Robert Habeck, co-chairman of the Greens, demands to allow arms deliveries to Ukraine-for “defense”, as he says. Indirectly, he probably does not want to exclude a fire-dangerous NATO membership of the country. The demand for arms deliveries to an acute crisis area is not only unprincipled, because it contradicts the last remnants of pacifist elements in the election program of the Greens, where it is said that “exports of weapons and armaments to dictators, human rights-abusing regimes and to war zones” would be prohibited. It is also irresponsible because it would fuel a conflict that is very close to us and would mean an increasingly direct confrontation with Russia.
In addition, Habeck’s position is forgotten about history – not only in terms of German-Russian history, but also in terms of the history of the origin of the conflict in Ukraine: this conflict is the direct consequence of the Maidan revolution of 2014 and the previous massive interference from the West with strong participation of green personnel. The emphasis that he meant “only” defensive weapons is either naive or deliberately misleading: on the one hand, the boundaries between defensive and aggressive with regard to weapons are fluid. On the other hand, crossing this border and thus valuing arms supplies in principle would open the door to ever more desires of the Ukrainian government.
Habeck acts against the interests of citizens
Habeck’s American position of a Ukraine that is under attack and therefore has every right to defend itself also denies the fact that it was the Ukrainian Maidan government that turned the intra-Ukrainian conflict into a war in 2014 with an “anti-terror operation” against the Donbass. Which side here is rather the aggressor, was always unambiguous: the “people’s republics” did not make any moves to march on Kiev – Kiev let its troops march into the Donbass. The Ukrainian government has also steadfastly refused to comply with its obligations under the peace agreement.
The Greens have a “pacifist tradition”, says Habeck-even if this tradition is openly questioned by party friends. But, Habeck said, the Greens also have a tradition of helping Ukraine. But a principle is worth nothing if it is not universally valid. An exception in the Ukraine conflict devalues the entire position. To provoke serious geostrategic dangers out of" personal " connectedness, which are directed against the interests of the German and European citizens, is in the best case culpably naive: Habeck appears here as someone who either completely unsophisticated the Ukrainian propaganda on the glue or ruthlessly willing to sacrifice the German-European interests for transatlantic interests.
Habeck turns cause and effect upside down
All this seems a bit too big for Robert Habeck. In addition, he tries to emotionalize the conflict, rather than coolly classify it. In addition, as I said, he speaks the word of historical oblivion by turning cause and effect upside down in the Ukraine conflict, like many other Western voices.
Habeck is currently talking about the topic head and neck. In the meantime, he slept one night over it, so he could have rowed back now. But on the contrary, in an interview with Deutschlandfunk this morning, he is making a radical flight forward. This also suggests that the position is in line with the other Green leaders, because in the meantime they should have had the opportunity to vote on it. One can also be grateful to him for this clarity: the illusion that Habeck could act as a corrective to the anti-Russian views of the co-chair Annalena Baerbock should now have been dispensed with.
One wonders: what can Habeck and Baerbock, what can the Greens gain from this dangerous escalation against Russia, which is not popular with German citizens? What do you expect from the fact that sharp resentment against Russia threatens to become the last remaining green hallmark? Does a pat on the back of the transatlantic structures and their representatives in Ukraine outweigh the antipathies they are causing in Germany with this escalation?