SPECULUM VERUM
Russia's war against Ukraine has now lasted almost three months. The answer of the federal government was:: upgrade and deliver weapons. Agree with Chancellor Olaf Scholz: Are we currently experiencing a »turning point«?
no, this is not a turning point – at least in view of the geopolitical situation. We have been in a phase for a long time, in which Russia and China are militarily encircled by the United States. Since 20 years, Moscow points out, that Ukraine must not be accepted into NATO. This means, that no US missiles may be deployed on the Ukrainian-Russian border. These security interests have been consistently ignored. This is one of the main reasons why the war in Ukraine broke out.
The government in Kyiv, like those in Warsaw or Budapest, could make sovereign decisions about joining NATO, says the western war alliance. It is not so?
The argument, each state can decide for itself, which alliance he joins, is a lie. Everyone knows, that the US would never accept Cuba's entry into a military alliance with Russia, neither does the deployment of Russian missiles on the US border with Mexico or Canada.
At the end of the day, this is not about admission to NATO. The question is crucial: Can missiles be deployed at the borders of a nuclear power?, who have no warning? That was already a big issue in the peace movement of the 1980s. At that time it was about the stationing of Pershing II missiles in Germany, against which we demonstrated. Their flight time to Moscow would have been only around ten minutes. From the Ukrainian-Russian border, the flight time is much less.
In your opinion, how can the war in Ukraine be ended?? In this country, the sound is getting louder and louder, there will be no so-called dictated peace by Russia.
To answer this question, we need to understand the conflict. Three phases can be distinguished. The first was the eastward enlargement of NATO. Many important voices in the USA have also urgently warned against this. It was predicted even then, such a step would lead to a military conflict with Russia. The second phase began with Vladimir Putin's decision, in die Ukraine einzumarschieren. Diesen Krieg verurteile ich, genauso wie ich ohne jede Einschränkung alle anderen völkerrechtswidrigen Kriege verurteile. Die dritte Phase, von der die deutsche Öffentlichkeit noch nichts mitbekommen hat, ist der beginnende Zermürbungskrieg von Joe Biden. Die 40 Milliarden Dollar, die der US-Kongress vergangene Woche hauptsächlich für Waffenlieferungen in die Ukraine bereitgestellt hat, sind ein Beweis dafür, dass die USA keinen Frieden wollen. Sie wollen ihren Rivalen Russland schwächen und sagen das ja auch offen.
Auch die hiesige Debatte dreht sich in erster Linie um immer neue Waffenlieferungen. Jahrzehntelang galt in der deutschen Außenpolitik der Grundsatz, dass in Krisengebiete keine Waffen geliefert werden. Haben Sie diesen Kurswechsel für möglich gehalten?
I've had to learn over the past few decades, that political convictions do not endure again and again. Still surprised me, how quickly such a central principle is thrown overboard. Independently of, whether the weapons for Ukraine come from the USA or from the EU: With these deliveries, the war is prolonged, more and more people will die.
In the meantime, the proponents of this escalation policy have hijacked the argument and claim it, the war would be prolonged, one did not always supply more weapons. they have the same opinion: Russia is to be defeated on the battlefield.
Unfortunately, these people only think in terms of victory or defeat. But the most important thing, the saving of human life, apparently doesn't matter. Who doesn't want, that more people will die, must be against any prolongation of the war and thus also against any delivery of arms. The argument, this rearmament would protect Ukraine, is unbelievable. Nobody came up with the idea, to support the countries invaded by the USA with the supply of German weapons. You can see that, how dishonest it is with us at the moment.
In addition to arms deliveries, the West is reacting with sanctions against Russia. It is stressed, all, what is possible below the immediate entry into war, should be undertaken, to defeat Russia. Foreign Minister and Green Party politician Annalena Baerbock spoke of it, the country will be ruined. The zeal, which shows up here, is unparalleled.
