On Thursday April 28, the German parliament decided by 586 votes to 100 that „arms deliveries to Ukraine should be continued and, if possible, accelerated. Support for heavy weapons and complex systems should be extended in the framework of the exchange deliveries.” Furthermore, the parliament expressed its support for the government in the various measures taken so far, highlighting in particular the steps taken to transform German infrastructure, which are supposedly aimed at ending Russian energy dependence. In parliament, all parties except the pariah AfD, which has shrunk into a sect, and the now barely existing Die Linke, lined up in favor of active participation in the war — all without anyone even bothering to ask a few elementary questions. Opinion piece by Krisztina Koenen.
What is the purpose of the German parliament’s involvement in the war? Because let us not delude ourselves, the supply of heavy weapons is only one step away from active participation in the war, and we can be sure that the Russians understand this step in exactly the same way. It was no coincidence that gas supplies to Poland and Bulgaria were halted the day before parliament’s decision: The measure was intended as a warning to Germany.
Furthermore: Is it in the interest of Germany, of German citizens, to be involved in this war?
And consequently: What is in the country’s interest, is it right to escalate or should the Russian-Ukrainian war be stopped?
If, according to the parliament, the aim of the war is the crushing defeat of Russia and the long-term settlement of the balance between the two great powers in America’s favor, then only total war is possible, with Germany and Western Europe fighting the proxy war of the Americans and accepting the transformation of Europe into a theatre of war.
Is this really a war of regimes that knows only ultimate victory?
This is the perception implied by phrases such as “Ukraine is fighting for freedom, for Western values, for democracy,” and therefore, all democrats are supposed to be obliged to enter the war on the side of Ukraine, or rather on the side of the USA. However, democracy is never decided on the battlefield, but within national borders.
German democracy must be defended at home, on the German streets and in the German parliament, and the same applies to the Ukrainians. Yet what would a democracy based on American and Western European weapons look like?
Germany, the most important European power, without which the European Union could not exist, could act as a moderating influence towards America, Ukraine and Russia; undertake mediation missions; and negotiate at all levels for a ceasefire. But there is no mention of this, and with the help of the regime media, anyone who dares to make such and similar proposals is labeled a traitor and a fascist. The German political elite seems to have become so intoxicated by its own slogans that it does not even see the need to consider these possibilities.
A generation of politicians who have grown up in incredible affluence have become drunk on their own moralizing, are clearly incapable of grasping the horror of war and the suffering of the people it affects. While they are almost lustfully horrified at the pictures of Ukraine, they are incapable of any compassion, either for the victims of the war or for their own citizens. It is no coincidence that it is mainly old social democrats who remember the Second World War, such as Klaus von Dohnanyi, who warn of the enormous dangers posed by today’s green adventurers.
Chancellor Olaf Scholz seems to have retained some of the moral fiber of his predecessors, but it is clear that neither his party nor its coalition partners are following this path.
The pro-establishment propaganda machine is already preparing the population for hard times, but it still pretends that it is about acceptable trifles such as washing less often and changing underwear only every two days. In the future, we may go to the cinema and restaurants less often, says Robert Habeck, the minister for the economy and climate,
as if it’s about less entertainment, not about no electricity, oil, benzine and gas for the foreseeable future.
Habeck’s relationship with reality is already disjointed: On his return from a begging trip to Qatar, he fantasized about non-existent contracts, and after his visit to Poland, he claimed to have agreed on the German use of the Gdansk oil port, which the Poles immediately refuted. Habeck issues one victory report after another on how much Russian coal, oil and gas supplies have been cut again, but he does not say how they will be replaced.
Anyone who portrays the threat of an almost seven percent drop in gross national product in the event of an oil and gas embargo, the closure and destruction of entire industries, already double-digit inflation and mass unemployment as negligible clearly has no responsibility for the future of this country and its citizens.
But perhaps this is exactly the plan, the vision of green communism. From this point of view, it gives a new meaning to the Russians’ incitement: Let them be the ones to end the gas and oil supply, they will be the ones to introduce the war economy, from which the new climate-just society will be born. It is no coincidence that the majority in parliament has welcomed the transformation of infrastructure to date in the same sentence as the military shipments.
The German middle classes are not prepared for this political turn.
