Gabriele Krone-Schmalz on Russia and Europe

What you're about to see is a highly informative talk by a German intellectual and former journalist, Gabriele Krone-Schmalz, who used to work as a Moscow correspondent for Germany's largest public broadcaster. Dr. Krone-Schmalz was also a professor for media science and has emerged as one of the fiercest critics of Germany's foolish policies vis-à-vis Russia. She's one of the people who can and does publicly lecture on the true origins of the ongoing warfare in Europe. And she is proof that, yes, some Europeans really do know what is going on and how reckless the current political and media elite are. I'm able to show you this in English translation thanks to the open access publication of the original video courtesy by the Nachdenkseiten, Germany's most important independent media portal. Please consider supporting them. And now, enjoy. Thank you very much, I warmly greet you all. Yes, Russia and what next? May I begin with a quote? I was never discouraged before. I never despaired of the fatherland. But now, having seen its saviors, all hope has left me. This quote is from Heinrich Heine, and I read it a few weeks ago in the Nachdenkseiten, in an article that dealt with the state of our democracy. I fundamentally consider democratic systems to be the most humane way to organize coexistence. However, one must not forget, democracies rely on the so-called informed citizen, if they are to function. A citizen can only be informed if firstly they receive education, and secondly they are continuously and comprehensively informed. Both education and comprehensive information, in my opinion, are not readily available. Regarding education, there is likely consensus that there is still much room for improvement. This is less the case with the quality of reporting. These deficiencies endanger democracy and ultimately peace, which is known to be more than just the absence of war. Journalism is an important pillar to provide stability to a democracy. The task of continually deciding what makes it into the news, what should be reported, and what must necessarily be omitted is very responsible. Because often, one does not have the choice between right and wrong, but only between wrong and wrong. I know this from my own experience. Everything is difficult and complicated. It is all the more important to take the citizens seriously and provide them with all available information. This should happen regardless of one's own stance in a debate. One should also resist the temptation to want to make politics oneself instead of explaining it. A respectful and contentious debate on these topics could increase the chances of finding sustainable and peaceful solutions. This applies not only with regard to Russia and Ukraine. This is how I understand my work. In any case, I am not willing to leave the field to those who claim interpretive authority for themselves alone and believe they have a moral justification for it. So, Russia and what next? To answer this question, it's important to know the background and understand what has led us to the current situation. This background doesn't just start with the Russian attack on Ukraine, but much earlier. Essentially, it begins with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. By the way, this is a revealing example of the use of language. In the West, we often speak of the collapse of the Soviet Union. In reality, however, it was a more or less politically driven dissolution. But that's just an aside, as I will delve more deeply into language later. So the background essentially begins with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. And it doesn't hurt to recall a few key points. You tend to forget things so quickly, as you will soon see. With the leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet Union opened up to the West in an unprecedented way. This powerful spirit of change is hardly describable in words. The hopes and expectations were enormous. However, what was demanded of the people was also immense, but it was not really acknowledged in its significance by the political West. Essentially, there were three revolutions that took place and had to be managed. The first was the transition from a plan to come to a new world, economy to a market economy. It sounds simple, but it means a lot. People from the former East Germany generally understand this better than those in the western part of Germany. And for Russia, in addition to its size, it is particularly challenging that the Russian economy was not ruined by the planned economy but created by it. That is a significant difference. The second revolution was the transition from the dictatorship of the Communist Party to constitutional structures. Who today is still aware that the leadership claim of the Communist Party was enshrined in the Soviet Constitution? The Constitution had to be changed. Initially, the path seemed to lead straightforwardly to constitutional structures. The Constitution is not the problem today, but rather the constitutional reality. There have been massive setbacks in that regard. And the third revolution was the transition from the Soviet Union to a nation-state, which for a long time was not recognized as a problem in the West at all. Please also consider that for all the crimes and violations committed by the Soviet Union, the West has generally held Russia responsible. All other states that emerged after the dissolution of the Soviet Union were given the chance by the West for a more or less unburdened new beginning. But not Russia. This fundamental attitude is not insignificant as it forms the basis for quickly reviving old enemy images. The Russians were and are seen as the villains. Stalin is also not perceived as a Georgian, but as someone from Russia. How did it continue? Then came Boris Yeltsin, who was initially seen as a beacon of hope, both in the West and in Russia, as a reformer and democrat. But Russian everyday life was soon dominated by Wild West capitalism, corruption and great chaos. There were chaotic conditions that we can hardly imagine in our relatively structured country. Yeltsin, through dubious privatizations of key industries, became the midwife of the oligarchs. the money elite. Under him, an unprecedented sell-off of the country took place. He gave it away more than he sold it. Not only Russian oligarchs benefited from this, but also the West, and significantly so. As bad as all this is, the worst part is that all the nice Western terms like liberalization and democratization sounded good in theory, but in practice they turned out to be pure chaos for the people in Russia, not the promised paradise. And that could hardly be desirable. As a result, these terms were permanently damaged. I'm not even talking about the shelling of the Russian parliament that Yeltsin ordered in 1993. That was also rather undemocratic, but in line with the West. Therefore, this act was not criticized as it normally should have been, considering Western values. Instead, it was celebrated. What were the citizens of Russia supposed to think of that? The exact occurrences and the chronology of events can be read about. In this chaos, in this situation where criminal structures were the only reliable thing, Putin came just in time. A young, healthy, athletic man who, with his politics and demeanor, has given people in Russia back their self-confidence and self-assurance. Instead of seizing the opportunities and finally building the common European house, whose vision Mikhail Gorbachev had developed, Western observers only criticized that Putin was a KGB man. That alone says nothing. On the one hand, the KGB in the late 1980s dealt with its criminal past in an unprecedented way. There is an ARD production by me titled KGB Crime in Glasnost on this topic. And on the other hand, Putin said in connection with the failed coup attempt in the summer of 1991, you may recall, when a group around KGB chief Kryuchkov wanted to seize power, tanks rolled through Moscow, and Gorbachev was held with his family in Crimea. Putin resigned from his service at exactly this time. That means, when it was not yet foreseeable that this coup would fail. That is a clear statement. But such details only disturb. The fact is that during his first term, Putin made many offers of cooperation to the West. Mr. Miller also mentioned some proposals, all of which were either ignored or immediately rejected. either ignored or immediately rejected. And this is not a trivial matter, but a fundamental experience that shapes further behavior. It is also a fact that during his first term, Putin highly valued the importance of a strong civil society and did a lot to develop it. The numerous attempts were either not acknowledged by us at all, or were ridiculed. For those who now think that I can say a lot but lack evidence, you can find this in my earlier books, including What is Happening in Russia. It is described there in detail and chronologically what has happened. We were not the least bit interested in that. In times of change, it is especially important to avoid misunderstandings. Therefore, a brief remark at this point. When I point out Western mistakes, it does not mean that I am claiming, conversely, that Russia is faultless and merely the poor victim. Those are not the categories in which I think. When I explain and analyze Putin's policies in his early days as president, it has nothing to do with justifying his later activities, both domestically and internationally. Explaining is not the same as justifying. This is one of the great misunderstandings of our time. I focus on Western mistakes for two reasons. First, they are less often highlighted in our context. So I try to balance that out in a certain way. On the other hand, one should know them in order not to repeat them. This brings us to the fundamental question that needs to be answered. Is Russia pursuing imperialistic interests, or is Russia concerned with a functioning security architecture that includes Russia? This must be debated based on facts, meaning analytically and not ideologically or morally. It doesn't help when German politicians create threat scenarios and warn of, I quote, Putin's great power fantasies. Or when experts develop timelines suggesting that the Russians will be in Berlin in five years. Such