Ukraine’s war with Anne Will – creating peace – but with or without weapons?

“We defend justice and freedom – alongside the attackers. We support Ukraine in its war against the aggressor. Failure to do so means surrendering to absolute violence – and empowering the aggressor,” Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz said Sunday in his televised address marking the anniversary of May 8, which It commemorates the complete surrender of the Wehrmacht in World War II, the end of the war during which an estimated 65 million people died.

As usual these days and in all discussions about Germany’s role in the Ukraine war, Schulz’s statement on the delivery of heavy weapons recently set out in the Bundestag is correct and important to some. But for others – including the signatories of an open letter to the Federal Chancellor – this is contradictory, because Schultz has just confirmed with what he said he wants to make peace not without weapons, but with them. It’s not the only (alleged) irony in this sweeping debate – it’s also the fact that the Greens are among the biggest advocates of arms deliveries – but it is a very important irony.

For this reason, the title of Ann Weil’s last program was “More Weapons for Ukraine – Is This the Path to Peace?”. This was discussed Sunday evening by SPD General Secretary Kevin Kunert, Green Parliamentary Group Leader Britta Haselmann, CDU politician Ruprecht Pollens, President of the German Association for Eastern European Studies, sociologist and propagandist Harald Welzer and Andrej Melnik, well-known ambassador to Ukraine in The Federal Republic of Germany. And someone who some say does not utter his words, and at the same time, others say, lacks decency just as easily.

4:1 . ratio

Ostensibly, the problem with this program was the actual occupation of the platform: because at first glance, Welzer was the only one in the group who opposed the delivery of heavy weapons, although according to the current direction of the German ARD, almost half of the Germans are in favor of it and the other against it. Thus at this point the question may first be asked as to why the editors of Anne Will compiled a 4:1 discussion ratio with open eyes, which does not really reflect the conditions prevailing in the debate outside the country? But that’s it, because only in the end you can feel the superiority for a while.

In any case, Walzer described Olaf Schultz’s speech as “extremely indifferent”. On the other hand, Bollins claims to have realized that Schultz is rallying his government behind him to “continue his course”. And Kevin Kunert started this program somewhat slightly happier that Schulz “communicated with him more” in the first four or five months of his tenure as federal chancellor than his predecessor Angela Merkel “in two electoral terms” — and praised Schulz for this, among other things, Alleged courage to use the historic May 8 date as an opportunity to address the end of World War II and the war in Ukraine on an equal footing. Hasselman also praised Schultz’s Greens. What’s Next?!

But for the Ukrainian ambassador, Schultz’s speech was too vague, he said. Referring to the Allied victory over Nazi Germany in World War II, Melnik also called for “more historic decisions” by the German Bundestag, including the delivery of combat aircraft, he noted between the lines. Regardless of what one might think, Melnik already made a point here that has been floating like a proverbial elephant – albeit in a different way – since the outbreak of the war: while the German federal government talks about its desire to support Ukraine as best as possible, in fact it does not. He does this, because this means that the recently scheduled delivery of Gepard tanks and self-propelled howitzers should not stop there. To call this a “dilemma” would be an understatement.

Two messages, one discussion

Next on Will’s agenda was the open letter to Olaf Scholz against the delivery of heavy weapons, which was mentioned at the beginning whatever It is published and signed by Welzer, among others. In addition to another open letter, signed by Paulines in turn, in which the authors spoke in favor of the delivery of heavy weapons. Wilzer, for example, warns that Germany could “forcibly slip into the Ukraine war” as a war party and thus “lose control”. Also because “this question of permanent rearmament”, according to Wilzer, “has no logical end”, and thus Wilzer sees the danger of a “war of attrition with more and more casualties” if this cycle of rearmament continues.

Of course, Paulines, the CDU politician, opposed this, linking, among other things, the Cold War’s “balance of terror” to the war in Ukraine. “Putin’s goal is to eliminate Ukraine as a country,” said Bolins. Moreover: “If we do not want a nuclear power that permanently violates the UN Charter with the non-aggression rule because everyone is afraid of resistance, then they must not succeed in it now.” And it was not surprising that he received the support of the Ukrainian ambassador, who for the first time addressed Welzer: “It is easy for you now to sit there in your professor’s room and philosophize …” Melnik immediately interrupted him: “Don’t denigrate you, Mr. Melnik. There are so many people They talk that way.”

surrender request

Welzer himself bore the first stab steadily, chin on his fist. When Melnick described Welzer’s position as “morally neglectful” soon after, the sociologist had enough. What followed was a short lecture, let’s say, on Welzer’s self-confidence, which Melnick didn’t like at all and to which he commented a little later “I’m not a student.” Among other things, Welzer said, “People—Mr. Bollins just like me, like all the other participants who relate to these things—do not do it for fun and fun, but do so out of serious thinking versus historical backgrounds with knowledge and from a knowledge perspective. Slightly reliable for the future.”

When Melnik added that Germany had a duty to Ukraine because of the ten million Ukrainians who were exterminated by Nazi Germany, Wilzer responded again: “Find out more about my scientific work, then you don’t have to come to me with this argument. It’s just too narrow-minded.” The accusation that he and the other signatories of the open letter – including Alice Schwarzer, Julie Zeh and Martin Walser – called on the Ukrainians to surrender. According to Walzer, it is a matter of putting in place another logic, besides the logic of providing more weapons, to return to the negotiations. “How one could read the surrender request from this is completely baffling to me.”

cute flat head

Shortly thereafter, Kevin Kuhnert cheerfully expressed himself, unwilling to participate in the “interpretation of the text” because, according to Kuhnert, he did not know “where this is supposed to lead us.” Anyone who spends so much time on social media, like the author of these lines, can only support such a self-confident refusal to engage in the discourse. Because one of the main problems in the current debate over Ukraine is that everyone thinks they should take a direct stance on all issues rather than withdraw from individual discussions from time to time. Or to say, “Sorry, I just don’t know what’s right and what’s wrong here.”

In any case, Koehnert said he worries about internal cohesion in the community. “In some places, we run the risk of turning over in society, in terms of support,” Kuhnert says. “Some because they are very concerned about rising energy and food prices, and we are called to care about that as well. Others, because they also experience rifts in their circle of friends and partly through family, which we also have on this show: heated discussions that have a bit of a tinge: Are Are you in solidarity with Ukraine or not?”

But he seldom sees people who do not show solidarity with Ukraine: “But we argue about the right way. And I worry that we lose this cultural technique of discussing it with each other—and that we lose a little of the seriousness needed for it.” But where there are intelligent ideas, there are none, as It is known, the less intelligent ideas are very far away. Especially in politics. Appearance Hasleman: “Do you feel the same way, that the mood is changing?” , Did you address the politician from the Green Party.

Hasselman answered “No” in all seriousness – and any viewer who has followed the discussions closely over the past few weeks must have been stunned in front of the screen. When Hasselman shortly thereafter heated up the discussion by calling the open letter from Welzer and others “arrogant,” the belief that the discussion would now reach a level of multi-layered consideration of the topic quickly evaporated.

No friends anymore

As a result, we quickly ran in circles again. missed opportunity. Back to messages. one more time. As if everything had not already been said about them. “It is very difficult to argue against allegations that have no support in this letter,” Welzer said sometime towards the end of this partly worthwhile and partly difficult discussion on Sunday night. Karen Musja is already waiting, ‘You’re finally going to be supervised, and not too soon. double meaning. And certainly also in the certainty that Wilzer and Melnick will never be friends in this life.

Leave a Comment