By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed disappointment and a sense of abandonment regarding Brexit, believing that David Cameron’s negotiations with Eurosceptics ultimately fueled the Leave campaign’s success. She questioned whether further concessions could have prevented the UK’s departure, suggesting that the underlying desire of some to leave the EU was insurmountable. Merkel also commented on Vladimir Putin’s misunderstanding of freedom and his use of external enemies to consolidate power, contrasting this with her own refugee policy based on German values. Finally, she noted her observations of the transactional approach of Donald Trump’s administration, while recognizing his understanding of the mutual benefits of transatlantic partnerships.
Read the original article here
Merkel’s expression of feeling “disappointed and abandoned” regarding Brexit speaks volumes about the complexities of the EU’s internal dynamics and the unforeseen consequences of political decisions. Her statement, however, has sparked a wave of reactions, some sympathetic, many highly critical. Many see her lament as a deflection from her handling of other significant international issues, particularly her approach to Russia and the annexation of Crimea.
The criticism leveled against Merkel often intertwines her Brexit disappointment with her policies toward Russia. Accusations of appeasement towards Putin, highlighted by the annexation of Crimea and the reliance on Russian gas, are frequently cited as evidence of poor judgment and a failure to foresee the broader geopolitical ramifications. This perceived weakness in foreign policy is seen by many as a contributing factor to the instability within the EU that ultimately led to Brexit.
The Brexit vote itself is framed as a direct consequence of Merkel’s leadership style and EU policies. Critics argue that a more conciliatory and collaborative approach, particularly concerning freedom of movement and the handling of economic anxieties within member states, could have prevented the UK’s departure. The lack of flexibility in addressing these concerns is presented as a fundamental failure of leadership that alienated a key member state.
Freedom of movement within the EU is a recurring point of contention. The rapid and unrestricted nature of this policy is seen as a factor that contributed to the discontent within the UK and other member states. A more gradual and managed approach, perhaps phased over decades, could have mitigated some of the anxieties surrounding immigration and economic burden-sharing, thereby potentially preventing the rise of anti-EU sentiment.
The criticism extends beyond Brexit to encompass Merkel’s broader legacy. Her decisions on energy policy, particularly the phasing out of nuclear power in favor of Russian gas, are seen as contributing to Europe’s energy vulnerability and dependence on Russia. This dependency is directly linked to the current geopolitical crisis and is used to further illustrate a pattern of poor judgment in her leadership. Similarly, the handling of the refugee crisis is widely criticized for its lack of planning and integration strategy, exacerbating social tensions and feeding into anti-EU sentiment.
The arguments against Merkel are not monolithic. Some argue that her actions concerning Russia were the best available choices given the limited options and the lack of widespread international support for more assertive actions. The response to the 2014 annexation of Crimea, though criticized now, is defended as a pragmatic response to a complex situation, limited by the political realities of the time and a lack of international consensus for more aggressive intervention. This perspective highlights the complexities of international diplomacy and the limitations of individual leaders.
Ultimately, Merkel’s statement on feeling “disappointed and abandoned” by Brexit serves as a focal point for a wider discussion on her leadership, the internal dynamics of the EU, and the far-reaching consequences of both domestic and international political decisions. While her expression of feeling personally let down is understandable on a human level, the criticisms surrounding her tenure as Chancellor highlight the broader systemic failures and long-term consequences of political choices. These criticisms suggest a deeper need for introspection and reform within the EU to prevent similar situations in the future. The legacy of her time in office remains a subject of ongoing debate and analysis, and the full picture will only emerge over time.