Rüdiger Lucassen, May 14, 2025, Defense Policy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/3, p. 132. 

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Besides broken election promises and announcements, nothing is put forward to us from black-red one week after the assumption of government. It may be objected: New governments need time – in that regard, two things: First. Germany does not have this time; every citizen of this country feels that. Second. Half of the Merz government is not at all new. The SPD election losers are stuck – with a small intermission – for 27 years in the Federal government. How long do you still require to show results? 50 years? No, right honorable colleagues, there is no no-hunting season in politics. We’ve heard enough excuses. The AfD grants the new government no training period. 

Chancellor Merz was just in Kiev and has made photographs with his new colleagues, promised further weapons deliveries, and demanded an armistice which was just like before rejected. For me, it made the impression as if this rebuff from Moscow had been intended so to continue the old Ampel course. Otherwise, so much foreign policy naïveté cannot be explained. The Kiev trip was thus only a PR ploy, nothing other. There were no new ideas, no acknowledgment of Realpolitik facts, and no readiness to reconsider the broken down wrong way of the previous government. You simulate strength where none is. That will not work. For the German defense policy, the new government’s prognostics are in any case at a standstill. All announcements, your coalition contract and the old Defense Minister’s justifying the acceptance, that will be no rupture. You say that quite openly and call it continuity. Only, this continuity has led the German defense policy, just so as our entire country, into the dead end. Your continuity means not only a standstill, but loss of substance. 

What Germany needs is plainly no further so, but a new approach which the Merz government cannot deliver, because it lacks the prerequisite for that, the will, free and sovereign, to take in  hand Germany’s future. For that is required the exact opposite of continuity. It requires courage, a smart  readiness to take risk, and an affirmation that Germany stands for itself [ein Bekenntnis zu Deutschland, das für sich selbst steht]. My party has entered the 21^st Bundestag with exactly this claim. Our next goal is clear: We want and will overtake the government in 2029, and put the German defense policy, without restriction, in the service of our country. 

For the AfD, our armed forces, the Bundeswehr is an expression and means of a sovereign national state. Our demand is that the Bundeswehr be in the position to defend Germany on the water, on the ground and in the air. The question is thus: Which prerequisite do we require for that? 

            Sara Nanni (Greens): Cyberspace!

The answer of the old Defense Minister, we know – we’ve plainly heard it: More money. The result: An armed forces not capable of national defense. Our answer is a clear acknowledgment of Germany as a nation, a clear acknowledgment of the national state as the highest regulating framework, and a clear acknowledgment of the state as a servant of the nation. 

I have in the past eight years many times said: There is not only a materiel and personnel mission  readiness, but also one of ideas [ideelle]. Without an ideational mission readiness, even a fully equipped armed forces can never undergo a mission and a fight. Two examples: The Afghan national army was for 20 years armed and trained by NATO, and surrendered to a guerilla force in sandals in a few hours. The Ukrainian army fights for three years an opponent superior in materiel and personnel and holds out. With amazement, the CDU and SPD then stand before the Ukrainians’ will to fight, without asking themselves from where comes this will to fight. It is the soldiers’ undiminished relation [Bezug] with the country and people. 

Ladies and gentlemen, such a positive relation to one’s own nation is restrained by the self-named democratic middle, not only for our soldiers but also for our countrymen. You also restrain it for yourselves. At the same time, this positive relation is the clear acknowledgment of our grand country, which is what we require to again set Germany aright in defense policy, but also in all other policy fields. Precisely that, we of the AfD want to achieve and will at the latest by 2029 implement. 

Ladies and gentlemen, Boris Pistorius is representative of the new Federal government. He can ever only say what he wants to fight against: Against the Russians, against hate and agitation, against the AfD. Yet the AfD knows what is worth fighting for. Our soldiers know it also, their oath demands to bravely defend the German people. That is what is worth fighting for. 

Thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Rüdiger Lucassen, January 19, 2024, Populism and Cruise Missiles

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/148, pp. 18939-18940. 

Frau President. Frau Defense Commissioner. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The CDU/CSU this week carves out motions in which it demands, free of charge, “more weapons for the Ukraine”: Day before yesterday Taurus cruise missiles, today one million artillery shells. What comes next? Atomic weapons?

