I just wonder, right now the Western world is eliminating Russia from the global economy and culture as much as it can (natural gas and petrol being the main blocking factors). I imagine that even after the war in Ukraine ends, the sanctions will continue at least for some time.
Why does it seem like this was not the case for Germany after WW2? It just seems that the Western world went: "no biggie, dear [West] Germany, go ahead and have all of that nice Marshall Plan money to rebuild and become one of the strongest European economies, despite the fact that you just tried to annihilate the continent". What gives? Am I missing something here?
There are a couple of huge differences in context here.
WW2 ended with a (nominal, at least) regime change. The Nazi Reich capitulated and gave way to a new republic in West Germany.
This new West German state was borne in the context of a very high-profile Cold War with the USSR; as such, it wouldn’t make sense for the West to isolate a potential ally and risk turning them over to the enemy.
Neither of these are true for Russia; barring any unforeseen circumstances, there will be no regime change for the foreseeable future, and as such those responsible for this war will remain in power for years to come. There is also no enemy to enlist them against; they’re already predisposed to an antagonistic relationship with the Western countries from which these sanctions are coming.
Finally, despite the above, they actually did sanction West Germany. Billions in reparations were paid to the Allies largely in the form of industrial material, concurrent with mandated de-industrialization.
The German military was also thereafter subject to restrictions similar to those placed on Japan’s armed forces following the end of the war; a constitutionally mandated defense-only military disallowed from possessing any chemical or biological weapons.
Further reading:
Dobbins, James, Michele A. Poole, Austin Long, and Benjamin Runkle. “Post–World War II Nation-Building: Germany and Japan.” In After the War: Nation-Building from FDR to George W. Bush, 11–36. RAND Corporation, 2008. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/mg716cc.10.
I'll try and keep this fairly simple, mainly because, as with all things, there is so much complexity that I simply don't know. A lot of my knowledge actually comes from studying the U.S. occupation of Japan following WWII, but within that was a lot of comparison to Germany, so I hope I have enough here to give some general ideas about it.
Firstly, I want to start by saying it's always worth considering what power plays we aren't seeing regarding the modern situation. So, without wanting to go full conspiracy theory, it's important to bear in mind that what we see in the media (a strong and steady anti-Russia/Pro-Ukraine sentiment) doesn't necessarily translate to the hard economic numbers and political realities of relations with Russia right now. It may not be as brutal as it first seems. Then again, it may well be - I don't know much about this right now, but just thought it was worth highlighting that element of doubt, as we can translate that backwards into when we study history too.
To start, we must remember that Germany, as a nation, ceased to exist. It was divided. And, post the collapse of the Berlin Wall, it's easy to forget how traumatic and deep this divide was. Families were torn apart. Economies were rendered. Politics became two realities. It was a huge deal. Add to this the fact that both sides were occupied. The citizens were being ruled by foreign generals and soldiers. Allied soldiers walked the streets, took the nice areas, ate their rations in their tanks whilst citizens of Germany starved. This is not to try and create any narrative of 'just/unjust,' but simply to highlight that, as a German citizen, post-WWII was a deeply terrifying and difficult time, filled with insecurity on everything from what you would eat, your rights, and the future of your nation, as well as its recent, dark, past.
So, whilst it is important to recognise the strength of the Marshall plan, it is a very easy narrative to believe that America essentially came in and bank-rolled Germany to rapid economic success and democratic rule. It did not. There was starvation, destruction, military rule, and huge and complex legacies to determine. Again, not to say America/the Allies necessarily caused any of this or whether it was 'right' or not, it was simply some of the realities Germans faced. It took a long time for the economy to even begin to recover. And even longer for it to become 'Germany' again. It was not simply 'live and forget,' but rather a hugely traumatic experience.
However, considering the Marshall plan, we must remember the context. Much like how today the 'West' is arrayed against Russia, so it was increasingly squaring off against the Soviet Union. It became a point of international and domestic politics for America to out compete the USSR at every point it possible could. It was a very cold example of 'realpolitiks' in many ways, with the enemies of the past immediately becoming less important than the enemies of the present - such as is most political experiences. Consequently, 'rebuilding' Germany became an important piece in the geo-political puzzle. It would provide America a dependent ally, in some ways puppet, which would stand physically and representatively against the Soviet expansion into Europe. America was no longer isolationist, and instead became involved in virtually every element of international politics. They had near-total control over the institutions of a very-recently powerful nation - through the lens of politics, why would they not use it as best they could?
Again, my knowledge here is mainly broad-stroke, and I may have exaggerated the levels of US deliberateness and control, but this is the general story that I picked up. It's really worth also looking and comparing to the occupation of Japan!
Tl;dr - International politics US POV = strong state to resist USSR good; realities in Germany post war = very bad and not instantly 'fixed'