Tino Chrupalla, December 17, 2025, German Security and the U.S.A.

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/49, pp. 5757-5759. 

Right honorable Herr President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Dear countrymen. 

Initially I want to remember the dead and wounded of the terror attack in Australia. We stand against this brutalization of and the growing violence against the vulnerable. It makes me speechless with which means throughout the world the struggle of the religions is ever still on the daily order, be it in the Near East, at attacks on German Christmas markets, or now in Sydney where a Jewish community wanted to celebrate the festival of lights. All of these incidents are to be condemned and political consequences need to be drawn, and precisely for that reason we as parliament need decide to speak out against religious fanaticism, extremism and terrorism. It is therefore only fitting when we as the Alternative für Deustschland demand consistently deporting perpetrators without German citizenship to their home countries, since these present a danger for all Germans, with or without a migration background. In that regard, in the various religions there should certainly exist a consensus, and which should enjoin peace. 

It is precisely these negotiations for peace which we since 2022 ever again demand for the Ukraine and Russia. The German governments under Olaf Scholz and Friedrich Merz have allowed themselves a long time for this. In the meantime, the re-elected President of the United States, Donald Trump, seizes the initiative and mediates between the parties to the conflict. The goal needs be ending the senseless death on both sides. I for years have said: The Ukraine will not be able to win this war. 

And what were the political consequences? Herr Merz burdens the German taxpayers with 70 billion euros of debt for weapons deliveries and military assistance to the Ukraine – and here we do not know to this day into which channels it in part trickles away – and with an additional 11.5 billion euros in the next budget. In addition comes the Bürgergeld payments in a sum of 6 billion euros per year to Ukrainians. 

Before which challenges do we now stand? After almost four years of war, hundreds of thousands of soldiers have fallen or been wounded; in addition, comes the civilian victims and a destroyed land. The United States for months have clearly signaled it will withdraw from the circle of supporters of the war. Yet that also means that the billions required for additional weapons purchases, for example in the U.S.A., now need to be paid for by Europe alone – thus, new debts for Germany and precisely that is completely unacceptable. 

I thus insist: It was and is not our war. At the beginning of the destruction was clear that here much money will be required for the reconstruction, that however also much more can be earned. Precisely there has Friedrich Merz been able to gather his best experiences in his mother house, BlackRock. Quite according to the motto: “Good business with other people’s money” [Mit fremdem Geld lässt sich gut wirtschaften], the Chancellor proceeds with his over-reaching plan to illegally expropriate Russian state assets and to give it to the Ukraine. This announcement alone pours additional oil on the fire of this war. Beyond that, the Chancellor promises that Germany self-evidently is readily available for an eventual default of payments. As has been said, Herr Merz: Other people’s money – the money of the Germans – is plainly easier given than one’s own. 

In common with your Union comrades in Brussels, you impose one sanction after another which should be directed against Russia, yet which primarily harm Germany. The energy prices burden the private budgets even so heavily as those of business. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Do you make a memorial of Putin, who has bombed                                       every week, every day? 

You are responsible for the death of the German economy, and there, Frau Haßelmann, the tears come to me. We in Germany in the year 2025 have lost almost 1,000 industrial workplaces per day; 60 bankruptcies per day. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Are you already through with the Ukraine?

It affects the automobile industry, its suppliers and thereby the skilled trades and the Mittelstand.  And “gone” means gone. You need be politically responsible for that, yet our children and grandchildren need to solve this dilemma. 

            Vice-president Omid Nouripour: Herr Chrupalla, do you allow an                                             interim question from member Hoffmann? 

No, later please. 

            Vice-president Omid Nouripour: Then continue readily.

And these need already today shoulder the financing of your credits. You make debts so as to be able to cope with the basic expenditures of the social system. The pensioners you fob off in the future with 48 percent of the last years of service. You drive those who create value, after at least 45 years of work, into old age poverty. Yet you want, ja, to bring precisely the pensioners again into an occupation and then call that an active pension [Aktivrente]. Know, Herr Merz, one as Chancellor can scarcely more dismissively deal with these who keep the social state running with their work. 

At the same time you drive forward the de-industrialization, willfully bring us into conflict with Russia and support a corrupt system around the still president Zelenskyi. Your colleagues of the Union delegation emphasize to the press the German Bundestag should be tied up in the use of the frozen Russian assets, and that shows us two things: First, you want to have your perfidious plan provided with a parliamentary majority. And second, we as members should agree to the almost certainly arising contributions of billions to the further support of the Ukraine. That is a deceit scarcely to be surpassed! 

