Former CIA and NSA employee source of intelligence leaks

[Syt]

The question the German government has to answer is why we still treat the US like our Cold War protector with all its privileges and don't move the relationship to a more normal level that we also have with other friendly nations. That's the naivety in the German government. It likes to see itself as a first class partner of the US, when the US has made abundantly clear that they don't see us that way. We will obviously remain friends with the US as we share a lot of interests with them. But we need to be realistic about the level of trust and understanding for our concerns we can expect.

But we spy on everyone.

Except the UK, Canada, and Australia IIRC.

[Zanza]

The Cold War died with the Soviet Union - at least, so we all assumed. Putin did not get the memo, though ...

And US demands for harsher sanctions against Russia are rendered completely toothless by Germany not participating. Putin knows that. And US foreign policy makers should know that. Just like they should know that espionage is a very sensitive topic in Germany. They should ask themselves if the intelligence gotten from these continued activities is worth the annoyance of the German government and public. They can certainly not expect that it has a positive effect on cooperation in other topics like e.g. sanctions on Russia or Iran or so.

[garbon]

The question the German government has to answer is why we still treat the US like our Cold War protector with all its privileges and don't move the relationship to a more normal level that we also have with other friendly nations. That's the naivety in the German government. It likes to see itself as a first class partner of the US, when the US has made abundantly clear that they don't see us that way. We will obviously remain friends with the US as we share a lot of interests with them. But we need to be realistic about the level of trust and understanding for our concerns we can expect.

But we spy on everyone.

Except the UK, Canada, and Australia IIRC.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/spying-on-innocent-british-citizens-by-us-intelligence-was-allowed-by-tony-blairs-government--and-still-goes-on-8952747.html

[Berkut]

The Cold War died with the Soviet Union - at least, so we all assumed. Putin did not get the memo, though ...

And US demands for harsher sanctions against Russia are rendered completely toothless by Germany not participating. Putin knows that. And US foreign policy makers should know that. Just like they should know that espionage is a very sensitive topic in Germany. They should ask themselves if the intelligence gotten from these continued activities is worth the annoyance of the German government and public. They can certainly not expect that it has a positive effect on cooperation in other topics like e.g. sanctions on Russia or Iran or so.

You are right. The US should definitely promise to never, ever, ever again spy on the poor Germans, because it is such a terrible thing that it will apparently cause them to climb into bed with the modern day version of their former fuhrer.

So we promise to stop. Really. No more spying.

[Berkut]

The Cold War died with the Soviet Union - at least, so we all assumed. Putin did not get the memo, though ...

And US demands for harsher sanctions against Russia are rendered completely toothless by Germany not participating. Putin knows that. And US foreign policy makers should know that.

The best part about the breathtaking stupidity of a view point like this is is the idea that checking Putin is somehow a uniquely US interest, that Germany apparently is neutral about, and hence we should change how we deal with Germany in order to make sure they don't side with a dangerous asshole like Putin.

This is the kind of attitude that makes Americans just want to say "You know what? Fuck You Europe. Deal with Putin yourself then, he is on YOUR doorstop, not ours".

US foreign policies makers should realize that?

What about fucking German foreign policy makers? Do they have any? Or is German foreign policy solely driven by how hurt their feelings are at the moment by whatever it is the US has done most recently to offend their delicate sensibilities?

I know the German government is not nearly this idiotic, but I suspect they are in fact largely influence by the batshit level of crazy displayed in comments like this one, that do seem to be quite common.

[The Brain]

I know the German government is not nearly this idiotic,

They killed nuclear power for fear of tsunamis.

[The Minsky Moment]

What about fucking German foreign policy makers? Do they have any? Or is German foreign policy solely driven by how hurt their feelings are at the moment by whatever it is the US has done most recently to offend their delicate sensibilities?

German foreign policy is probably driven in part by assessments of German national interests, but also in part by political considerations, including domestic opinion, even if those considerations may mean acting against interest.  I.e. pretty much the same as any other democracy.  So German diplomats may believe that supporting the US on a particular matter may be in Germany's national interest, but nonetheless the politicians that oversee them may direct otherwise to appease outrage from the voters.  Democracy can be inconvenient that way sometimes.

In this particular case, even without hindsight, it looks to me like it may have been an error of judgment by the US.  The US had two options - either exploit the source for the information he could access or turn him into the German authorities, thus getting the benefit of demonstrating good faith to an important and useful ally.  The question is whether the value of information exceeds the sum of the benefits to be received by turning him plus the product of the risk of being caught times the political fallout of getting caught.  And although of course I don't know exactly what the value of the info was, it doesn't appear from the description to be enormously compelling.

[Sheilbh]

I have no idea what you are even talking about and why you think that has any relevance to the current affair and the debate around it in Germany.

Germany's being naive.

The reason France was able to re-evaluate their relationship with the US (though they kept, and continue to keep, very close intelligence cooperation) is because France had a military force, with nuclear weapons. They were able to credibly claim semi-detached status. To this day even though France has re-joined NATO command structure that's an asset: France was able to 'lead'-ish on Libya (a UNSC vote, endorsed by the EU and the Arab League, in which Germany didn't support her allies but voted with Russia and China) and has lead the AU force in Mali.