             Marcus Faber (FDP): That is just rubbish!

Some of my colleagues name this CDU/CSU motion “populistic”. I find this not apt. The populist listens to what the people want and then implements it. Basically, the populist, as a politician, is an authentic employee of the people. 

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): O Gott!

Yet what the CDU here demands, the majority of Germans do not want. 

            Henning Otte (CDU/CSU): And you are a pacifist?

I know: Direct democracy is to the super democrats of this house a horror. But imagine for once a referendum as in Switzerland, and indeed on the question: Should Germany deliver to the Ukraine cruise missiles and one million artillery shells? My prognosis: You would receive not ten percent for this nonsense. 

Nein, ladies and gentlemen of the Union, with this motion, you do not want to make foreign policy – you want only to irritate the government. 

            Markus Grübel (CDU/CSU): Nein, we represent German interests!

And that as opposition is of course your good right, and it, ja, also works out well. For almost two years, the FDP’s lead candidate for the European Parliament, Frau Strack-Zimmermann, passes by no microphone without demanding more weapons for the Ukraine. Yet the day before yesterday she needed to submit to party discipline and vote against the delivery of Taurus cruise missiles. It is plainly so with the FDP’s convictions: At four percent in the polls and in a government which at anytime can fly apart, for a Strack-Zimmermann also is the shirt closer than the trousers. 

Politically, the CDU/CSU motion put forward is for two reasons nonsense. In the motion text is quite correctly stated the Bundeswehr’s stock of munitions is at a dangerously low level. Yet then the CDU demands under point 2, “to comply with…the Ukrainian request…for munitions… of all calibres…from the Bundeswehr’s stock to the greatest extent possible.” Here, colleague Otte apparently does not know his own motion. The CDU thus knows that the Bundeswehr is not defense-capable – yet despite this, it wants to further disarm. That surely has features of treason [Das hat schon Züge von Landesverrat]. 

            Henning Otte (CDU/CSU): You just had to say that!

And second: The war for the Ukraine will not be decided on the battlefield. Everyone knows that. It would meanwhile thus be a German responsibility to start a diplomatic great offensive from the Bundestag, 

            Sara Nanni (Greens): Oh ja!

instead of here calculating munitions needs. Were you statesmen, you would, immediately and with regard to the impending U.S. elections, begin such diplomacy and not waste additional time with such senseless motions. 

Many thanks. 

            Joe Weingarten (SPD): That is again the speech of the Russian press office! 

            Götz Frömming (AfD, turned to the CDU/CSU): Show window motions! 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

Rüdiger Lucassen, June 28, 2023, Bundeswehr in Lithuania

AfD Kompakt, June 28, 2023. 

The Ampel government here proclaims in passing a decision of strategic importance without parliamentary participation or putting forward a concrete plan for implementation. The stationing of a combat brigade on foreign ground would be a novelty in German post-war history. Never yet was a large unit of the Bundeswehr stationed long-term in a foreign country. The Federal government thereby besides renounces de facto the NATO-Russia basic document. For the AfD delegation, it is settled: A decision of such range needs to be decided by the Bundestag. Should it in fact come to a stationing, the prerequisites for that would scarcely be able to be met. Four thousand soldiers require a military infrastructure and provision facilities for their families. It is entirely unclear how the government wants to muster the forces and financial means for that. 

 

[trans: tem]

Rüdiger Lucassen, November 23, 2022, Defense Procurement

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/69, p. 8092.

Frau President. Frau Defense Commissioner. Ladies and gentlemen.

Nine months Zeitenwende [change of times] Bundeswehr. Here, I want to open with a question: Where is it, the Zeitenwende of Chancellor Olaf Scholz? In the Defense Committee it so far has not arrived. The press in any case seeks it. It has not arrived in the industry and our soldiers after nine months have seen nothing of the Zeitenwende in their barracks.

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): That is not right! Go there for once!

Scholz’s Zeitenwende, there is none, and not after your just heard attempt at clarification, Frau Minister. The truth is: For defense of our country, the Federal government has made 100 billion euros in debts, yet it has done nothing to expend the money for our armed forces. What the Federal government is doing to the Bundeswehr is sabotage, sabotage by incompetence.   

