Ukraine letter triggers outrage: Hofreiter angry about the "cynical" position of the group around Schwarzer
Created: 05/02/2022 13:18
By: Magdalena von Zumbusch
Arguing about arms deliveries to Ukraine: Anton Hofreiter from the Greens and publisher Alice Schwarzer.
© Oliver Berg/Kay Nietfeld/dpa
"Paternalistic German arrogance?": That is Anton Hofreiter's verdict on the group of prominent people who spoke out against German arms sales to Ukraine.
Munich – 28 celebrities got into the debate about German arms deliveries to Ukraine.
In an open letter, they warned Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) against sending heavy equipment to the war zone.
Arms deliveries to Ukraine: criticism of Scholz's commitment in the magazine "Emma"
The letter from a group of 28 public Germans (including Schwarzer himself) was published in the Emma
newspaper, published by women's rights activist Alice Schwarzer
: They warn of the consequences of the German arms deliveries to Ukraine that Chancellor Olaf Scholz has now promised.
Their reasoning is summarized as follows: The delivery of tanks and weapons would only prolong the Ukraine war.
In the "hard-hitting talk" of the
picture
, Alice Schwarzer defended the claim against the accusation of the Green politician Anton Hofreiter that the statement politically took a "cynical" position.
Arms delivery to Ukraine: Hofreiter accuses critics of "paternalistic, German arrogance".
The conversation begins with a question to Hofreiter about his first reaction to the letter.
"I thought of the typical paternalistic, German arrogance that we have traditionally had for decades towards the countries and people that lie between Germany and Russia, and the reactions from Ukraine were correspondingly violent."
Asked how she felt about the accusation of paternalistic arrogance, Alice Schwarzer said she was surprised.
It is primarily an attack on the German politicians who have determined policy on Russia over the past few decades.
But this is not justified: Kohl's advisor for Eastern Europe policy, Horst Teltschik, recently said that Merkel was probably the only one in the German political landscape who "could talk to Putin".
Merkel's Russia policy over the past decades and her relationship with Putin have been successful and brought something important: "Peace.
That's something," says Schwarzer.
“Now, in any case, we have the very real threat of nuclear war.
And we have to weigh things up very carefully," concludes Schwarzer.
Arms delivery to Ukraine: There has been no peace in Eastern Europe in recent decades
Hofreiter reacted sharply: he felt confirmed by the false assessment that peace had prevailed in the last few decades.
It shows that the regions in Eastern Europe are simply not noticed by the authors of the letter and many other Germans.
There was anything but peace there.
Georgia was invaded in 2008.
In 2014, Ukraine became a target for Russia for the first time.
The fact that in connection with this conflict people in Germany think that no shot was fired paints a wrong picture, because: between 2014 and the renewed attack on Ukraine this year, between 14,000 and 15,000 people have already been killed.
One cannot therefore speak of peace in Eastern Europe in the last few decades, according to Hofreiter.
Arms deliveries to Ukraine: Hofreiter on earlier warnings from Eastern Europe
Germany made a massive mistake in Russia policy, namely signing the contracts for Nord Stream 2 in the belief that it was an apolitical decision - "against the massive protests of the Baltic States, Ukraine, Poland".
And Germany will still feel that: "They told us at the time: You are wrong about Putin".
What Germany hopes for, namely keeping the peace, will not happen. On the contrary, Putin will feel encouraged by the lack of reactions to his attacks on the West in 2008 and 2014.
Putin will therefore continue to think that he will get away with future attacks.
These attacks are to be expected given Putin's overarching goal, Hofreiter continues, because: "Putin has always lied to us about tactical questions.
[...] But he did not lie to us about his strategic goal: to rebuild the Russian Empire”.
Schwarzer reacted angrily: "I appreciate your commitment to the people of Ukraine," she says.
But that is precisely why, i.e. because of the concern for the people in Eastern Europe, especially Ukraine, the appeal to Scholz was started.
It was not just out of concern about the "escalation to a nuclear war, which is extremely difficult for the West to predict", but also out of concern for the people in Eastern Europe.
She would then like to know from her interlocutor what exactly the goal of German Russia policy should be at the moment.
Arms deliveries to Ukraine: the basis for diplomatic conflict resolution with Russia must first be created again
Hofreiter replies that it must first be made clear to Vladimir Putin that he will not get through with his actions in order to create a basis for diplomatic solutions again, which is currently not available.
The people of Ukraine wanted to defend their democracy, their freedom and their country and should be supported in this.
He was in Ukraine himself.
People want support in self-defense of their country.
Ultimately, Scholz has now responded to this demand by agreeing to deliver weapons, accusing Hofreiter and the unconditional pacifists (in a tweet) of cynicism.
(Traffic lights ahead of big tasks - you can find out what the SPD, Greens and FDP are planning in our political newsletter.)
Arms deliveries to Ukraine: No consideration for Putin's sensitivities
Schwarzer then made it clear that she and the authors of the letter would also support self-defense by Ukraine.
Just be careful in the current situation.
Which weapons Putin still classifies as defensive weapons and which as offensive weapons must be weighed up carefully.
Because in the end it is unfortunately Putin who decides whether he will raise the conflict to the nuclear level.
Apparently, Hofreiter cannot really empathize with the assessment that resonates in Schwarzer's argument.
"The matter is absolutely clear under international law," says Hofreiter.
Under international law, there is no distinction between offensive and defensive weapons: he apparently did not want to respond to the repeated threat of nuclear attacks.