EIt may not be a good idea, but it is ultimately an unavoidable idea when ZDF decides to finally close the so-called representation gap again; So when Maybrit Illner invites the representative of a party to her meeting to create meaning, which apparently every fifth German would choose if the time had come next Sunday.
And at the same time it is a terrible dilemma, because every talk show ceases to be a talk show as soon as there is Björn Höcke, the mastermind of the AfD, the man who has lately been developing increasingly insane ideas about the Wall Street world conspiracy, climate change and Germany’s impending ruin ; and with whom it would probably be difficult to agree even on the question of what equals two times two.
And anyone who has seen and heard Timo Chrupalla, the chairman, sitting with Markus Lanz and talking about the Russian war against the Ukraine, without empiricism, without empathy, without any idea of diplomacy and history, knows that Chrupalla invite to a talk show. But their topic will not be the NATO summit. But the question of whether there can be a reconciliation between the facts and Chrupalla.
Dare more “so to speak”.
That leaves Alexander Gauland, the honorary chairman, who, just by constantly saying “so to speak”, suggests a certain thoughtfulness, a certain skepticism about the quick catchphrases. And who knows German-Russian history well enough to be able to name a few dates to prove that Russia, when it was strong, helped the Germans (by which he means mainly the Prussians), which is why a strong Russia is also in the German interest today. And not a weak one.
Actually, it should be about the analysis of the NATO summit, about the question of whether this summit, as Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, the designated German ambassador in Moscow, explained, was a success and, thanks to the determination of all members, continued to raise money and Providing weapons is ultimately also a step forward for Ukraine.
Or whether, as Melanie Amann from “Spiegel” and Roderich Kiesewetter from the CDU saw, the hesitance of the United States and Germany to extend an invitation to NATO right now, and the attitude of the Eastern Europeans, who wanted exactly that, to clearly visible picture of disunity, a result that Vladimir Putin can only be pleased about because he had speculated on the fact that the West was divided from the start.
Gauland against all
However, this discussion did not come about because Alexander Gauland also has an opinion that can be summarized as follows: he is against it. Against arms deliveries, against a NATO that has long borders with Russia, against the continuation of the war, against sanctions and above all against a West that is in solidarity with itself and Ukraine. Because, first of all, the interests of Poland, for example, are not the interests of Germany. And because the war in Ukraine is not Germany’s war.
Gauland’s positions have been formulated a hundred times since the war began, by both the far left and the far right. That Russia has legitimate security interests. That Germany in particular must now become diplomatically active. It was also interesting to hear from the representative of a party that doesn’t want to talk about German guilt all the time that, in view of German history and German guilt, it was unacceptable for German tanks to shoot at Russian soldiers. In short, Gauland spoke like Chrupalla, only in more elaborate sentences. And fueled by an understanding of history that seems to owe its relationship to nations, their character and their soul, equally to the pomp of the 19th century, Spengler’s historical morphology and the conflict strategy of computer strategy games: International law or Estonia’s claims to self-determination are not game-changing.
Groundhog Day
On the one hand, this can be perceived as an argumentative Groundhog Day, as long as it is already being told. And on the other hand, even in the subject of recent history, the repetition lessons are good for your head. So when the other three participants kept explaining to Gauland that there was exactly the extreme and intensive diplomacy he demanded in the months before the invasion. And that all of that didn’t work. Or when he was reminded that NATO, like the porridge in a fairy tale, had not spread eastwards inexorably; but that it was the Lithuanians or the Czechs who already knew why they were seeking protection from whom. That wasn’t the hottest news. But it’s the facts that have to be reminded again and again – which is particularly important now that, in view of the trench warfare, there is a risk of general habituation, perhaps even an exhaustion of solidarity.
In fact, it wasn’t necessarily wrong to invite Gauland. On the other hand, one might have heard the more detailed analysis of the NATO summit with even greater benefit.
#review #Maybrit #Illner #war #computer #game