Last week in Berlin I sat down with Sevim Dagdelen, a Member of the German Bundestag since 2005. She is the spokeswoman for the Left Party parliamentary group on the Bundestag’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, a deputy member of the Defense Committee and spokeswoman for international policy and disarmament.
From 2017 to 2020, she served on the executive committee of the Left Party parliamentary group as vice chair. She is a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and a deputy member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
Our conversation was wide-ranging, touching upon Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s Ukraine policy; the state of relations between the US and Germany; the Nord Stream 2 pipeline controversy; the influence of Transatlantic think tanks, among other topics.
The interview has been edited for length and clarity. – James W. Carden
JWC: Thank you for taking the time to talk. Let’s begin with the war in Ukraine. I must begin by admitting that I was disturbed by Chancellor [Angela] Merkel’s recent admission that in her view the point of the Minsk Peace process was actually to give Ukraine more time to build up its defenses – in other words it wasn’t really intended to be a peace process.
How did we get to a point where we are on the verge of a hot war in Eastern Europe between Russia and NATO? I believe that the West bears a lot of responsibility for what has happened, particularly because of the US-led policy of NATO expansion.
What is your view?
Sevim Dagdelen, MdB: Well, [Chancellor] Merkel’s statement was quite revealing. Through the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2202, the Minsk Protocol became a treaty under international law. To say the Minsk agreements were just a maneuver to betray Russia to gain more time to militarize and weaponize Ukraine, is to admit that the West, and especially Germany and France, two of the guarantors of the Minsk agreements, acted against public international law. That makes future negotiations, on an equal basis, with Russia very difficult. And we shall not forget that the war did not start in 2022, but in 2014, as the General Secretary of NATO has admitted. Kyiv’s subsequent eight-year war on the people of eastern Ukraine claimed 15,000 lives. That means that Russia’s violation of international law in waging war on Ukraine was preceded by a violation of international law on the part of the West and the Ukrainian administration. To be clear, one breach of international law doesn’t justify another breach of international law. Nothing justifies this invasion. I reject this aggression as I reject using military force in international relations, at all.
However, every war has a history.
As you mentioned, the war in Ukraine is the direct consequence of NATO’s eastward expansion. The betrayal of Russia by the West reneging on their promise not to move NATO “one inch to the East” opened Pandora’s box. Pushing NATO’s boundaries to Russia’s borders constitutes a breach of Russia’s security interests. In this respect, accession of Ukraine or Georgia to NATO were unmistakably presented as a red line. These accessions would not only have given NATO control of Russia’s entire south-western border but would also have created the possibility of deploying nuclear weapons on the border to Russia, weapons that could hit the capital, Moscow, or the metropolis of St Petersburg virtually without warning time. Taking that into account means that the war in Ukraine could most probably have been prevented, if Russia’s security interests had been taken seriously.
JWC: Okay. I wanted to get a sense of the views of the German establishment, the media, and think tank worlds. I get the sense that it’s somewhat similar to what is going on in Washington. I’m picking up on a lot of similarities, in that there’s kind of a uniformity of opinion with regard to the war. The sociologist Wolfgang Streeck…
SD, MdB: He’s a good friend.
JWC: I’m a fan. He wrote recently of the public debate in Germany that “the corridor of the sayable is rapidly and frighteningly narrow.” Do you agree?
SD, MdB: I do. I have been in the United States a few times over the past year and I have to say that even in the United States the public debate is more diverse than in Germany. Instead of discussing realpolitik solutions rationally under consideration of the interests of the German population, German debate is very emotionalized and driven by ideology. Those who call for a diplomatic solution to the conflict, which is shared by about three quarters of the population, are generally publicly defamed. This shows that here is a huge difference between public and published opinion.
During a high-ranking German-US dialogue on China in Washington I attended in March last year, representatives of the State Department, the Defense Department, the National Security Council, were even so honest and so frank by, very openly, congratulating the German media for their work – that thanks to their help, the German government took the position of sending weapons. I think that’s quite remarkable.
