Ukraine solidarity: The German blue and yellow homeliness

Enlarge image

Ukrainian flag at anti-war demonstration in Berlin, March 13, 2022

Photo: CHRISTIAN MANG / REUTERS

Whether on the train or in the bank and anyway on the Internet - since the Russian attack on Ukraine, one cannot take a step in this country without encountering gestures of solidarity with Ukraine or calls for practical solidarity.

There is nothing wrong with that, least of all in the sense of sniffing moralism.

As Die

journalist Yassin Musharbash aptly observed, it is not at all outrageous that "Europeans watch a war in Europe with more horror than a war in Iraq" - as long as one does not find a war in Europe inherently worse than a war elsewhere.

Yes, the solidarity with Ukraine is gratifyingly high.

But I think this is solidarity with omissions.

But first, to the question that I (and many) have been asked more often than any other in recent weeks: No, nothing about a no-fly zone – more on that later – but: Is it right to boycott Russian culture, Russian artists to sanction?

The German PEN center need not and does not have a collective position on every aspect of the war.

Here already.

It reads: "The enemy's name is Putin, not Pushkin."

I think sweeping measures against Russian artists, scientists, athletes, etc. are wrong because it makes all the difference whether you are dealing with a critic or a supporter of the Putin regime - and because such reactions are appropriate, Putin's delusional To confirm the world view of a great conspiracy against Russianism and the propaganda of an alleged "Russophobia" driving the West.

(Not an isolated case: where the Ugandan dictator Idi Amin was still avant-garde in rejecting international criticism of his mass-murderous rule as "racism" and "colonialism", today clichés from the post-colonial and anti-racist arsenal of terms are de rigueur among autocrats. Xi Jinping sees constantly "Sinophobia" at work, Tayyip Erdoğan "anti-Turkishness" and "Islamophobia". The purpose of this defensive reaction: to reinterpret universal human rights as cultural goods that the "collective West" wants to impose on other people.)

Not only are sweeping boycotts wrong, it is also wrong to force people of Russian origin to confess about war and Putin.

"Fascism doesn't mean preventing people from speaking, it means forcing them to speak," the French philosopher Roland Barthes once remarked.

Public figures who have previously attracted attention with relevant statements must put up with inquiries.

Apart from that,

nobody has to say anything in a liberal society

Conversely, this does not mean sticking to "dialogue" and cooperation with everything and everyone.

Rather, I think it is necessary to boycott all institutions of the Putin regime - just as the anti-apartheid movement once fought for a worldwide ban on racist South Africa.

Likewise, I think it's appropriate to keep your distance from people who have shown themselves to be flawless autocrat cronies in the past.

But nobody in this country is calling for a blanket cultural boycott anyway.

But why have we been discussing this question again and again for weeks?

People who have contacts with the dissident part of Russian society and who, for example, protested against the ban on the human rights organization Memorial at the end of last year – like the German PEN center did – may worry that the wrong people will be punished.

But I suspect the main reason is another: we, the culture industry, the feuilleton, like to discuss this question so much because we secretly delude ourselves that we have influence and options for action that we don't have in the face of the murderous violence of a war.

In public perception, however, this debate unintentionally contributes to disproportionality.

So a reminder that is more necessary than it might seem at first glance: the victims of this war are not Russian culture, it is the citizens of Ukraine.

Another aspect, similar imbalance: I find it admirable how many citizens of this country are committed to the refugees from Ukraine.

The vast majority of people can do no more than express symbolic protest and sympathy, donate money or, if their home is large enough, take refugees into their own four walls.

What they cannot do: declare Ukraine a candidate for EU membership, supply air defense systems and other weapons, set up a no-fly zone, stop gas imports from Russia, exclude Gazprom and Sberbank from the Swift system.

It should be said, not to these committed citizens, but to politicians, journalists, NGO representatives and others who publicly speak out against the war: Humanitarian aid cannot replace help for Ukraine's self-defense.

Not only those who flee need symbolic and practical solidarity, but also those who fight.

A final aspect that shows the distortion of the discussion: the – fully justified – respect paid to the Russian television journalist Marina Ovsyannikova, whose protest action went around the world.

Or those who, at great personal risk, took to the streets in Moscow and Petersburg, in Irkutsk and Vladivostok against the war.

Or the Russian and Belarusian writers who publicly condemn the war, including the Russian PEN centres.

But the people demonstrating against the occupation troops in the conquered Ukrainian city of Cherson deserve no less attention.

And the civilians and soldiers defending Kyiv and Kharkiv, Odessa and Mariupol deserve no less credit.

Exactly these omissions are almost systematic.

At the Lit.Cologne, where some of my statements led to calls for my resignation within PEN, the Mayor of Cologne, Henriette Reker, recalled the refugees, Marina Owsjannikova and the protests in Russia in her welcoming address.

She did not mention the one in Cherson.

A particularly blatant case emerged at the mass rally in Berlin at the end of February.

As pleasingly broad as the spectrum of speakers was, the »Vitsche« initiative of all things was missing.

This coalition of left-leaning young German-Ukrainians had already organized the anti-war protests in January – when others, including the federal government, still assumed that the Russian army had marched to the Ukrainian border for a picnic.

Last week it became known why they and many Ukrainian Berliners with them were not demonstrating between the Großer Stern and the Brandenburg Gate, but elsewhere at the same time: the organizers of the mass rally did not want them there because they were demanding arms deliveries and a no-fly zone.

I mean: You don't have to share these demands.

