The Duran Podcast - European irrationality in Ukraine - Michael von der Schulenburg, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen

Episode Date: September 6, 2024

European irrationality in Ukraine - Michael von der Schulenburg, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen

Hi everyone and welcome. My name is Glenn Dyson and I'm joined today by Alexander Merak Curris. And also from the EU Parliament, we have Michael von der Schoenberg, who is a German diplomat, also working with the OSCE. And if I'm not mistaken, 34 years in the United Nations, which has held positions, including the Assistant Secretary General in the UN Peacekeeping Missions from Iraq to Sierra Leone, And also, yeah, I would say a very important voice in not just German politics, but also European. So welcome, both of you. Yeah. So we really want to...

My life is a bit more complicated, no? Sorry? I've been more complicated. I've been almost in any war you have. And because I was a specialist in the UN and, of course, also on the development side, humanity and whatever. I've many times been in Afghanistan. I know all the Mujahideen commanders. I've met all the presidents, including even Najibullah and things like this one, the Taliban, the best of it.

So I've been in Iraq and Iran. I was almost for nine years, three times because of the wars. And then, of course, in Syria and Somalia and Sierra Leone and so on. You know, you have to look at my real CV, not the one in big. Wikipedia, they make, I don't know how they, who did this, but I don't want to change it because I don't want to get any attention to it because they'd start fumbling them with my CV and I also don't care really what people think about me. That is not untypical of what many people say about Wikipedia, by the way, that pay no attention. And I pay no attention to Wikipedia. I don't think many of our viewers do either. So I've spent basic 34, of these 30 years, I lived actually in these countries. I lived in the countries.

I had admission since 92. And yeah, I was all the time, I was actually living in them, signed in them. And, you know, sometimes only came three times a year out and to see my family. So I'm very much acquainted with wars and how people think and how they do. I know less about, of course, the situation in Ukraine. But, you know, how people behave in war, how they decide, how they on both sides, it's very similar. It's very similar to Ukraine and Iran, and it is for the West and Ukraine. I mean, we always think that we are so special.

There's nothing special about it. The only thing that's special that we have nuclear weapons in the background, but the other countries don't have. Of course, that changes a lot. But otherwise, the logic and wars is always very, very similar. Yes, I should have corrected Germany, Europe, as well as obviously the wider world. But I was hoping we could maybe start with German politics and then look more into the war in Ukraine. Because in Germany, it seems, you know, the German politics is undergoing tremendous change.

People are speaking of a gradual de-industrialization. There seems to be a new attitude towards war. This huge political upheaval, as we saw in the elections on Sunday. So in a relatively short period of time, it appears that Germany has begun undergoing very dramatic change. Now, obviously, we're standing on the outside of Germany looking in, so we really wanted to ask you how we can best understand what is going on inside Germany at the moment. I'm not sure that I'm the right person because I haven't lived in Germany since 1978. It's very interesting. So I see it also from the outside. Now, of course, very involved in all these

elections and the European elections, I was also in Leipzig and in Saxon and Turing and like this one. I think we should not forget. There is a shift. shift in Germany towards negotiations and not delivering weapons to countries at war, which we all, in traditional policy which we had followed, and with Schult sort of throw over and says, you know, there's a new time and we have now to send weapons to war countries. And I think this is now going to be questioned. It's about 68% but in the last, when they required, 608% of the German,

think like this, and different levels, of course. And the interesting thing is in Saxony, the majority of those who vote for the CDU, for the Conservative Party and for the FDP, are also against the war, and especially they are against the stationing of medium-range missiles. So we have now, it's one of the greatest priorities in the war. And I think we have to see if this repeats in West Germany, because that's what the elections are now all in East Germany. But we see a change. And I think what has... happens in Germany will be more important than what happens here in the European Parliament in the end, how we decide, how we deal with the war, how we solve the war, and especially also what

arrangements for Europe, and I mean, or what type of peace we will have for Europe. So Germany is very important. And I think in this whole thing, there are two parties which are basically very different. The RF Day, which has a pro-peace agenda, and us, the BASA. And we are

opposed to the RIFDA because of many other things, but on this one, it is on peace and we will not go along with them, but we give them people now an alternative because in many countries I've been to, in all European countries I know of, if

people are against the war, they have to vote the right wing. So in their sense, you see here also something new happening, which I think will somehow be repeated in other countries. There is a vacuum left by the social Democrats in most countries by moving so much towards a war agenda that now there is an opening for another type of left-wing party, maybe left-wing conservative, as we call it, more open. But basically linking the war also to social justice. And I think that's very, very important. If this is successful, if we are successful, it's not only important for Germany. It could be very important for Europe. And I'm sitting here in the European Parliament. I realize how important it is.

