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]

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]

Alice Weidel, November 26, 2025, Deutschland Plan

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/43, pp. 4947-4951. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable Herr Chancellor. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

This end-stage coalition ever more recalls the bridge of the Titanic: Germany lists, the bulkheads break open. Yet you have the ship’s band play on with the same soothing melodies. 

            Katharina Dröge (Greens): The country is thus bad-mouthed!

The Captain has nothing more to say and simply looks on because the First Mate has snatched from him the Captain’s cap. 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): And the ordinary seaman stands at the speaker’s podium.

Germany can no longer continue to afford this clowns theater which you here allow for half a year. The crisis is here and it is not only one iceberg, it is at least five which rip open the hull of our ship of state. 

Crisis site number one: The social state. The social security system is out of control and becomes unaffordable. A third of the Bund’s total tax income in the coming year alone will need to be expended for stabilizing the pension account. In that regard, the demographic costs resulting from the retirement of the high birthrate cohorts have been acknowledged for decades. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Explain for once to the citizens how you want to                                          finance your pensions package! 70 percent!

42.3 percent of non-wage costs. That is a record and warning sign. Instead, when it is much too late to reform the system and form reserves for the future, you still pulverize the at hand financial scope of action so as to gain time. 

The social state crisis is inseparable from the migration crisis. Millions of people have in the last ten years streamed uncontrolled into the country. They have in large part immigrated directly into the social system. The consequent costs one-sidedly burden the working population – the tax-payers and those who pay contributions. They shall stabilize, with renunciation of benefits and higher contributions, the unaffordable healthcare system and they need bear the costs of the Bürgergeld, long since become migrant money which continues out of control. Every second recipient is a foreign citizen and is provided for without cost and contribution. What of that is sozial justice? 

Your SPD coalition partner braces itself against even symbolic policy corrections. To merely remove the Ukrainians sustained by the benefits terms in the last half-year is not even a drop on the hot stone. In Germany, there are one million rejected asylum applicants; yet of your grandiosely announced deportation offensive nothing continues to be seen. Despite receding asylum numbers, each year a large city immigrates by abuse of the asylum law, and an additional large city comes after by way of the family reunification. 

The citizens who need pay for this moreover lose their Heimat. In 275 Bavarian school classes sits not a single native German-speaking child. That is a declaration of bankruptcy. 

The migration crisis kills the right of entire generations to an orderly education. And while the borders remain open, our Christmas markets are transformed into fortresses or will even be entirely cancelled. 

Needing to bear these burdens is a country which for over three years is stuck deep in a recession. The industrial core erodes at a breath-taking speed. The German automobile industry has lost 50,000 jobs within one year. Down-sizing and exodus take hold of the entire production industry. 41 percent of the operations plan in 2026 a further down-sizing. A never before seen wave of bankruptcy sweeps across the country and decimates the Mittelstand. Credit insurers fear the number of insolvencies could climb in the coming year to 30,000. 

What drives the businesses and workplaces out of the country is primarily the homemade energy crisis; the industrial chiefs, who unfortunately were silent for much too long, now say this to you.

The artificially increased expense of energy by means of the so-called CO₂ pricing will still further accelerate the de-industrialization. You raise an arbitrarily imposed tax on the air, artificially drive it further to the heights, and still call that a market economy instrument, Herr Merz. The green nonsense can scarcely be further driven to the extreme. 

The dogmas of open borders and climate protection drive our country, our beloved Germany, to ruin. Instead of coming about, your coalition steps on the gas along this wrong way, and wants with a “new boost” for the international climate protection bless the entire world with the downfall. 

And because you do not want to acknowledge all of that, but toss around money which does not belong to you as if there was no tomorrow, Germany is also stuck in a binding finance and state indebtedness crisis. 

With the financial coup d’état, euphemistically called “special funds” [Sondervermögen], you have burdened Germany with the largest mountain of debt in post-war history. Of that will remain only the interest and tax costs for the tax and contribution payers. Every second euro of the special funds supposedly foreseen for investment will, according to your planning, be mis-appropriated for consumption expenditures. That quite clearly does not conform to the constitution. Your budget does not conform to the constitution. 

            Sven Lehmann (Green): Your party does not conform to the constitution!

Instead of, as promised, eliminating superfluous spending and consolidating the budget, you toss the money by the handful out the window. A billion for a dubious tropical forest, six billion  moreover for an international climate protection, 11.5 billion for the Ukraine without knowing whether or not the money yet again lands at corrupt war profiteers. Gott sei Dank – Gott sei Dank! – we have with Donald Trump a real chance of peace, to which you have contributed no part. Quite the contrary. 

The fivefold crisis is not a fatal destiny but a direct consequence of false political decisions. It cannot so continue; you also quite precisely know that, and I do not want to again do the math for you, for you of the SPD just so not. 

            Jürgen Cosse (SPD): You do the math!

You are stuck so deep in the morass of the socialist superstition of redistribution that you cannot grasp what you, with your ideological wrong way, have generally done to our country. 

            Dirk Wiese (SPD): What do you say of your members’ Russia travel?

Primitive Antifa screaming 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Which was good! 

            Alexander Hoffmann (CSU/CSU): Why? The Antifa is pleased to be in Russia!

and mindless, anti-democratic Verbot fantasies for you replace the competition of political ideas. The stereotypical cry for more and still higher taxes and for more and higher debt for you take the place of economic expertise. 

