Alexander Gauland, July 4, 2024, NATO, Russia and Ukraine

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/181, pp. 23422-23423. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Yes, NATO is a success story. It has bestowed peace and security on its members for 75 years. And yes, we need NATO still today. With the Gorch Fock, Germany’s trade and seaways are not secured. Germany is not in the position to defend itself. NATO guarantees us protection and security. 

This should nevertheless not prevent us from putting a couple of questions. The collapse of the Warsaw Pact had offered the possibility involving an all-European security system with Russia. The opportunity was wasted. 

            Sara Nanni (Greens): By whom, then?

Instead – and honesty is in order to state this – we sought to drive Russia in a weak phase out of Mitteleuropa. That might have been a geostrategic aim of the U.S.A. – it did not serve European peace. 

Ladies and gentlemen, in this house it is fairly senseless to recall that in the reunification negotiations declarations had been delivered – I name now only one – like that of the British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd, which maintained – cite:

“There was no plan in NATO to admit in any form the countries of eastern and middle Europe into NATO.” 

I could continue the list with James Baker and with our former Foreign Minister Genscher – I know, the CDU contests this and ever again was heard, all of that is not right. 

            Joe Weingarten (SPD): You can stop! The remittance from Moscow comes!

Therefore I have also used this citation. 

I of course also know that the Warsaw Pact then still existed and corresponding developments lay in the future. Yet the question needs be allowed whether it would not have been smarter to include Russia in the changes taking place. 

President Bärbel Bas: Herr Dr. Gauland, do you allow an interim question or                            an interim remark?

No, I do not now allow that. 

The present war in the Ukraine has a long, previous history, and which also – and not in the least measure – has to do with the eastern expansion of the alliance. It is therefore important in this moment to recall: NATO is a European Atlantic alliance of defense. The Ukraine is not a part of NATO, just as little as, for that matter, Taiwan. 

            Joe Weingarten (SPD): Er tut mal für sein Geld!

NATO is thus not responsible for the integrity [Unversehrheit] of non-member states nor does it have duties to fulfill in the Indo-Pacific area. And, ladies and gentlemen, it is also no ideological bulwark of democrats against autocrats. 

We should always keep in view – and for this too is honesty in order – that the world’s largest democracy, India, does not share our viewpoint on the Ukraine conflict. In the world of Ranke’s Die Grossen Mächte, NATO is insurance coverage for Germany, and it is very good for that. It should not be an ideological spearhead in a fight against Russia, if we want to live in a peaceful world. 

I am grateful. 

 

[trans: tem]

Alexander Gauland, February 22, 2024, Russia, Munich and Realpolitik

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/154, p. 19630. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

“War is a mere continuation of politics with other means” [„Der Krieg ist eine blosse Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln“]. Everyone knows this sentence of Clausewitz. In traditional international law, a war therefore ends with a political result, a conclusion of peace. If however one party to a war excludes the other from the civilized world with a judgement of unworthiness [Unwerturteil], a conclusion of peace becomes impossible. 

Since 1648, as the peace treaty of Münster and Osnabrück ended the ideological war between protestants and catholics, the rule applies that all subject to international law are alike in the sense of a like ability to speak. Even in the times of the Cold War, there were talks between both sides. The expression that one is not allowed to let the line of communication to rupture,  belonged until recently to the standard vocabulary of German foreign policy. 

            Kurt Abraham (CDU/CSU): Who then has broken the line? 

Why, ladies and gentlemen, does this no longer apply to Russia?

            Kurt Abraham (CDU/CSU): Because the Russians have broken the line! 

It was a political failure that Russian representatives were uninvited at the Munich Security Conference, a conference the motto of which is “Peace through Dialogue“ – not through weapons deliveries. 

Realpolitik, ladies and gentlemen, is the art of the possible. The possible is often not to be had without painful compromise. Values-led foreign policy on the other hand, as we lately manage it, does not know the lesser evil. When values-led foreign policy leads to that communication and negotiations stop, or are simply just not undertaken, it needs to be replaced by Realpolitik. And when the values-led foreign policy leads to that the war will then be continued when the war aims are not achieved, it needs to be replaced by Realpolitik. 

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the central distinction between Realpolitik and that which we meanwhile have come to know as “values-led foreign policy“. 

Marianne Schieder (SPD): It is a lie when you assert that there were no talks. You know that! 

Values societies feel themselves obligated to fight against unworthiness [Unwert]. With a representative of unworthiness, values societies conduct no negotiations. The opponent of war becomes an absolute enemy. His interests are criminal. 

            Marcus Faber (FDP): That is called war crimes! 

The enemy must be annihilated. That unfortunately leads, with a known consistency, to that the war escalates. 

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): That is your vocabulary, not ours!

Ladies and gentlemen, Putin conducts a war which can be held to be unjust and wrong, 

            Agnes-Marie Strack-Zimmermann (FDP): “can be held”! 

or needs be. So as to end it, however, nothing is served by assuming his criteria; but on the contrary, by again recalling Münster and Osnabrück and by overcoming the Western inability of speech [Sprachlosigkeit]. Yet, ladies and gentlemen, for that is required a Metternich at the Vienna Congress or a Kissinger in Peking, instead of a presenter of war. It’s too bad that no one in Munich wanted to undertake that role. Therefore, we will also have no peace if we so continue. 

