Logo
Cover

The anti-Russian gatekeeper

Federal Foreign Minister Heiko Maas (SPD) has again rejected proposals by the USA to reintroduce Russia into the circle of the G8 States. He sees “no Chance” of Russian membership in this group of industrialised countries, as he said in an Interview with the “Rheinische Post”. As a prerequisite for such a resumption of Russia, Maas mentions numerous preconditions in the conversation. Above all, Russia is" slow “to make a contribution to the settlement of the Ukraine conflict, Russia would also partially block the Security Council and play a bad role in Syria. Details from the Interview will follow below.

A social democrat as an enthusiastic spearhead of anti-Russian sentiment

How to sabotage international discussion formats in response to international conflicts in the way that Maas and other Western politicians and media practice is difficult to justify. Moreover, the “punitive” attitude of Western politicians towards Russia, derived from an alleged moral advantage, is not justified by the politico-military actions of that “West”. Certainly not the highest Diplomat of a country should lean out of the window in this destructive way for international dialogue.

In addition, with Heiko Maas, a Social Democrat appears as a particularly enthusiastic spearhead of anti-Russian sentiment in Germany. On the one hand, this is geopolitically wrong: Germany and Russia should come closer – don’t numerous signs of the Times say so (in addition to the ever-striving international policy of détente)? As always, the demand for détente towards Russia is not intended to deny Russia’s potential domestic political deficits.

Does the current impression deceive us that with backward-looking positions, such as that of Maas, opportunities for the future are being squandered? And that by insisting on the continuation of a “German-American friendship” other geopolitical constellations and partnerships for Germany are inappropriately disregarded? This” friendship " is at least partially restricted by Maas in the Interview.

The UN Security Council is “weak” - if it does not act

In addition, the social democratic legacy of the policy of détente is being trampled underfoot. On the one hand, this is morally reprehensible with regard to German-Russian history and the Second World War. Since one is already looking forward that the SPD continues to self-destruct here and the nights CDU Partner will surely be the green hypocrite!

In the current Interview Maas also justifies the “weakness” of the UN Security Council by the fact that “states like Russia and China have a right of Veto and use it.” The UN Security Council in the West is usually described as “weak” when it defies Western concerns.

Shortening also in the media

Incidentally, the Interview not only shows Maas ' questionable attitude in numerous foreign policy fields, but also reveals once again the dubious consideration of many major German media, for example, on the subject of Russia. This is a question of the “Rheinische Post”:

“Russia supports rebel General Khalifa Haftar in Libya and leader Bashar al-Assad in Syria. It is robbing Land and waging a hybrid war in eastern Ukraine.”

The reply of the Foreign Minister must be described as a speech bubble on the one hand, and on the other as an Argument against the policy of excluding Russia from international discussion formats, which has been promoted itself:

“Russia has itself in hand how it is perceived. At the moment, the relationship is difficult in many Dossiers. But we also know that we need Russia to resolve conflicts such as those in Syria, Libya and Ukraine. This will not be against Russia, but only with Russia.”

The statement that” Russia has it in its own hands how it is perceived " can also be classified as a played-out naivety: anyone who has followed the behaviour of many major Western media towards Russia since 2014 at the latest knows that the perception of Russia in the West is characterized by strong manipulations: they have often either completely decoupled from Russia’s real actions or they distort the observation by manipulative shortening. Shortening also operates Maas in the Interview when he says on the topics Ukraine and Syria:

“But Russia also has to make its contribution, which is very slow in Ukraine. In the security Council, Moscow has prevented humanitarian aid for 1.5 million people in Syria, because it has allowed only a single access to the suffering people.”

A similar consideration underlies Maas ' stance on Russia’s return to the G8:

“The reason for Russia’s exclusion was the annexation of Crimea and the Intervention in eastern Ukraine. As long as we don’t have a solution there, I don’t see any Chance.”

The shortened path to the" annexation " of Crimea

The depiction of Russia’s sole responsibility for the conflicts in Ukraine or Syria, generated by omitting the background stories, is also practiced by numerous major media outlets, exemplified by many other recent articles such as vom Spiegel, which writes that Maas rejects “Trump’s Russia advances” for the following reason:

“Russian forces had plunged eastern Ukraine into a war in 2014, since then Russia is no longer part of the G7.”

With Heiko Maas, a played geopolitical naivety stands in the way of an appropriate consideration:

“But we do not forget that Crimea also belongs to Ukraine. We cannot shrug at the fact that in the 21st century borders in Europe are simply being shifted. There are no signals from us to Moscow according to the Motto: If eastern Ukraine is regulated, then Crimea is also regulated.”

And should eastern Ukraine be “regulated” at all? For example, the inefficiency of the so-called “Minsk contact group” confirms an interest of the “Western community of values” in the continuation of this civil war. The civil war in Ukraine serves Atlantic trolls as a justification to blame Russia.

In general, the Bundestag member of the Left party Alexander said in a Tweet about the questionable Definition of the G8:

The degradation of nuclear terror

In the Interview, Maas also uses the wrong word “participation” to take over the vocabulary that is supposed to lower the nuclear danger. On the other hand, he classifies the existence of atomic bombs in Germany as politically very questionable. Last but not least, he attacks party friends with such statements and weakens the election chances of the SPD by supporting a nuclear policy rejected by countless citizens:

“Nuclear participation is about an international obligation of Germany. But it is also about European security, especially for our Eastern European neighbours, who still feel threatened by Russia in a very different way from the West or south of Europe. That’s why I stick to it: if you want to be a reliable part of the European security architecture, you must also grant this in the case of nuclear participation.”