            President Julia Klöckner: Frau member, do you permit an interim question from                                        member Wiese of the SPD delegation?

No, that is unusual in the budget debate; you know that. 

            Katharina Dröge (Greens): That is not at all unusual. You simply do not dare! 

            Alexander Hoffmann (CSU/CSU): You are scared, Frau Weidel! You are scared!                                         Nothing other! You are scared of the interim question!

No, I am not scared, anyway of you. You are scared. Might I please continue? 

            Alexander Hoffmann (CSU/CSU): The answer is not in the speaking                                                         notes, ne?

             President Julia Klöckner: Excuse me. She or the member herself decides                                                whether he or she permits an interim question. 

            Sven Lehmann (Green): Yes, but not with the reasoning. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): It is nevertheless possible for all to speak. What is this?

            President Julia Klöckner: We need not now comment on that here.                                        Please continue.

How you here smirk! That, the voters will exactly note before all things at the impending State legislative elections! 

            Frauke Heiligenstadt (SPD): You don’t smirk, ne? 

            Sören Pellmann (Green): That’s certainly a level in the early morning!

You, dear colleagues of the Union, know quite precisely what you do. Some of you even speak ever again of what actually needs to be done. Yet you do exactly the opposite. 

And you, Herr Merz, have in the election campaign announced and promised all possible things, what is of bitter necessity and needs be urgently done. You thereby grandiosely helped yourself to our election program. 

            Jens Spahn (CDU/CS): Oh mann, oh mann, oh mann!

Yet then – since otherwise Herr Merz would not be Herr Merz – you broke every single one of your election promises. You left the citizens in the lurch and wore yourself out with slander and insult of the opposition, instead of addressing the problems in our country. 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): Get a handkerchief!

You have thereby wasted valuable time and intensified the crisis, and all of that because you make yourself a prisoner of the leftist unity front as a result of your firewall. 

            Günter Krings (CDU/CSU): Do you come to the content?

 You let yourself be led about one time after another by the SPD. The SPD’s favor, upon which your chancellorship depends, is more important to you than the good of our country and of your own party. 

This tactic has failed. Germany requires an immediate program for reform of the state, economy and society. It is time for the Deutschland Plan of the Alternative für Deutschland. 

It is a twelve point plan to again get Germany on its feet. 

First, we require advantageous and secure energy. That is the basis for economic impetus and prosperity. We therefore need to immediately end the failed experiment of the energy transformation. We need to immediately end the destruction of nuclear power, the demolition of nuclear power plants, and push the re-entry into nuclear power and we need to buy natural gas and oil where it is most advantageous, and that is in Russia. 

            Reinhard Brandl (CDU/CSU): Now it comes out! 

            Alexander Hoffmann (CSU/CSU): Ah!

And that is in our national interest, and the Americans want that, too. And that is why there are these peace negotiations: Because the Americans represent their national interests, which you for Germany have forgotten, dear CDU. 

            Steffen Bilger (CDU/CSU): Here, it’s about Russian interests! 

            Reinhard Brandl (CDU/CSU): Which interests do you represent?                                            The mask has fallen!

Second. We need to end the wind and solar electricity subventions and, without replacement, eliminate the ruinous CO₂ pricing and the emissions trade. And we need to immediately abolish  the unhappy heating law which cold expropriates countless owners of real property. 

Third. In economic policy, the fundamentals need again apply: Market economy Ordnungspolitik instead of eco-socialist planned economy. 

            Claudia Roth (Greens): Oah!

That means the abolition of the combustion engine Verbot and all supply chain laws at the national as well as the EU level. We will end the Politik of Verbot and manipulation. 

            Katharina Dröge (Greens): Because human rights for you simply play not role at all!

Fourth. Our economy requires an unleashing program for setting free market economic powers which liberate them from bureaucratic regulations and drastically lowers the cost of taxes and duties. 

Fifth. In Sozialpolitik, we need to return consistently to the solidarity principle. Full social benefits only for members of the solidarity community who also make their contributions to the social security systems. I certainly do not know what you have against the solidarity principle. That, I find interesting. 

            Jürgen Cosse (SPD): Do you actually pay taxes in Germany? 

            Sven Lehmann (Greens): Against you we have something.

In place of the unfortunately baptised by you Bürgergeld, an activating basic security needs to enter which in fact drastically sinks the costs. 

Sixth. So that the statutory Pension Insurance remains affordable, it needs to be completely relieved of all non-insurance benefits and be supported by means of additional funded pillars. 

            Ines Schwerdtner (Linke): Neo-liberal!

To that also belongs a pension state fund, a so-called equalization [Ausgleich] fund for a stabilization of the statutory pension of the first pillar. The officials pension needs to be reformed, the civil service status strictly limited to a few sovereign areas of responsibility. Politicians, officials and holders of mandates need to be included in the statutory Pensions Insurance. 

Seventh. The absent migration change needs to be introduced by a Politik of the closed door. That means in clear text: Seamless border controls, turning back all illegals without exception, finally a rigorous deportation which the law besides prescribes, and an end to the multi-million violations of the law. 

Eighth. The migration magnets will be turned off. For asylum applicants, there is only benefits in kind instead of cash. Naturalized will be only those who, according to strong criteria and at earliest after ten years, are standing on their feet and fully at work. Naturalization by claim will be abolished. 