If Germany wants to take up that sort of role then that's a plausible basis for re-assessing your relationship with the US. But drifting from the US without developing capability for an independent policy is feckless. The world doesn't care about particular sensitivities of Germany. France and Britain both, aggressively, spy on their EU partners. German companies are probably among the most involved in the West with Russia and China which makes them a useful source. And of course, as everywhere else in Europe, there's a risk of jihadi radicalisation. There's no good reason not to spy on Germany or Germans.

Except the UK, Canada, and Australia IIRC.

New Zealand too. They don't spy on each other's governments and share intelligence to an apparently extraordinary degree. So the Aussies help monitor South-East Asia (until Britain left Hong Kong we did too), Britain focuses on Europe, the US snoops everywhere and the results are shared.

But they all have other agreements with other countries. So the Scandis and French are very close and share intelligence on Russia and Africa and Jihadis respectively in exchange for money and other intelligence. I imagine the relationship with the BND was similar, though I understand that Germany's on a slightly lower level of trust.

This is the problem with Germany's position. You want that level of cooperation (and lack of spying on you) then you need to be a reliable, trustworthy, fully integrated ally at an intelligence and military level. If you want to re-assess your place in the Western alliance then you're even more of a target.

[Zanza]

The best part about the breathtaking stupidity of a view point like this is is the idea that checking Putin is somehow a uniquely US interest, that Germany apparently is neutral about, and hence we should change how we deal with Germany in order to make sure they don't side with a dangerous asshole like Putin.

You may want to read the reports on how the Americans were indeed frustrated by Germany's more neutral role in the Ukrainian conflict in the last months. It's a bit of a repetition from similar earlier situations e.g. in Iran. Your foreign policy interests are not necessarily the same as ours. The German public doesn't really care about the dangerous asshole Putin annexing Crimea. It does care about the US spying on it and the government. You may deplore that, but in the end, reality should determine policy.

This is the kind of attitude that makes Americans just want to say "You know what? Fuck You Europe. Deal with Putin yourself then, he is on YOUR doorstop, not ours".

A majority of Germans happens to agree with that sentiment, so we have at least that in common with Americans. 

[Sheilbh]

German foreign policy is probably driven in part by assessments of German national interests, but also in part by political considerations, including domestic opinion, even if those considerations may mean acting against interest.  I.e. pretty much the same as any other democracy.  So German diplomats may believe that supporting the US on a particular matter may be in Germany's national interest, but nonetheless the politicians that oversee them may direct otherwise to appease outrage from the voters.  Democracy can be inconvenient that way sometimes.

In this particular case, even without hindsight, it looks to me like it may have been an error of judgment by the US.  The US had two options - either exploit the source for the information he could access or turn him into the German authorities, thus getting the benefit of demonstrating good faith to an important and useful ally.  The question is whether the value of information exceeds the sum of the benefits to be received by turning him plus the product of the risk of being caught times the political fallout of getting caught.  And although of course I don't know exactly what the value of the info was, it doesn't appear from the description to be enormously compelling.

Agreed. Germany's drifting and the US should be putting a lot of effort into that relationship and be sensitive to it. But that drifting is dangerous for Germany and I suspect their own politicians could do with making a more aggressive case for the Western alliance.

It's a criticism I've made of Merkel on EU, energy and economic policies. I think she seems reluctant to make a case and try to lead and rather too happy to let public opinion coalesce and, as I say, drift.

[Sheilbh]

You may want to read the reports on how the Americans were indeed frustrated by Germany's more neutral role in the Ukrainian conflict in the last months. It's a bit of a repetition from similar earlier situations e.g. in Iran. Your foreign policy interests are not necessarily the same as ours. The German public doesn't really care about the dangerous asshole Putin annexing Crimea. It does care about the US spying on it and the government. You may deplore that, but in the end, reality should determine policy.

Public opinion isn't a reality. It's an opinion. Putin annexing Crimea or Iran developing nukes or, for that matter, Gaddaffi massacring people in Benghazi are realities. The German public's desire to ignore those and pretend the world is or can be like the EU (with less spying) is a dangerous nonsense that should be confronted by German politicians.

[Zanza]

Sheilbh, where do you get the idea that Germany has any intention to have a "independent capability" for anything? What Germany wants to be is a big Switzerland.

[Sheilbh]

Sheilbh, where do you get the idea that Germany has any intention to have a "independent capability" for anything? What Germany wants to be is a big Switzerland.

I'm saying Germany can't be a big Switzerland and it's naive to think they can. The choice is develop independent capability and you can retreat from the Western alliance, or re-assess and you will end up with your foreign policy aligning (even more) with Russia, China and other authoritarian regimes round the world.

[grumbler]

Sheilbh, where do you get the idea that Germany has any intention to have a "independent capability" for anything? What Germany wants to be is a big Switzerland.

But Switzerland isn't a land of pussies.  Germany can't be a big Switzerland because Germany is filled with Germans, not Swiss.  Germany needs allies, whle Switzerland does not.

[Zanza]

Why can't it be a big Switzerland?