This is a parliament. And I'm really deeply, deeply, deeply shocked. I'm just new in the parliament. It's so pro-war. I mean, I think it somehow, this parliament is on the moon. Because in all European countries, people don't want this anymore. And here, we are completely poor war. We have two realities. And so I think the German examples will be very important. I don't know if it's clear, yeah, but, you know. I completely agree.

Just a few observations. More observations than questions, which you perhaps can take them forward from there. Firstly, what you describe, what's called left conservatism, to me, looks very much like social democracy. The social democracy, that I used to remember in Germany, in Britain, in other parts of Europe, of which I myself was a part of. I mean, I was very much, you know, involved in that kind of politics in my youth.

And of course, in Germany, Germany was a place where it originated. And I was absolutely bewildered to see it disappear so completely in Germany. And so suddenly disappear in Germany. And in terms of Germany's importance. My own view, again, looking back, and I lived through this time, is that Germany played an absolutely critical role from the 1960s in ending the Cold War. It was Germany's pursuit of post-politique, which ultimately led to detente. It stabilized the situation in Europe. It secured peace in Europe.

that peace in Europe made possible ultimately German reunification amongst other things. And it was both economically successful, the sort of social democracy, which even to some extent the CDU was conducting. And it was diplomatically successful. It secured peace in Europe and made it possible to create the European economic community, which eventually evolved into the EU. I do not understand. I cannot comprehend how Germany, which was so successful in doing all of these things, stabilising the situation in Europe in the way that it did, suddenly reversed itself so completely over the last few years. And I'm completely bewildered as to what has happened to the Green Party, de Gruner, who I remember as being the people who were

opposed to militarization in Germany. They're all kinds of ideas. I mean, they're very much. Absolutely. And now they are the most extreme Atlantisist pro-war party. I don't understand how all of that has happened. So for me, the arrival of Sarawagnecht, the Barge Knecht movement, is a return to, for me, what is what I always understood Germany to be about. And of course, the Alexander, if you can interrupt you, what we see in this election, that the German electorate is sensitive to that. We are only six months party, and we are the third largest party in the two state elections where we had. It's a huge success.

And so we see there is a demand for people who don't want to follow this policy. But you see, Alexander, it will change quicker. We will see the war in Ukraine. getting worse, worse for NATO, and of course, sadly also worse for the Ukrainian because they have the big betrayed people here in Europe. And it will go worse for Germany. I mean, the economy goes down. I mean, we pretend it has nothing to do with the war. Of course, it's all to do with the war. I mean, all these sanctions, which we suffer more than the Russians, you know, cutting us off from the raw materials. Yeah, I mean, we happen to be in Europe.

I mean, and not in the United States. I mean, and cutting it off from the trade with Asia. I mean, it's absolutely madness what we are doing. It is against any interest we have. Now, I have learned in all the years dealing with wars that wars are not about moral, but they are about interests. And we have completely forgotten. We are so subsumed with our moral arguments

that we defend democracy, whatever now and whatever, and these type of things. that we defend the mothers and children in the war and all those things that happened there, by the way, on both sides. And, no, we have to think about what our interests is. And, you know, when I've been here in the parliament, the first time Europe had a chance to define its own policy without the Americans, America has basically said goodbye to the Ukraine war.

I know the Americans, how it happened in Afghanistan and how it happened in Iraq, when they suddenly sort of realized that they couldn't win it anymore and they sort of touch themselves. The war is now ours. And we have all these elections and, you know, they're thinking the other way and, you know, we might have Trump in the end as a president who will make a deal with Putin over our heads. And what Europe does now, it doesn't choose what it's its interest. The interest should be to negotiate how we can, is a reestablish peace in Europe.

No. We choose war. I mean, Europe has just chosen war. On the 16th of July, the European Parliament opened the first session. And the first thing we had was a resolution. They called a resolution for the support of the Ukraine. A resolution was the support of the Ukraine.