Ninth. State spending needs to be decisively slashed. Instead of unlimited new indebtedness, the public hand needs to get by with the tax intake. The state needs to keep itself out of the economy and out of the private life of the citizens, and confine itself to its core duties: Domestic and external security, maintenance of the state of law and public order. 

Tenth. Clientele policy subventions will be eliminated. The public financing of pseudo non-political organizations will be forbidden. The Antifa as a terrorist organization will be forbidden. The public broadcasting fees will be abolished. The squandering of tax money in all the world  ends. We require our remaining resources for our own country, for our own citizens. 

Eleventh. Urgently necessary is a structural reform which deconstructs the bureaucracy, clears away the funding jungle and leaves tax money in economic circulation with the citizens and business. 

Twelfth and last. A Tax Reform 25 with uniformly lowered tax rates, family splitting and a high allowance relieves the large majority of citizens, families, and before all the middle class. The solidarity surcharge will finally be completely abolished. 

That is our Deutschland Plan, that is our immediate program for Germany. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Bravo!

The most important and urgent measures to correct the damages we could in common immediately decide. Immediately! The majorities for that would be at hand in this house if the bürgerlichen powers of reason come together 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): You are not bürgerliche! 

            Derya Turk-Nachbaur (SPD): Extreme right is other than bürgerliche!

and finally fulfill the will of the voters, the majority of whom voted for a bürgerliche center-right Politik. 

            Michael Schrodi (SPD): Extreme right! 

            Claudia Roth (Greens): You are not bürgerliche!

It is thus about namely a center-right Politik, 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): Extreme right!

a bürgerliche Politik and no progressive leftist-green Politik. You here have walled yourselves in. Make reasonable Politik for the citizens and business. 

It thus lies with you, right honorable colleagues of the Union, whether you want to continue to allow yourselves to be led by leftist apron strings and green losers, or 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): …whether you continue to surround yourself                                                 with right-wing extremists!

whether you are ready to place the good of the country above personal vanities and ideological prejudices. We are ready for that, out of love and responsibility for Germany. 

I am grateful. 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): So simple-minded!

  

[trans: tem]

Tomasz Froelich, October 21, 2025, Serbia

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)10-21(2-0502-0000). 

Frau President. 

What do you actually want from Serbia? Do you want to make Serbia a second Ukraine? Legitimate student protests against corruption are being mis-used for geopolitical purposes. You goad on assailants who batter the Serbian police. You destabilize a country which has had very, very bad experiences with Western intervention policy. 

Why all of this? Because Serbia maintains pragmatic relations with China and Russia. That is  Serbia’s good right, for Serbia is a sovereign state, and the Serbs are a proud people – a proud people who do not want your arrogant tutoring. And if you doubt your own unpopularity, then simply take a look at the newest numbers of the Eurobarometer: Just every third Serb is for an EU accession – a record low.  At the same time, 60 percent of Serbs are for an accession to the BRICs. You are driving Serbia out of Europe. A fatal failure, since we need Serbia as a strategic partner, perchance in the fight against illegal migration, yet in Europe only Fico and Orbán grasp that. Hands off Serbia. 

 

[trans: tem]

René Aust, September 10, 2025, State of the European Union

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV (2025)09-10(3-0025-0000). 

Frau President. 

Europe, that was once a dream: A continent in which families could win by work a house of their own; a continent which was the motor of worldwide progress; a Europe in which women could live safely, the poor were secured by good sozial legislation, and young people had the opportunity to build by their own work a good life. 

Yet this dream has been destroyed by politicians like Angela Merkel and Ursula von der Leyen. While the world economy grew and new markets arose, Europe regressed. Who wants to know why, he need only attend again to the previous speech of Ursula von der Leyen. Not a single time did she mention the core of the market economy – business freedom – but, for that, a central planned program of billions – bureaucracy from above to below. Yet prosperity arises through work, through innovation, through entrepreneurial courage, not through Ursula von der Leyen’s five-year plan. 

And in the migration policy, the dreams of Europe have been severely damaged. Enrichment was promised. The reality: Knife attacks, terrorism, rape, drug gangs from Spain, Italy, through Germany to Rotterdam and Malmö. And in Brussels, where the EU ever still preaches diversity, the Belgian government seriously considers an army mission so as to at all be able to protect the capital city from the violence of migrant gangs. 

And Frau von der Leyen? She ever still speaks in melodious marketing phrases. She speaks of unity on our own continent. Which however will only be when finally on this continent the persecution of opposition ceases. In Roumania, elections were rescinded; in France and Germany, candidates were excluded from elections. 

If you want unity, then we need to return to democracy and freedom of opinion. On that account, we say: Yes to industrial workplaces which emit CO₂; no to chat controls and censorship; yes to remigration in all of Europe, and no to Ursula von der Leyen. 

 

[trans: tem]

 

Alice Weidel, September 17, 2025, Kirk, Migration, Budget, War

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/24, pp. 2455-2456. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable Herr Chancellor. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

The citizens are becoming impatient, Herr Merz. They are waiting for you to bestir yourself from your self-complacency and a leftist-green denial of reality. 

Not a word from you on the insidious political murder of Charlie Kirk whose death has shocked not only the U.S.A.. He was a conservative, a believing Christian, a courageous defender of the values for which your party for long once stood. Charlie Kirk was a convinced champion of free speech and of open debate with all, even with those who think differently. He wanted to convince and not exclude and, for that, needed to die. 