I am grateful. 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

Alexander Gauland, October 12, 2023, Israel and Hamas

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/128, pp. 15903-15904. 

Frau President. Herr Ambassador. Ladies and gentlemen. 

When it is about Israel, the hour of well-meaning lip-service begins. The German Chancellor has today repeated the most famous of all. It stems from Herr Scholz’s predecessor in office and runs: The defense of Israel is a German reason of state. – As articulated by Frau Merkel: German tax money also flowed to anti-semitic NGOs and aid functions, and the security of Jews in German streets the German government could not guarantee. It has unfortunately remained so until today. 

Now there are new announcements. Declarations of solidarity neither help the Israelis nor make the slightest impression on terrorists and their supporters. This barbaric attack, with almost exclusively civilian victims, needs to be radically answered. Terror needs to be struck at its life’s nerve: At the money. That a portion of these rockets, a portion of these weapons used by Hamas, were paid for where possible with German tax money is an unbelievable scandal. If the so-called reason of state should be more than a fine phrase, the German payments to Palestinian organizations need to immediately stop, ladies and gentlemen. That applies to all these payments. 

The Foreign Minister has assured no terror will be financed with German money. 

            Susanne Menge (Greens): ”Vogelschiss” of history! You should start                                    with yourself!

Pardon, Frau Baerbock: The proposition that money flows exclusively to humanitarian projects is at best naïve. Hamas controls Gaza. As surely as a portion of German development aid arrives at a motor park of an African dictator, just as surely a portion of this so-called aid money also lands at Hamas. That, ladies and gentlemen, needs to change. 

For with this money, the Palestinians are not aided, but their leaders who make life for them in  Gaza a hell and ever again plunge them into senseless wars. The Hamas butchers and child murderers are not victims. Hamas is an organization which was founded for one, single purpose: To kill Jews. Its leaders have ever again quite unashamedly declared this. The attack on Israel is no revolt of the oppressed, but of gruesome fanatics. 

That it finds public support on German streets, that in Germany is recited: “Hamas, Hamas, Juden ins Gas” is unbearable. How many of these festivals and appeals for Judenmord have there been in Germany? And what police and juridical measures are there opposed to it? I hope, Herr Chancellor, that your announcements today change that. 

Ladies and gentlemen, with this is meant not only Israel, with this we have meant the entire Western world. Israel, that is the West in an environment in which the West is rejected and fought. When we place ourselves on the side of Israel, we also defend our way [Art] of living and thinking against a politicized Islam. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a quite definite German reason of state. 

I am grateful. 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

Alexander Gauland, June 16, 2023, European Defense Architecture

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/110, p. 13436.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

From Germany should never again a war proceed: This is the lesson of our history. With the power politics as seen in Yugoslavia and in the German weapons deliveries to the Ukraine, this objective was and is nevertheless irreconcilable.

Over eastern Germany presently take place the largest NATO air maneuvers since 1945, a calculated affront and an edifying example. Defense against air attacks on Rostock is practiced  only a few minutes flight distant from the Baltic Sea where the explosion of the Nord Stream pipelines could have been prevented. Instead of that, many here applauded.

This leads us directly to the security architecture of our country and of Europe. We are tightly bound as a part of the NATO American interests policy, many times a little too tightly. Since 1990, over 250 military operations have been conducted with U.S. participation. From others is it gathered to designate this as “war”.

The migration flows from the Near East and North Africa are proximately connected with the U.S. interventions. Failures in Afghanistan, in Iraq and Libya, as well as the financing of color revolutions in Russia’s vicinity, make the U.S.A. a not always unproblematic partner.

For us it is in any case time to reconsider alternatives in Europe, not unconditionally in the EU but in a Europe of sovereign nations as we imagine it, as our party has imagined it: Initially in parallel to NATO, later, if possible, as a sovereign defense architecture which comes to its own decisions, yet – and this is the problem – also can and must carry through.

            Alexander Lambsdorff (FDP): Just like before 1945! It certainly worked out                            super!

The Minsk agreement certainly was good: It could have been and needed to be carried through,

            Henning Otte (CDU/CSU): That should have been said to Putin!

even if the U.S.A.’s diverging geopolitical interests, as surely in regards the eastern expansion of NATO, do not unconditionally agree with an all-European security interest.

            Ulrich Lechte (FDP): You now become not even mediocre, Herr Gauland!

Ladies and gentlemen, a contribution to the security of Germany is first for once the definition of German interests to be secured in each instance. A rules-based, values-driven foreign policy is plainly too little for that, plainly an ideologically-driven phrase, like so much of what you put out as policy.

I am grateful.

 

[trans: tem]

 

Alexander Gauland, February 9, 2023, Peace in the Ukraine

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/85, pp. 10104-10105.