Dear colleagues, what could a willing and competent Federal government do with all of 100 billion euros?  Much of the damage which was inflicted on the Bundeswehr in the last decades could thereby be repaired. This prospect of a material change in the Bundeswehr is besides why a majority voted for the special fund. Yet now it appears that 100 billion in debt money melts away like snow in the sun, and the reasons are all homemade.

First. By means of galloping inflation, the purchasing power of the special fund decreases in the coming five years to 69 billion. That means 31 billion in purchasing power has been burnt.

Second. The increased interest rates for the borrowed money in any case hits the special fund full in the account. In the six months of this year alone, 308 million euros therein goes just for interest. For this sum, the Defense Ministry could buy 20 new armored howitzers. Yet the Defense Ministry buys no armored howitzers, exactly as few heavy transport helicopters, Boxers for the medium forces, or the enormously important air defense.

            Andreas Schwarz (SPD): Nevertheless, everything runs!

Instead, the Defense Ministry pays interest. With interest, our soldiers cannot fight.

State Secretary Möller drew our attention in a friendly way to the third point in the last committee meeting: The weakness of the euro. Every arms purchase in the U.S.A., like the purchase of the F-35 or the heavy transport helicopters, will obviously be figured in U.S. dollars. As a result of the weak euro, there is ever less armament for the money in the U.S.A. Your catastrophic financial policy not only weakens our prosperity but also our defense readiness.

The fourth and last reason for the melting of the special fund is the totally overcharged procurement system of the Bundeswehr. All of the Defense Ministers of the last nine years attempted a reform, all have failed. Frau Lambrecht herself has given up the attempt of a reform.

            Andreas Schwarz (SPD): Which nevertheless runs fine!

What the Federal government does with the special fund is a money demolition. And the Bundeswehr in the future will not be defense ready.

Ladies and gentlemen, the situation is off track, for every defense politician, regardless of which party. I say to you what I would do in this situation. I would set clear priorities and order weapons and munitions and indeed do it quickly. The German defense industry can deliver. It only waits on orders. I would run the risk of setting aside the procurement law, motivate the Armaments Office and let the complaints come [Ich würde ins Risiko gehen, mich über das Vergaberecht hinwegsetzen, dem Rüstungsamt Beine machen, es auf Klagen ankommen lassen]. Authentic political leadership presupposes the will to implement. It means having in view the welfare of the Bundeswehr and of our Federal Republic and taking personal responsibility for decisions in an emergency.

Thank you.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rüdiger Lucassen, September 7, 2022, Defense Budget

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/50, p. 5382.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

The government puts forward the largest defense budget in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany –  a good 50 billion euros, more than nine times as much as the Ukrainian defense budget before the outbreak of the war. And like every year, we need ask ourselves: What does Germany receive for this money? How defense-ready is our Bundeswehr? To the greatest defense budget since the foundation of the Federal Republic is added the greatest injection of money in the history of the Republic: A 100 billion euro special facility for the armed forces. Yes, Frau Minister, the money is needed. At the same time, this enormous sum shows how greatly the Federal governments of the last two decades have economized and made our armed forces kaputt.

            Henning Otte (CDU/CSU): Yet it was steadily increased!

Now it could be said: Let’s forget it! The Ampel coalition is tackling it – and in fact on February 27 of this year one could have had the impression that the Federal government understands what is now to be done. Chancellor Scholz announced a “change of times” for the Bundeswehr. Yet for a good defense policy is required not only money but primarily capable personnel, determined by the political circumstances, so as to be able to wisely invest this money. And with all respect: Such a personnel I do not see on the government bench.

Frau Minister Lambrecht, Herr Chancellor, the defense budget which you put forward here is a document of failures. Of the enormous sum of 50 billion euros, only 19 percent goes for procurement and innovation. The rest goes to current operations, pay adjustments, supply capacity, material receipts, barracks management, to contractors, or is lost in inflation. The latter hits the area of defense with full force. The 100 billion euro special facility at the end of next year is worth only 90 billion euros, in five years just 62 billion euros. That is the result of your policy.

Ladies and gentlemen, Frau Lambrecht has directly effected that the government has shoved many armament projects onto the special budget. Were I in her place, I would not be proud of that; for she thereby discloses two things.