Why you are silent lies at hand. For you, radical leftist parties count as a so-called political middle, parties like the Greens and the Linke whose youth party up to the leadership the murder of a conservative Christian cynically trivialize, justify or even approve. 

Some of those want to take up arms when the election results do not suit them, shoot the rich, or stick in work camps, or adopt harsher action like Frau Reichinnek – what is thereby always meant. For Herr von Aken, leftist crimes serve the common good. 

            Cansin Kökturk (Linke): Speak to the theme!

The leftist terrorist Antifa provide the militant troops. When skull and joint, families and life, are smashed, Frau Göring-Eckardt pays her respects to the perpetrators. 

            Katharina Dröge (Greens): What, please? That is unheard of!

What leftist activists dressed up as journalists have done lately strengthens us to abolish public broadcasting compulsory financing. No one should be forced to pay for inhuman malice and the glorification of violence. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): What else do you do here, then?

You however, Herr Merz, beg in these left-green camps for support of judicial elections and manipulations of the constitution. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Fire-starting! That is what you do!

That also well explains why you still say nothing on the escalation of leftist violence. Where  remains your clear condemnation of left-extremist acts of arson and sabotage which damage vital infrastructure, paralyze important railways and cause day-long electricity outages, as recently in Berlin as tens of thousands of households were cut off from the electricity supply, and small merchants and businesses needed to accept existence-threatening losses? 

Until today you also have found no word of compassion and of the responsibility for the murder of young Liana who was tossed in front of a freight train in Friedland by a rejected, repeat offender, Iraqi asylum applicant. Liana stands for the much too many people who since the fatal „Wir schaffen das” of your party friend Angela Merkel need lose their lives as victims of the unregulated, illegal, negligent policy of open borders and mass migration: Attacked, robbed, raped, killed by people who ought never have come to our country, 

            Cansin Kökturk (Linke): You spread lies!

by illegal migrants who long since would have needed to be gotten out of the country. 

More than 2,000 women since 2015 have become victims of sexual assaults by migrants – the statistics record as before two gang rapes per day; this especially horrific crime has just in the last ten years become an authentic epidemic. Dozens of knife attacks every day, all too often with fatal outcomes, women who no longer dare to be on the streets or in public transportation, 

            Zada Salihović (Linke): On account of men!

no-go areas, and schools in which the last native children are mercilessly bullied and mobbed. 

The politically willed loss of control simply continues and with it the Politik of sweet-talking and lies, of looking away and a closing of eyes. It plainly does not suffice to order with a lot of noise random border controls and to stage rejections by which 98 percent of illegal asylum migrants are certainly not affected. It also does not suffice to restrict for a short time a small few of family reunions by which as before a large city each year immigrates. 

            Cansin Kökturk (Linke): That is the falsehood!

Sporadic deportation flights to Afghanistan with some dozens of murderers and rapists with pocket money also impresses no one when your Foreign Minister at the same time has Afghan extended families flown in with the acceptance permits of his Green predecessor in office. 

            Cansin Kökturk (Linke): That is the falsehood!

With alibi measures and symbol politics you cannot in the long-term lead the citizens behind the lights, who of course precisely note that nothing changes in the desolate situation. 

An authentic migration change requires an overall concept as follows: 

            Katharina Dröge (Greens): When your own people are disturbed by the speech,                    then it must be frightful! 

            President Julia Klöckner: Excuse me, I want to quickly clarify something.                            I here require no attendant session chairmanship [betreute Sitzungsleitung],                            regardless by which delegation. You have the word, Frau Dr. Weidel. 

            Bernd Baumann (AfD): It’s about the heckling which you haven’t punished!

An authentic migration change requires an overall concept as follows: Border completely and seamlessly closed, those entering illegally without adequate papers and not entitled to asylum turned back without exception, stop family reunions, naturalization at the earliest after ten years, examination of irregularities in regards residency permits and naturalizations, immediate, consistent deportation without exception of delinquent foreign citizens not entitled to residency, confinement of social benefits to the minimal payment period – since no one has a right to social benefits when he has never paid into our social system. 

To that applies: Benefits in kind instead of money for asylum applicants and refugees, and definitely no Bürgergeld for Ukrainian citizens. 

The unrealized migration change is not the only election promise which you have broken, Herr Merz. You have broken namely every election promise. Return of nuclear power: Prior to the election, promised; later, denied. Abolition of the heating law: Prior to the election, promised; later, denied. Abolition of the combustion engine Verbot: Prior to the election, promised; later, denied. 551 questions: No answers; instead, still more money for leftist lobby NGOs. Debt brake: Prior to the election, promised; by financial coup d’état after the election similarly annulled with the leftist majorities of an old Bundestag – instead, record indebtedness.   

Electricity tax reduction: Prior to the election, promised; later, denied. Bürgergeld reform: Instead of savings, still higher spending scheduled. The autumn of reform becomes the autumn of empty words, and it will lead to a winter of still higher expenditures. Tax relief: Prior to the election, promised; later, rejected. On the contrary, for citizens and business, the burden increases by means of the stepping up of social duties. 

The next CDU collapse is announced with the inheritance tax. In their insatiable greed for tax money, the SPD, Greens and Linke plan a new pillaging of the business Mittelstand and the hard earned and saved private assets of the bürgerliche middle class – and in which the CDU is already half-immersed. 

The result of the refusal of reform and the CDU’s serial collapses is a cobbled together, irresponsible budget without measure or purpose, which solves not a single problem but drives the crisis to the extreme. The consequence: Still greater gaps, still more debts for plugs. It is only a question of time until this crazy carousel throws you off. 

