These ruptures in the global order are apparently being accelerated by the Ukraine war. To what extent has Germany’s international role changed since the beginning of the war?
The turning point that Chancellor Olaf Scholz proclaimed is more than the additional 100 billion euros for the Bundeswehr. It’s about a changed attitude that is only gradually breaking through.
What exactly do you mean by that?
In the past decades, the Germans wanted to be a little like Switzerland: economically successful, but politically neutral. That is possible with eight million inhabitants on the edge of the EU, but not with 82 million people in the center. Germany has a special position in Europe, whether we like it or not. We are the largest economy and the largest population. It is very important to us. Therefore, we must turn to the world and stop believing that being economically and socially successful is enough.
Sahra Wagenknecht and Alice Schwarzer also seem to have this idea. They want support of Ukrainian defenders with weapons from Germany to end. What do you think of your open letter?
I can understand anyone who works for peace and an end to the murderous violence in Ukraine. And pacifism is also an honorable attitude, which I do not share in view of global realities, but which I respect. However, I have two questions for the authors of this “Peace Appeal”: What actually suggests that ending military support for Ukraine will lead to peace or even a ceasefire? In my view, it will only lead to Russia succeeding and at least partially wiping Ukraine off the map. If we weaken Ukraine, why should Russia stop attacking?
And the second question is: Can the authors even begin to imagine what the consequences would be in Europe if Germany, of all people, broke out of European solidarity with Ukraine and went a new German “Sonderweg” with Russia? The historical memory of our neighbors does not begin in 1945 like that of many Germans today. For them, a German special path would be the resumption of German unpredictability. Europe would at least break apart into East and West, if not perish altogether.
Do you also criticize your SPD party colleague Rolf Mützenich in this context?
No. Rolf Mützenich is an honorable person because his basic conviction is pacifist. I wouldn’t criticize anyone for that. I am not a pacifist because unfortunately the world is not such that one can be a pacifist. But I think that’s an honorable attitude.
However, there are also different opinions in the federal cabinet about the pace and extent of support for Ukraine. How do you rate Chancellor Scholz’s cautious course?
It is true that he acts cautiously and does not make decisions in hooray patriotism. Scholz is right when he only wants to give military aid to Ukraine in conjunction with the Americans. While everyone is calling for German leadership, the truth of this conflict is that there is only one nation that can take on that responsibility: the United States. There lies the political, intelligence and military leadership in this current war. That is why coordination with the USA is of central importance for success.
But didn’t Scholz also upset Washington with the pressure on the tank issue?
I don’t think so, but I thought it was right and appropriate to have the USA “on board” here, so to speak. What I find more interesting is what is left of the many media reports about the supposedly great willingness in Europe to deliver battle tanks to Ukraine: very little. The one delivering now is Germany.
What does this mean for the chancellor?
It was absolutely correct that Scholz did not let the media debate chase him. In a war situation, the majority of Germans find it better to have a thoughtful Chancellor than one who would advance with the shouting of Agnes Strack-Zimmermann.
Shouldn’t Chancellor Scholz at least communicate his politics better in order to take care of his coalition partners and the population?
The Chancellor is probably convinced that in the end it is the decision that counts and not the talking before it. And that’s true. We were a nation of amateur virologists and now we are a nation of amateur military experts. In these difficult times, I’m glad to have a thoughtful government and a chancellor who makes decisions.
How do you rate Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock’s solo efforts in the tank debate?
The Federal Chancellor decides on such questions in Germany – and that’s a good thing.
Most recently, the Foreign Minister said in Strasbourg that we were at war with Russia. Do you also think that was a slip of the tongue?
I believe Ms. Baerbock said what she really thinks. She wore her heart on her sleeve, so to speak. However, that doesn’t seem to me to be a reason to criticize them excessively now. Which politician has this not happened to before?
Thank you for the interview, Mr. Gabriel.