That's the way it is. Especially since the sanctions are increasingly harming people in this country - especially those with low incomes, who can no longer pay their energy bills. Because of the stupidity of the Greens, the other politicians in the traffic light coalition, but also of the CDU/CSU, which supports them, German companies are losing their competitiveness. We shoot ourselves in the foot. The US is probably laughing at us, because they are hardly affected by the sanctions, are now able to sell their liquefied petroleum gas to a greater extent in Europe and their arms industry is doing huge business.
It's not new, that the US is trying, to drive a wedge between Germany and Russia. Is the United States the winner of the current situation?
In the short term yes. Through NATO's eastward expansion and Putin's ill-considered decision, to start the war, the USA have their goal, set Russia and Germany against each other, reached. In the long run, however, they make a serious mistake, by pushing Russia to China's side. By doing so, they will strengthen the country, which is the declared main rival of the USA. On the other hand, we must note, that the Germans are incapable of doing this, to act in accordance with their own interests. Instead, you inflict great damage on yourself in the role of the loyal vassal of the USA.
How would you explain it to an inexperienced voter, that the federal government is pursuing policies against German interests?
The entry of the Greens into government is decisive. Since the Yugoslavia war and the role played by the then foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, was recognizable, that the Greens are the extended arm of the USA in the Bundestag. They support every US decision, when it comes to wars. They call themselves the Human Rights Party, but only know of violations of human rights by Russia or China. That the US is responsible for most human rights violations as a result of its wars, do not see the one-eyed Greens. Incidentally, the press also plays a bad role in this, which is just as blind to the war crimes of the USA and allows itself to be harnessed for warmongering.
The Federal Government announced in the person of Economics Minister Robert Habeck, also Green politicians, relatively outspoken, »all of us« would lose wealth in the future. Energy or food that is becoming more expensive is simply the price, that we would have to pay, to stop the war. Who pays for government policies?
Habeck or Baerbock can only appear like this, because the Greens have become the party of the higher earners. If you still knew about the living conditions of those, who have low incomes, then they wouldn't talk so stupidly. Ultimately, it's these people, who will foot the bill for "green" price gouging. Jobs will be lost in the long term. The purchase of cheap energy from Russia was a great location advantage for the German economy. It is now being ruined at the instigation of the Greens. And the German economy offers too little resistance to it.
The awareness of the consequences of this policy does not seem to be sufficiently developed among those affected.
My impression is that a larger part of the population is now becoming aware, that with the arms deliveries the danger of war also increases for Germany and that the prices continue to rise. I hope, that the consequences of this wrong policy are recognized and that there are protests and counter-movements. Unfortunately, many opponents of the war stayed away from the NRW elections. The "green" warmongers have benefited from this.
You mentioned the role of the media in this country. Given the uniform reporting of the bourgeois press on Russia, one wonders, how a relevant part of the population should come up with critical thoughts.
is crucial, that people are increasingly feeling the consequences of this policy in their wallets. In addition, more and more people are defying the ongoing warmongering, what dangers are involved. Last but not least, the Federal Chancellor himself drew attention to the risk of an escalating war, including a nuclear strike.
In addition to arms deliveries, the federal government wants to drastically increase the defense budget and enshrine a so-called special fund for the Bundeswehr in the Basic Law. Where will FDP Finance Minister Christian Lindner start cutting costs?, to finance the upgrade?
If that's what it's going to be about in the future, repay the debt, wird der FDP in erster Linie der Sozialhaushalt einfallen. Lindner wird die Interessen seiner Klientel, also der Besserverdienenden und der Wirtschaft, vertreten. Erstaunlich: Wenn es um die Energiepreise geht, handelt der FDP-Politiker gegen die Interessen der Wirtschaft. Würde er erkennen, welche Folgen die jetzige Politik für die deutsche Wirtschaft hat, müsste er mit dem Ausstieg der FDP aus der Koalition drohen.
