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]

Leif-Erik Holm, November 13, 2025, De-industrialization and Energy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/40, pp. 4554-4555. 

Frau President. Right honorable citizens. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Yesterday, the new economic opinion of the experts council came out. The council expects a growth of 0.9 percent in the coming year; once again a shrunken prognosis; initially, it was 1.3 percent. If we then adjust the whole for the holidays – in the next year, many holidays unfortunately fall on the weekends – then we are at only 0.6 percent. Thus sick man Germany slogs further on. Yet you here now want with this present hour to celebrate yourselves for your economic success. This success simply does not exist. 

I was this morning with the expert, Frau Professor Grimm. She put the naked numbers on the wall: The industrial production breaks down, and indeed on a broad front. In all sectors, it recedes. There is no reason to celebrate anything. Germany unfortunately is abolishing itself as an industrial country if it so continues. And you present no solutions. You only daub a bit of plaster, and administer the downfall – nothing more. 

            Nicklas Kappe (CDU/CSU): Which solutions do you have?

You want to speak in this present hour on your reliefs: On the lowering of the grid fees and the introduction of an industrial electricity price. Yes, in the near term we need to do something to get away from the dramatically high electricity prices. Only, why then don’t you do what benefits all businesses and budgets? Where remains the reduction of the electricity tax for all? That would be a correct step. 

This, what you are doing – I already said it last week – is “left pocket, right pocket”. I want to tell it again: The surcharge for the grid fees, 6.5 million euros, the taxpayer now pays; the costs of the industrial electricity prices, 1.5 billion euros, the taxpayer now pays; the costs for the EEG assessment, 16 billion euros, the taxpayer already pays; the electricity price compensation, 3 billion euros, will be paid by the taxpayer; and the gas storage assessment, 3 billion euros, the taxpayer pays. That is 30 billion euros. You hide the costs of the dead energy transition in the budget. It’s simply not noted that the entire climate racket doesn’t work. 

Without these billions in subventions, nothing more would be left of this seemingly pretty fairy tale castle. The budget meanwhile also correspondingly appears. Only by your special indebtedness can you still camouflage something. The problem remains: Energy is scarce and is much too expensive. Only an expansion of the supply and a reduction of the state impact on the energy costs – for all, note well – can change something therein. We require secure power plant performance. We allow no demolition of cooling towers. Much more, we need to re-activate nuclear power plants and build anew.   

            Tarek Al-Wazir (Greens): And which cost nothing, or what?

As long as you don’t pick up and as long as you don’t prepare a lower energy price in the market, and in fact without subventions, so is there here, God knows, nothing to celebrate. 

Frau Minister – she is unfortunately gone –

            Catharina dos Santos-Wintz (CDU/CSU): She is at the Budget Committee.                                               You know that!

it is nice that the bust of Ludwig Erhard is again in the Ministry. That is good. Yet I also want to say, Frau Reiche: If you really want to be the government’s ordnungspolitische wise man, then more than an overcoming of symptoms, more than short-term plaster, is required. Your draft budget laws, which now come in series to the plenary session, are basically, as before, Habeck laws. Here and there, a bit was slimmed down, yet where are the promised changes in policy? They occur only after the comma. Your subventions orgy which now continues through the budget will soon no longer function. The cost of debts rises dramatically, and of that also the economic wise man Veronika Grimm has written to you in a register – cite: 

            “From 2029, we expend the entire intake of the state for Soziales, defense and                                           interest payments.”

End citation. And – another cite: 

            “This finance planning is a declaration of bankruptcy.”

Frau Grimm is right. Herr Finance Minister, since you speak similarly – he is now here – say readily something on that. This finance planning is a declaration of bankruptcy. Truly! 

2029 is for us also as the AfD an important year’s number. Then we will here in this sovereign house be the governing delegation. 

            Sandra Stein (Green): Do we perhaps still have elections, or what?

We will form the government. We will then need to regulate that. That will become a show of strength. Yet I promise: We will take care that this expensive wrong way ends. It does not work. 

One thing still to promise: First we start in the States. It begins in 2026 in Sachsen-Anhalt and in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. I therein rejoice. 

Thank you. 

 

[trans: tem]

Hans Neuhoff, November 25, 2025, European Armament of the Ukraine

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)11-25(2-0031/34/36-0000). 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

It is completely right that the European states want to themselves command the technological and industrial bases of their defense capability. It is however completely wrong to include in these the Ukraine as an equal and even privileged partner. Since the country finds itself in a war which it threatens to lose, and is crippled by notorious corruption. Promotion of the Ukrainian arms industry? In no case! 

Secondly, it is right that the strategic autonomy can only be developed by a small group of leading states. It is however wrong to give large strategy programs into the hand alone of the Council of the European Union without participation of the affected national parliaments. 

With the EDIP [European Defense Industry Program] decree, the bases for a supra-national defense union will be created. The ESN delegation will thus not vote for this decree. 

…Herr Sieper, many thanks for the question. As a result of its time frame, the Ukraine will in no way be able to use the EDIP. What it will effect, however, is that a strong incentive is presented for Russia to move the western border in the Ukraine, the contact line, as far as possible to the west. And that is not in the interest of the Ukraine. 

…Herr Sieper, your assumption is wrong, that it would be in the Russian interest to rule over, to control the Ukraine in its entirety. Since the invasion would not have been entered into with such a small army. Russia’s goal is: No NATO membership for the Ukraine and the Ukraine’s return to a status of neutrality, as was the case prior to 2014. That was and would be the best for this country and therefore we should support that. 

 

[trans: tem]

René Aust, November 26, 2025, Peace in the Ukraine

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)11-26(3-0029-0000). 

Herr President. 

Finally, a glimmer of hope; U.S. foreign minister Rubio speaks of considerable progress in the Geneva peace talks, and hopes for a rapid agreement. Now, in this historic hour, required are politicians who are supporting every credible peace initiative, instead of slowing them down. 

Peace treaties are no request program. They arise by means of – oftentimes, very painful – compromise. Yet they are the first step to a long-term order of peace. They are thus not at the end of a peace process, but are frequently at the beginning of a reconciliation.

 Peace ends suffering. Yet peace also ends costly spirals of military armament. Then we can make investments where they are really needed: In future technologies, modern infrastructure, education, healthcare, families and in affordable housing. On that account, we now need to grasp every chance for peace.

  

[trans: tem]