            Steffen Bilger (CDU/CSU): Hä? Why then should the Bundestag occupy itself                                           with it?

You travel today and tomorrow for the EU summit. Should you there make good on precisely these commitments, with your solo you act completely against the interests of the German citizens. And I may therein remind you: In Germany are lacking investment means for the vital infrastrucure, for streets, bridges, railways, schools, hospitals and kindergartens. 

We are all elected by the German people so as to bring forward our country, Germany. Besides, with Victor Orbàn, Andrej Babis and Robert Fico, three EU countries have already indicated the rejection of using the Russian assets, or giving financial guaranties for the Ukraine. So much for your European unity. And those in the Union who still some weeks ago made themselves advocates of the transatlantic relations, now slowly note that there are no more guaranties and no hegemon. The United States’ new security strategy shows us quite clearly: In the center stands the U.S.A. – and only the U.S.A. – and which already has written off the partnership with the old Europe. 

            Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): And therefore your young people make a pilgrimage                                           to America!

Simply nothing is understood of how one can bring balance to the continent and Europe’s interior security with a failed migration policy and lacking a relationship to Russia. 

And once again our Chancellor appears to falsely analyze this announcement. Driven by his old Federal Republic antipathy against the east, he drives forward strategies which let the graves become ever deeper, in foreign lands even so at home. At the CDU party day in Magdeburg, Herr Merz once again showed his quite charming side as he said he had the good fortune to have grown up in the west. And here you once again have misunderstood something: It is we eastern Germans who have given ourselves to the long way of integration in a unified Germany. We do not want to return to the old Federal Republic. 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): You’ve still not arrived!

In that you give citizens in the east the feeling that, for you, they are of less value, you again prove your incapacity for dealing with people. 

            Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): That is simply just nonsense, what you are telling here!

And therefore, Herr Chancellor, I am happy that you grew up in the west. You would have failed us in the east! 

            Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): Oje, deeper is does not get!

Allow me in conclusion just briefly go into the Chancellor’s announcement to set up a multinational troop for the Ukraine. You thereby show not only that you continue to want to spin the escalation spiral in Europe. You speak of securities for the Ukraine, but mean armament and the construction of new scenarios of intimidation in Europe. 

            Steffen Bilger (CDU/CSU): That is bad for your Russian friends!

For me and us, you however also show that we, with our positioning for peace and against the reinstatement of conscription at the present point in time, stand exactly on the right side. Since this reinstatement indeed later becomes what you here today and also what you yesterday announced, and is in a later future only to be rejected. You said yesterday we would need to respond to a Russian attack. Meanwhile now, not unjustly, the German press also asks: Do you know what you actually said there? Do you actually know what that means, Herr Merz? – We cannot trust you. For you, it is not about the defense of the country. It is to be feared that you with your policy, in view of a loss of tension, initiate or want to initiate deploying conscripts in the Ukraine. 

            Lisa Badum (Greens): You are a problem for the defense of the country!

We do not trust you with our children! 

And in regards the present negotiations with the Ukraine has become very clear that it will be no part of NATO and thereby is excluded a possible alliance. You however attempt with all means to create options for yourself and the Ukraine to prolong the war. To that are we quite clearly opposed. 

The President of the United States had begun the negotiations with Russia as equals [auf Augenhöhe]. Your attempt, Herr Merz, to make clientele policy for Herr Zelenskyi will not be crowned with success. With your kind of policy-making, you were and remain at the children’s table. Herr Chancellor, a state is no international finance concern. Leave therefore the foreign policy to the foreign policy makers, and finally concern yourself over how you may relieve the German economy, the Mittelstand and the skilled trades, in west as in east. For that, you wanted to become Chancellor. Finally trouble yourself for Germany! 

Ladies and gentlemen, I am happy to have left the east-west conflict behind us. With an international troop, you again conjure this up, Herr Merz. You, on that account, are and remain a diehard of the old FRG. You do not consider the future of our country or our children; you as Chancellor are already history. 

            Sara Nanni (Greens): Who actually wrote that for you?

I wish you and your families a peaceful Christmas and hope for a peaceful year in 2026. 

            Steffen Bilger (CDU/CSU): For the Ukraine, too!

Many hearty thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

René Aust, December 17, 2025, European Security and the U.S.A.

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)12-17(3-0098-0000). 

Herr President. 

