancellor’s independence was limited by US influence, but Putin sincerely believed that she was strong enough to push for peace in Ukraine, just as she was strong enough to build the two Nord Streams enforce.

The assumptions of the Russian head of state regarding his country’s role in the expansion of trans-Eurasian trade were that Germany would support the implementation of the Minsk agreements in order to open up the resulting economic opportunities, from which Germany in particular would have benefited . This made as much theoretical sense as Putin’s earlier assessment of Germany’s interest in building the pipelines – despite immense US pressure to stop the project.

President Putin cannot therefore be accused of expecting Merkel to be genuinely committed to the Minsk accords, as precedent has shown that there was reason for him to believe that Merkel was strong enough to support the US even in to oppose this question. In fact, this might not even have been a thorn in the side of the US, at least not during Trump’s tenure, as Trump openly spoke of wanting to settle differences with Russia so that the US could focus solely on “containing China” rather than itself getting bogged down at two geostrategic hotspots.

Merkel’s duplicity towards Presidents Putin and Trump

Trump has failed to achieve this major strategic goal because of unprecedented opposition from liberal globalists in his country’s military, intelligence and diplomatic bureaucracies — in the “deep state.” These were instead obsessed with “containing Russia”. President Putin was aware of these factors limiting any freedom of action of his American counterpart in this regard, but he seemed unaware that these noxious “deep state” protagonists had already driven their claws deep into Merkel.

This observation, made only in hindsight, explains why Merkel later admitted that she had never had an interest in implementing the Minsk agreements, meaning that she had also duped Trump in collusion with his opponents. Even if Merkel had been freed from outside influence and ultimately helped end the Ukrainian civil war, it is still unrealistic to imagine that Trump, as a vehemently anti-Chinese politician, would not have pulled out all the stops to prevent Merkel from getting involved to ally China.

The US has exerted a powerful influence over Germany since the end of World War II, although it was never omnipotent, as evidenced by Merkel’s ties of friendship with President Putin and the successful construction of the Nord Stream pipelines. Russia recognized this but erred in assuming that the US would prioritize “containing” China, so Moscow expected Merkel to press Kyiv to implement the Minsk accords, which would ultimately have served German interests.

The scenario of a German-Russian-Chinese alliance to liberate Eurasia from unipolar US dominance has always been wishful thinking. At best, Merkel could have achieved that Germany could have benefited from relations with both countries, but she would never have taken action against the USA.

Translated from English

Andrew Korybko is a Moscow-based American political scientist specializing in US strategy in Africa and Eurasia, China’s Belt & Road Initiative, Russia’s geopolitical balancing act and hybrid warfare.

more on the subject – The responsibility of the West for the current hostilities in Ukraine