But those who are serious about solidarity must at least listen to these voices.

Even this task was not taken on by a public newspaper, which is also significant, but by the small left-wing weekly

: »We are not gun lovers«, said Anton Dorokh, a co-founder of »Vitsche«.

"But the reality is that our country needs weapons to survive and defend itself - not to attack." A realization that the federal government was not capable of until the Russian attack and that many - including and especially those on the left - are aware of - still fail today.

, especially for me: Every single one of the Turkish Bayraktar combat drones has done more for the defense of Ukraine than all German contributions together.

Since the federal government was forced to change its mind, the subject of arms deliveries is no longer quite as controversial.

The demand for the closure of the airspace over Ukraine, which is not only being demanded by President Volodymyr Zelensky, is different.

In the past few weeks I have not read or heard a post by a Ukrainian author in which this topic did not appear.

With Serhij Zhadan, Oksana Zabuzhko, Yuri Andrukhovych, Katja Petrovskaya, Katia Mishchenko, the Ukrainian PEN President Andrei Kurkov ... or the translator and publicist Yuri Durkot.

At a rally on Berlin's Bebelplatz, he said in a video link from Lemberg: "If it would help in any way, I would just recite the word 'no-fly zone' for the two or three minutes that are planned for each of us."

It is obvious where this demand comes from: after the heroic struggle of the Ukrainians prevented a coup d'état, Ukrainian cities are threatened with the same fate as Grozny in Chechnya and Aleppo in Syria.

It left Putin bombed into rubble before the eyes of the Western world, which largely looked on with indifference and indifference, not least because the cities in question were mostly Muslim (and

against jihadists).

Nor can it be denied that a no-fly zone would harbor incalculable risks – in extreme cases even nuclear war.

Without denying this risk, I consider it a serious mistake that NATO has categorically ruled out this measure.

A serious threat might have had an effect on the Russian side.

At least the western part of Ukraine could still be declared a no-fly zone by NATO or states willing to do so – ideally with a mandate from the UN General Assembly or the OSCE.

The military experts who warn of the possible consequences don't need the advocacy of a layman like me to be heard.

But it's worth pointing out that just a few weeks ago most of these experts were convinced that Putin was just "sabre-rattling" and that he shouldn't be provoked with arms deliveries.

And the danger of a nuclear escalation also exists without a no-fly zone: what if NATO countries are also attacked by Russian troops?

If they use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine?

Anyone who believes Putin is capable of using nuclear weapons against NATO states can hardly rule this out in the case of Ukraine.

And the political and ethical question, at what point does the western world start defending freedom, human rights and – of course!

– peace must risk a confrontation,

"In any case, so far it has not been Western cockiness, but rather Western faintheartedness that has promoted Putin's aggression," summarizes journalist Alan Posener in Die

in one of the few German statements in favor of a no-fly zone.

Anyone who accuses him – or me – of “warmongering” not only grotesquely overestimates what newspaper articles can achieve, but also overlooks the fact that the war is already here and this consideration serves to determine how it can be ended without Ukraine aggressor who denies this country's right to exist.

At the same time, in this situation I am even happier than usual that I do not belong to the federal government and do not have any clearance codes for air force operations.

On the other hand, journalists, intellectuals and artists enjoy another privilege that is also an obligation: the freedom to think about things without this immediately having tangible consequences.

How suitable a critical public is can be seen in moments of crisis.

Of course, observers and critics can then also agree with their government.

But they are not journalistic border troops;

their job is not to monitor the boundaries of discourse drawn by a government.

At best, however, the Ukrainian voices are met with the embarrassed silence that the Bundestag demonstrated after President Zelenskyj's video address: with birthday greetings and a debate on the rules of procedure, cowardly or apathetic, but in any case shameful for the German parliament and for this country.

It gets rougher – where else?

– on the internet too.

Whether the Ukrainian ambassador Andriy Melnyk rumbles and accuses (and causes additional resentment with unfortunate statements such as about the largely right-wing extremist Azov Brigade) or the German-Ukrainian writer Katja Petrowskaja desperately tries to explain to Anne Will why the Ukrainians Ukrainians want to secure their heaven - a growing number of Germans react with imperious rejection.

Tenor: »We are in solidarity, I expect gratitude for that.

I've had enough of these constant accusations and exaggerated claims.«

This is said not only by people who, in line with Russian propaganda, consider NATO the real culprit of the war and the Ukrainian resistance a fascist cause, but also those who have painted their Twitter accounts blue and yellow or signed anti-war petitions.

In other respects, Ukrainian voices are not dismissed harshly, just deliberately ignored, pointing out that Putin's attack is not just aimed at their country.

“You don't help us, Ukraine.

By defending itself against the Russian occupiers, Ukraine is helping the free world in particular,” writes Oksana Sabushko as she puts it.

Serhiy Zhadan goes on, writing in SPIEGEL from beleaguered Kharkiv: »This is not a local conflict that will end tomorrow.

This is World War III.

And the civilized world has no right to lose it."

This is disturbing, possibly exaggerated - but always worth a serious debate.

But large parts of the German public do not care about such questions.

The Ukrainians are only allowed to play the role of victims in need of care, on a par with Russian regime opponents.

As political and military subjects, on the other hand, they disturb the blue and yellow homeliness that has taken the place of Putin's understanding.

In short: the solidarity of the Germans with the Ukraine could be so nice, we would be so proud of ourselves if these Ukrainians didn't always get in the way.

Good heavens, what allow foreigners?