For ten years were we of the AfD denigrated by you as militarists and as anti-Americans because we demanded investing in strategic autonomy, because we wanted that we invest in our capability and readiness in security policy. You have instead denied the reality. Barack Obama said already in the year 2011 that the U.S.A. would develop itself into a pacific country and that it is no longer desired to tie up additional forces in Europe. 

You have for 15 years squandered security policy on this continent. You have brought us to the dependency and to the dead end. On that account, you are also the wrong ones to bring us out again, since you now fall into the other extreme. From years-long, with the CDU even decades-long, submission vis-à-vis the U.S.A., you now fall into the extreme of insulting an entire government, even though there continues to be a large security policy dependency on the U.S.A. Numerous terror attacks, just lately in lower Bavaria, could nevertheless only be prevented because we have the U.S. American secret services information placed at our disposal. You risk with your anti-American course the security of Germans. We want authentic cooperation without submission and without pandering. We want an authentic partnership without anyone prescribing to us into which countries we have to send our soldiers, yet plainly also without instructions and affronts to other parts of the world. 

 

[trans: tem]

Jochen Haug, November 27, 2025, The Arbitrator of Democracy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/44, pp. 5087-5088. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

When we today speak on the Interior Ministry’s budget, then we should take a step back and ask ourselves a fundamental question: What is the duty of this Ministry? What is the duty of the Federal Interior Ministry in a free society? 

            Sebastian Fiedler (SPD): Yes, when you don’t know that!

Preservation of security, freedom and order, that is the core duty. For that, the Ministry is responsible. 

Yet today the Ministry presents us with figures which show: This state ever more loses itself in ideological side shows. Millions flow into projects for social cohesion, to the financing of church conferences, to political foundations, to migration counseling and expensive integration programs. All of this has one thing in common: It does not belong to the core duties of an  Interior Ministry. 

An example: Over one billion euros for integration courses. My colleague Marcus Bühl has just addressed it. While the Federal Interior Ministry in regards protection of the borders, its original responsibility, fails completely, the consequences of these failures shall be overcome with integration courses. That integration courses prevent parallel societies, the overloading of the sozial state and the escalation of violence is of course an illusion. The entire approach is false. Who comes into the country illegally does not need to be integrated, but returned back. And who legally comes into the country permanently and may remain, he himself primarily needs to take care for his integration. In classic immigration countries like the U.S.A. and Canada, that was always self-evident.   

We as the AfD delegation want to save one billion euros in the Interior Ministry estimate. And despite that, we strengthen police, border protection and catastrophe protection. We simply go through the whole: We eliminate ideological expenditures which no one needs. We end the false incentives of the immigration and integration policy. We place the security of our citizens above the socio-political experiments. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Bravo!

Ladies and gentlemen, this budget is also a mirror image of the situation in our country. There meanwhile prevails in the States an understanding that this is made an ideologized full-service provider. This has nothing in common with a free polity [Staatswesen]. The principle of the people’s sovereignty guarantees the decision making [Willensbildung] from below to above. The state has to preserve strict neutrality and is not to interfere in the democratic discourse. Today, the opposite is practiced. We have to deal with an opinion-forming and an opinion-suppressing state. 

            Leon Eckert (Green): Your colleague wanted to storm the Bundestag!

Thus for years the Constitution Defense [Verfassungsschutz] sees as its principal duty a fight against the opposition and citizens critical of the government 

            Sonja Eichwede (SPD): Nein, against extremism!

and here even invents a power of observation category of its own: Delegitimization of the state. Here obviously prevails a gross misunderstanding. Therefore, be it again expressly explained: The Constitution Defense is not the arbitrator of democracy. 

            Sebastian Fiedler (SPD): Its protector!

That is the people. 

And still one thing be said: It is intolerable in a democracy when critical comments lead to house searches. Lately in October it affected the famous media expert Professor Norbert Bolz because he had ironically replied to a tweet in the taz – a renewed attack against freedom of opinion, in the middle of Germany. For democracy, that is fatal. It requires critical citizens with civil courage, not intimidated vassals. 

Ladies and gentlemen, over 200 hundred years ago Theodor Körner demanded: “For freedom, a way!” [Der Freiheit eine Gasse!]. That is also today again necessary. We need a state which protects its citizens, yet does not patronize. For that, the AfD stands. 

Thank you. 

 

[trans: tem]

Anja Arndt, December 16, 2025, Automobile CO2 Limits

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)12-16(2-0472-0000). 

Frau President. 