Frau President, Ladies and gentlemen.

I do not imagine to be able to convince you with our motion [Drucksache 20/5551] of the necessity of a peace initiative.

            Ulrich Lechte (SPD): Nonsense!

In that regard, you adhere much too much to a purely military thinking. Yet you will need to substantiate to people why ever more and ever more powerful weapons shall pave the way to peace. Instead of diplomacy, the Leopard should settle it. Today it is combat panzers, tomorrow combat aircraft; it is already discussed. And the day after tomorrow, perhaps NATO soldiers on Ukrainian soil.

“There are to be no red lines” is emphasized from Kiev. Of course the Ukraine has an interest in drawing us into this war. Our chief diplomat occupies herself with having one party indicted before a special tribunal, instead of day and night seeking ways out of the crisis and possibilities for an armistice. Yet “without a political-strategic overall concept, weapons deliveries are pure militarism”. This estimate originates from a former Chancellor’s military policy advisor, Vad. From there, the American Chief of Staff Milley proceeds to that a victory of the Ukraine is not to be expected and that negotiations are the only possible way.

Yet an action corresponding to this insight is counter to the Western supposition that Putin wants to obliterate the Ukraine and thus no compromise is possible.

            Ulrich Lechte (SPD): He said it!

In serious discussions, ladies and gentlemen, this supposition has never been examined.

            Anikó Glogowski-Merten (FDP): He himself said it!

And Russia’s security interests vis-à-vis NATO are considered in the West as only having been advanced, without submitting them to a test by means of discussions. Ladies and gentlemen, it is time that we finally do that, instead of sliding on a steep plane ever more violently in the direction of a European war, or indeed into an atomic confrontation of which the UN Secretary-General himself has meanwhile warned.

Our motion offers a way.

            Daniel Baldy (SPD): It says nothing!

More and better is always possible, only the direction must agree: Away from a victory of one and a defeat of the other side; away from military logic. This war is to be won by no one. Only when we finally accept that and work for a peaceful solution does peace have chance.

            Erhard Grundl (Greens): Says Radio Moscow!

Without the insight that a military solution was not to be achieved, even the Thirty Years War would never have come to an end.

            Daniel Baldy (SPD): Was that also a Vogelschiss?

Hopefully, for us, it does not last so long.

I am grateful.

 

[trans: tem]

 

Alexander Gauland, September 22, 2022, After the War

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/54, pp. 5873-5874.

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen.

Seldom have the hallowed principles of our post-1945 self-understanding been so mercilessly sacrificed on the altar of a false Realpolitik: We deliver no weapons to areas of tension. We defend only ourselves and our NATO partners. And at least: Sanctions are not allowed to more harm us than those sanctioned. – All blown away, all is yesterday’s snow.

We have long since become party to a confrontation which does not concern us, and each day we become it more. We are sliding on a steep plane into participation in a conflict which is not ours. It is simply not true that in the Ukraine our freedom is defended,

            Dietmar Nietan (SPD): Of course!

that Herr Putin, as per the Ukrainian President, wants to again erect the Berlin Wall.

Yes, the Ukraine defends itself in a post-Czarist and post-Soviet conflict.

            Johann David Wadephul (CDU/CSU): A Wagenknecht speech, you                                        are giving here!

Yes, the war is counter to international law and Putin’s goal of a reconstruction of the old Great Russia is out of date. Yet it is not our conflict. It touches on no German interests,

            Bengt Bergt (SPD): It is not so!

the consequences however very much so. We most feel our sanctions against Russia. If oil and gas become unaffordable, it is because we, as Frau Wagenknecht in this place correctly stated,

            Johann David Wadephul (CDU/CSU): See! Horseshoes!

are conducting an economic war against Russia and deny to ourselves an undertaking of Nord Stream 2. We have placed ourselves, ladies and gentlemen, on one side and must now unfortunately live with the consequences.

The Union now wants to go a step further and make us a war party with the delivery of heavy weapons. That is surely thus irresponsible because it would be our duty in all diplomatic channels to limit the war so as to end it, just after the latest developments of the partial mobilization.

Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann (FDP): Yes, an additional promotional tour in the eastern Ukraine! Didn’t you send people there? 

The chancellor has said from here, Putin is not allowed to win this war.

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): He is right!

To that, I add: He is also not allowed to lose it;

            Sara Nanni (Greens): Nevertheless, he must.

            Bengt Bergt (SPD): He will lose it!

since an atomic power has the means to avert this defeat. President Biden’s concern is thus justified and we should take it seriously. We are therefore not allowed to fan the flames, but we need to help stamp them out.

The delivery of heavy weapons does the opposite, ladies and gentlemen.

From Otto von Bismarck originates the observation – cite:

            Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann (FDP): Now comes the poor Otto!

It is easy for a statesman…, to sound the war trumpets with the popular winds and thus warm himself at his fireside. Yet woe to the statesman who in this era seeks a war for a reason which is not still valid after the war.    

Herr Wadephul, yours unfortunately is not.

I am grateful.

 

[trans: tem]