And we had one day to vote for it. I didn't get any vote. I couldn't speak on it. I mean, it was rushed through a three-point five-page long document. which says we have to stand to Ukraine until it militarily beats Russia. I mean, two and a half years after the war, you know, after, you know, Ukraine can't win the warmen. Here we say it should win the war.

We say we should give Ukraine every year $127 billion in military equipment. This is as much as we have given them until now. I mean, in Ukraine, which has hardly any people and soldiers anymore, I mean, it will not happen. And we say that all our Western weapons could be used on Russian territory now. I mean, you couldn't say anything worse. At the same time, you say that the Ukraine should now become member of NATO, should become member of the European Union.

All these things will not happen. So the European Parliament has just, what do you say in English, accepted a resolution or passed a resolution, which has objectives which we can't fulfill. I mean, such an unrealistic thing is very dangerous because it's only provocative. You have no means to change the war anymore, Europe. You know, you see the only two countries which could possibly have an influence as France and Germany, and both have now very unstable governments.

And nonetheless, we do this. This is actually almost committing suicide for Europe. Because in the document, there's not one word about diplomacy, not one word, even if you want to continue supporting the Ukrainians. There is no one word of negotiations, nothing at all. Orban is really been very badly treated into things, you know, that he has betrayed Europe and all the rest of the things. We think he has done the right thing.

But, you know, it basically means that the European Union will not play any role in solving the Ukraine war. We have just put ourselves on the sideline. But it's a war on European soil. That means the biggest organization we have in Europe has basically said goodbye to a solution. Because who wants to talk to a unit which says war is the only solution. Whereas India, the Brexit countries have very soon. They're meeting over there.

They will all want a negotiations. And the Americans go to this too. I mean, listen to the Americans think tanks. I mean, it is completely changed. But we here still play war. A war we can't even afford. It is madness. I tell you, there is simply, it is a policy that can only be described as madness.

I cannot understand anything of it. And I hope very much, you know, we are only six people here in the parliament. And six people, we couldn't even get a fraction together, a political group of 23 under the rubric of peace and social justice. We might still get. But you see how isolated we are on the things, which you should. actually should be on everybody's minds, how we bring peace back to Europe. Even if we accuse Russia of all the bad things, I see, of course, differently. But even then, peace must be the ultimate objective.

And we have a resolution which has nothing of it. It speaks about the military victory about Russia. You know, we will have very soon Mrs. Kallas being the speaking for us on foreign policy. I mean, this lady just mentioned that she would prefer Russia to be broken up in small States and that we should not be afraid of Russian nuclear arms when we decide our support to the Ukraine. I mean, this is absolutely madness. In Europe, we have done two world wars.

We should know better. And we don't. You know, you know, Alexander, I think I'm a witness here of a collective madness. And I cannot call it any other way. Unfortunately, we are not allowed to speak here because we are too small and, you know, you have to have a fraction, whatever. But, you know, that's why I issue these articles, and I help you, this article which I wrote as the only article in German language on this resolution. I mean, already that.

I was just in Germany in many states in Germany. Nobody knows anything about the resolution. And this is a resolution, of course, the European Parliament is not very important. But in which the bureaucrats in the European Union, these von der Leyen, these colors and all these people now built, they are just doubling the budget on military spending. I mean, we're militarizing the European Union, and it will not go down well. So I'm actually shocked. I mean, I've seen many wars in my life, and I couldn't believe that in Europe we have such a war language, which I haven't even seen in the Iraq-Iran war, you know, because we did a lot of these negotiations. We could talk to them.

Here, it's basically impossible. You have completely gotten mad. You have talked about what it does. I completely agree. Just wanted to quick say one thing because of course people make this distinction between East Germany and West Germany. Yes, the politics are different.

But I know Western Germany quite well. I was recently in the Rhineland. I spoke to people there, cross-section of people, young, old. I found exactly the same worries and unease amongst them that you've been speaking about and which exists in East Germany.

