Alexander Gauland, June 25, 2026, Ukraine War

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/86, p. 10491.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

Erich Maria Remarque’s best known novel ends with the protagonist Paul 
Baümer dying at the front while the army’s report for that day announces
„Im Westen nichts Neue“ [All Quiet on the Western Front]. The mass 
death in the trenches was by then nothing new.

The war in the Ukraine meanwhile lasts longer than the First World War. 
There will have died in 52 months hundreds of thousands. In the east, 
nothing new and no end in sight. We are accustomed to it. On the contrary: 
The Ukraine’s drone attacks far into the Russian hinterland awake brave 
hopes of some of those who dream of forcing back the Russians to Crimea, 
and perhaps even throwing them out of Crimea. I think that the Ukraine, 
in the sense of a reconstruction of the status quo ante, cannot win this war.

And for us, the war financially becomes the last straw. Self-evidently is 
Germany again the largest payer in the EU: 40 billion for the war so far; 
in addition, up to 35 billion for refugees. In the spring of 2026 alone, 4.2 billion 
euros in military aid were transferred. We send money to the Ukraine 
while in Germany poverty grows, the infrastructure rots, and the economy 
shrinks. The most recent results from the Deutsche Bahn are like the 
flaming writing on the wall. The Chancellor however has not rendered 
his oath to the Ukraine. If the Ukraine wishes to continue fighting, that is its 
good right, but not our business. 

Jürgen Hardt (CDU/CSU): Now you let the cat out of the bag!

For it is simply not true that the Ukraine also defends our freedom.

Peter Beyer (CDU/CSU): Oh, yes!

It is no NATO member, and its fight is a fight over the formation of the 
post-Soviet, indeed post-Czarist space. Even if we hold it to be false, 
it is the empire of Peter the Great which Putin wants to reconstruct.

Knut Abraham (CDU/CSU): Aha!

And, as is known, that reaches not to the Gate of Berlin, indeed not even 
to Warsaw.

Sara Nanni (Greens): Putin however speaks of coming to Berlin!

In German interest are the peace negotiations and an end of the war with 
a compromise. Yet in that the Federal government despite our own
failures in the past – we here have discussed it – deals with Putin as solely 
guilty and like a criminal, 

Sara Nanni (Greens): Like a criminal? He is a criminal!

Jürgen Hardt (CDU/CSU): He is a criminal! He kidnapped 20,000
children!

and grants Russia no legitimate interests in this conflict, it makes a 
compromise peace impossible.

The Ukrainian leadership wants to attain that the EU, better still the NATO 
becomes a war participant. Apart from proximate risks for us, that would 
for many years be the end of the peaceful relations with Russia. Cite: 

“A Ukraine in the EU would block any reconciliation with 
Russia in the future. And this reconciliation would 
nevertheless be decisive for the future of Europe.”

End cite. The last two sentences stem not from me but from Klaus Dohnanyi, 
my dear SPD.

The Ukraine war is not Germany’s war; yet all seek to make it that, 
with exception of the Linke. Germany expanded its support step by step. 
It began with helmets, with defensive armaments. Later came heavy weapons, 
air defense systems, panzers, and the training of Ukrainian soldiers for that. 
Now is again discussed whether we deliver Taurus cruise missiles whereby 
Germany would be in danger of being responsible for an attack on Saint 
Petersburg and Moscow. In the sense of the old formula “inter pacem et 
bellum nihil medium”, we are long since combatants.

No, the world does not go under if in the future eastern Ukraine belongs to 
Russia. It could however go under if the military escalation screws are
ever further turned.

Andreas Mattfeldt (CDU/CSU): Was that dictated by Putin?
Inconceivable!

There have always been spheres of influence. For the U.S.A., it is all of 
North and South America, as laid down by the Monroe Doctrine since 
1823. The U.S.A. acts accordingly and has always done so. Thus let us 
stop binding our own hands with fairy tales of the equality of all states, 
quite independent of their geopolitical situation. The end of the dying is 
more important, ladies and gentlemen. 

I am grateful.

[trans: tem]

Alexander Jungbluth, July 6, 2026, European Investment Bank

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, 
P10 CRE-REV(2026)07-06(1-0106-0000).

Frau President.

The report makes clear the growing role of the European Investment 
Bank within the European Union. With a balance of around 600 
billion euros and a record volume of 100 billion euros in financings, 
the EIB has become one of the most influential of Europe's financial 
institutions. This expanded role nevertheless needs to remain anchored 
in AEUV Article 309.

The EIB was created as an investment bank, and not as a replacement 
for a political decision process. Its strength lies in the financing of the 
European economy, not in the expansion of its mandate. 
True economic sovereignty begins with a strong productive economy; 
the investment priorities thus pose a question: While 53.5 billion euros 
are foreseen for climate goals, agriculture and bio-economy receive 
merely 6.2 billion euros.

Beyond that, ten percent of the EIB financing flows outside of the 
EU. Europe should nevertheless not afford itself this capital outflow. 
The EIB should undertake exclusively investments in our national 
economies, strengthen our member states, and promote industry, 
innovation and competitiveness.

The EIB should ultimately be measured by one, simple standard: 
Whether it helps strengthen Europe's productive economy and 
the interests of its member states. 

[trans: tem]

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]