First. Despite the removal of many investments from the regular budget – over 2.3 billion euros – the total expenditure increases. That means: Still more money for the current operation of a non-mission-ready Bundeswehr.  

Second. The investments from the special facility are increases in the future operations costs; since any equipment you now procure by means of the special facility moreover additionally increases the large portion of operating costs. What the Federal government puts forward here is a ticking time bomb for the Federal budget of coming years.

Herr Chancellor, your change of times is no change of times. You continue to do exactly so as a cabinet minister under Merkel. You have not the power to commission capable personnel and to attempt a structural clearance. Instead, you deceive the public with giant sums of debt, yet the required investments in the build up of the Bundeswehr are lacking. Germany does not thus become more secure and also not more independent.

Ladies and gentlemen, this defense budget is basically an administrative budget. Just 19 percent goes into combat strength and continued development. Frau Lambrecht said in committee: What the soldiers need will be procured, and not what the industry wants to sell. – Yet the converse has occurred.

Gesine Lötzsch (Linke): That’s right. He’s right there!

You order, among other things, additional K-130 corvettes of the so-called Kahrs class, which goes back to a deal of your faded SPD comrade. Yet these corvettes are utterly unfeasible for national and alliance defense. And this is just one example.

The Defense Ministry is apparently incapable of adapting itself to the new situation. You continue to purchase for your failed intervention policy even though the security situation in Europe since 2014 has changed drastically. National and alliance defense is called for. Come about! This defense budget is not suited for that; it is only one thing: More expensive. As a Bundeswehr and and foreign security party, we must reject it.

            Alexander Lambsdorff (FDP): The Reichwehr perhaps!

I thank you for your attention.

            Falko Droßmann (SPD): Exactly! Reject any money for the Bundeswehr!                                                Embarrassing, embarrassing! Resign!

 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

Rüdiger Lucassen, July 8, 2022, A European NATO

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/48, pp. 5106-5107.

Right honorable Frau President. Excellencies. Dear colleagues.

With Sweden and Finland, two European nations join NATO upon which Germany and the alliance can rely. Both countries maintain high value armed forces. Sweden re-activated the defense duty in 2018. Finland has a reservists corps which is superior even to many European regular armies. And quite important: The culture of both of these northern countries guarantees a smooth integration into the alliance.

Germany’s security will profit directly from this expansion. Who today agrees to the reception of Sweden and Finland into NATO acknowledges it for Germany’s security. Sweden and Finland strengthen the northern flank of NATO. The last weeks however have shown where the weakness of the alliance lies: On the southern flank. Turkey has again used the entrance negotiations to extort Europe. Erdogan has thereby once again demonstrated that Turkey will never be a part of Europe.

Ladies and gentlemen, the northern expansion offers the opportunity to finally strengthen the European pillar of NATO. Who does this can bury a still-born like the EU army. For another thing, it is the way to a European NATO along with the way to a greater independence from the U.S.A. That is for Germany and Europe a goal of immense significance. I may remind the Federal government that independence from America during the Trump time was largely in fashion. You should now show that this viewpoint not only had to do with your aversion to Trump but was in fact strategically founded.

A European NATO is a necessity so as to free Europe from the vise grip of the great powers. Sweden and Finland can contribute to that. As a welcoming gift, the Federal government should finally let deeds follow the many words. The goal must be to build up the Bundeswehr as Europe’s army of greatest combat strength and to undertake leadership [die Bundeswehr zur kampfstärksten Armee Europas aufzubauen und Führung zu übernehmen]. Strategic autonomy will not be made a present; one must take it upon oneself.

Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

Rüdiger Lucassen, April 28, 2022, Weapons Deliveries to the Ukraine

AfD Kompakt, April 28, 2022.

The Gepard is a solid, near-range anti-aircraft system, but only with a high state of training for the crew in specific conjunction with other troop elements, and when sufficient munitions and maintenance have seen secured. These prerequisites for the mission in the Ukraine armed forces are at the moment not, or not sufficiently, at hand. I thus venture the prognosis that the Gepard will not be employed in the Ukraine war. In my view, it is a question of a placebo so that the Federal government need not appear with empty hands at the donors conference in Ramstein. This confirms the AfD delegation’s basic scepticism in regards weapons deliveries to the Ukraine.

 

[trans: tem]