Instead of eliminating superfluous spending, you drive this still further to the heights: For the fiction of climate protection and the failed energy transition, you simply continue to manage the Green energy policy. For the watering of leftist non-governmental organizations, for absurd development aid projects, subventions, migration costs, for overdone payments to the EU, to international organizations and to all the world, you simply carry on aboard the green ship of fools. 

The producing industry you will thereby just so more reliably drive out of the country. Here helps also no auto or steel summit in the Chancellor’s Office. The big manufacturers still profit from the subventions and workplaces, and later they close the rear door on Deutschland. 

Before the approaching disaster and your plunging confidence values amongst the citizens, you flee into the pose of world politician and lord of war who moves about ghost armies in sandboxes and gives away to countries billions which he certainly does not have. 

With the French President Macron, who is stuck still deeper in a state indebtedness swamp, and the British premier Starmer, he whose own people no longer want, you have found the right soul mates. Your coalition of the willing is a coalition of the losers who, with backs to the wall, play with fire at a powder keg. You sabotage the strivings of U.S. President Donald Trump to quickly end the Ukraine war. – That you laugh is fully clear. 

You encourage the Ukrainian ruler Zelenskyi to oppose a painful yet rapid stop to the hundreds of thousands of deaths. And you conjure up the bogeyman of an immediately imminent Russian attack so as to have a pretense for your debt and spending orgies. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Not a critical word for Putin! Not a word on that!                                           Moscow’s voice!

With this warmongering, you risk the escalation of the Ukraine war to a uncontrollable world war which could annihilate our country. 

            Knut Abraham (CDU/CSU): Embarrassing!

Your Defense Minister, Herr Pistorius of the SPD, 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): A good man!

especially distinguishes himself ingloriously in this roll of the dice. Instead of again making the Bundeswehr mission-capable, there is the War Minister and he links the debate on conscription with the enemy image of Russia. Herr Pistorius, the conscription is there alone to guarantee the army’s capability for national defense, without which a state will not be taken seriously in  foreign policy. It is never to be allowed to happen that our young men and sons, over a thoughtless quarrel, die in a war in the Ukraine. [Es darf niemals geschehen, dass unsere jungen Männer und Söhne in einem leichtfertig vom Zaun gebrochenen Krieg in der Ukraine sterben]. Never! 

            Knut Abraham (CDU/CSU): Malign!

Leave this wrong way! Our country needs to concentrate its remaining economic and financial powers to again get back on its feet. A prerequisite for that is a solid and realistic draft budget. Our alternative budget shows in around 1,000 motions that this is possible and can be seriously counter-financed. 

We propose essential savings in regards climate transformation funds, Bürgergeld, development aid, EU payments, weapons deliveries, and various unnecessary state expenditures. And it would have been your duty to order a halt to the squandering of tax money, and to sustainably and effectively relieve the working people and German business. 

We as AfD are ready to come to grips where the Union and SPD are obviously neither willing nor in the position.           

            Knut Abraham (CDU/CSU): Um Gottes willen!

I am grateful. 

 

[trans: tem]

Christian Wirth, September 10, 2025, „Wir schaffen das“

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/20, pp. 1983-1984. 

Herr President. Valued colleagues. 

Ten years ago, Merkel said, „Wir schaffen das“ [We can do it] – she opened the borders of our country without a mandate, 

            Rasha Nasr (SPD): They were never closed!

without agreement with European neighbors, and without regard to law and statute. 

Today, ten years later, we draw a balance, and this balance is nothing less than dramatic. We experience at demonstrations on German streets how people march with Hamas flags, how slogans for the annihilation of Israel are chanted, and how terror organizations are openly celebrated. Jewish citizens no longer dare to openly wear their symbols such as kippa and the Star of David. Many avoid certain city quarters because they are no longer safe there. We experience also a clear increase in the violence against homosexuals. Instead of the variety and tolerance which she preached, she, with her devastating policy, has brought Germany fear and intimidation. 

The list of consequences continues almost without end. In public swimming pools, it routinely comes to sexual harassment and assaults. Gang rapes – until 2025, an almost unknown phenomenon – occur daily. Women and girls are displaced from public spaces, and the ostensibly feminist parties look away. Knife attacks almost daily belong in the police reports. Criminal clans control entire streets and quarters, threaten residents, and laugh over the weakness of the state. 

In our schools appears an especially oppressive picture. In many classes, German children are long since in the minority. They are ostracized, mocked and insulted as “potatoes”. They need to pay protection money or even forcibly convert. That is racism against Germans. Yet here is heard at best only a broad silence. 

During this time, the costs explode. Billions flow into social benefits, integration programs, language courses, housing, police and justice. Employees and families need to shoulder increasing contributions, while the promises of the Politik ring ever more hollow. 

We see polygamy which will be silently accepted. We see girls become the victims of genital mutilation – in the middle of Germany. We see Islamic hate preachers who work undisturbed and gain new adherents. And we need to experience terror attacks committed by perpetrators who only by means of Merkel’s 2015 border opening have at all come into the country. 

            Rasha Nasr (SPD): They were never closed! The borders were never closed!

Ladies and gentlemen, all of this is no accident, but the direct consequence of a decision which in 2015 was reached against the advice of all security authorities and against the will of the greater part of the population. „Wir schaffen das“ was not a revolt, but a capitulation – a capitulation before the illegal mass immigration, a capitulation before one’s own responsibility, a capitulation before the duty to protect our citizens. 

