Enlarge image
Sahra Wagenknecht (archive image)
Photo: Peter Steffen / dpa
At some point, the real question will be whether, in the event of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, gas will become more expensive, scarce or not available at all.
Ursula von der Leyen calmed the audience down with a short presentation on the accelerated diversification of Europe's energy supply, which even included the sustainable magic word "green hydrogen".
The situation in the east is unclear but threatening.
Everyone involved in this program agrees on that, from the President of the EU Commission to the Secretary General of the SPD, Lars Klingbeil, from Norbert Röttgen (CDU) to Constanze Stelzenmüller, think tanker (Brookings Institution, Washington) and columnist for the »Financial Times«.
Even Sahra Wagenknecht reportedly "doesn't want to imagine how long Europe would be inhabitable" if Putin, which he certainly isn't, really were a "crazy nationalist" on a war course.
The Left is the only participant in the panel able to understand, perhaps even sympathize with, the Russian President.
What would Russia gain from an invasion?
Wagenknecht would like to ask himself, "well," "how do we get to where we are now".
Of course, Russia could not tolerate NATO stalking its borders; now Moscow must "put up a stop sign."
Up to here and no further!
Russia, on the other hand, has "actually no interest in invading Ukraine" because: "What's that supposed to do for you?" Well, maybe Ukraine?
Wagenknecht is – to use a rhetorical figure not to denigrate the President of the Russian Federation – the devil's advocate.
She wishes for "a more stable peace order" for Europe, which she apparently sees more endangered by Washington than by Moscow: "You can't treat a country in a way that it perceives as a snub."
Otherwise, with all patience, the country will eventually become evil.
Also, according to Wagenknecht, many certain European interests are more in line with those of Russia than with the United States, which they see as the "sole winners," if not even the conjurers and originators of the current situation.
»All Marionettes of the USA«
One does not have to agree with such positions, which one encounters more on Russia Today or YouTube than on ARD.
But it's good that they are presented.
Better yet, unlike the opposite case on Russia Today or YouTube, they don't go unchallenged.
"Nonsense," says Constanze Stelzenmüller, "that's just nonsense, Ms. Wagenknecht."
European nations are by no means “all puppets of the USA”.
What Wagenknecht spreads about the NATO budget or Western provocations is also nonsense.
Then what about the war in Chechnya, the war against Georgia, the annexation of Crimea or the proxy war in Donbass in eastern Ukraine, which has claimed more than 13,000 lives so far?
"The only thing," Stelzenmüller concludes, "that really threatens Russia is the democratic transformation of Eastern Europe and Ukraine."
North Stream 2?
Oh...
Asked about Olaf Scholz's visit to Moscow, Lars Klingbeil finds it »very important that all these talks take place«.
One is “prepared if the territorial integrity of Ukraine should be violated again”.
He does not want to commit himself to possible consequences for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
Besides, he couldn't see "who might be threatening Russia at the moment."
Norbert Röttgen goes to great lengths to explain the US method of transparently predicting Russian moves.
This is a "tactic that one does not surrender to the possibility of various pretexts".
If violence did occur, it would take place under pretense.
But if you anticipate the “conceivable screenplay, it is a communicative tactic” that then no longer allows its application.
“Deterrence?” asks Anne Will, tired of the babble.
»Deterrence!«, Röttgen rejoices at the word from the Cold War, to be precise.
After all, Putin is "serious about not accepting the political outcome of the end of the Cold War."
He wanted to create vassals to become a European power again.
The EU's most powerful weapon
Ursula von der Leyen presents herself as a European power.
In the event of a Russian invasion, there would be no military response - but the "most powerful lever we have" would be pulled.
Because the planned »financial sanctions mean for the Kremlin that if they carry out military aggression against Ukraine, Russia will in principle be cut off from the international financial markets.«
Contrary to what some politicians have demanded, the sanctions would only take effect in the event of war.
The European Union wants to give the Kremlin a "window of opportunity" to avert the worst - namely a targeted weakening of the economy, which is not exactly vital anyway.
Stelzenmüller adds, deterrence - there it was again, the word!
– works best »when we are also willing to bear the costs«.
Incidentally, during the broadcast, the Russian Ambassador to the United States, Anatoly Antonov, declared on CBS that there was no invasion, and even more: "There are no such plans either."
So everything is in the best European order.