Better coordination and “significantly more open communication with parliament, but especially with the people of Germany,” would be helpful, warns FDP defense expert Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann. Regarding warnings of a third world war, she says the situation is extremely serious. “But the Russian president is not predictable anyway, regardless of what we do.” And she explains why Chancellor Olaf Scholz does not use the expression “heavy weapons”.
ntv.de: The Union wants to have the Bundestag vote on the delivery of heavy weapons to Ukraine this week. How will you behave?
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann: We took note of the Union’s application with interest and will also submit an application as a traffic light coalition. The members of the Bundestag then have the opportunity to decide between one of the two motions. The Union’s proposal will not find a majority in plenary because the Union does not have a majority in the opposition. The debate will certainly be lively.
After the SPD once again ruled out direct deliveries of tanks to Ukraine yesterday, the thrust of the Union’s proposal should appeal to you.
We as a traffic light will submit our application. You will notice the qualitative difference compared to that of the CDU.
Which weapons can the Bundeswehr still deliver without looking even more bare than they already are?
First of all, the motion makes it clear that we will support Ukraine in defense of their country, including with heavy weapons. The Bundeswehr has already delivered quite a bit, but the truth is that after 16 years, the Bundeswehr cannot give CDU defense ministers much without weakening their own ability to defend themselves. If the Bundeswehr warehouses were packed to the brim with weapons, we wouldn’t need the 100 billion special fund. That’s why it makes a lot of sense to initiate what is known as the exchange of rings: the Eastern European NATO partners are sending, among other things, Soviet-style tanks to the Ukraine that can be used immediately, and in the foreseeable future they will receive modern material from us via industry, such as the Marder armored personnel carrier. It’s good that it’s finally happening. As the FDP, we proposed this three weeks ago.
At the weekend, a sentence from you caused a stir; They have told ZDF: “We have to lead, not only economically, but also militarily. And for those who don’t want to take on this role, I say, they might be in the wrong place at the wrong moment.” Who did you have in mind when you said that sentence?
Anyone with a mandate can suddenly be faced with unforeseen challenges. That applies in principle to everyone in the cabinet and in the specialist committees, especially for me as chair of the defense committee. We did not see the war coming in all its drama and serious consequences. A year ago we were in opposition. Now we are partners in government. The defense committee elected me chair and shortly thereafter war broke out in Europe. Because of this brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine, we have a completely different situation than just a few months ago. We forged a coalition agreement together in the traffic light, in which we all find ourselves. But there is no chapter “War in Europe” in it. We all have to derive consequences from this and make corresponding decisions about unpleasant things that I would have thought impossible just a few months ago. At certain moments everyone should play their part in their place.
But you obviously shape your role more freely than others.
In principle, every member of the German Bundestag should have this inner freedom. However, I concede that the executive – i.e. members of the federal cabinet – may have less legroom. But every member of parliament should not make a den of murder out of his heart and bring his opinion into the discussion. One should not overinterpret every statement and construct a spin from it.
Nevertheless, there are very different views within the traffic light as to what Germany can and should do. Is Anton Hofreiter right when he says “the problem is in the Chancellery”?
Of course, the Chancellery has a key role to play. When it comes to arms exports, we are dealing with many ministries: the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defense when it comes to equipment and possible deliveries from the stocks of the Bundeswehr, the Ministry of Economics, which has to give the express green light when arms are exported or the Ukraine buys weapons from the industry with our money. It is up to the Chancellery to bring these threads together.
And where is the problem?
Better coordination between the ministries and much more open communication with parliament, but especially with the people in Germany, would be helpful in view of the drama that is unfolding in Ukraine.
What do you think of the argument that Germany and NATO should not “become warring parties in Ukraine”?
Under international law, we are not a party to the war and will not be. Not one German soldier will set foot on Ukrainian soil, let alone enforce a no-fly zone against the Russian Air Force. But of course we are biased. Ukraine was invaded by Russia and is allowed to defend itself. International law also allows other countries to support them by supplying them with the necessary equipment.
Does Germany risk a third world war by supplying heavy weapons?
You’re saying that Putin may feel provoked and use nuclear weapons if, for example, German tanks are transported across the border into Ukraine?
Scholz has that in his “Mirror” interview indicated as a possibility.
We should not allow ourselves to be pressured by such scenarios and sit like rabbits in front of a snake for fear that Putin might use nuclear weapons. The situation is extremely serious. But the Russian president is not predictable anyway, regardless of what we do. We don’t sit at the chessboard and think about what moves the opposing player might make. Putin swept the game of chess off the table long ago.
There is a suspicion that the SPD is also acting so cautiously because it hopes for a return to the days of cheap gas supplies. Do you think that’s possible?
I can not imagine that. There is no doubt that many colleagues are shocked to see Putin as a war criminal. But no one will sit down with him again. Representatives of Ukraine or the United Nations possibly. In my opinion, definitely not from the west. There will be no “normalization” with a war criminal. We will have to find alternatives to the oil, coal and gas supplies from Russia as soon as possible. This is consensus at the traffic light.
Should the Bundestag review German Russia policy of the past years and decades?
I am sure that such a discussion will be held in the future. But at the moment I find the discussion of whether and in what format this could happen completely out of place. A war is raging in Ukraine. The people there deserve help today and now. A self-critical examination of the political decisions of past governments should certainly not be the focus at the moment. Later, however, we must ask ourselves how we actually dealt with the annexation of Crimea. That was the bloody prelude to what is happening now. 14,000 people have died since 2014 as a result of the annexation of Crimea and the attack on eastern Ukraine.
Can you explain why Olaf Scholz never uses the term “heavy weapons”?
He has in the press conference last week of “weapons of significant impact”. This is probably the Hanseatic form of “heavy weapons”. However, each weapon has a “heavy” effect. When you put a gun to someone’s forehead and pull the trigger, the effect is extremely severe. I believe that some people find it difficult to use some military language. It’s war and we’re talking about things that none of us, with the exception of our committee, would have said months ago. When my two colleagues, Michael Roth and Anton Hofreiter, and I were in Ukraine, we spoke to colleagues from the Ukrainian parliament. One of them is 33 years young, she has two small children. She told us: “I only talk about guns from morning to night. We live in a nightmare here.” She never would have thought that something like this could happen. And we in Germany, confronted with the brutal reality, are learning to deal with it. That’s not nice. But necessary at the moment.
Hubertus Volmer spoke to Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann