German Writer Eugen Drewermann: “If Only We Had Listened to the Russians…”

Just came in: https://www.german-foreign-policy.com/news/detail/7660/, Putschversuch in Caracas, German political party “foundations” setting up NGOs in several South American countries, including Venezuela, involved in attempted coups.

“Again you belittle German industry and engineering, stating “whatever is left of German engineering capacity”. Strange comment. Would you care to offer any facts to your generalizations ?” — Gladly, but if you don’t mind I will keep it short and exemplary rather than writing a book.

As you are probably aware, the German government shut down the nuclear industry. That used to be an area of high-tech expertise and was also crucial — e.g. the nuclear power plant in Brazil liniked into the Carajas iron-ore “mountain” — for producing and delivering plan and equipment with with the partner / receiver couintry built its domestic capacities, raised standards of living, creating new markets also for consumer goods, produced locally. As you are probably also aware, the Russian Rosatom company builds turn-key powr plants and these are a major export tiem, Iran, Turkey, China and other places. The Germans got out of the business, not because Fukushima “proved the technology is inherenly unsafe,” but because the German companies (1) were competing politically with Americans companies and got the short end of the stick, (2) because they were lagging behind technologically (shut down their fast-breeder in Kalkar), and (3) because the companies that functioned as “general contractors”, e.g. Siemens, worked on the typical western model of coordinating a herd of subcontractors, which increases costs, depresses profits, and incurs liabilities for functioning, safety and maintenance, which is very expensive, ties up reserves for years into the future…, in short, it is not a good deal for rapid turnover of cash. Rosatom not only builds without any subcontractors, they take full responsiblity from the build to the operations over long contract periods.

In the future, it will be very interesting to see when the Russian capability for processing nuclear waste becomes a commercial cooperaion issue between Germany and Russia. As you may recall, Putin boasted about the Russians taking apart old atomic warheads and degrading the weapons-grade material, resulting in fuel for power plants as well as a cocktail of substances with low radiation and short half-lives. Putin joked tht not only had the Americans not kept their end of the deal with respect to desroying old warheads, they had hidden the material away such that it can be used to build new warheads. Maybe, Putin suggested, the Americans just didn’t have the money to fulfill their end of the agreement. Just as possible, even more likely, is that the Americans did not and do not have the technology for recycling nuclear waste. — The Germans don’t have it either, although German scientists know exactly how it is done. If they really thought it is a bad idea to sit on thousands of tons of nuclear waste buried in salt deposits, they would either churn out the engineers to turn the science into operational machinery, or they would go to Russia. But nowadayws — I forget the exact figures, they should be easy to find — 85% or thereabouts of German university students study anything but technical or engineering subjects, and IT students go to banks or companies to run SAP software, and mechanical engineering students go to the automotive industry with entry salaries 600 € less than a beginning “economist” who learns how to save money on R&D to keep shareholders happy. The number of electrical engineering students is miniscule because…, well, if you don’t build power plants and you don’t export them, they you are also not going to get involved in the high-power transformer business and high-power grid-switching which countries need when they initiatve massive electrification programs.

Siemens, just for one example — sorry, as I said, I have to keep it exemplary — makes turbines for power plants, coal or gas powered. As you may recall, they were slapped by the EU because they were in a joint venture with a Russian company that delivered 4 turbines to Crimea, and Siemens was fined for violating the sanctions regime. Did the Russian company or did Crimea *need* Siemens turbines? — No, not at all, and the Russian company told Siemens, Ok, take back your turbines, the technology is ours anyway, and we have the capacity to produce these turbines or better. And lo and behold, about a few months later, Siemens decided to shut down a turbine factory in Germany, for lack of demand. Turbines per se would be counted as technical plant and equipment: apparently Siemens does not have too many customers for these pieces. — And, by the way, Siemens was also bidding for at least part of the contract with Iran to build their railways, Siemens would supply rolling stock. No deal, the Russians are building the railway. Why? Yes, again because of US sanctions problems, but mostly because of the general-contractor / subcontractor matrix Siemens continues to rely on: that means, Siemens is not selling Siemens know-how, they are reselling someone else’s know how, maybe it is Germany but it could come from anywhere. Siemens therefore does not need engineers to develop and produce anything, they need them only for “management” tasks.

500 German industrialists? 140,000 Russians employed by German subsidiaires. — That’s not really a lot, is it? — In any case, what do the numbers prove? — They prove that the Germans need cooperation with Russia, they need the Russian market, and if they are in the SME category, they might even have some technology and know-how the Russians can use, but, as I reported here before, the Ostauschuss der deutschen Wirtschaft issued an urgent recommendation 1.5 years ago that such companies get in fast, because the window of opportunity was closing, because the Russians would cover their own needs very fast. Remember: import substitution? (By the way, if you read German you can subscribe to the “ostexpert” newsletter, https://ostexperte.de/?utm_source=Kontakte%20Ostexperte.de-Newsletter&utm_campaign=1804cc1e2f-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_09_24&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f45f6f7dc8-1804cc1e2f-151056565.)

So what does Germany produce nowadays, now that the sorts of plant and equipment needed by countries that want to develop and grow, are not produced in Germany? — Photovoltaic panels? Yeah, that was supposed to be “high tech” and a real export boomer, but the Chinese produce cheaper and better. Wind mills? Yeah, Siemens even earns a lot of money there from the subsidies boondoggle. But the stuff is junk and even Greece has stopped buying these contraptions. You may have heard about it: the German “energy transition” is a disaster. E-cars? — Yeah, but do you need engineers to plug the components together to earn the subsidy money? Hardly. Are they “environmentally friendly”? — Hell, no! — So, tell me, please. What does Germany develop and produce?

Some other day I will share some anecdotes about what an “automotive engineer” in Germany really does as day to day work.

Hello Katherine,

Let’s see if the Mod lets this through: it is not personal, except that you are writinm to or *about* me personally, so I presume I have the right, if not indeed an obligation to reply.

I do not know what you are getting hot under the collar about. — The “rule” I spoke about is simply a matter of politeness: If someone responds to something I write, and objects or disagrees, it is simply polite to do me the justice of reading what I wrote and reply to it, and not to respond to one’s emptional response or interpretation of what I wrote. — In fact, if I recall corectly, Saker has himself a number of times said he does not have time nor the inclination to respond to such responses to what *he* writes, because it involves saying “I did not say what you said I said” and such tiresome nonsense. — I do have the time, and I do think it apppropriate to point out that the disagreement announced has nothing to do with what I wrote. To my way of thinking, that is called dialogue. If such fora are for a collection of monologues, fine. Then I bow out.

So let me point out that you have done the same thing as B.F. did. Please quote me in some place where I engage in an ethnic/racial “putdown.” — Dear Katherine, I am writing about *politics* and intelligence evaluations, the word “German” or “Germany” is a place-holder for “*German policy*.” Please quote the passage where I wrote something that led you astray or otherwise confused you on that point. Just fair, just and polite, ok? “Respect and courtesy” in my book means to actually read what the other person wrote, or not, as the case may be, i.e., if you don’t want to respond, then you don’t need to read anything. And — but I hope this is not too tiresome if I point this out — avoiding *ad hominem* argument has nothing to do with avoiding “triggering” people: *ad hominem* argument is a *logical* fallacy. E.g. “Don’t pay any attention to what George says about Germany because he is just anti-German.” Perhaps it is readily clear that that is not a good and logical argument. It won’t stand up “in court.”