And while the problem year for year becomes greater, these same parties celebrate to this day  this wrong way as an ostensible humanitarian achievement. Enrichment is spoken of, while women in the evening can no longer go out unannoyed, 

            Rasha Nasr (SPD): The problem is named men, and not foreigners! 

            Clara Bünger (Linke): You don’t have women in your own ranks!

while parents are afraid to send their children to playgrounds, while police in certain quarters can scarcely still act effectively, while security forces and rescue forces will be attacked without consequences. 

The German people in these ten years have paid a high price: The price of insecurity and fear, the price of dwindling trust in the state of law, the price of a deep social division. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): You manage a suspicion culture! You do that!

Thus I say clear and distinctly: Germany has not done it. Ten years of „Wir schaffen das“ have massively damaged our domestic peace and destroyed the people’s trust in the Politik. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Nay, you did that! It was you!

The AfD delegation therefore demands the consistent closing of borders for illegal migration, the deportation of all foreigners obliged to depart, the smashing of the clan structures, and the resolute protection of our children and families. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen, „Wir schaffen das“ was a wrong way. The alternative is: We stop it. 

Many thanks and Glück auf! 

 

[trans: tem]

Beatrix von Storch, July, 2025, AfD Strategy Process

AfD Bundestag Delegation, July, 2025. 

To shape Germany politically – the end of the firewall and the way to government responsibility. 

Ideas and proposals for a strategy process of the AfD Bundestag delegation. 

Introduction 

The AfD achieved a great success at the last Bundestag election. It dislodged the SPD as the second strongest power in Germany and has become by far the strongest power in eastern Germany. In Germany, there is a clear middle-right majority with which the migration change and the economic change can be implemented. 

Despite the great election success and the voters’ large assent, the firewall prevents a sharing in the government by the AfD, the exclusion of the AfD continues to be enforced, and the AFD is even threatened with a ban. To become a permanent people’s party, to overcome the firewall and to pave the way to government responsibility is an enormous challenge for which a strategy is required. The following paper offers proposals for an AfD delegation strategy process in the German Bundestag. 

Prerequisite for the fall of the firewall and government responsibility for the AfD: 

The AFD strives for government responsibility in Germany. The actions of the black-red coalition prove that neither a migration change nor an economic change is possible without the AfD as a driving power in the government. The political change in Germany is only to be achieved when the AfD overtakes the government responsibility. So that the AfD can design politically, the the firewall needs to fall. 

The firewall will fall and the way for assumption of government responsibility will be open when 

1.      The AfD is firmly anchored by its core voters who vote for the AfD out of adherence and conviction, the AfD exploits additional parts of its potential, and has clearly gained in acceptance beyond the AfD voter base (Part I).

2.      Other party-overlapping coalitions are no longer possible because the rift between Union and the leftist parties can no longer be bridged (Part II). 

In the following will be sketched possible ways of creating the prerequisites for such a scenario. 

Part I. Create majorities – the people for the government responsibility won by the AfD. 

For the analysis, we separate into three relevant groups the electorate for the AfD: The AfD’s voter base, the AfD’s potential, and the scope of acceptance [Akzeptanzumfeld]. 

To the AfD’s voter base belong those who with great certainty vote for the AfD and can be permanently united to the AFD. 

The potential are those voters who basically can imagine themselves voting for the AfD and who also are attainable as possible voters. 

The scope of acceptance are those voters who do not vote for the AfD and do not intend doing so, yet under certain circumstances may welcome or at least do not reject a government participation by the AfD. 

According to INSA, the AfD’s voter base is around 18 percent; additionally, with the present voters and the potential voters, the AfD could achieve up to 30 percent of votes. Yet even if the AfD completely exploited its potential, that is no guaranty for the end of the firewall and a participation in government. In addition, there needs be a scope of acceptance which indeed does not vote for the AfD, but is not unfavorably opposed to a participation in government by the AfD. 

So that the AfD can attain government responsibility in Germany and shape the Politik in Germany, it needs to permanently unite to itself its voter base, exploit the greater portion of its potential, and expand and attain a basic acceptance of its participation in legislation and government. For all three groups, voter base, potential, scope of acceptance, the AfD requires a differentiated strategy. 

1. Unite base voters: Ostdeutsche, workers, rural area, young voters, Russlanddeutsche.

The goal is to create a tight milieu anchoring and a permanent voter base. Voters should not vote for the AFD primarily out of protest or frustration, but because they identify themselves with the AfD. In the following milieus and regions, a tighter anchoring is already visible: 

Ostdeutsche, workers, citizens in villages and small and mid-sized cities, Russlanddeutsche and Germans from the post-Soviet space, and first time voters, especially young men. 

So as to permanently unite the voter base to the AfD and to strongly anchor the AfD in these milieus, the delegation prepares in three areas: 

The AfD delegation identifies the political interests and problems of these groups and develops concrete legislative initiatives which therein aim to accomplish the base voters’ concrete interests and to improve their living situation. 

The AfD identifies the channels of communication and creates referral networks so as to continually and permanently communicate with the base voters. 

The AFD works towards a positive self-image of the base voters and their sense of life  which is tightly bound with the AfD. 