statements tend to incite fear rather than result from a sober assessment of the situation. Even NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg, who is not exactly known for his restraint towards Russia, recently stated that there is currently no threat from Russia. Similar sentiments can be found in various US strategy papers. So why this scaremongering? If the enormous efforts to support Ukraine financially and with weapons in the war against Russia are to continue, the fear of a Russian attack beyond Ukraine must be stoked. This way, the population is led to support all of this without resistance. This includes the claim that our democracy and freedom are being defended in Ukraine. Our democracy, our freedom, would be defended in Ukraine. This is just as untrue this time as it was back then in Afghanistan, when it was said that our freedom and democracy were being defended in the Hindu Kush. Unfortunately, there are repeated examples in history that show friend-enemy images, and the demonization of the opponent served to make an entire society ready for war. Our Minister of Defense, who is not called the Minister of War, increasingly uses the terms war-capable and war-ready instead of defensible and capable of defense. This does not happen to him by accident. A systematic and chronological examination of Russian statements and Russian policy repeatedly shows that Moscow is concerned with securing an appropriate place in the new security architecture. This became necessary after the East-West confrontation seemed to have been overcome at the end of the 1980s. After the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, NATO should have sensibly restructured itself. There were plans that at times did not even exclude Russia's membership. NATO was originally founded as a defense alliance. Only the enemy, namely the Soviet Union or Russia, no longer existed. A new task was needed, and the out-of-area missions, meaning operations outside one's own territory, were proclaimed. From my perspective, that was the beginning of the end. Instead of including the vast Russia in some way in security policy, NATO did not change structurally, but merely expanded eastward. There was the NATO-Russia Council, but it was more of a cosmetic correction, and not participation on equal terms. The NATO eastward expansion was in any case one of the biggest problems. biggest mistakes since the end of World War II. The long-serving German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher saw it that way, among others. And what might be even more telling, even George Kennan, essentially the architect of the American containment policy, said at the time, and I quote verbatim, I think this is a tragic mistake. There was absolutely no reason for it. No one is threatening anyone. And a bit further, he says, of course. there will be a nasty reaction from Russia in the future. And then you, the NATO expanders, will say, that's how they are, the Russians. We've always told you, but that is completely wrong. George Kennan, who to my knowledge, is not identified with the current meaning of Russia understander. With the NATO perspective for Ukraine, an immediate neighbor with special historical and emotional significance for Russia, the breaking point was reached. Russia's security needs are often ridiculed on the political agenda of the West. It is argued, giant country, who would threaten it? But a look at the map and strategic papers shows that the breakup of Russia and a regime change in Moscow are being pursued. A crucial security policy difference between Russia and the USA lies simply in geography. The USA has oceans to the west and east of its country. In the north, it has Canada as a NATO partner, and in the south, the country borders Mexico, from which there is no security risk for the USA. The situation is quite different for Russia. Russia spans a vast landmass with over 22,000 kilometers of land borders, which are difficult to defend over long stretches. Russia has 14 neighbors, not just two, and with some of these countries, the relationships are heavily strained. From a security perspective, this is a qualitatively different task, which naturally leads to different sensitivities. What should not be forgotten are Russia's historically developed fears. We are always programmed to acknowledge the historically developed fears of Poland and the Baltic states. That is correct, but we do not acknowledge Russia's historical fears. In 1904, Russia was attacked in the east by Japan. In World War I, German troops occupied large parts of Russia. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1917 meant painful losses and extremely harsh conditions for Moscow. In the subsequent Russian Civil War, Western foreign countries intervened, led by France and Great Britain. What is often overlooked is that Poland tried to exploit Russia's weakness after World War I to expand its territory eastward, specifically beyond the line that was supposed to form Poland's eastern border during the peace negotiations. Interwar Greater Poland thus annexed exactly the Soviet territories that Stalin reclaimed in 1939. And of course, not to forget the German invasion in 1941 with all its immeasurable suffering and unimaginable cruelty. Further back, but still quite present, is the French attack under Napoleon in 1812. Russian fears and feelings of threat have a real background. These fears are in absolute contrast to the USA. Due to this combination of historical experiences and geographical location, the threat situation presents itself very differently for Russia. Because of the high number of American military bases around the world, it can rightly be said that NATO has encircled the world. Russia and is now also moving closer to the Russian national borders from the West. Once again for comparison, Russia operates 11 military bases outside its own country, nine of which are in close proximity to Russia. The USA operates almost 800 military bases, in more than 70 countries around the world. So who is threatening whom here? It doesn't matter at all whether a threat actually exists or is only perceived as such. That is enough to destroy the foundation of peaceful coexistence or even cooperation. This foundation would be a minimum of trust. And where is that supposed to come from in the current situation? I would argue that mutual distrust has never been as great as it is now. That mutual distrust has never been as great as it is now. Such statements, like those from Mrs. Merkel, naturally contribute to this. She said that the Minsk agreements were only made to give Ukraine time to become more defensible. In other words, the agreements themselves were not meant seriously. That is a devastating signal. Why make agreements at all then? Let's look at the recent past from a Russian perspective. There was the Kosovo War in 1999 and the Iraq War in 2003. Both wars were led by the USA without the approval of the UN Security Council, so to speak, out of their own authority, where international rules no longer played a role. It was not Moscow that tried to reshape the world. It was the USA or the political West. This aligns with the termination of almost all disarmament treaties, some of which had historical significance. Just consider that the INF Treaty actually succeeded in not only limiting, but abolishing and destroying an entire category of weapons. Again, it was not Moscow that terminated the treaties, but the USA. In this context, it is worth looking at the chronology of mutual accusations regarding who allegedly violated the treaties and when. The often-mentioned Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad were a countermeasure to the missile defense systems stationed by the USA in Poland and Romania. It is important to know that these defense systems can be easily converted into offensive systems. The system is very easy to convert into an attack system. It's not all as black and white as it's often suggested to us. To draw the connection to Ukraine now, the U.S. involvement in Ukraine is indeed remarkable. I'm not just talking about the enormous sums that have repeatedly been used to influence elections in Ukraine or to finance educational programs. These programs are actually called educational programs. They are intended to convey to Ukrainians in all parts of the country that they are better off in NATO. For a long time, there was no majority in the population for this. On the contrary, Ukraine's neutral status was even enshrined in the Constitution. Apart from that, Ukraine has repeatedly been the site of large-scale NATO maneuvers. The U.S. systematically increased the number of reconnaissance flights on the Ukrainian-Russian border. As recently reported in the New York Times, the U.S. has been operating 12 secret CIA bases directly on the Ukrainian-Russian border for about eight years. According to the New York Times, the involvement of American intelligence agencies is said to have played a key role in the Russian president's decision to invade Ukraine in February 2022. Moscow feared that Ukraine could turn into a springboard for operations against Russia with the help of the CIA, the British Foreign Intelligence Service, MI6, and other Western agencies. Before the invasion of Ukraine, the Russian president formally requested security guarantees, but they didn't even want to talk to him. I'm not referring to the talks between Scholz and Putin or Macron and Putin at that oversized table, but to how the U.S. reacted. Anyone reminded of the Cold War should have a heightened sense of the situation, because today it is much more dangerous. Not without reason was it referred to as the balance of terror back then. It is precisely about this balance, about calibrating and maintaining second strike capability. This capability deters a potential aggressor from executing the first strike because they must expect to be destroyed as the second. The political West is doing everything to throw this balance off. International treaties often emphasize that the security of one should not be developed or insured at the expense of another's security. But who still adheres to this? What has become of the communication channels that were created for times of crisis? The NATO-Russia Council and various other discussion forums have been suspended or completely abolished. Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it has become common to hold détente politicians partly responsible for this development, and to blame them for the fact that the Russian attack happened at all. Many of these detente politicians, including well-known ones, are now withdrawing and declaring this policy a regrettable mistake. In my opinion, however, it is exactly the opposite. It is not the detente politicians who are responsible for the current situation, but the fact that they were unable to implement their policies. One could and should argue about this in a fact-based and civilized manner. One should not dismiss every argument that does not align with the current government line as disinformation or fake news to make it undebatable. Or even worse, label it as Russian propaganda, which we are supposedly all falling for en masse. One could argue about this. endlessly. But what seems much more important to me is to look forward. That is challenging enough. To develop a perspective, it requires a candid assessment and the identification of interests. Let's start with interests. Peaceful politics is nothing more than a functioning balance of interests. It's not about morality, as is often claimed. Even the Democratic presidential candidate in the USA, Kamala Harris, said at the Munich Security Conference regarding American engagement in Europe, we do this not out of charity, but because it is in our strategic interest. It would be good if Germany and the EU started to formulate their strategic interests. There are certainly points of contact with the USA or overlaps, as we like to say today. But there are also significant differences that should not be underestimated. These differences need to be worked out and clearly identified. For example, it is in the interest of the EU, especially Germany, to maintain good relations with Russia. Likewise, it is in Russia's interest to have good relations with the EU and Germany. We are not only neighbors, but also natural partners who complement each other. However, this is not at all in the interest of the USA. Quite the opposite. There is a reason why American documents state that the only real threat to the USA's dominance is a functioning Eurasian continent. China plays a special role. From the U.S. perspective, the danger of good cooperation with China is averted for the time being. The only ones benefiting from this situation are the US and the arms industry. For the US, it is a success to have achieved their strategic goal. This goal, which has appeared in official documents for about 100 years, is to prevent or destroy prosperous cooperation on the Eurasian continent. Furthermore, they can sell their environmentally harmful and expensive fracking gas and have eliminated the cheap competition that we had right on our doorstep. ...and have turned off the price-worthy competition that we had in front of us. In Germany, energy prices are so high that it is becoming, or has already become, existentially threatening for many businesses. This is not because Russia has turned off the gas supply, as is often claimed. Rather, we have voluntarily given up Russian gas to avoid supporting the Russian war machinery. The crazy part is that we are still getting Russian gas, just through indirect routes and at a much higher price. Before I address the announced review, I would like to make an aside to avoid possible misunderstandings. When I criticize the policies of the USA, it should not be confused with anti-Americanism. I find the United States of America just as fascinating as Russia. My experiences with people during my travels across the continent have also been mostly positive. I believe it is legitimate for a country to primarily think of itself and pursue its interests. And then first consider how to connect that with the well-being of the neighbors. I find that acceptable, as long as one openly discusses interests and does not give them humanitarian pretexts to present them better. So far, so good. It only becomes concerning when an almost religious, missionary zeal leads to taking the right to intervene violently, covertly or openly anywhere in the world to pursue one's own interests. interests. That contradicts. This contradicts all international agreements and massively the UN Charter. In the name of democracy, not everything is allowed. Now for the assessment. This includes the observation that the tragedy of Ukraine is not only reflected in the dead, injured, traumatized, and the indescribable destruction of the country. It also lies in the fact that an intelligent policy, as far as we know, could have prevented all this if it had been allowed. Brazilian President Lula da Silva aptly points out that Russia bears sole responsibility for the outbreak of the war, but by now the USA and Europe are responsible for promoting a proxy war. Just four weeks after the outbreak of the war, there was a great opportunity to end it. Through the mediation of the then Israeli Prime Minister Bennett, negotiations took place in Istanbul. These were successful. Although not all points were clarified, the direction was clear. Above all, there was a willingness to resolve the disputes diplomatically, even regarding the complicated issue of Crimea. The whole thing did not fail because of Russia, but because ending the war at that time was not in the interest of the Western community of states. That was the outcome of a NATO special summit in Brussels on March 24. 4th, 2022. Boris Johnson, the then British Prime Minister, made this clear to his Ukrainian counterpart during a lightning visit to Kiev on April 9th. The reasoning was provided by the American Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin. He said that the opportunity must be taken to permanently weaken Russia militarily and economically through this war. So it was not primarily about the well-being of Ukraine. Thus, Everything that had been achieved up to that point was rendered obsolete. Against this backdrop, one must also consider the demands of the Ukrainian president and his government for more and more military aid. If the Western states do not want the war to end, then they should help Ukraine endure the situation. As for the morale and perseverance of the Ukrainians, it is certainly still present. However, it seems increasingly clear to more Ukrainians that they are being sacrificed for geopolitical interests. Those who truly want to help the Ukrainians must ensure that this war stops. that the war of attrition will turn out less favorably for Ukraine after more than two years than before keyword Istanbul March 2022 is quite sad but it was foreseeable the assessment also includes the state of affairs at the front it is well known that it is not easy to obtain reliable information in war So caution is advised. The Ukrainian surprise attack, the so-called Kursk Offensive, has apparently stalled. After initial remarkable territorial gains, it is not really progressing. Kiev's presumed calculation to tie down Russian troops from the south and provide relief in the Donbass has not worked out. Moscow did not fall for it. Instead, it is using the already existing Ukrainian weakness in terms of personnel and equipment to advance further in the Donbass. This area is much more interesting for Russia. The Russians are apparently on the verge of capturing the strategically important city of Bakrovsk. This city is strategically important because there is a railway junction there that plays a major role in supply. Almost more important is that there are hardly any fortified defense lines after that. What various military bloggers note is that the areas captured by Russia are now hardly destroyed compared to the beginning of the war. This leads to the conclusion that the Ukrainian resistance is significantly weakening. The Ukrainian telegram channel Deep State, considered one of the most reliable Ukrainian sources, reports dramatic personnel issues in the southeast and significant material losses in the Kursk region. The British Times and The Economist report similar findings. Taken together, this does not suggest that Ukraine can hold out for much longer. especially considering the massive Russian airstrikes in recent days, which primarily target the destruction of infrastructure. The power supply and heating plants cannot be repaired as quickly as they are repeatedly destroyed. The Ukrainian reports of successful defense are apparently embellished. According to the Ukrainian portal Defense Ukraine, which cites the current commander-in-chief, Ukraine was only able to intercept a quarter of the missiles fired by Russia and about two-thirds of the drones. However, Ukraine needs success stories to continue receiving support from the West. Ukraine needs success reports to keep the West on its toes. And the more desperate the situation becomes, the greater the risk that panic rather than reason will dictate behavior. It is no secret that Zelensky and his government are doing everything possible to draw NATO into this war. Essentially, it is more of a theoretical discussion whether the West is a party to the war or not. According to the scientific service of the German Bundestag from March 2022, one does not become a party to the war simply by supplying weapons, but by training soldiers. By the end of last year, about 8,000 Ukrainian soldiers had already undergone training with the Bundeswehr. It no longer depends on us whether we are a party to the war or not, but rather on how Moscow perceives our behavior. The situation could not be more deadlocked. It doesn't get better when those who call for diplomatic activities are more or less suspected of being on Moscow's payroll. It should be in Germany's and the EU's own interest to develop de-escalation concepts and work out a plan for the time after. However, these initiatives are not coming from Germany or the EU, but from China, African states and Brazil. These countries would be far away if the situation here spirals out of control. Germany and the surrounding countries would become the battlefield, not Brazil or China, and not the USA either. Let's talk about detente policy again and take a look back. Since the late 1960s, NATO has pursued a dual strategy. On one hand, it demonstrated military strength, while on the other, it sought cooperation, detente, and