Ukraine crisis: Traffic light policy as a „German special path“ and „strategic thinking“ ala Herfried Münkler

Ukraine crisis: Traffic light policy as a „German special path“ and „strategic thinking“ ala Herfried Münkler

A lot has been written about the German traffic light goverment   and their positions on Ukraine and Russia. The main point of criticism is the disagreement within the coalition, which can be shared. But questions arise about the other points. The German government, including Scholz, have made it clear that they will put all options on the table in the event of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. After his statements, Scholz who before claimed that NS2 was a „private-sector project“ (which is complete nonsense, since even the SPD has always seen and sees this as a geopolitica lproject for connecting Russia to Europe and the change through trade mantra like earlier with the natural gas pipeline deal with the Soviet Union, which is why this is only a protective argument) meanwhile turned around, like Friedrich Merz, who as Blackrockman first spoke out against Swift sanctions and has now also welcomes them. What remains is the question of how the traffic light stands with regard to Swift sanctions, because apart from the sheer focus on NS2, which the Greens also want to have gone for energy-related reasons, nothing has been heard. This would be the much tougher sanction. On arms deliveries. It is true that arms are being supplied in order to inflate the price of a possible invasion and to make the Ukrainians able to defend themselves, thus deterring Putin. But: a lot of fuss: because what should Germany deliver specifically? Obviously nobody says anything about it, not even all the naggers and shouters who critizise the government for appeasement, only that 5000 steel helmets are a joke. From a German and European perspective, one can certainly be undecided about the arms deliveries. It would then be a unified front for the West, but if they were so decisive, first of all, or isn’t it more intelligent that Germany symbolically holds back there, in order to remain an honest broker and good cop and  important interlocutor for the Russians? As a kind of goodwill and a kind of division of labor, as Baerbock claimed – or is that already appeasement and weakening of the West? Not that easy. Vice versa: Would Merkel have delivered weapons to the Ukraine? What about France and the rest of NATO? The Scholz visit to Biden will be exciting.

In any case, German historian Herfied Münkler has now written a programmatic article in Die ZEIT to accuse the traffic light coalition of appeasement, accusing it of utopian post-war pacifism, false moralism and at the same time ignorance of the importance of military strength, which is important to achieve to be noticed at eye level. Nenfried Münlker belongs to these new historians like Sönke Neitzel and Australian imports of the war guilt discussion like Clarke and his „Traumwandler“, who relativize the German war guilt for the First World War, whereby Münkler once claimed that if anyone admits a German war guilt, we could not be responsible for European or German policy.Therefore you  have also reinterpreted and rewritten history in this sense. Here is Herfrieds Münkler now on the Ukraine crisis and his criticism in Die Zeit:

Once again, only German special paths are discovered.

“German special path In dealing with the Ukraine crisis, the federal government invokes morality and history. The main purpose of this is to hide the fact that you have forgotten how to think strategically.

A guest contribution by Herfried Münkler

Criticism of German post-war pacifism, this whole supposedly stupid cult of guilt may be justified, but Münkler only concentrates on the military aspects And there is nothing which could be read about a strategy or a solution to the Ukraine or great power conflict. Is the whole strategy supposed to be just showing military strength—especially with what ultimate political strategic goals? In addition, as a historian, he is very oblivious what sort of history such a historian perceives  when it comes to writing the entire history of the conflict between Russia and the West. It’s quite simple: The enlargement of the West came too close the Russian border when Nuland (Fuck the EU) nullified the agreement with Yanukovych that France and Germany had signed with him in a coup and the Western support for  Islamist rebels from Muslim regional powers to get rid of the Russian military bases in Tartus and Laktatia in Syria. That was unacceptable on the part of Russia and it is therefore completely logical that they tried to stop this offensive- also militarily. The USA would have reacted in the same way if Rammstein had been attacked by a massmovement which wanted the withdrawal of US troops in Germany. Yanukovych was also not a puppet of Putin, but more of a neutralist, during his time NATO even held military maneuvers Trident in Ukraine, but he did not want to commit to either side, neither to Russia nor to the West, but to get the best out of both. He was Corrupt and authoritarian indeed , but what are all the other Ukrainian politicians and oligarchs like the chocolate oligarch Porichenko, the gas oligarch Timochenko, etc.which as new EU or NATO members would behave like Orabn or Kaczynski. This imperial overstretch by gloablization ; iraq war, financial crisis and the expansion  of NATO and the EU was the real cause for Putin´s reaction and the rise of all the socalled populists.  This strategic balancing was no longer accepted by the USA in the form of Nuland, they wanted a clear decision, especially since EU Commison president Barosso also wanted a clear decision from Ukraine in favor of the EU, neutrality and strategic balancing was passe and therefore Putin, on the other side, also made a clear decision .We do not agree with this western mainstream historiography that it all started with Putin’s annexation of Crimea and that nothing had happened before like the history-forgotten historian Herfired Münkler does as he rewrites all the history of the conflict.. Now, however, there is another point at stake. Putin is no longer just concerned with Ukraine, but like China with a new world order or acceptance of a multipolar world. Conversely, the fact that a Pax Americana will not return, as it did in the 1950s or 1990s, when Bush Senior was still dreaming of an NWO, does not mean that one should degenerate into defeatism and further weaken the West. Military weakness is understood by Russia and China as such and also as a political weakness, and their striving for expansion cannot be countered by direct disarmament if they are not militarily on an equal footing or even strong. But Münkler is hiding the fact that the USA and the West are now rearming again, that the German defense budget alone has grown from 35 billion euros to 55 billion euros and that the US armaments budget is huge and has been and is being increased further. But in the end you won’t be able to wage a war with all that junk, or just proxy wars, but just deter the other side. Münkler, like the West, says nothing about a political solution that could represent a neutral Ukraine as a bridge state. Nor whether Germany could play a role between the two and within NATO as an honest broker and good cop. Maybe not, but he doesn’t address it at all. And there is absolutely nothing to be seen from him of a strategy or political solution, only arming and sometimes showing strength. Those screaming for more responsibility, visions, strategies and arment like Münkler or Ralf Fücks from the Center for Liberal Modernism should first learn strategic thinking for themselves. Otherwise, this is just cheap bellicose shouting with no strategy whatsoever.

Without political goals there is no strategy, only an instinctive resistance and hope for a happy ending and collapse or concession on the part of the other side. Münkler and the West want Putin’s capitulation by an arms race and a regime change, so that bankrupt and authoritarian oligarchic states such as Ukraine, Belarus and Georgia are then accepted and the EU brings in more bankruptcy candidates and billions in subsidies, and soon the Balkans as well. Macron has already blocked that, because he wants to consolidate the EU first and prevent this imperial overstretch of the eternal globalist EU and NATO expansion, which only new financial crises, disagreement, lack of coherence and new problem candidates in the EU and NATO wants to take in want to put an end to. But Münkler and all these people either have no strategic goals or want to hide them quite well and are now concentrating on slogans of military strength.

Kommentare sind geschlossen.