Gerold Otten, May 22, 2026, Defense and Artificial Intelligence

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/81, pp. 9774-9775.

Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

The 2015 annual report presented for arms control documents far more than 
one mere crisis. It describes the systemic erosion of the global security architecture.

The Federal government's analysis in that regard named three central fault lines.
In first place here is the unsustainable disintegration of the nuclear order. The 
end of the New Start Treaty and the uncontrolled expansion of the Chinese nuclear 
arsenal mark the crossing into an indistinguishable, multipolar world of rival
superpowers. At the same time, regional agreements fail, as for example, the INF 
Treaty between Russia and the U.S.A.

The second fault line is the unconfinement of modern conflicts. Space has become a 
military operations area. At the same time, we experience the withdrawal from  
verified arms control treaties, as for example the Ottawa Convention on the ban on 
anti-personnel mines, and by EU states; a direct consequence of the altered 
threat perception in the East.

The third fault line is the technological disruption. The deployment of artificial 
intelligence and autonomous weapons systems on the battlefield is no longer a 
theory but reality. These weapons systems dictate the speed of modern warfare, 
and in seconds decide over life and death. 

In all of these points the report delivers a plausible description of the situation, 
although the description alone falls short. We need to posit for ourselves a      fundamental, inconvenient truth: The structures which defended us for decades were the result of the Second World War and the Cold War. They are the products of a past epoch.     We no longer find ourselves in a transitional phase. We stand in the midst of a        completely fragmented, multipolar reality. The era of unipolarity, of the uncontested supremacy of the U.S.A., is conclusively past.

China has established itself as a powerful counterweight. Russia manages an unconfined power Politik and forges alliances in the global South. The middle powers there manage a purely transactional Politik of interests. They conclude economic agreements with Peking, purchase armaments in Moscow and cooperate in security questions with the U.S.A.

The result is no stable, rules-based order, but a phase of the radical new categorization.        It is thus unlikely to be able to successfully analyze the challenges of the present            within the structures and with the methods of the past. 

That is to say: On the situation analysis, we here today are indeed largely agreed.                Yet where we fundamentally differ is the methodological approach for the            achievement of the goal. This is exactly shown in the Federal government's arms           control strategy. Its declared goal is the global stability by means of multilateral    agreement, transparency and the regulation of technological progress. Demanded                   is the outlawing of fully automated weapons systems and new rules for cyber- and        outer-space.

We support these ordnungspolitischen goals, yet we doubt that they can be achieved        with yesterday's methods. Who closes the eyes before this reality, manages                Geopolitik in the rear-view mirror.

An arms control requires two fundamentals: Trust and geopolitical stability. Both                no longer exist in this multipolar world order. Worse still, Germany has blithely       squandered its traditional role as honest broker on the world stage. 

Instead of pursuing a foreign policy lead by interests, Germany hides itself behind the template of an ancillary leadership role, and thereby submits itself unconditionally to the Brussels transnational technocrats.

We all pay the bill for this misguided Politik. Certainly in Germany, we feel harder than ever before the economic and political censures [Verwerfungen] of this world order. Our view is accordingly, it must be a core duty of a wise German foreign policy to stand for that the described tectonic shift does not escalate to a global war, that it does not harm Germany. 

That however would presuppose the acknowledgment of interests of equal rights of allied partners, yet also of competitors. Only on this basis is possible a success of diplomatic strivings and initiatives for disarmament and arms control. 

This recognition is denied by the Federal government and by the parties long sitting here in moralizing self-complacency. 

The Federal government seeks instead an impossible balance. It wants to be a wide-ranging, moral court for the arms regulation, and at the same time create a most modern army efficient in war, yet thereby obviously fails in its own ideological blinkers.

 
As in a magnifying glass, that is shown in regards military deployment of AI: The Federal government dogmatically persists in the primacy of human control and also wants to enforce this concept internationally.

That is clearly intended to be ethically noble, yet ignores the technical realities which today are clearly shown in the Ukraine war. For the defense against hypersonic weapons and drone swarms, to name an example, the human reaction time is no security factor but the deadly bottleneck. Who here persists exclusively in manual control, consents to accept technological inferiority in an emergency situation. Who however irresponsibly accepts the inferiority of our armed forces, risks the lives of our soldiers and destroys every military credibility.