The AfD directs to this purpose work groups which identify the interests of base voters, develops a communications strategy, and draws up a positive picture of these groups; for example, workers as the providers of performance, Ostdeutsche as an avant garde of democracy and freedom, rural people as carriers of good, traditional values, young Germans as bearers of hope of a better future. Thus shall be developed a common AfD purpose image as a free, conservative people’s party which embraces its voter coalition. 

2. Identify potential: Over-60 generation, women, academics, churched [kirchcennahe] Christians, big cities.

In regards specific groups, the election results clearly lagged behind. The following groups can be identified in which the AFD has not exploited its potential and which represent a large portion of the German people: 

Women, citizens with a college education, citizens in big cities and metropolitan areas, voters over 60, and professing [konfessionsgebundene] Christians. 

These groups are not homogenous and cannot be addressed as a unit. So as to increase and win for the AfD these hard-to-access groups, we require a socio-demographic micro-analysis of these groups. Partial groups need to identified to be able to build a bridge to them. 

Examples of such partial groups: 

A partial group of women is, for example, housewives and mothers; of academics, engineers and graduates of technical training; of big cities and metropolitan areas, citizens in focal points or outlying locales; in regards the over-60 generation, pensioners concerned about crime or older people with traditional values; and a partial group of professing Christians is conservative Protestants and Catholics. 

The delegation’s work groups should deeply occupy themselves with the social groups in which the AfD is weaker. They may identify hindrances and problems at talks with these groups and develop solutions, find sub-groups which may be addressed for the AfD, and propose measures for themes and a communications strategy so as to become stronger in these groups.

             3. Enlarge the scope of acceptance.

Even strong elections results are no guaranty for an AfD participation in government. As important to the mobilization of base voters and to the address to potential voters are concrete public opinion indicators for the scope of acceptance: Surveys of AfD Verbot procedures, for acceptance of various forms of cooperation with the AfD, for government participation and for fundamental rejection and fear of the AfD. 

The goal is to reduce below 50 percent the portion of voters who express fear of the AfD, who are for banning the AfD and who reject a cooperation with the AfD.

For that, it is important to analyze by means of collections of public opinion which negative images, negative narratives and notions of the AfD exist, and how these are mediated and strengthened. On the basis of the knowledge is then a proper strategy developed for a targeted counter-communication which refutes the arguments against the AfD, a positive purpose image developed, and proposals formulated on how the scope of acceptance can be clearly enlarged. The target groups of our efforts for enlarging the scope of acceptance are: 

Citizens who do not belong to the voter base or the potential of the AfD, and whose rejection on the basis of their ideological location and party affiliation is not insurmountable. 

Part II. Split black-red – Prevent party-overlapping coalitions.

Majorities without the AfD were hitherto possible by means of party-overlapping coalitions, coalitions of the Union with the SPD or Greens. The firewall will fall when these political options have failed and are no longer possible. In the end, the Ampel broke down because the opposition between the expectations of the FDP”s bürgerliche voters and those of red-green were ultimately no longer bridgeable. The conflict potential between the CDU/CSU and the SPD, especially between the conservative market economy wing of the Union and the SPD-Linke, is especially great. The AfD has two ways to enlarge these rifts: 

1. The polarization of debate leads to the separation of bürgerliche-conservative camps from leftist radical camps: The demarcation [Abgrenzung] of the radical leftists, who for the majority of Germans represent unacceptable positions, facilitates the AfD positioning itself as a bürgerliche-conservative power. The strengthening of the radical leftists proceeds at the cost of the SPD and Greens, and forces these onto a course which makes the agreements with the Union considerably more difficult. 

2. The pressure on the CDU/CSU increases: The AfD will launch motions and initiatives which meet with a high agreement within the Union voter base, especially the voters who voted for the CDU/CSU for a migration and economic change, yet now are disillusioned by black-red. Besides the migration change, the AfD takes in view the economic change as a central theme field so as to increase the pressure on the Union and make accessible new competences and voters for the AfD. 

1. Polarization against the Linke. 

            1.1 Drive forward separation of the bürgerliche-conservative camps from                                 Leftist camps.

Presently, polarization in Germany proceeds all too often between AfD voters and all others. Our aim is to create a situation in which the political rifts no longer run between the AfD and the other political streams, but a bürgerliche-conservative camp and a radicalizing leftist camp oppose one another, comparable to the situation in the U.S.A. 

The starting point for such a development is given: 

The Linke have become a driving power in the leftist camp which makes it difficult for the Greens and SPD to engage in compromises with the CDU/CSU; for example, in regards migration and economy. 

The AfD and the Linke form the two ideological poles of the social argument. As a counter-pole to the ideological and woke Linke, the AfD can sharpen its bürgerliche profile. 

The AfD can essentially contribute to that the argument in politics and society becomes a “duel” between the two irreconcilably opposed camps, culminating in an  election between the AfD and Linke: Weidel or Reichinneck. 

The consequences of this polarization already show themselves with the Bundestag election in regards the first-time voters. There, the FDP and Greens were relieved as the strongest political powers by the AfD and Linke. If this trend spreads through the entire electorate, the political poles will be stronger, the rifts between both camps greater. The rifts within the camps, such as between AfD voters and CDU/CSU voters, becomes smaller because the Linke have a strong interest in attacking even moderate conservative and CDU-like positions as being close to the AfD.   

            1.2 Differentiate communications strategy. 

The communication needs to be thematically, rhetorically and argumentively differentiated between the argument with the opposing leftist camp and the argument within the bürgerliche-conservative camp. 

