Panthers first, then howitzers, and soon tanks fight? The chancellor distributes sedative pills on TV. Anne Weil’s reaction: “More arms for Ukraine – is this the path to peace?”
Kevin Kunert (32, SPD). The Secretary-General received electoral chatter in Kiel, the following threatening to speak, through plain text diplomat Andrei Melnik.
Britta Haselman (60, green). The faction leader wrote on Twitter: “Putin and his leaders should be held accountable before the International Criminal Court!”
Andrei Melnik (46). The ambassador calls for a commemoration of the eight million Ukrainian victims of Nazi tyranny. He wears a red poppy lapel as a symbol of the victory over Hitler’s Germany.
Robert Bollins (75, CDU). The former Secretary General is head of the Department of Eastern European Studies and wants the Federal Chancellor to arrive in Kyiv at the end of the war: “Schultz must travel!”
Harold Welzer (63). The sociologist is a co-signer of Emma’s controversial letter to Federal Chancellor WG. arms shipments.
Ann Wille Colorful Alarm Clock Set: Five Guests, Five Locations? Zoff-O-Meter hopes for civic ethics.
Most enemies melee pen
Sociologist Walzer signed up with Alice Schwarzer and first slandered the Federal Chancellor: “I listened to the whole speech at half past seven and find it very indifferent,” the scientist grumbled. “I’m becoming a little bit more straightforward relatively than I was at 7:15 p.m.” Off!
CDU politician Paulins signed off on the counter rhetoric and dealt better with Schulz’s policy: “After talking about the beginning of the era, I thought the path was now clear, but then there was a stumble. Now I have hope that this is over. Now he is rallying his government. behind him to continue the path.”
Koehnert finds criticism of the chancellor’s communication “remarkable, considering that he communicated more during four or five months of his tenure than his predecessor in two electoral terms!”
Regarding countermeasures, the SPD General says: “We are making tough decisions, but bear in mind that we want to punish Putin’s war promoter and his inner circle of power and not shoot in the knees to hurt Putin.” Rooms!
Most disappointed feedback
“We would have liked more details in this letter,” Ambassador Melnik complains. For weeks, there was no “movement” in the arms deliveries, “and there was also no ammunition in Brazil, so this decision is likely to be invalid.”
In World War II, the Western Allies handed over 14,000 aircraft, 8,000 tanks and 7,000 anti-aircraft guns to the Soviet Union, “according to the diplomat’s estimation,” and we are talking here about seven self-propelled howitzers! “
The worst dizzy spell
The sociologist would like to turn the studio into a lecture hall: “We are dealing with a violent process here,” he lectures, “and this violent process is characterized by the fact that it itself produces an escalation.”
His insightful vision: “The dynamics of escalation of military violence risk further opacity of war. Military violence is a social process of its own quality. A continuous game of action and reaction. An abbreviation of phases of consideration.” Heidewitzka!
” data-zoom-src=”https://bilder.bild.de/fotos/das-thema-bei-anne-will-lautete-mehr-waffen-fuer-die-ukraine–ist-das-der-weg-zum-frieden–55ecdb23fbd4462da2b6aaff0ada3398-80021670/Bild/1.bild.jpg”/> Anne Will’s theme was: “More arms for Ukraine – is this the way to peace?”Photo: Das Erste/ARD
Anne Will’s theme was: “More arms for Ukraine – is this the way to peace?”Photo: Das Erste/ARD
The most active contrast
Lulzer’s most important sentence is a quote from the philosopher Jürgen Habermas: “The war against nuclear power in the traditional sense cannot be won.”
“Error!” Polenz counters. The Americans lost in Vietnam. In any case, the Americans, along with two other nuclear powers, France and Great Britain, did not win in Afghanistan. And the Soviet Union did not win in Afghanistan either.”
The most assertive definition
“Of course you can say: This is a violent process, as you say as a sociologist,” the CDU politician explains. I would describe it more accurately as a war of aggression!
Because, according to Pollins: “Putin’s goal is to eliminate Ukraine as a state. And when he now talks about de-Nazification of Ukraine, he means that every Ukrainian who does not feel Russian is a Nazi. They go to infiltration camps and end up somewhere in Siberia.”
Zoff-O-Meter appears immediately
The sociologist has dug deep into his chair. “The question of permanently rearming has no logical end,” he said, waving his mangled hands. “If you create a situation of equal power, the result is a perpetual war of attrition or attrition with an increasing number of casualties…”
Now a beefy buck! “What you and your colleagues offer is a complete illusion,” the ambassador says angrily, adding, “It is easy for you to sit in your professor’s room and philosophize!”
The talk show host intervenes: “Do not tarnish your reputation,” the Ukrainian strongly warned, because: “There are a lot of people who talk like that.”
Welzer plays bored and provocatively supports his head with his hand. Seriously now?
“They want the Ukrainians to surrender because Russia has nuclear weapons,” the ambassador accused the sociologist. “It means that no matter what you do, you cannot win a war against Russia. And that is wrong!” Polenz repeated gestures.
Melnick’s most furious criticism of Welzer: “What you’re offering is morally irrelevant.” chat!
The sociologist laments: “It often surprises me that you are so strong with your interlocutors.” His central argument: It is possible that 45 percent of Germans who oppose heavy weapons have “very present war experience in the family.”
Wilzer’s example: Federal President Richard von Weissacker spoke of “liberation” on May 8, 1985, even though his father had been convicted as a war criminal in Nuremberg. Your Majesty.
” data-zoom-src=”https://bilder.bild.de/fotos/soziologe-harald-welzer-6a8966f27b584a75ad2858651786f31b-80021674/Bild/1.bild.jpg”/> Sociologist Harald WelzerPhoto: Das Erste/ARD
Sociologist Harald WelzerPhoto: Das Erste/ARD