Regarding ferries: Glen Sannox and Glen Rosa commissioned by the (now collapsed) SNP / Green coalition in Scotland, the ships were designed to run on both traditional marine gas oil and LNG, which is much greener, and are the first in the UK to be built with a dual-fuel system. When they will finally run £350m over budget and over six years late, they’ll be fuelled by - diesel.
I don't know how gullible the Greens have been in the hydrogen fiasco, however, I suspect there are more than just them who bought this tech to the table as a working proposition. The question is: Where is the money? Who is going to be held responsible? Queue a good old British (german equivalent) of a Government enquiry to kick that one into the long grass.
Germany is a major military contributor to Ukraine AND to Israel. The logic that she is hard on one and soft on the other just doesn't stand up. Many countries inc Israeli sponsor the US, has been urging restraint and the avoidance of escalation on Netanyahu for weeks if not months, the notion that Baerbock caved to Iranian intimidation is frankly, laughable.
Israel has undoubtedly scored significant tactical advantage over Hezbollah particularly. However, that will likely be a short term gain for a strategic long term loss as Hezbollah and Hamas recover. They are not going away. Any pipedream Germany might have about building bridges with some Arab nations, secretly cheering on Israel, somehow benefitting Germany or other Western Nations for that matter, will be swamped by US interests in the Region. When that happens and the US tells it allies to 'jump' Germany like the rest of the weak, ineffectual western governments will ask 'how-high.' None of it will end well.
> Why then, does she advocate the use of military force to rebuff an attack in Europe, but isn’t persuaded of its use to defeat an enemy in the Middle East? Her logic isn’t immediately clear.
I think this part is a bit too opinionated, and it assumes alignment with a greater principle, i.e. if I am for war, I am for war everywhere. However, Baerbock is aligned with / more or less mirrors the US policy - for both Middle East and Ukraine.
Regarding ferries: Glen Sannox and Glen Rosa commissioned by the (now collapsed) SNP / Green coalition in Scotland, the ships were designed to run on both traditional marine gas oil and LNG, which is much greener, and are the first in the UK to be built with a dual-fuel system. When they will finally run £350m over budget and over six years late, they’ll be fuelled by - diesel.
I don't know how gullible the Greens have been in the hydrogen fiasco, however, I suspect there are more than just them who bought this tech to the table as a working proposition. The question is: Where is the money? Who is going to be held responsible? Queue a good old British (german equivalent) of a Government enquiry to kick that one into the long grass.
Germany is a major military contributor to Ukraine AND to Israel. The logic that she is hard on one and soft on the other just doesn't stand up. Many countries inc Israeli sponsor the US, has been urging restraint and the avoidance of escalation on Netanyahu for weeks if not months, the notion that Baerbock caved to Iranian intimidation is frankly, laughable.
Israel has undoubtedly scored significant tactical advantage over Hezbollah particularly. However, that will likely be a short term gain for a strategic long term loss as Hezbollah and Hamas recover. They are not going away. Any pipedream Germany might have about building bridges with some Arab nations, secretly cheering on Israel, somehow benefitting Germany or other Western Nations for that matter, will be swamped by US interests in the Region. When that happens and the US tells it allies to 'jump' Germany like the rest of the weak, ineffectual western governments will ask 'how-high.' None of it will end well.
Germany keeps reiterating that Israel‘s security is part of German state doctrine. Not much they do for it when the going gets tough!
> Why then, does she advocate the use of military force to rebuff an attack in Europe, but isn’t persuaded of its use to defeat an enemy in the Middle East? Her logic isn’t immediately clear.
I think this part is a bit too opinionated, and it assumes alignment with a greater principle, i.e. if I am for war, I am for war everywhere. However, Baerbock is aligned with / more or less mirrors the US policy - for both Middle East and Ukraine.