The same paralyzing spirit prevails in Federal German science. While Washington and China radically drive forward the civil-military fusion, a well-fed scientific estate clings to civil stipulations. This artificial separation blocks precisely that technology transfer which the Bundeswehr so urgently needs to at all keep pace. We brake the progress exactly there where it is most critical for the national defense.

The third hurdle is the over-flowing bureaucracy. AI development cycles are measured in weeks. Our procurement procedures, on the other hand, continue to administer a decades-long hardware process. An army which reacts to technological disruption with formulas, over-regulation and control mania, loses the connection before the first shot has even been fired. 

These dogmas in dealing with AI characterize the Federal German Politik. Without a fundamental turning away from these dogmas, the Bundeswehr will not become Europe's most powerful army, but a grave for billions in tax money without any added value in security policy.

Who hopes AI weapons technology threats can be enclosed internationally, and at the same time ignores AI's defense potential, makes himself ridiculous internationally. The armed forces plainly cannot be modernized and at the same time the technological progress be blocked as this government is doing it. Both mutually exclude themselves, when the goal should be to be the strongest conventional military power in Europe. 

This report is thus no future plan. It is the written document of a strategic sluggishness and of a moral complacency which endanger the security of our country.
Many thanks.

[trans: tem]

Anja Arndt, June 17, 2026, Genetically Altered Plants

EU Parliament. Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)06-17(3-0163-0000).

Herr President. Right honorable members.

Today is not about progress or stasis. Today it's about the trust, freedom of choice and 
control of our seeds, food and our agriculture. We vote on the de-regulation of so-called 
NGT1 plants. These plants are altered with new genome techniques and can end up in 
our food, feeds and in our farmlands. We will be told that this can theoretically arise 
naturally or through conventional cultivation, yet theory replaces not practical         experience, and speed replaces no security. 

Who broadens such techniques needs to guarantee control, transparency and free         choice. Yet precisely this is lacking because the labeling obligation is lacking.                 There is also no legally secured patent ban. NGT1 plants thereby become a 

gateway for bio-patents, concern power, monopoly and new dependencies for                     our farmers and breeders.

 
As long as labeling, traceability and a real patent ban are lacking, there may be no vote 
for the Council position. I welcome therefore the vote for all motions to amend which 
demand the labeling obligation and exclude ability to patent, and initially vote for the 
leftists' and greens' rejection.

[trans: tem]

Martin Reichardt, May 21, 2026, Education and the German Left

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/80, p. 9665.

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen present. 

We move today for a national education summit in the knowledge that the motion 

[Drucksache 21/6029]  as always will be rejected. It will be rejected even though is evident that Germany is stuck in the deepest education crisis in its young history, ladies and gentlemen.

The crisis finds expression in the sobering number which says that 40 percent of the 15 years old students no longer achieve the minimal competence in reading and mathematics. The origins of this crisis are various, yet have one thing in common: They are the result of serious failures in the Politik of CDU, CSU, Social Democrats, Linke and Greens. Here follows a small selection:

For starters I name the re-stringing of the proven, three-part school system, with its inherent performance orientation, by means of a system which has so far lowered what is demanded that a great part of those with an Abitur are no longer capable of studies, and a large number of students are dismissed in the occupational world, those who no longer fulfill the minimal requirements for professional training.  

In addition is the replacement of an education oriented on the factual [Realien], consisting of reading, writing, figuring and natural science, by a leftist, ideological indoctrination of outlook [Gesinnung]. Here are two examples:

After weeks of deficient German instruction due to a teacher shortage, occurs in the first planned hour of German an outlook speech on the leftist discovered terminology of so-called everyday racism. Students who ask why no German instruction takes place will be persuaded with the accusation they would be willing to promote racism. 

Johannes Fechner (SPD): Where was that?

 
Or: After weeks of school trans propaganda, a child in the eighth class outed himself as a trans-sexual. Immediately, instead of doing correct instruction, documentation on the injury to trans people will be shown and the injury to the so-called queer community will be made a theme. 

Johannes Fechner (SPD): Which school? Which place? 

Maïk Brückner (Linke): Where was that, then?

The list of this nonsense could continue as you like but, ladies and gentlemen, I spare myself that. Let us let it be.

In conclusion, of course may not be lacking the permanently denied pink elephant in the room: The consequences of the unhindered mass migration and the teaching of students with insufficient knowledge of German in regular classes.

Maïk Brückner (Linke): Bingo!

In addition comes the violence problematic inherent with this clientele.

The named problems are thus so intensified that a traceable teacher shortage – some 35,000 – prevails. The new secret recipe against this shortage is called SOL, self-organized learning. In clear text, a teacher supervises umpteen classes in which then nothing more runs, ladies and gentlemen.

And no, my dear self-named leftist democrats, it does not suffice to simply pump more money into the education system and ever further increase the number of school social workers. Their number has climbed from 3,000 in the year 2010 meanwhile to 20,000, which however has obviously in no way prevented the catastrophic development in the German education system. 

The education summit demanded by us is compellingly required and needs to make a theme of and solve the problems just raised here by me. The time of hiding behind pedagogical optimism and naïve leftist wishful thinking needs to end, ladies and gentlemen. 

Katrin Fey (Linke): Begin with yourself!

And still one thing: The fact that educational success in Germany depends heavily on the parents’ home is caused by you of the old parties. It is namely recognizable that in a desolate educational system shaped by leftist ideology

Maïk Brückner (Linke): Eijeijei!

often only such children unfortunately can be successful whose parents have the possibility of helping at home and paying for remedial instruction,

Götz Frömming (AfD): Right!

and privately compensate for the catastrophic failure of your Politik, ladies and gentlemen.

Maïk Brückner (Linke): Then what do you cry about?

In education – as generally – the Linke themselves with assistance from the CDU create the problems which they afterwards can no longer solve. The blame will then be sought everywhere and nowhere.

I call upon you: Make an education summit which begins to finally do away with your years-long catastrophic Politik and its failures.

Maïk Brückner (Linke): Breathe!

Our reference to that enjoins: Return to a performance principle, Realien education instead of leftist indoctrination, and no regular schooling without sufficient knowledge of German. Vote for our motion. Do penance, and save our children.

Many thanks.

[trans: tem]

Mary Khan, May 20, 2026, Victims of Migrant Crime

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)05-20(3-0404-0000).

Frau President.

A 15  years old girl in Hamburg was a victim of a gang rape. To this day,                             she is traumatized. Eleven men appeared before a court, only one was jailed. She was left in the lurch by this system, by that system which by means of the illegal mass immigration also imported the phenomenon of gang rape – even if the SPD, as before, lies about it.

And then the incomprehensible: An enraged women wrote a so-called hate commentary against one of the perpetrators and was arrested. The convicted rapist remained at large. That is no victims protection! And to victims protection also belongs justice for the parents. Since 2015, ever more migrant perpetrators are declared not legally responsible [unschuldfähig]. The mother of Lianna K. and the parents of the murdered Yannis from Aschaffenberg will never know justice since the murderers, on account of war traumas, were categorized as incapable of reason [unzurechnungsfähig] – the new favorite framing of the leftists.

We miss that in this draft and therefore we will not vote for it.

[trans: tem]

Markus Frohnmaier, May 21, 2026, Nordstream Investigation

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/80, pp. 9520-9521.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

On September 26, 2022, the greatest assault on the economic infrastructure in the history of the Federal Republic was committed. Three of four strands of the Nordstream pipeline were exploded – critical infrastructure in which Germany and its partners had invested over 16 billion euros.

Today, in May 2026, we still have no conclusive explanation. We know only: Seven Ukrainians are under earnest suspicion, among whom is a Ukrainian former secret service man as operations leader, and a saboteur who previously received military training with the Bundeswehr – you heard right: German taxpayers have paid for the training of the man who later blew up German energy infrastructure. Thus appears Ukrainian gratitude and the short-sightedness of this government.  

The Federal Court of Justice on December 10, 2025, in all clarity declared: The explosion was a violation of German rights of sovereignty. The pipelines were no legitimate military target, certainly after Germany had supported the Ukraine with weapons and billions of euros. The act occurred with a high likelihood – listen well, dear colleagues of the CDU – by state order, at least of the Ukraine and perhaps also of additional states. Period!