cooperation. and disarmament on a political level. At that time, NATO's dual strategy towards Russia was described with the terms security and detente. Today, the corresponding terms are deterrence and dialogue. Deterrence is an aggressive term, while security is a defensive one. Dialogue becomes an empty formula if you consider the interests of the other party illegitimate from the outset. Détente, on the other hand, represents a program, a comprehensive political approach. The difference in quality between politics then and now is evident just in the choice of terms. Speaking of choice of terms, I mentioned at the beginning that I would return to the topic of language. It is advisable, as a media consumer, to develop a certain sensitivity to language, to pay attention to word choice, and to avoid double standards. This does not only apply to the topic of Russia and Ukraine. If, for example, it involves unverified reports and it's about the good guys, it often says that such and such is apparently so and so. For the bad guys, the term apparently usually becomes the word allegedly. The doubt is then already clearly included. Or in a report about the Ukrainian advance on the Kursk region, it says that on August 8th, Ukrainian footage allegedly showed Russian soldiers surrendering. A little later in the same report, it says Russian footage is supposed to show how such and such happened. The following has nothing directly to do with Russia, but I still don't want to withhold. this aspect from you. How far has the brutalization progressed when the targeted killing of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders is referred to in the news as them being neutralized? The terms used were neutralized or even eliminated, not killed or murdered. Another example. There are established terms. This includes the illegal war of aggression against Ukraine. There's nothing wrong with that. But if one is so precise in this case, why not consistently? Then it should not be called the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. That was and still is illegal under international law, but it is not referred to as such. You can surely remember the great discontent when Hungarian President Viktor Orban, right at the start of his EU Council presidency, began an intensive travel diplomacy on the topic of Ukraine. You don't have to like Orban to recognize that this wasn't one of his worst ideas. But that's not the point now. Rather, it's about the news report stating that Orban met with Putin, Xi and Trump. The Ukrainian President Zelensky, whom he met first, is simply omitted. That would disrupt the lineup of villains. So they just leave him out. With such means, whether automatic or deliberate, the very idea of reaching a solution is scorned. What can one expect from Putin, Xi and Trump? Perhaps this, because it shows how much the mood in our country has changed. At the end of July, the Minister-President of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Manuela Schwesig, was asked about a possible Olympic bid by Germany as the current president of the Bundesrat. The last question to her was whether she thought it was right that Germany should not participate in the Games in Paris. Ms. Schwesig replied that the Olympic Games stand for peace. Therefore, it is right that Russia does not participate. How great must the pressure be for someone like Manuela Schwesig to make such a statement? If you take her wording seriously, then a whole range of other nations should also not participate. Then a whole range of other nations are not allowed to participate. But you... But she must be careful not to make herself vulnerable with an ill-considered comment on Russia, as she is still criticized for her political support of Nord Stream 2. Currently, one cannot talk about Russia and Ukraine without mentioning the missile deployment in Germany planned for 2026. Some are firmly convinced that This will enhance our security. Others believe the opposite is true. It will not surprise you that I am among those who consider these plans a dangerous escalation. I would like to explain why in the following. The issue of deployment has at least two aspects. A military or security policy aspect and a democratic one. I will start with the democratic aspect. In 1979, during the NATO double-track decision, which involved the deployment of intermediate-range missiles in Europe, not just in Germany, there was an intense parliamentary and societal debate. Even within NATO, there was controversial discussion. It took four years for the Parliament to approve the deployment of the Pershing missiles, accompanied by the largest demonstrations Germany had ever experienced. Today, the situation is different. Unexpectedly, on the sidelines of the NATO summit on July 10th in Washington, a joint declaration by the USA and Germany is released. It states that starting in 2026, As part of the planning for their future permanent deployment, the United States of America will temporarily station long-range weapon systems of their multi-domain task force in Germany. These conventional units will include SM-6, Tomahawks, and currently developing hypersonic weapons when fully developed. These weapons have a significantly greater range than the current land-based systems in Europe. However, this far-reaching decision is not mentioned in the final declaration of the NATO summit. Instead, the declaration emphasizes NATO's commitment to arms control and disarmament. That's quite peculiar. Aside from the fact that there was no debate about this deployment decision, and there really isn't one, various questions arise. Why only in Germany this time? In the early 1980s Pershings were stationed in five different European countries, if I'm not mistaken. Who then has command authority? Only the USA? Does Germany at least have a veto, or are the missiles just stationed with us? And there's more to it. Although the impression is given that it is a joint decision, a closer look reveals something quite different. My colleague Wolfgang Lieb has meticulously compiled the exact details. You can find that on the Internet, but I'll roughly outline the relevant facts for you now. Even under Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, the USA... fundamentally decided on such a deployment. Starting in 2017 under Trump, the U.S. Army began building a military task force structure. And that's the crucial point. Since April 13, 2021, long before the Russian attack on Ukraine, concrete preparations have been underway. It was decided to station one of the five multi-domain task forces in Wiesbaden. In other words, and I now quote my colleague Lieb, it was a long-prepared unilateral decision by the USA. The connection with the Russian attack on Ukraine is more about using the fear of Putin to stifle or prevent public discussion. Putin, a public discussion to hinder or to hinder, there is nothing to add to it. And I can only recommend the detailed article. There is nothing to add to that. I can only recommend the detailed article. If we now change perspectives and look at the whole thing from Moscow's point of view, it becomes interesting. With hypersonic weapons reaching 17 times the speed of sound, the warning time is drastically reduced. What are the strategic implications of this? Does Moscow perceive this in the current tense situation as a defensive measure by the West, or rather as preparation for a surprise attack? And if it is to be expected, wouldn't it be better from Moscow's perspective to take preventive action against it? Whether preventive or as a retaliatory strike, it will take place in densely populated German areas. As early as 1968, a military expert from the SPD pointed out in a book that land-based systems belong in Alaska, Greenland or some deserts, but certainly not in densely populated areas. In any case, I don't understand how this action is supposed to increase our security. Frankly, I also don't understand why people here aren't taking to the streets en masse to protest against it. The younger generation, for whom peace has apparently become something taken for granted, is so focused on climate change that there is no room left for the issue of war and peace. It should be clear to everyone, if peace doesn't work out, especially considering nuclear weapons, then the climate doesn't matter anymore either. It's difficult to end on a positive note with this topic. I'll try anyway. If we remember what is possible in terms of detente policy, we only need to think of the beginning of the new German Ostpolitik. This began immediately after the Soviet Union brutally crushed the democracy movement in Czechoslovakia in 1968. One could have said, we won't talk to them. Or as it's said today, you shouldn't talk to such people. We need to teach them a lesson so that such actions don't go unpunished. But that's precisely when you should talk. The result of the new Ostpolitik is well known. For decades, there were only advantages for all involved, both humanitarian and economic. That's where we need to return. And anyone who is convinced of this should not hide their opinion. That can sometimes be uncomfortable, I know. You also can't rule out being quickly pigeonholed into a category where you don't belong. But that shouldn't stop you. Perhaps the sentence by the cabaret artist Andreas Rebers helps. If I say something right that pleases the wrong people, then the right thing doesn't automatically become wrong. I will now phrase the following somewhat solemnly. We owe it to our system, if we want to preserve it, our democratic system, not to hide our respective opinions, regardless of what they are. We should do everything to ensure that this opinion is based as much as possible on information and not on ideologically driven beliefs. A society that is justifiably proud of its constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech must cultivate a culture of debate, otherwise the theoretically guaranteed freedom of speech is worthless. People need to feel that it is perfectly normal to argue decently in both senses of the word. I started with a quote and would like to end with one as well. This time from Jean-Paul, the German writer who was even older than Heinrich Heine. He said, One may be foolish with the permission of the authorities, but not wise without it. Thank you.