Our automobile branch finds itself, due to technically unfulfillable CO₂ limit values which were decided here in parliament, in this dramatic situation. For this year were around 15 billion in penalties imposed. How absurd and cynical is all of that actually? The EU decrees are the origin and ought to be immediately lifted. They are politically negligent incompetence [Pfusch]. And now we see the consequences. 

I now want today for once to turn the tables. You as Commission, due to the EU Decree 2023/851, are obligated to put forward by December 31, 2025, the long overdue method for measuring the CO₂ emissions over the entire life-cycle of e-autos and combustion engines. Why do you withhold this report? I can well imagine and hereby propose that against the Commission a penalty be imposed if this report by December 31… 

(The President withdraws the word from the speaker.) 

 

[trans: tem]

Malte Kaufmann, November 13, 2025, China Commission

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/40, pp. 4617-4618. 

Herr President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Dear citizens. 

China has long since become an enormously important trade partner of Germany, and – interestingly! – according to the present numbers from October, the trade volumes have even overtaken those of the U.S.A. It thus could be said: The most important trade partner as per volume. Therefore: A withdrawal from the China market would in every consideration be disastrous. We require durable and friendly relations with China. 

On the other side, we are not allowed as a sovereign trading nation to give ourselves over to dependencies on any country in the world. Key technologies, critical raw materials and strategically important production sites are not allowed to fall into the hand of foreign and plainly also Chinese firms which in turn pursue their national interests, and not unconditionally ours. 

Beyond that, we need to clearly demand in regards the relations with China a principle – and which is also named in our motion – : The principle of reciprocity, thus the Wechselseitigkeit. Treaties, cooperation and investments may only ensue when Germany in equal measure receives access to markets, technologies and investment opportunities. Without this consonance arises the real danger that German businesses will be disadvantaged while Chinese investors in turn act with privilege in domestic markets. 

Especially critical is the protection of our industry and our key technologies. We consider just high-tech areas like robotics, semi-conductors or machinery manufacturing facilities. The sale of such businesses, or even also the uncontrolled participation in these sectors, involves risks which in fact need to be thoroughly illuminated. 

And, Herr Lenz, you are right. Some of what we have demanded in the AfD motion is now translated by the setting up of this commission which shall work in precisely this area and make proposals to us. We require clear instruments so as to protect the German economy from the acquisition of businesses of especial significance when these acquisitions are not in the national  interest. It is therefore exceptionally important to identify existing dependencies and examine specific measures before serious and irreparable harm ensues. 

What shall the commission do? The central duties of the commission consist in that for once the value-creation chains will be analyzed, especially in regards security-relevant technologies and critical raw materials. Weak points shall be recognized. In addition, investments of Chinese businesses in Germany shall be examined, especially in critical infrastructure, and there shall follow a reconciliation [Abgleich] with the reciprocity principle. There then shall also be a reappraisal of trade opportunities. 

We thereby need to orient ourselves to successful strategies of other industrial nations – that, we plainly had in the last debates; Frau Detzer, it was interesting, what you reported from Japan; that was also unknown to me; there, one can, I think, acquire some things – all of which, without blocking a further successful cooperation with China. Since that country is an important trading partner. 

We are missing – this is the single critical point which I today want to address – a bit of connection to parliament. We would have found it good if a representative of the delegations was on the commission, who can cooperate there. 

Be that as it may: We of the AfD want that it goes well for our businesses and their workers. We therefore require durable, long-term relations with our trade partners, and with China. We vote in favor of setting-up the commission. 

Many hearty thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Alexander Jungbluth, November 26, 2025, Digital Euro and Cash

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)11-26(3-0547/49-0000). 

Herr President. 

Thousands of citizens have in the last weeks turned to the peoples’ representatives of the European Parliament. Their demand: No digital euro. 

They are right – a digital currency is not progress, it is an instrument of control. The Commission wants to convince us that the digital euro offers security and independence vis-à-vis the U.S.A. and China. In truth, every purchase, every beer with a friend will be tracked. They want the transparent citizen. 

We want cash [Bargeld], we want freedom: Anonymous, direct and independent of electricity outages. Cash defends against debanking. He who pays cash, retains the command over his own wallet. It would be democratic if the citizens were allowed to decide by means of a referendum on the introduction of the digital euro. We thus demand anchoring the right to cash in the national constitutions. 

…Herr  colleague, I believe the decree is only one of many which this house here undertakes so  as to in the mid-term abolish cash. That is one of the quite large problems which we have, and precisely against that are we defending ourselves. 

 

[trans: tem]