The argument with the leftist camp will be conducted on a fundamental level with the central point on socio- and cultural-political basic conflicts:  Family versus gender, nation versus open borders, freedom versus socialism. 

The argument with the Union needs to be primarily conducted on the themes of credibility and trust, substantially [konkret] on the political failures in regards the practical implementation of the migration change and economic change. 

In a Kulturkampf with the Linke, the AfD positions itself as the only relevant opposing force; as the credible original in political competition with the CDU/CSU, it delivers what the Union in the election campaign has only promised. 

2. Political pressure on the Union. 

            2.1 The AfD can become the strongest party with variable voters from                                    the CDU/CSU.

In the 2025 Bundestag election, the CDU/CSU gained four million voters from the SPD, FDP and non-voters; 1.76 million voters from the SPD, 1.35 million voters from the FDP and .9 million non-voters voted for the Union. These new voters for the Union gave as a reason for the vote decision that the Union after Merkel had changed course. Economic growth, domestic security were the most important themes of the CDU/CSU voters. 

If the AfD succeeded in winning these variable voters from the CDU/CSU, it will be the strongest power and expel the Union to the second place. If the AfD gained these four million voters, the absolute number of its voters climbs from ten to 14 million. That corresponds to an election result of about 28 percent, which largely corresponds to the AfD’s measured voter potential. The CDU/CSU would correspondingly lose votes and come out even worse than in 2021, as it attained with its Chancellor candidate Armin Lachet a historic low of 24 percent. 

For that it may succeed in motivating these new Union voters to a change to the AfD there speaks: 

            That these new CDU/CSU voters have already shown themselves ready to change 

            That they have voted out of protest against the Ampel CDU/CSU 

            That they are in agreement with the AfD’s positions on domestic and                                    economic policy 

            That the Union by its coalition with the SPD disillusioned these groups of voters 

The way to win these earlier SPD, FDP and non-voters, who at this election gave their votes to the Union, lies in, besides the migration policy, the key question of economic competence.  

The Union stands before the dilemma that compromise with the SPD makes it easy for the AfD to win these voters from the Union – the fight over these voters inevitably brings it into conflict with the SPD and Greens. 

2.2 The AfD as the party of the sozial market economy: Overtake the CDU/CSU in economic competence. 

The “core brand” of the CDU/CSU lies in its economic and financial competence. In the voters’ attributions of competence prior to the Bundestag election, it was far ahead of all other parties. “Economic growth” was a central motiv for the election of the CDU/CSU. The AfD strongly increased in these competence fields in the last Bundestag election, yet still lay far removed from the Union’s competence values other than in regards to that of migration where the competence attributions lay more closely one with the other. 

The economic competence is the key question so as to exploit the potential, to win the Union’s variable voters, and to enlarge acceptance for the AfD’s government responsibility. The goal is to essentially reduce the Union’s margin in regards attribution of competences in the areas of economy and finance, and to conclusively overtake the Union. In the eyes of the voters, the AfD needs to stand not only for the migration change but also for the economic change. 

The starting point for that is given: 

The lifting of the debt brake cost the Union considerably in credibility. The growing state debt and interest burden will become in the coming years a permanent theme. 

As a result of the coalition with the SPD, wide-ranging and necessary structural reforms are practically impossible. The massive problems for Germany as a business venue and for the social security system are not to be solved by the least common denominator of the CDU/CSU and SPD. 

The AfD can make market economy, ordnungspolitische and financial policy demands and program points of its own without the Union, as a result of its captivity in the coalition with the SPD, being able to oppose something credible to it. 

The AfD is the only party which, without regard to leftist climate discourse, can acknowledge itself for economic growth and can act in the central energy themes without ideological restrictions. 

The theme of economic growth and the prosperity promises united with it, besides the themes of migration and domestic security, can be an additional mainstay for the AfD, and at the same time be the clothes pin between the AfD’s various voter groups: From the unemployed to workers to the self-employed, from the former SPD to the former FDP voters, and also thereby for CDU/CSU’s variable voters. 

3. Foreign policy should create no additional problems. 

The base electorate as well as the AfD’s potential voters are primarily to be addressed by means of domestic and economic policy positions. The AfD’s foreign policy positioning has the duty to avoid controversies within its own electorate, to minimize areas of attack and thereby contribute to enlarging the AfD’s scope of acceptance. A duty of AfD foreign policy is to early identify the danger of potential internal conflicts and current negative effects for the AfD by a wise  positioning and a stringent communication agreed to within the delegation. 

Outlook: Use the members’ experience and competence. 

An overall strategy, especially in regards to the many various voter groups, should use the experience and competences of the members of the Bundestag delegation. The delegation has at its disposal comprehensive knowledge from its voter circles, from the citizen contacts, and a reservoir of life and vocational experience with which that of no other delegation is comparable. 

In a strategy process itself arise new ideas, especially in the address to the base voters, the potential, and the scope of acceptance, but also in regards considerations of tearing down the firewall and opening the way for government ability. Work groups for individual voter groups make it possible to speak beyond the usual snips of political themes, of access to the various target groups, and to speak of the solution of outlined problems, to use experiences, gather together ideas, to use available sources, so that they can flow into the overall strategy. 

The socio-empirical evaluation and analysis and strategic adaptation is thereby a permanent duty with the goal of optimizing our result and making possible the political change in Germany. 

 

[trans: tem]