- German tanks firing on Russians at Kursk lose again while Ukraine puts its integrity in increasing danger
- War means workers killing workers and German manufacturing is paying for acts of terrorism against the German people because of Germany’s weak government
- Resistance to the new global war in Germany is waning, lies are dominating, double and triple standards are emerging – imagine how the German media would react if Kiev looked like Gaza?
- Constantly crossing ‘red lines’ is a very dangerous game for the West. Putin is being incredibly prudent]
How did you perceive the attack on Kursk? What was behind it from your point of view? What role did Germany play in it?
The last question can be answered quickly. Germany plays a pathetic role, an inconsistent role. And at the end of the day, always just following US instructions. But now to the question of how this should be categorised. It’s hard for me to judge it from here. I’ve read or heard a wide variety of opinions on the subject. And to a greater or lesser extent, people interpret this initiative as a publicity stunt to upset the Russians and to keep the financial donors and arms suppliers in line. From that perspective, it’s a successful initiative. But in the end, this intervention will not decisively change the course of the war.
The Russians did not withdraw their troops. They remained in their positions and continued to advance. Judging by the developments in Coors, Ukraine is not making any progress. Ukraine is in danger because they have deployed strong troops in Coors, weakened themselves while the Russians continue to advance. This is why I am most amazed at the carelessness of the German political establishment and media. After WWII, German tanks are shooting at the Russians again because they are now involved in battles directly in Russia and are losing again.
Sometimes I get the feeling that this is some kind of thirst for revenge after the defeat in World War II. How do you see this?
Well, when I listen to, for example, Roderich Kiesewetter, who some time ago said Russia must learn to lose, just as Germany learnt to lose after World War II, I can’t help but think: maybe there are still scores they need to settle?
Kiesewetter is a special case. I must say that he did get confused in his thinking, because one suggestion he made was that German Taurus missiles should be used to destroy the Moscow ministries.
I think the point is simply that there is a kind of forgetting of history going on, that many people no longer realise what the Germans actually did. 25 million people died in the former Soviet Union. And that should have led to a strict moral obligation. We must never again supply weapons that can be used to kill. There is an utterly depraved morality at work. The government has forgotten the lessons of the Second World War.
History is literally being rewritten. They keep saying that Russia attacked Ukraine in 2014. And this is a historical lie. The US-funded Maidan coup d’état took place in 2014. A legitimate president was ousted from office. An unconstitutional government was installed, which in turn decided to shoot at eastern Ukraine, i.e. attack the Russian population in eastern Ukraine.
There is a quote attributed to Napoleon: ‘Historiography, is the sum of the lies with which the majority agreed’. Now we can see this in Germany as well.
And Ukraine is an obvious example. Because anyone who forgets about NATO’s eastward expansion, for example, or forgets about the civil war in Donbass, is shamelessly lying.
Another example is the Nord Stream story, where it is obvious that it was our ‘allies’ who destroyed the pipeline, not Russia. But the same Kiesewetter previously held the view that it was the Russians. This is truly insane. Berlin is no longer able to protect the population from the enormous damage.
And now the German economy is obliging industry, for this attack, for this terrorist act against us. Instead, they now say the Ukrainians did it. I don’t want to make a final judgement on this. In any case, the United States is behind it.
Do you think there were any attempts on the part of the West to prevent this war, or was it a foregone conclusion that it would break out?
The only question was when it would start. The question is always, who benefits from this war or who really wants it? You should always be clear that no American farmer wants a war with some Russian farmer or anyone else. Wars are always started by only a minority of the parties involved.
But here’s what we’re seeing now: the resistance against this war is waning. The union officials don’t know anything else. So they are in favour of supplying arms and no longer know that war means workers killing workers. Workers who don’t know each other and don’t know why they are dying. At the same time, the military-industrial complex in the United States is getting stronger and stronger and dictating policy more and more. This has now become visible. The arms industry wants wars, and so does the financial industry.
