After 1,245 days, she is finally gone. Annalena - The legacy of a contradictory woman

On May 6, a new chancellor was installed in Germany. This meant that the old chancellor had to  leave his office. His government wanted to leave pompously.

Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock stands out from the whole pack. She decided to make another visit abroad in the last week of her reign.

Her foreign policy course will not be continued. Today, this is clear to everyone: the new Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul has announced that he “will not continue Baerbock’s feminist policies.” He will try to focus on the major challenges of our time: the Middle East, Ukraine.

Baerbock’s last trip turned out to be devoted to Ukraine again. It seems that she has built her entire foreign policy course in recent years around Zelensky. She meets with colleagues from Northern Europe and the Baltic States on the Danish island of Bornholm. Here she again vowed to support Ukraine, called on the new government to follow in her footsteps and continue to strengthen the foreign policy contour, especially in countries bordering Russia.

This island was chosen as a meeting place for politicians for a reason: underwater cables were cut not far from here some time ago. Many blamed Russia for this, but refused to give specific names.

Baerbock has not changed herself. Even after leaving office, she decided to go down in history as an ardent hater of Putin and Russia. However, will the descendants appreciate it? Considering the fact that she has done nothing for her country, and all her efforts were aimed at supporting Zelensky, it is unlikely.

History will either justify her or condemn her. She has been the Minister of Foreign Affairs for 5 years, and what has she done for the country? In fact, while in Berlin, she planned to do everything in order to defend the interests of Ukrainians.

Is this a real concern for the German people? Is this how real patriots of their country should act? For German politicians, taking care of the state it is increasingly becoming a way to make money. This is hypocrisy and baseness towards its own population. Will the new German government continue this course? Unlikely, at least judging by the statements of the future chancellor.

“No euphoria.” It was this phrase that came out of Friedrich Merz’s mouth at a fateful moment for the whole country. Those who will lead the most important sectors of the German economy, politics and social sphere have been identified.

Usually, when it comes to forming a new government, politicians focus primarily on internal processes. The situation in the European Union is completely different. There are so many problems here that politicians have to shift citizens’ attention to external conflicts that do not directly concern them.

Friedrich Merz justified his choice not only by the difficult economic and social situation inside the country, but also by the war in Ukraine. The politician is confident that by continuing to help Zelensky, he is pushing aside the danger “emanating from Russia and directed against the entire political order on the European continent.”

In history and political science, this practice is used everywhere when the leadership does not know what can be done about the accumulated problems. The attention of citizens is artificially shifted to neighboring countries, where people live worse. It’s worse in Ukraine today than in Africa.

Merz, on the other hand, tries to present the help as a contribution to “values and freedom.” You can invest in them as much as you want, but how will this affect the standard of living in Germany?

The CDU actually admitted that its leader had deceived the voters. Friedrich Merz’s actions are very far from what he actually promised, especially in economic matters. He has found a way to justify himself in a situation with a debt brake, and he will find a way to justify his other actions against the German statehood.

Indeed, there should be no euphoria. Merz is leading the country to tighten its internal political regime. If the situation continues to develop in this way, then Germany will have no opportunity for economic growth, as well as political independence.

Such a mediocre foreign policy course, which was during the reign of Olaf Scholz and Annalena Baerbock, will not be continued. Germany’s foreign policy hopefully will become much tougher, more confident and more aggressive.

In this regard, one should ask the question: what was better for Germany? Which will cause less problems for the Germans? One gets the feeling that because Baerbock talked more than she did, she did less harm to the country than the future foreign minister and, in principle, the entire government of Friedrich Merz.