Mit Blick auf Kriegs- und Verarmungspolitik der »rot-grünen« Bundesregierung unter Gerhard Schröder kann es nicht verwundern, dass es nun SPD, Grüne und FDP sind, die den Aufrüstungskurs vorgeben.
Mich hat das nicht überrascht. Man muss die Veränderungen sehen, die in in den Ampelparteien vorgegangen sind. Die SPD ist nicht mehr die Partei Willy Brandts, die für Frieden, promoted disarmament and social improvements. The current Social Democratic Chancellor, Scholz, advocates rearmament and social cuts. The green, which once had a strong pacifist wing, have become the biggest warmongers in Germany since the Yugoslav war. And the FDP has no one of the caliber of former Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher or Guido Westerwelle. Genscher tried everything, to prevent a policy, that make a nuclear war limited to Europe more likely. And Westerwelle had the courage, to give the Americans the cold shoulder in the Libyan war.
The SPD co-chairman Lars Klingbeil explained the principle, that peace and security in Europe can only be maintained with and not against Russia, for obsolete. How do you see the development of the party?, whose chairman you from 1995 bis 1999 have been?
Who thinks these days, the Idea, There can only be peace in Europe with Russia, be wrong, needs a mental health check. The policy of detente has led to peace in Europe, also for the Eastern European countries. By contrast, the politics of confrontation, which started after the fall of the wall and which was operated by the USA, only to Yugoslavia- and now led to the Ukraine war. Basically, it shouldn't be difficult to understand, that relaxation, so an attempt at understanding, leads to peace and confrontation eventually leads to war. However, we live in times of great spiritual confusion.
A congress will be held in Berlin this Saturday under the title »Living without NATO – ideas for peace«, where you will speak about the Ukraine war. You outlined the challenges for the German peace movement. Does she live up to those in her current condition?
no. But many are concerned, that the war will spread. So now it would be necessary, to take to the streets in large numbers in the tradition of the peace movement of the 1980s or the demonstrations before the Iraq war.
The tasks described should also be of central importance for the Left Party. In March you declared your withdrawal from the party, which you once co-founded. Do you have to understand this step like this?, that you no longer see your peace policy positions represented there?
Not enough anymore. There were always attempts, to become »governable« as a party. Some want to change the program accordingly, supporting UN-mandated wars and deciding the issue of arms shipments on a case-by-case basis. For many years these attempts came to nothing. When Scholz then announced the "turn of the era" in his Bundestag speech, there was a push by members of parliament around the former parliamentary group leader Gregor Gysi and the then party leader Susanne Hennig-Wellsow, approve the upgrade request. Thank God those prevailed at the last moment, who pleaded for the rejection of this application. However, the discussion in the party shows afterwards, that further attempts are made, To bring the left on a similar course as the SPD and the Greens. If the course is really set at the party conference at the end of June, then the party is done.
You don't seem to think so, that the left-wing forces within the party can still turn things around.
There's still a chance. But for that it has to be understood, that's about it, how the voters judge the politics of the Left Party – not because of that, which little group organizes a majority at the party congress. It is not only in the party Die Linke that the great mistake of believing exists, it is democracy, if you find a majority in internal disputes. In a democracy, however, the majority must be found among the population, not at party conferences.
Without the widespread protests against the »Agenda 2010« policy, the first successful years of the Left Party would not have been possible. That was a special historical starting point. The current situation gives cause for doubt, that soon a new left-wing party could be elected to the Bundestag.
there, where left politics is successful, the right program will also be represented. When we primarily campaigned for the interests of employees - without losing sight of climate protection -, we were successful. Since that policy was changed a few years ago, we lose the elections. The conclusions, to be drawn from it, are obvious. It's ridiculous to assume, that there is no potential for a party, which puts the preservation of peace and social concerns in the foreground. Especially when you see, the extent to which the socially disadvantaged are now being impoverished by the foolish policies of the federal government. A left party, which represents the real interests of the majority of the population, would now have more approval than the Greens. The higher earners are not in the majority.