And the Federal government? Silence in the woods. I put a written, single question to the Federal government, quite simple: Have you requested an extradition of the five suspects to be found in the Ukraine? A question to be answered with yes or no. A question which any government which acts in the German interest, which does not understand itself to be Kiev’s marionette, would have answered with a clear yes. Yet the answer of Herr Wadephul’s ministry: Rejection, no information can be given on this.

Either the Federal government has never seriously demanded an extradition – or the Ukraine has rejected it. In both cases, ladies and gentlemen, it is a scandal which this Bundestag needs to clarify. Ladies and gentlemen, who does not answer such a question, he has something to hide. Who does not answer such a question, he does not serve Germany. Who does not answer such a question, he serves someone, but not the German citizens. 

Who then in these days – and this is the last straw – proposes an associate membership in the EU for the Ukraine, a country at war, inclusive of EU assistance clauses, dear CDU/CSU, he serves a foreign country to which he can send his own children. As a father of two children, I distinctly say to you one thing: You don’t get my children!

Let us look at Warsaw: There, a court has quite knowingly set free one of the suspects. A provocation contrary to the state of law. 

Alice Weidel (AfD): Absolutely!

Quote, Minister-president Tusk: “Europe’s problem…is not that Nordstream 2 was exploded, but that it was built.”

Irene Mihalic (Greens): So it is!

Ladies and gentlemen, it is unbearable that an EU partner approves of terrorism and sabotage against German infrastructure and that in this regard until today there is no clear reaction from Berlin.

This shows one thing quite clearly: In foreign policy, this government consists of servants of foreign interests. 

Jürgen Hardt (CDU/CSU): This, the righteous says!

I promise you one thing: We will end this national self-abasement for which the CDU here in Germany has to answer. 

Instead of demanding compensation from Kiev, instead of defending German interests, Chancellor Merz publicly excludes the re-start of the intact pipeline – a voluntary self-mortification. While German households today pay 80 percent more for gas, while our industry for this pays quadruple what American competitors pay, you sacrifice our energy sovereignty on the altar of unconditional loyalty to Ukraine. Germany has transferred 94 billion euros to the Ukraine since 2022, 55 billion euros for the military alone. For thanks, President Zelenskyi, to whom all of you here collectively in plenary session, with a non-parliamentary term for a  designated body part, have crawled, according the Wall Street Journal, has quite personally approved the terror operation. 

Alice Weidel (AfD): So!

Ladies and gentlemen, the question is no longer whether an investigative committee comes, the question is why you are afraid of this. You for years have left your own people in obscurity. You have taken care for the perpetrators’ business, 

Jürgen Hardt (CDU/CSU): You stand on the side of Russia!

President Julia Klöckner: Your time has run out. 

and undertaken as good as nothing to hunt the perpetrators. I promise you one thing: 

President Julia Klöckner: Your time, regardless of promises, has run out.

You cannot still take up time.

The investigative committee will come at the latest after the next Bundestag election. 

[trans: tem]

René Aust, June 15, 2026, European Economic Independence

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)06-15(1-0060-0000).

Over night, Europe was cut off from leading technologies. In this area also, the dependence on the United States of America once again became a boomerang . Yet who actually is responsible for this? Just a few decades ago, it was so that Germany in regards the development in this area was quite advanced; names like Schmidhuber and others were exemplary for that. 

Yet it is so that the financial regulations here in the European internal market make it ever more difficult to really drive forward such large developments - in contrast to the U.S.A.. And the AI Act, the law on artificial intelligence and the regulations pertaining thereto were once again - so as to formulate it carefully - over-formulated. The excess caution, to be able to regulate in advance all that is possible, lead to that our firms could not develop at a sufficient scale - in contrast to the United States of America.

Today, the outcry is again great. We need to place more freedom and less bureaucracy at the disposal of our businessmen. Yet in other areas also the dependence of Europe and Germany is simply horrifying because we thereby make ourselves liable to extortion. Europe needs more partners in the world, and this only works when those responsible in Europe no longer instruct with the upraised middle finger and want to re-educate other cultures, but by which we extend the hand for honest cooperation.

[trans: tem]