And she is proof that, yes, some Europeans really do know what is going on and how reckless the current political and media elite are. I'm able to show you this in English translation thanks to the open access publication of the original video courtesy by the Nachdenkseiten, Germany's most important independent media portal. Please consider supporting them. And now, enjoy. Thank you very much, I warmly greet you all.

Yes, Russia and what next? May I begin with a quote? I was never discouraged before. I never despaired of the fatherland.

But now, having seen its saviors, all hope has left me. This quote is from Heinrich Heine, and I read it a few weeks ago in the Nachdenkseiten, in an article that dealt with the state of our democracy. I fundamentally consider democratic systems to be the most humane way to organize coexistence. However, one must not forget, democracies rely on the so-called informed citizen, if they are to function.

A citizen can only be informed if firstly they receive education, and secondly they are continuously and comprehensively informed. Both education and comprehensive information, in my opinion, are not readily available. Regarding education, there is likely consensus that there is still much room for improvement.

This is less the case with the quality of reporting. These deficiencies endanger democracy and ultimately peace, which is known to be more than just the absence of war. Journalism is an important pillar to provide stability to a democracy.

The task of continually deciding what makes it into the news, what should be reported, and what must necessarily be omitted is very responsible. Because often, one does not have the choice between right and wrong, but only between wrong and wrong. I know this from my own experience.

Everything is difficult and complicated. It is all the more important to take the citizens seriously and provide them with all available information. This should happen regardless of one's own stance in a debate. One should also resist the temptation to want to make politics oneself instead of explaining it.

A respectful and contentious debate on these topics could increase the chances of finding sustainable and peaceful solutions. This applies not only with regard to Russia and Ukraine. This is how I understand my work. In any case, I am not willing to leave the field to those who claim interpretive authority for themselves alone and believe they have a moral justification for it. So, Russia and what next?

To answer this question, it's important to know the background and understand what has led us to the current situation. This background doesn't just start with the Russian attack on Ukraine, but much earlier. Essentially, it begins with the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

By the way, this is a revealing example of the use of language. In the West, we often speak of the collapse of the Soviet Union. In reality, however, it was a more or less politically driven dissolution.

But that's just an aside, as I will delve more deeply into language later. So the background essentially begins with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. And it doesn't hurt to recall a few key points. You tend to forget things so quickly, as you will soon see.

With the leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet Union opened up to the West in an unprecedented way. This powerful spirit of change is hardly describable in words. The hopes and expectations were enormous. However, what was demanded of the people was also immense, but it was not really acknowledged in its significance by the political West. Essentially, there were three revolutions that took place and had to be managed.

The first was the transition from a plan to come to a new world, economy to a market economy. It sounds simple, but it means a lot. People from the former East Germany generally understand this better than those in the western part of Germany.

And for Russia, in addition to its size, it is particularly challenging that the Russian economy was not ruined by the planned economy but created by it. That is a significant difference. The second revolution was the transition from the dictatorship of the Communist Party to constitutional structures.

Who today is still aware that the leadership claim of the Communist Party was enshrined in the Soviet Constitution? The Constitution had to be changed. Initially, the path seemed to lead straightforwardly to constitutional structures. The Constitution is not the problem today, but rather the constitutional reality.

There have been massive setbacks in that regard. And the third revolution was the transition from the Soviet Union to a nation-state, which for a long time was not recognized as a problem in the West at all. Please also consider that for all the crimes and violations committed by the Soviet Union, the West has generally held Russia responsible. All other states that emerged after the dissolution of the Soviet Union were given the chance by the West for a more or less unburdened new beginning.

But not Russia. This fundamental attitude is not insignificant as it forms the basis for quickly reviving old enemy images. The Russians were and are seen as the villains.

Stalin is also not perceived as a Georgian, but as someone from Russia. How did it continue? Then came Boris Yeltsin, who was initially seen as a beacon of hope, both in the West and in Russia, as a reformer and democrat.

But Russian everyday life was soon dominated by Wild West capitalism, corruption and great chaos. There were chaotic conditions that we can hardly imagine in our relatively structured country. Yeltsin, through dubious privatizations of key industries, became the midwife of the oligarchs.

the money elite. Under him, an unprecedented sell-off of the country took place. He gave it away more than he sold it. Not only Russian oligarchs benefited from this, but also the West, and significantly so.

As bad as all this is, the worst part is that all the nice Western terms like liberalization and democratization sounded good in theory, but in practice they turned out to be pure chaos for the people in Russia, not the promised paradise. And that could hardly be desirable. As a result, these terms were permanently damaged.

I'm not even talking about the shelling of the Russian parliament that Yeltsin ordered in 1993. That was also rather undemocratic, but in line with the West. Therefore, this act was not criticized as it normally should have been, considering Western values. Instead, it was celebrated. What were the citizens of Russia supposed to think of that? The exact occurrences and the chronology of events can be read about.

In this chaos, in this situation where criminal structures were the only reliable thing, Putin came just in time. A young, healthy, athletic man who, with his politics and demeanor, has given people in Russia back their self-confidence and self-assurance. Instead of seizing the opportunities and finally building the common European house, whose vision Mikhail Gorbachev had developed, Western observers only criticized that Putin was a KGB man.

That alone says nothing. On the one hand, the KGB in the late 1980s dealt with its criminal past in an unprecedented way. There is an ARD production by me titled KGB Crime in Glasnost on this topic. And on the other hand, Putin said in connection with the failed coup attempt in the summer of 1991, you may recall, when a group around KGB chief Kryuchkov wanted to seize power, tanks rolled through Moscow, and Gorbachev was held with his family in Crimea. Putin resigned from his service at exactly this time.

That means, when it was not yet foreseeable that this coup would fail. That is a clear statement. But such details only disturb.

The fact is that during his first term, Putin made many offers of cooperation to the West. Mr. Miller also mentioned some proposals, all of which were either ignored or immediately rejected. either ignored or immediately rejected. And this is not a trivial matter, but a fundamental experience that shapes further behavior.

It is also a fact that during his first term, Putin highly valued the importance of a strong civil society and did a lot to develop it. The numerous attempts were either not acknowledged by us at all, or were ridiculed. For those who now think that I can say a lot but lack evidence, you can find this in my earlier books, including What is Happening in Russia.

It is described there in detail and chronologically what has happened. We were not the least bit interested in that. In times of change, it is especially important to avoid misunderstandings.

Therefore, a brief remark at this point. When I point out Western mistakes, it does not mean that I am claiming, conversely, that Russia is faultless and merely the poor victim. Those are not the categories in which I think. When I explain and analyze Putin's policies in his early days as president, it has nothing to do with justifying his later activities, both domestically and internationally.

Explaining is not the same as justifying. This is one of the great misunderstandings of our time. I focus on Western mistakes for two reasons. First, they are less often highlighted in our context. So I try to balance that out in a certain way.

On the other hand, one should know them in order not to repeat them. This brings us to the fundamental question that needs to be answered. Is Russia pursuing imperialistic interests, or is Russia concerned with a functioning security architecture that includes Russia?

This must be debated based on facts, meaning analytically and not ideologically or morally. It doesn't help when German politicians create threat scenarios and warn of, I quote, Putin's great power fantasies. Or when experts develop timelines suggesting that the Russians will be in Berlin in five years. Such statements tend to incite fear rather than result from a sober assessment of the situation.

Even NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg, who is not exactly known for his restraint towards Russia, recently stated that there is currently no threat from Russia. Similar sentiments can be found in various US strategy papers. So why this scaremongering? If the enormous efforts to support Ukraine financially and with weapons in the war against Russia are to continue, the fear of a Russian attack beyond Ukraine must be stoked.

