Merz reprimands Scholz, Gysi the traffic light
Bundestag blames Russia for Ukraine crisis
01/27/2022, 3:12 p.m
With the exception of the AfD and the Left Party, the parties in the Bundestag pin the responsibility for the impending war in Ukraine on the Kremlin. In a discussion, Foreign Minister Baerbock contradicted doubts about Germany’s support for Ukraine. The new CDU chairman reprimands the chancellor.
The Ukrainian ambassador should have left the Bundestag on Thursday with a good feeling: Andriy Melnyk in the guest gallery followed how the speakers from the governing parties SPD, Greens and FDP and the largest opposition faction from the CDU and CSU unequivocally named who they thought was the trigger of the recent one conflict on Ukraine’s border with Russia: “I hope that we in the German Bundestag are very much in agreement that this threat to peace in Europe comes exclusively from the Russian Federation and exclusively from Vladimir Putin,” said CDU leader Friedrich Merz. “We state very clearly who is responsible for the escalation: that’s the Russian side,” said SPD leader Lars Klingbeil. Deputy FDP parliamentary group leader Alexander Graf Lambsdorff stated that Putin wanted “nothing less than turning back the peace order of 1990”.
Only the speakers – in the one-hour debate only male MPs took the floor – from the AfD and the Left Party offered a different interpretation of the massive Russian troop concentrations around Ukraine. But that should not have surprised Federal Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock. The Greens politician had the first word in the debate requested by the Union faction. Above all, she used it to dispel doubts expressed in Germany and internationally about the German government’s determined support for Ukraine. A military invasion of Ukraine would have “massive consequences for Russia.” And: “On this basis, we are working on a strong sanctions package” that includes the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, said Baerbock.
Merz complains about a lack of leadership
After the SPD in particular had avoided explicitly mentioning the pipeline as a possible sanctions target by the end of the year, the federal government is increasingly leaving no doubts about this option. The parliamentary group was also uneasy about the lack of clarity of earlier statements, because the party has a reputation for being biased towards Russia, particularly because of the role played by Russia lobbyist Gerhard Schröder.
Merz, who was the first to speak for his parliamentary group after being elected party chairman, also tried to take this line, not its chairman Ralph Brinkhaus. Chancellor Olaf Scholz gives an “unclear picture and indecisiveness”. Merz attacked: “You don’t lead, neither in Germany nor in Europe.” In the debate about the possible delivery of armaments to Kiev, Merz said about Baerbock’s statement made in Moscow that Germany is also not delivering weapons for historical reasons: “If you admonish consideration and understanding elsewhere with reference to German history, then This also applies to the history of Ukraine.” The country suffered particularly from the crimes of the German occupiers, but also from those of Stalin.
Bunkers for Odessa
As Ambassador Melnyk will have heard, Baerbock turned down calls for arms deliveries to Ukraine: “A press release is written quickly,” said the Foreign Minister. But anyone who wants to turn the previous foreign policy course by 180 degrees should “do so with full awareness and not close doors to de-escalation that are just tentatively opening again.” SPD leader Klingbeil seconded: “Supplying arms does not mean strengthening peace efforts.”
Baerbock also emphasized that Germany, as Ukraine’s largest donor, was showing a determined commitment through its participation in NATO support for Ukraine and through the role of the Bundeswehr in deterring Russia in the Baltic States. In addition, Germany is currently examining a Ukrainian request to help with the upgrading of civil defense bunkers in Odessa.
Gysi demands accommodation
AfD MP Stefan Keuter accused the previous speakers of “unspeakable warmongering” and compared the presence of NATO in Eastern Europe with the equally unacceptable attempt by the Soviet Union to install nuclear missiles in Cuba. His party colleague Petr Bystron explained that the more than 120,000 soldiers on the Ukrainian border did not represent an attack formation. Left-wing politician Gregor Gysi also drew the Cuba comparison: “The USA is always allowed a safe distance,” he argued. “Russia wants to talk about a new security order in Europe,” said Gysi, and the West must be prepared to make concessions. This could also include reducing troop maneuvers and stationing troops in certain areas.
He reminded Gysi that German Foreign Minister Hand-Dietrich Genscher, in the presence of US Secretary of State James Baker, had verbally assured the Soviet side in 1990 that NATO did not intend to expand eastward. Lambsdorff countered that by recognizing Ukraine as an independent state in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, Moscow had given the country full sovereignty and the inviolability of its borders. The Russian demands for NATO’s withdrawal from Eastern Europe are “incompatible with the European security order,” said Baerbock, with a view to the fact that sovereign states could choose their allies themselves.
Criticism of a lack of European unity
Speakers from the CDU and the Ampel government showed willingness to talk: “There will be no lasting peace in Europe against Russia, only with Russia,” said SPD leader Klingbeil in Egon Bahr style. Nevertheless, it needs “hardness that makes it clear: the sovereignty of states and the cornerstones of the European order are non-negotiable,” said Baerbock on behalf of the German government. The Foreign Minister described it as a strength that Germany is primarily involved in diplomacy, while other European countries are providing military support in the form of armaments.
The SPD European politician Johannes Schraps, on the other hand, criticized the different, sometimes uncoordinated handling of the European states with Ukraine: “These examples show the lack of consensus for a common EU foreign policy”, the countries of the European Union must “appear as a common actor in foreign policy”. Schraps also emphasized that war was not just about to start in Ukraine; “This war has been going on since 2014 and is still going on today.”
His party colleague, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee Michael Roth, proposed initiatives for arms control and disarmament and the revival of established formats such as the NATO-Russia Council, and Russian civil society must also be strengthened. Putin does not fear a NATO invasion of Russia, said Roth. “He’s afraid of the power of democracy and freedom that emanates from us, the European Union.”