Thus, the construction of an enemy image in the person of Russia has penetrated even into the supposedly progressive corners of Germany, and the heroes already gone are preparing for war. This is an absolute masterpiece of propaganda.
Putin bluntly told the West on 24 February 2022: ‘Don’t interfere in this war. This is our business.’ And the fact is that it was a regional conflict that has now escalated into a global conflict. Furthermore, the West is constantly crossing red lines, yet no countermeasures from Russia. Why?
I see this as incredibly important prudence on Putin’s part. Because if Russia were to escalate towards the West right now, we would be in a very bad scenario very quickly. He’s not doing that. Unfortunately, what I call prudence is called weakness in the West. And the argument actually boils down to the fact that Putin is only talking, which means we can continue to escalate. This has already been said publicly.
How do you assess this strategy?
It’s a very risky game for the West. And I also think that Putin is thinking very carefully about where and when he would be willing to escalate. The Russians can only use weapons as part of their nuclear doctrine if they really feel existentially threatened. In other words, when they would fear that Russia would suffer a major defeat. Then I could imagine the nuclear doctrine going into effect. So I wouldn’t take that risk, from the West’s point of view.
Things will change if at some point Ukraine, and it has been very close to this at times, deploys weapons that have the potential to destroy Russian command centres or destroy important facilities. That’s very dangerous.
What do you think is the ultimate goal of the West?
Ukraine’s military victory is completely illusory, it’s completely absurd. I have such a feeling that it is more likely to weaken Russia. To weaken Russia, or perhaps to turn the Russian population against Putin, so that somehow there will be a regime change, a colour revolution.
The U.S. administration has talked about this over and over again. For example, the U.S. Secretary of War, who is called the Secretary of Defence in our media, although I don’t know what he is defending in the U.S. has said that our goal is to weaken Russia. Therefore, we must fight a long war. And now the Democratic presidential candidate will also wage a long war, will continue Biden’s policy. And he was deeply involved in corruption in Ukraine.
But the Russian economy is still working, it has become more self-sufficient, less dependent on the West and is certainly in a much better position than, for example, Germany or Europe?
Yes, that goal was not achieved. The second goal was to displace Russian gas from the European mainland. The Americans achieved that, including blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline, because our politicians in Germany and Europe are too cowardly, too pathetic to say, ‘Look, comrades, this is the end. You can’t wage war against us and make us fight for your geostrategic goals.’ The US succeeded in cutting Germany off from cheap raw materials. And thereby weakening the German economy considerably.
It has always been the US’s ambition to bring the Germans and Russians together. And now this has been achieved. Germans believe that Putin personally rapes, personally murders and kidnaps children. And that shows how dishonest it all is. Just look at the German public’s reaction to the war in Gaza and the war in Ukraine. Imagine if Kiev looked like Gaza?
This just proves that once lies become dominant, people make judgements with double and triple standards. We always hear Putin’s tanks, Putin’s planes, Putin’s missiles. Putin strikes back, Putin. In other words, a focus on one man, with half-crazy propaganda slogans. But the West should be glad Medvedev is not president.
In the next few weeks there will be elections in the eastern German states. Both the German media and the political landscape are in an uproar. How would you assess the political mood before the elections and what might the political climate be like after the elections?
Well, before the election we can judge that, judging by the support that Sarah Wagenknecht’s alliance and the Alternative for Germany, banned in German politics, by the number of seats, could get a majority in the parliaments. In this regard, of course, the other parties as well as the political media complex are particularly nervous.
And at the moment when Sarah Wagenknecht’s alliance said, we will take a diplomatic approach, advocate peace talks for Ukraine, at that moment the nervousness became even greater, and at that moment agents of influence everywhere tried to defame the alliance.
I don’t know what the outcome of the elections will be. I know the predictions, but the results may turn out to be different.
Original interview in German