This way, the population is led to support all of this without resistance. This includes the claim that our democracy and freedom are being defended in Ukraine. Our democracy, our freedom, would be defended in Ukraine.

This is just as untrue this time as it was back then in Afghanistan, when it was said that our freedom and democracy were being defended in the Hindu Kush. Unfortunately, there are repeated examples in history that show friend-enemy images, and the demonization of the opponent served to make an entire society ready for war. Our Minister of Defense, who is not called the Minister of War, increasingly uses the terms war-capable and war-ready instead of defensible and capable of defense. This does not happen to him by accident. A systematic and chronological examination of Russian statements and Russian policy repeatedly shows that Moscow is concerned with securing an appropriate place in the new security architecture.

This became necessary after the East-West confrontation seemed to have been overcome at the end of the 1980s. After the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, NATO should have sensibly restructured itself. There were plans that at times did not even exclude Russia's membership. NATO was originally founded as a defense alliance.

Only the enemy, namely the Soviet Union or Russia, no longer existed. A new task was needed, and the out-of-area missions, meaning operations outside one's own territory, were proclaimed. From my perspective, that was the beginning of the end.

Instead of including the vast Russia in some way in security policy, NATO did not change structurally, but merely expanded eastward. There was the NATO-Russia Council, but it was more of a cosmetic correction, and not participation on equal terms. The NATO eastward expansion was in any case one of the biggest problems.

biggest mistakes since the end of World War II. The long-serving German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher saw it that way, among others. And what might be even more telling, even George Kennan, essentially the architect of the American containment policy, said at the time, and I quote verbatim, I think this is a tragic mistake. There was absolutely no reason for it. No one is threatening anyone.

And a bit further, he says, of course. there will be a nasty reaction from Russia in the future. And then you, the NATO expanders, will say, that's how they are, the Russians. We've always told you, but that is completely wrong.

George Kennan, who to my knowledge, is not identified with the current meaning of Russia understander. With the NATO perspective for Ukraine, an immediate neighbor with special historical and emotional significance for Russia, the breaking point was reached. Russia's security needs are often ridiculed on the political agenda of the West.

It is argued, giant country, who would threaten it? But a look at the map and strategic papers shows that the breakup of Russia and a regime change in Moscow are being pursued. A crucial security policy difference between Russia and the USA lies simply in geography. The USA has oceans to the west and east of its country. In the north, it has Canada as a NATO partner, and in the south, the country borders Mexico, from which there is no security risk for the USA.

The situation is quite different for Russia. Russia spans a vast landmass with over 22,000 kilometers of land borders, which are difficult to defend over long stretches. Russia has 14 neighbors, not just two, and with some of these countries, the relationships are heavily strained. From a security perspective, this is a qualitatively different task, which naturally leads to different sensitivities.

What should not be forgotten are Russia's historically developed fears. We are always programmed to acknowledge the historically developed fears of Poland and the Baltic states. That is correct, but we do not acknowledge Russia's historical fears.

In 1904, Russia was attacked in the east by Japan. In World War I, German troops occupied large parts of Russia. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1917 meant painful losses and extremely harsh conditions for Moscow. In the subsequent Russian Civil War, Western foreign countries intervened, led by France and Great Britain.

What is often overlooked is that Poland tried to exploit Russia's weakness after World War I to expand its territory eastward, specifically beyond the line that was supposed to form Poland's eastern border during the peace negotiations. Interwar Greater Poland thus annexed exactly the Soviet territories that Stalin reclaimed in 1939. And of course, not to forget the German invasion in 1941 with all its immeasurable suffering and unimaginable cruelty. Further back, but still quite present, is the French attack under Napoleon in 1812. Russian fears and feelings of threat have a real background.

These fears are in absolute contrast to the USA. Due to this combination of historical experiences and geographical location, the threat situation presents itself very differently for Russia. Because of the high number of American military bases around the world, it can rightly be said that NATO has encircled the world. Russia and is now also moving closer to the Russian national borders from the West. Once again for comparison, Russia operates 11 military bases outside its own country, nine of which are in close proximity to Russia.

The USA operates almost 800 military bases, in more than 70 countries around the world. So who is threatening whom here? It doesn't matter at all whether a threat actually exists or is only perceived as such.

That is enough to destroy the foundation of peaceful coexistence or even cooperation. This foundation would be a minimum of trust. And where is that supposed to come from in the current situation? I would argue that mutual distrust has never been as great as it is now. That mutual distrust has never been as great as it is now.

Such statements, like those from Mrs. Merkel, naturally contribute to this. She said that the Minsk agreements were only made to give Ukraine time to become more defensible. In other words, the agreements themselves were not meant seriously.

That is a devastating signal. Why make agreements at all then? Let's look at the recent past from a Russian perspective.

There was the Kosovo War in 1999 and the Iraq War in 2003. Both wars were led by the USA without the approval of the UN Security Council, so to speak, out of their own authority, where international rules no longer played a role. It was not Moscow that tried to reshape the world. It was the USA or the political West. This aligns with the termination of almost all disarmament treaties, some of which had historical significance. Just consider that the INF Treaty actually succeeded in not only limiting, but abolishing and destroying an entire category of weapons.

Again, it was not Moscow that terminated the treaties, but the USA. In this context, it is worth looking at the chronology of mutual accusations regarding who allegedly violated the treaties and when. The often-mentioned Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad were a countermeasure to the missile defense systems stationed by the USA in Poland and Romania.

It is important to know that these defense systems can be easily converted into offensive systems. The system is very easy to convert into an attack system. It's not all as black and white as it's often suggested to us.

To draw the connection to Ukraine now, the U.S. involvement in Ukraine is indeed remarkable. I'm not just talking about the enormous sums that have repeatedly been used to influence elections in Ukraine or to finance educational programs. These programs are actually called educational programs.

They are intended to convey to Ukrainians in all parts of the country that they are better off in NATO. For a long time, there was no majority in the population for this. On the contrary, Ukraine's neutral status was even enshrined in the Constitution.

Apart from that, Ukraine has repeatedly been the site of large-scale NATO maneuvers. The U.S. systematically increased the number of reconnaissance flights on the Ukrainian-Russian border. As recently reported in the New York Times, the U.S. has been operating 12 secret CIA bases directly on the Ukrainian-Russian border for about eight years. According to the New York Times, the involvement of American intelligence agencies is said to have played a key role in the Russian president's decision to invade Ukraine in February 2022. Moscow feared that Ukraine could turn into a springboard for operations against Russia with the help of the CIA, the British Foreign Intelligence Service, MI6, and other Western agencies.

Before the invasion of Ukraine, the Russian president formally requested security guarantees, but they didn't even want to talk to him. I'm not referring to the talks between Scholz and Putin or Macron and Putin at that oversized table, but to how the U.S. reacted. Anyone reminded of the Cold War should have a heightened sense of the situation, because today it is much more dangerous. Not without reason was it referred to as the balance of terror back then. It is precisely about this balance, about calibrating and maintaining second strike capability.

This capability deters a potential aggressor from executing the first strike because they must expect to be destroyed as the second. The political West is doing everything to throw this balance off. International treaties often emphasize that the security of one should not be developed or insured at the expense of another's security. But who still adheres to this?

What has become of the communication channels that were created for times of crisis? The NATO-Russia Council and various other discussion forums have been suspended or completely abolished. Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it has become common to hold détente politicians partly responsible for this development, and to blame them for the fact that the Russian attack happened at all. Many of these detente politicians, including well-known ones, are now withdrawing and declaring this policy a regrettable mistake. In my opinion, however, it is exactly the opposite.