JWC: Were they being honest or were they bragging?
SD, MdB: No, it was honest, because the German media has done a lot to pressure the German Chancellor to change his position and to further participate in the war. Germany is at war, as German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock has admitted. Germany is supplying intelligence service information, weapons and training to the Ukraine’s soldiers. The Scientific service of the German Bundestag concluded in a study that with sending weapons and training Ukraine to use these weapons, we can’t say we are not part of the conflict.
So I think in a way, the media landscape in Germany is very much influenced by the trans-Atlantic think tanks as well. Most of the executive editors, chief editors, are members of transatlantic partnership think tanks, such as Atlantic Council, Atlantic Bridge, German Marshall Fund (GMF). We need to understand that transatlantic partnership is not actually about being equal partners. Instead, one side, the US, is telling the other side, Germany, what to do. And Germany acts like a servile vassal following the foreign policy instructions from Washington.
JWC: What about Chancellor Scholz? With the decision to get involved and send Leopard tanks, it seems like he’s turning his back on the very valuable legacy of Ostpolitik and the legacy of [former Chancellor] Willy Brandt. Can you explain that move? What explains his policy? Is he being pushed by his foreign minister to adopt a more hawkish stance than he would? Or is he a hawk himself?
SD, MdB: He is under pressure from a number of different quarters, especially by his coalition partners, the Greens and the Liberals. The Greens were once the party for peace and demilitarization, but now they are the strongest warmongers in Germany being very much bonded and linked to the Trans-Atlantic community. It is true that the Chancellor Scholz with the decision to getting further involved in this conflict is entirely turning his back on the legacy of Willy Brandt’s Ostpolitik, after the German Government had been already participating in the US-led NATO policy of expansion and confrontation and militarization vis-à-vis Russia for quite some time. The decision of the German government to deliver Leopard 2 battle tanks, taken in response to massive pressure from the US, paves the way to making Germany more and more of a party to the conflict and sending it into the line of fire against Russia. The German government is acting as a willing vassal to the US administration and bowing down to the US’ strategy of driving a wedge between Germany and Russia, which is emblematic for the inability of Germany after the end of the Cold War to free itself from US domination by pursuing an independent foreign and security policy to guarantee peace and stability in Europa and to serve the interests of its own population.
The same applies to the economic war against Russia, which due to the exploding energy prices has led to the largest real wage slump in the history of the Federal public and is threatening entire industries, some of which are relocating their production facilities to other countries – a tendency that is strengthened by the Inflation Reduction Act by the Biden administration, which is literally an attack on European industry. To name just one figure, last autumn, in Germany, we had 10 times higher energy prices than the United States.
Normally, one would imagine that the German capital, which is very much involved in investment in Russia, would have no interest in cutting all the ties to Russia. The German industry, the reason for welfare and prosperity in Germany, depends on getting cheap energy. The present government of Berlin seems to act as the political agent of a comprador bourgeoisies pursuing the interests of US corporations and submitting to US foreign policy rather than fulfilling its own interests.
JWC: This would bring me to Nord Stream then. You have been very outspoken about that. What’s the prevailing public opinion with regard to what happened with Nord Stream?
SD, MdB: Even though being a huge terrorist attack on our European energy infrastructure, for half a year there has been very little attention on this, which must seem absurd to anyone watching from outside. Broad swathes of Germany’s political community and media apparently have no interest at all in having the circumstances properly investigated. Even the revelations by US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, stating that the United States and Norway were responsible for the terrorist attack, were either ignored or discredited. It’s remarkable that the German government apparently has not the will or the strength to investigate this unprecedented attack on our energy security.
