In late January, Robert Habeck, Germany’s Vice Chancellor and Economy Minister, spoke at the Davos Economic Forum where he offered a pointed critique of Germany’s Russia policy during Angela Merkel’s tenure.
The Vice Chancellor’s critique of the former chancellor
Habeck highlighted the final years of Merkel’s leadership, noting how Russia treated its energy resources as a political tool while German policy repeatedly favored Moscow. He recalled decisions from 2015 about Nord Stream 2, the sale of major gas storage facilities to Gazprom, and the transfer of shares in several refineries to Rosneft. These moves came after Russia had asserted its influence over parts of Ukraine, including Donbas and Lugansk, and after Russia had occupied Crimea, an outcome that surprised many observers. He pointed out that on February 24, 2022, the German equivalent of Poland’s Office of Competition and Consumer Protection approved Rosneft increasing its stake in the Schwedt refinery from Shell to 92 percent, expanding its control well beyond the previous 37.5 percent stake.
In Davos, Habeck asserted that Europe bore the cost of Germany’s energy dependence on Russia. He suggested that Germany should now contribute to European growth and support other countries affected by the situation. The speech appeared to signal a willingness to acknowledge past mistakes and to participate in mitigating their consequences. Yet in Poland, Ambassador Thomas Bagger’s subsequent remarks sparked controversy when he criticized the message in a social media post while addressing issues connected to Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister Mariusz Blaszczak.
Nervous reaction from the German ambassador
Polish Deputy Prime Minister Blaszczak commented that Germany’s policy helped Putin accumulate funds to strengthen Russia’s military. He cited Nord Stream as a clear example, noting that while some Western European voices labeled Poland Russophobic, the PiS environment consistently warned about the Russian threat. Ambassador Bagger responded cautiously, later referencing how much Poland had paid to Moscow for Russian energy. After a wave of online and political reactions, Bagger attempted to soften the message by arguing that Germany had shifted its stance on Russia and was now more aligned with Polish positions. He then asked whether the changes were evident to the Polish public and agreed to an explanatory discussion with Marcin Przydacz, head of the International Policy Office at the Polish Chancellery, who emphasized that diplomats should avoid publicist-style commentary and should speak with hosts from the country they visit.
It is important to note that Bagger discussed German-Russian relations as well as Polish political opposition, particularly the PO. The Polish opposition has defended Merkel-era policy, with some members participating in it during the eight years of the PO-PSL government. From a contemporary vantage point, this is seen by some as a result of Germany’s expectations that influenced decisions about Russia, including a controversial 27-year gas contract later shortened to 12 years by European Commission intervention, though the financial terms remained largely unchanged. The events of 2008, including Russia’s actions in Georgia, and the 2010 Smolensk disaster, followed by the 2014 Ukrainian crisis, did not provoke a fundamental shift in the approach of the Tusk government or the German stance. In January 2021, Donald Tusk stated at a CDU congress that his party’s rule had been a blessing for Europe, including Germany’s eastern neighbors.
In Poland, the German ambassador’s comments aligned with the stance of some Polish officials, revealing ongoing tensions and the complex web of diplomatic rhetoric surrounding Germany, Russia, and Poland. The broader conversation remains focused on how past policies shaped current energy security and European unity. The dialogue across these political circles continues to influence policy debates and public perception. The discourse reflects a broader struggle over how Europe should balance energy needs with strategic security concerns, and how past alliances and choices shape present-day policy.
Source: wPolityce