It is not the detente politicians who are responsible for the current situation, but the fact that they were unable to implement their policies. One could and should argue about this in a fact-based and civilized manner. One should not dismiss every argument that does not align with the current government line as disinformation or fake news to make it undebatable. Or even worse, label it as Russian propaganda, which we are supposedly all falling for en masse.

One could argue about this. endlessly. But what seems much more important to me is to look forward.

That is challenging enough. To develop a perspective, it requires a candid assessment and the identification of interests. Let's start with interests.

Peaceful politics is nothing more than a functioning balance of interests. It's not about morality, as is often claimed. Even the Democratic presidential candidate in the USA, Kamala Harris, said at the Munich Security Conference regarding American engagement in Europe, we do this not out of charity, but because it is in our strategic interest.

It would be good if Germany and the EU started to formulate their strategic interests. There are certainly points of contact with the USA or overlaps, as we like to say today. But there are also significant differences that should not be underestimated.

These differences need to be worked out and clearly identified. For example, it is in the interest of the EU, especially Germany, to maintain good relations with Russia. Likewise, it is in Russia's interest to have good relations with the EU and Germany. We are not only neighbors, but also natural partners who complement each other.

However, this is not at all in the interest of the USA. Quite the opposite. There is a reason why American documents state that the only real threat to the USA's dominance is a functioning Eurasian continent.

China plays a special role. From the U.S. perspective, the danger of good cooperation with China is averted for the time being. The only ones benefiting from this situation are the US and the arms industry. For the US, it is a success to have achieved their strategic goal. This goal, which has appeared in official documents for about 100 years, is to prevent or destroy prosperous cooperation on the Eurasian continent.

Furthermore, they can sell their environmentally harmful and expensive fracking gas and have eliminated the cheap competition that we had right on our doorstep. ...and have turned off the price-worthy competition that we had in front of us. In Germany, energy prices are so high that it is becoming, or has already become, existentially threatening for many businesses. This is not because Russia has turned off the gas supply, as is often claimed. Rather, we have voluntarily given up Russian gas to avoid supporting the Russian war machinery.

The crazy part is that we are still getting Russian gas, just through indirect routes and at a much higher price. Before I address the announced review, I would like to make an aside to avoid possible misunderstandings. When I criticize the policies of the USA, it should not be confused with anti-Americanism.

I find the United States of America just as fascinating as Russia. My experiences with people during my travels across the continent have also been mostly positive. I believe it is legitimate for a country to primarily think of itself and pursue its interests.

And then first consider how to connect that with the well-being of the neighbors. I find that acceptable, as long as one openly discusses interests and does not give them humanitarian pretexts to present them better. So far, so good. It only becomes concerning when an almost religious, missionary zeal leads to taking the right to intervene violently, covertly or openly anywhere in the world to pursue one's own interests. interests.

That contradicts. This contradicts all international agreements and massively the UN Charter. In the name of democracy, not everything is allowed.

Now for the assessment. This includes the observation that the tragedy of Ukraine is not only reflected in the dead, injured, traumatized, and the indescribable destruction of the country. It also lies in the fact that an intelligent policy, as far as we know, could have prevented all this if it had been allowed. Brazilian President Lula da Silva aptly points out that Russia bears sole responsibility for the outbreak of the war, but by now the USA and Europe are responsible for promoting a proxy war.

Just four weeks after the outbreak of the war, there was a great opportunity to end it. Through the mediation of the then Israeli Prime Minister Bennett, negotiations took place in Istanbul. These were successful. Although not all points were clarified, the direction was clear. Above all, there was a willingness to resolve the disputes diplomatically, even regarding the complicated issue of Crimea.

The whole thing did not fail because of Russia, but because ending the war at that time was not in the interest of the Western community of states. That was the outcome of a NATO special summit in Brussels on March 24. 4th, 2022. Boris Johnson, the then British Prime Minister, made this clear to his Ukrainian counterpart during a lightning visit to Kiev on April 9th. The reasoning was provided by the American Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin.

He said that the opportunity must be taken to permanently weaken Russia militarily and economically through this war. So it was not primarily about the well-being of Ukraine. Thus, Everything that had been achieved up to that point was rendered obsolete.

Against this backdrop, one must also consider the demands of the Ukrainian president and his government for more and more military aid. If the Western states do not want the war to end, then they should help Ukraine endure the situation. As for the morale and perseverance of the Ukrainians, it is certainly still present. However, it seems increasingly clear to more Ukrainians that they are being sacrificed for geopolitical interests. Those who truly want to help the Ukrainians must ensure that this war stops.

that the war of attrition will turn out less favorably for Ukraine after more than two years than before keyword Istanbul March 2022 is quite sad but it was foreseeable the assessment also includes the state of affairs at the front it is well known that it is not easy to obtain reliable information in war So caution is advised. The Ukrainian surprise attack, the so-called Kursk Offensive, has apparently stalled. After initial remarkable territorial gains, it is not really progressing. Kiev's presumed calculation to tie down Russian troops from the south and provide relief in the Donbass has not worked out. Moscow did not fall for it.

Instead, it is using the already existing Ukrainian weakness in terms of personnel and equipment to advance further in the Donbass. This area is much more interesting for Russia. The Russians are apparently on the verge of capturing the strategically important city of Bakrovsk. This city is strategically important because there is a railway junction there that plays a major role in supply. Almost more important is that there are hardly any fortified defense lines after that.

What various military bloggers note is that the areas captured by Russia are now hardly destroyed compared to the beginning of the war. This leads to the conclusion that the Ukrainian resistance is significantly weakening. The Ukrainian telegram channel Deep State, considered one of the most reliable Ukrainian sources, reports dramatic personnel issues in the southeast and significant material losses in the Kursk region.

The British Times and The Economist report similar findings. Taken together, this does not suggest that Ukraine can hold out for much longer. especially considering the massive Russian airstrikes in recent days, which primarily target the destruction of infrastructure.

The power supply and heating plants cannot be repaired as quickly as they are repeatedly destroyed. The Ukrainian reports of successful defense are apparently embellished. According to the Ukrainian portal Defense Ukraine, which cites the current commander-in-chief, Ukraine was only able to intercept a quarter of the missiles fired by Russia and about two-thirds of the drones. However, Ukraine needs success stories to continue receiving support from the West. Ukraine needs success reports to keep the West on its toes.

And the more desperate the situation becomes, the greater the risk that panic rather than reason will dictate behavior. It is no secret that Zelensky and his government are doing everything possible to draw NATO into this war. Essentially, it is more of a theoretical discussion whether the West is a party to the war or not.

According to the scientific service of the German Bundestag from March 2022, one does not become a party to the war simply by supplying weapons, but by training soldiers. By the end of last year, about 8,000 Ukrainian soldiers had already undergone training with the Bundeswehr. It no longer depends on us whether we are a party to the war or not, but rather on how Moscow perceives our behavior.

The situation could not be more deadlocked. It doesn't get better when those who call for diplomatic activities are more or less suspected of being on Moscow's payroll. It should be in Germany's and the EU's own interest to develop de-escalation concepts and work out a plan for the time after. However, these initiatives are not coming from Germany or the EU, but from China, African states and Brazil.

These countries would be far away if the situation here spirals out of control. Germany and the surrounding countries would become the battlefield, not Brazil or China, and not the USA either. Let's talk about detente policy again and take a look back.

Since the late 1960s, NATO has pursued a dual strategy. On one hand, it demonstrated military strength, while on the other, it sought cooperation, detente, and cooperation. and disarmament on a political level. At that time, NATO's dual strategy towards Russia was described with the terms security and detente.

Today, the corresponding terms are deterrence and dialogue. Deterrence is an aggressive term, while security is a defensive one. Dialogue becomes an empty formula if you consider the interests of the other party illegitimate from the outset. Détente, on the other hand, represents a program, a comprehensive political approach.

The difference in quality between politics then and now is evident just in the choice of terms. Speaking of choice of terms, I mentioned at the beginning that I would return to the topic of language. It is advisable, as a media consumer, to develop a certain sensitivity to language, to pay attention to word choice, and to avoid double standards. This does not only apply to the topic of Russia and Ukraine.

If, for example, it involves unverified reports and it's about the good guys, it often says that such and such is apparently so and so. For the bad guys, the term apparently usually becomes the word allegedly. The doubt is then already clearly included. Or in a report about the Ukrainian advance on the Kursk region, it says that on August 8th, Ukrainian footage allegedly showed Russian soldiers surrendering. A little later in the same report, it says Russian footage is supposed to show how such and such happened.

The following has nothing directly to do with Russia, but I still don't want to withhold. this aspect from you. How far has the brutalization progressed when the targeted killing of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders is referred to in the news as them being neutralized? The terms used were neutralized or even eliminated, not killed or murdered.

Another example. There are established terms. This includes the illegal war of aggression against Ukraine.

There's nothing wrong with that. But if one is so precise in this case, why not consistently? Then it should not be called the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

That was and still is illegal under international law, but it is not referred to as such. You can surely remember the great discontent when Hungarian President Viktor Orban, right at the start of his EU Council presidency, began an intensive travel diplomacy on the topic of Ukraine. You don't have to like Orban to recognize that this wasn't one of his worst ideas. But that's not the point now. Rather, it's about the news report stating that Orban met with Putin, Xi and Trump.

The Ukrainian President Zelensky, whom he met first, is simply omitted. That would disrupt the lineup of villains. So they just leave him out.

With such means, whether automatic or deliberate, the very idea of reaching a solution is scorned. What can one expect from Putin, Xi and Trump? Perhaps this, because it shows how much the mood in our country has changed. At the end of July, the Minister-President of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Manuela Schwesig, was asked about a possible Olympic bid by Germany as the current president of the Bundesrat.

The last question to her was whether she thought it was right that Germany should not participate in the Games in Paris. Ms. Schwesig replied that the Olympic Games stand for peace. Therefore, it is right that Russia does not participate.

How great must the pressure be for someone like Manuela Schwesig to make such a statement? If you take her wording seriously, then a whole range of other nations should also not participate. Then a whole range of other nations are not allowed to participate.

But you... But she must be careful not to make herself vulnerable with an ill-considered comment on Russia, as she is still criticized for her political support of Nord Stream 2. Currently, one cannot talk about Russia and Ukraine without mentioning the missile deployment in Germany planned for 2026. Some are firmly convinced that This will enhance our security. Others believe the opposite is true. It will not surprise you that I am among those who consider these plans a dangerous escalation.

I would like to explain why in the following. The issue of deployment has at least two aspects. A military or security policy aspect and a democratic one. I will start with the democratic aspect.

In 1979, during the NATO double-track decision, which involved the deployment of intermediate-range missiles in Europe, not just in Germany, there was an intense parliamentary and societal debate. Even within NATO, there was controversial discussion. It took four years for the Parliament to approve the deployment of the Pershing missiles, accompanied by the largest demonstrations Germany had ever experienced.

Today, the situation is different. Unexpectedly, on the sidelines of the NATO summit on July 10th in Washington, a joint declaration by the USA and Germany is released. It states that starting in 2026, As part of the planning for their future permanent deployment, the United States of America will temporarily station long-range weapon systems of their multi-domain task force in Germany.

These conventional units will include SM-6, Tomahawks, and currently developing hypersonic weapons when fully developed. These weapons have a significantly greater range than the current land-based systems in Europe. However, this far-reaching decision is not mentioned in the final declaration of the NATO summit. Instead, the declaration emphasizes NATO's commitment to arms control and disarmament. That's quite peculiar.

Aside from the fact that there was no debate about this deployment decision, and there really isn't one, various questions arise. Why only in Germany this time? In the early 1980s Pershings were stationed in five different European countries, if I'm not mistaken. Who then has command authority?

Only the USA? Does Germany at least have a veto, or are the missiles just stationed with us? And there's more to it.

Although the impression is given that it is a joint decision, a closer look reveals something quite different. My colleague Wolfgang Lieb has meticulously compiled the exact details. You can find that on the Internet, but I'll roughly outline the relevant facts for you now. Even under Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, the USA...

fundamentally decided on such a deployment. Starting in 2017 under Trump, the U.S. Army began building a military task force structure.

And that's the crucial point. Since April 13, 2021, long before the Russian attack on Ukraine, concrete preparations have been underway. It was decided to station one of the five multi-domain task forces in Wiesbaden.

In other words, and I now quote my colleague Lieb, it was a long-prepared unilateral decision by the USA. The connection with the Russian attack on Ukraine is more about using the fear of Putin to stifle or prevent public discussion. Putin, a public discussion to hinder or to hinder, there is nothing to add to it. And I can only recommend the detailed article.

There is nothing to add to that. I can only recommend the detailed article. If we now change perspectives and look at the whole thing from Moscow's point of view, it becomes interesting. With hypersonic weapons reaching 17 times the speed of sound, the warning time is drastically reduced.

What are the strategic implications of this? Does Moscow perceive this in the current tense situation as a defensive measure by the West, or rather as preparation for a surprise attack? And if it is to be expected, wouldn't it be better from Moscow's perspective to take preventive action against it? Whether preventive or as a retaliatory strike, it will take place in densely populated German areas. As early as 1968, a military expert from the SPD pointed out in a book that land-based systems belong in Alaska, Greenland or some deserts, but certainly not in densely populated areas.

In any case, I don't understand how this action is supposed to increase our security. Frankly, I also don't understand why people here aren't taking to the streets en masse to protest against it. The younger generation, for whom peace has apparently become something taken for granted, is so focused on climate change that there is no room left for the issue of war and peace.

It should be clear to everyone, if peace doesn't work out, especially considering nuclear weapons, then the climate doesn't matter anymore either. It's difficult to end on a positive note with this topic. I'll try anyway. If we remember what is possible in terms of detente policy, we only need to think of the beginning of the new German Ostpolitik. This began immediately after the Soviet Union brutally crushed the democracy movement in Czechoslovakia in 1968. One could have said, we won't talk to them.

Or as it's said today, you shouldn't talk to such people. We need to teach them a lesson so that such actions don't go unpunished. But that's precisely when you should talk. The result of the new Ostpolitik is well known. For decades, there were only advantages for all involved, both humanitarian and economic.

That's where we need to return. And anyone who is convinced of this should not hide their opinion. That can sometimes be uncomfortable, I know.

You also can't rule out being quickly pigeonholed into a category where you don't belong. But that shouldn't stop you. Perhaps the sentence by the cabaret artist Andreas Rebers helps. If I say something right that pleases the wrong people, then the right thing doesn't automatically become wrong. I will now phrase the following somewhat solemnly.

We owe it to our system, if we want to preserve it, our democratic system, not to hide our respective opinions, regardless of what they are. We should do everything to ensure that this opinion is based as much as possible on information and not on ideologically driven beliefs. A society that is justifiably proud of its constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech must cultivate a culture of debate, otherwise the theoretically guaranteed freedom of speech is worthless.

People need to feel that it is perfectly normal to argue decently in both senses of the word. I started with a quote and would like to end with one as well. This time from Jean-Paul, the German writer who was even older than Heinrich Heine. He said, One may be foolish with the permission of the authorities, but not wise without it.

Thank you.

Transcript for:Gabriele Krone-Schmalz on Russia and Europe

Transcript for:
Gabriele Krone-Schmalz on Russia and Europe