Getting to the bottom of the terrorist attack on Nord Stream is a matter of sovereignty. We urgently need an international commission of inquiry under the supervision of the United Nations, not least so that the lead casting suspicion on the United States can even be followed up, especially in view of Seymour Hersh’s latest allegations that Federal Chancellor Scholz has been complicit in support of the Biden Administration’s cover-up. The story of a “pro-Ukrainian group” of six private individuals is just absurd and contradicts the former reports of the German Government that the only plausible perpetrators were state actors.
When I had asked the German government, why they are not supporting an international investigation, I didn’t get an answer. However, such an investigation would be necessary, since the German investigative authorities by themselves lack the power and the will needed to illuminate the circumstances of the attack.
JWC: I guess I’ll just circle back to where we started by asking about the war in Ukraine. Any idea how this thing ends?
SD, MdB: Well, my concern is over the reaction of the Biden administration by [NSC spokesman] John Kirby on the Chinese initiative, stating that any proposal for a ceasefire in Ukraine by China during the visit of President Xi Jinping would be unacceptable. By the way, I find it very interesting that those saying that Ukraine should decide on its own are ruling out any possibility for a ceasefire, such as they did in Spring last year, when the West, especially the US and UK, blocked the until then successful negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. Are they really deciding on their own? Or is it the Biden Administration pursuing a military victory against Russia? The end of the war in Ukraine will be decided in Washington.
JWC: And it seems like normally we would, as in the run up to Iraq, have the German and French leaders stand up and say, “No, we’re not going to be a part of that.” But in Europe I don’t see that brake on the American hawkishness that we might usually have. Scholz seems weak and compromised, and Macron has his presidency, his government on the line right now in Paris.
And Macron had seemed willing to at least engage in dialogue with Putin. And I am a supporter of his idea of strategic autonomy for Europe, but he seems crippled…
SD, MdB: Well yeah. But he was just talking about strategic autonomy. What has he done to stop the bleeding in Ukraine and to stop or to prevent this war? He did nothing. Germany and French should have stopped the provocations. They should have stopped Zelensky and they should have made a clear stance, and public stance, guaranteeing that Ukraine will not be part of NATO.
JWC: I understand. From an American perspective, when we look at politics in Europe, we don’t really see France as the main actor. We look at France as being the junior partner to Germany. But if Macron was going to succeed in doing what he has spoken about with regard to strategic autonomy he would need a German partner, right? Is that an accurate way to look at it?
SD, MdB: Yes, maybe. But I’m not sure how serious Macron is. I haven’t seen a really serious attempt by him. If he was serious, why didn’t he push harder last year or at the end of 2021 when Russia made their proposals for agreements with NATO and the US on security for Europe? No one wanted to talk about this proposal.
JWC: That was another thing that we ruled out.
SD, MdB: They just didn’t take it seriously. I asked the German government, “What about this Russian proposal?” They said, “That’s nonsense. We’re not going to talk about it.”
Why not?
JWC: It’s the same thing we said.
SD, MdB: Yes, I know. I think we said it because you said it. And this is the problem. We don’t have a situation like in 2002 with Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder. I think the United States learned its lesson from what happened back then and decided that this would not happen again, which had been reflected in the comments of Rumsfeld over old Europe and new Europe. Back then, with the Iraq War, the US had the full support of the Baltic states, the East European states, even Ukraine. But France and Germany did not go along with Bush and Blair. So they wanted that to change, and so began the rising influence of US think tanks in Germany. And now they’ve achieved their goals, now everything is new Europe. That’s a tragedy because we need a strong Europe, which defends its interests of their own populations, which are not identical to those of the United States. Europe should have prevented this war, but they didn’t.
The majority of the population in Germany are for peace talks. The majority are for negotiations. The majority are for good relations with our neighbors. And one of our neighbors is Russia. You can’t change geography. Russia is a part of Europe. And as I had been saying before the war started, security in Europe is not possible without Russia. You need Russia for security in Europe.
There won’t be security as long as we do not have good relations with all of our neighbors and integrate them into a common security architecture.