In Sunday’s question, Die Linke swings by four percent. It is difficult to quantify the part of Putin’s war and the party’s pre-war attitude towards the President of Russia in these trivial values. They will play a role. When Putin had already massed 100,000 soldiers on the Ukrainian border and sent French President Macron and Chancellor Schultz to his ridiculously long table, leading left-wing politicians expertly declared on television that there would never be a Russian invasion. Others on the left lamented the “NATO war mongers”, while in February a former member of the Bundestag celebrated Putin as a unique figure on propaganda channel RT, for which no Western statesman can hold a candle.
The chancellor just had no reason to talk about a turning point. For many on the left, both inside and outside the party, the war of aggression against Ukraine in Indy Gelandy meant a turning point. Many did not see them coming, sharing this with other parties. But many of the leftists who stood up to Moscow until the age of five to twelve have since had to ask themselves how they could be so wrong about Putin. or wanted. exploration.
The German leftists, this is my first answer, were wrong because they also did not believe that the Russian president and commander in chief could be liars, brutal and gamblers enough to start a fascist colonial war in Europe in the twenty-first century.
German leftists, even that is not enough for automatic criticism, have also relied on the continuation of the tried and tested experiment, dating back to the Cold War, which says that if change through rapprochement was not, then at least change through trade would still be possible, in spite of all conflicts.
The third note is more difficult. I call it infatuation. Dr. Oswald Schneidratus, whose mother was born near Lviv, studied in Moscow. In his first name, his parents honored his grandfather Oswald, a civil engineer born in Berlin in 1881. He was sentenced to death in August 1937 for allegedly “Trotsky’s counter-revolutionary activities” and shot in Moscow. With his political emigration to the Soviet Union in 1924, he was the first architect to import Bauhaus ideas into the Soviet Union.
I met Ossi Schneidratus’ grandson when I was a reporter as a diplomat at the East German Embassy in London. A management consultant for many years and a speaker of Russian, he still gathers first-hand experience on countless trips to Moscow and Kiev. Schneidratus is clear on the subject of ‘One Eye Left’: “Since the Chechens at the latest, I have always been amazed at how little attention has been given to the fact that the Tsar’s eagle is again soaring over the Kremlin and that the Russian Orthodox Church has restored the faith to pre-Martin Luther. After the chaos Yeltsin, Russia is back to “who” again, but doesn’t seem to care who “who.” It is ignored that for Russia’s neighbors the Tsar’s eagle had always been a bloody, colonial colonial bird and that it always became a killer of neighboring peoples when major German imperial policies cooperated with Great Russian imperial politics. I have always warned of the Tsar’s eagle, but I did not anticipate this criminal war against Ukraine either. ”
Schneidratos, who took in Ukrainian refugees in his hut at the weekend, adds with equal clarity: “It seemed that many leftists had finally seen in Russia a force that could effectively put an end to the ‘aspirations of the United States to become a great power.’ They put the Kremlin’s aggression on Right. I think the “understanders of Russia” should be critics of Putin, because his policies are not only criminal towards the outside world, but also destructive for his people.”
The fourth problem for many on the left is their contempt for the cause of non-alignment as part of state sovereignty. It is currently leading to an overestimation of Moscow’s interests and neglect of the interests of smaller states. Especially when they chose to join NATO, such as Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, wanted to do so – with the same sovereignty – as Ukraine, or are currently seriously considering such a step, such as the long-neutral neighboring countries Finland and Sweden with reference to Moscow’s war against Ukraine.
We can only highly recommend the Slavic scholar and historian of Eastern Europe Karl Schlögel, who is always cautious in his tone, almost shy, and at the same time very knowledgeable on the subject. Schlögel, who taught at the Free University of Berlin, in Moscow and Saint Petersburg, had already written in the summer of 2015, after the annexation of Crimea: “Ukraine – until recently in the minds of most Germans was nothing more than an ocean, a backyard, an icy, The sphere of influence, the buffer zone and a subject for others, is not a subject that has its own idea of its own history and can organize its life as it pleases and as every other nation is allowed to do, without ifs but. The historical experience of the peoples between Russia and Germany – the Poles and Balts in particular – is still of little importance in this discourse, unless one rejects it entirely as idiosyncratic (hypersensitivity – RO), putting them in the corner of hysteria, incapable of realpolitik, moving . «
Another point of deception: the willingness of many leftists, when in doubt, to blame everything and everything on the United States and NATO, also contributes to some sentiment. The discredit this can cause to the left is shown not only by the occasional relativity of Russian aggression since February 24. For example, when the well-deserved ex-chair of the Council of Elders of the Left, Hans Modrow, wrote a lot in this newspaper about Putin’s war without mentioning Putin’s name. It was also clear how the left accepted, without emotion, all things considered, Putin’s violation of international law as he experienced the Great War of the day with the annexation of Crimea and the Donbass.
Nothing burdened the leadership of the GDR more than violent border changes. But in the case of Crimea and the Donbass, this left-wing politician rarely bothered. After all, there was NATO and the United States a permanent bogeyman. Historically, there has often been a reason to take to the streets against both. But throwing cotton balls at Moscow when it commits war crimes on a massive scale is pathetic anti-Americanism. The threat to Russia from NATO was and remains a smokescreen. Russia’s leading nuclear power has the ability to deter any conceivable attacker.
The purely ideological interpretation of Soviet development by the SED and the GDR is another, partly enduring interpretation of the often blind view of the largest country on Earth. Not only since the war have I occasionally felt reminded of the topic “History of CPSU” on the one-year course in 1987/88 at the SED Party School. From today’s perspective and knowing which sources had no role back then, what a delicate soup! Not a word about the Holodomor, the part of the Soviet Union famine in the 1930s in Ukraine that killed three to seven million people. Only a little substance about terrorism, which, according to the reporter of the century Rysard Kapusinsky, did not leave the country until Gorbachev. Kapusinsky (1932-2007) traveled up and down the Soviet Union, summarizing his decades of experience in 1992/93, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, in “Empire – Soviet Lines” quoting Soviet writer Wassily Grossman (“Stalingrad” and “Leben und Destiny”). ”: “Russia has seen many great things in the millennium of its history … There was only one thing that Russia did not see in the millennium – freedom.”
My final answer to the initial question: Until this war, societies in Europe were mentally demilitarized. The conscription was gone, the idea that national defense could become practical disappeared, and it was conceivable that Putin could start a war that overshadowed him. But while many, especially those on the left, are now warning about arms shipments to Ukraine, at least since Putin’s barbarism, one has to ask whether the anti-Hitler coalition defeated Nazism and its leader with white flags and warm words.
Deception about Russia was, and still is, self-deception, and it was not, nor was it the prerogative of the left. However, he was especially big with them. This makes it particularly heavy. More importantly, D’Link has “always (has) been to claim more intelligent analysis,” left-wing politician Benjamin Emmanuel Hoff recently stated in a second interview.
Rainer Ochmann, born in 1947, was a longtime new foreign editor and correspondent. From 1992 to 1999 he was editor-in-chief of the newspaper, and then until 2002 press spokesman for the PDS parliamentary group.