Maybe the political experience, is different. Maybe they will vote, they won't vote for the IFDF, for example, because there are reasons why they wouldn't want to vote for the IFDA there. I think they would be much more open. It might be much more open, by the way, this is my own view, because some of the younger people might be much more open to voting for the Saha Varganek movement, but I'm not going to predict the future of German politics. But the fact was, all of the things that you said, people might not have expressed them in the way that you have. But I found worry, unease, concern about the state of the economy, worry about the war, fears of greater conflict. They are growing. And I think the political

class in Berlin doesn't see that. Based on what you've just said, it looks as it the political class in Europe, the European Parliament are just closing their ears and shutting their eyes and are living inside their own world. Anyway, that's just what I wanted to say very quickly. Now, let me just say about East and West Germany, because, you know, I grew up in East Germany, so I have a lot of sympathy for them. We shouldn't forget that the last time we had a huge geopolitical change was, of course, due, of course, Gorbachev and so on, but was also due because East Germans peacefully demonstrated 500,000, 750,000 every week. And that's why this transition was peaceful. Not a single person was killed to end the Cold War. And of course, other states

or two, it's not only. But I mean, huge. So why not now, too, in East Germany, where they are more sensitive, maybe politically, if they come out and vote and show that, you know, you can vote for a different, this time it's more political parties than really union, but a different type of expression. I think why should they not take the late? And I think West Germans should should follow. It is more difficult there. The big issue we have as a political party is how come that 68% in the recent, what do you call it in English, opinion poll, said that they are against weapons sending to war countries and against stationing of a very dangerous thing, this medium-range missiles. I mean, we have to realize what it means. But it doesn't,

come yet in a political expression, neither in form of mass demonstrations nor of a real change in the electoral attitude. And this is why I think what Sarah is doing, I'm sorry, Sarah Wagner I know her quite well, is doing, and I think really a courageous woman as she is because I think she's really badly treated. And luckily that the other day the men had didn't have a pistol in a Sandner, you know, she offers an alternative. It is very difficult because in most of the places we don't even have a political organization yet. And we don't have any money because, you know, when you're a new party, you basically have to pay everything out of your own pocket. The only one who get money is now the sixth one here in the parliament. But this is really what

we have to do in the future. And I don't know. You know, I've just been to Saxony and I made a suggestion how we could formulate in the preamble with the ZEDCU something, which says, you know, which says in the preamble that we want to have negotiations and we want to have people's referendum. It's, we have a different expression for referendum, which is not binding, but, you know, we can do that. And that would be, and I think in Saxony, it might be possible. That means we do, we do something with the ZEDU.

Because if we want to have peace, we have to penetrate also the other parties. I see very little possibility, especially in the SPD, which breaks my heart because it's a party, of course, I voted all the time for. I really can't see it. But I see, I'm just yesterday also, I see, you know, recently I was invited by a mayor to speak in the meri, or what do you call it, the Rathouse. And he is a citywoman. He is a city woman, invited me. Of course I go there. So I think we have to, there is a beginning of a political change towards.

peace and some reason. I mean, we're talking about reason. We're talking about being irrational what we're doing now. And we play with fire. We play with fire. The medium-range missiles on German soil is basically giving up our sovereignty. Schultz has signed off our sovereignty in Washington. They're on American basis.

We don't even know whether they have a nuclear armed or not. We have no say on it. We have no say of when they go. off and against whom? Maybe they are shot against China afterwards, I don't know. So I think they're using our territory to turn it in their battleground, which is very convenient for them because it's on the other side of the Atlantic. And we have to stop that.

We have to stop that. I want to ask you, because you mentioned this violence against Sarah Wagner-Innex. I'm wondering if this is something you're concerned about in Germany as well as wider Europe, because when this man threw these things at her, the media seemed somewhat dismissive. And I could help but see some comparisons because in Britain, similar things happens to Farage and the media almost mocks it.

When Robert Fizzo was shot in Slovakia, some reports suggested it was almost just because he was kind of as Putin. Yeah, same as Trump. I tell you, I think she's in great danger because the party is so much dominated by her personality, so it's a, which is also an advantage, but for the time being it's an advantage.

And that makes, of course, a prime target. And I hope the state protects her, because it would be really a disaster if something happens to her. It would be a disaster, no. After the attack, I think it was political. I read that, you know, when discussing this, that she was perhaps far right, which is very strange for someone who started the political party on the left.

So either, you know, it's not far left and it's far right. She was still a communist now. Yeah. So, again, it's concerning to me because it is, you know, in contrast, if you have violence such as they had on 6th of January in the US, then they make almost a national holiday out of this. So it indicates that political violence is not a principle anymore. it's not elevated above politics, but rather becomes an instrument of politics where we ignore or justify one side while condemn it on the other.

It's a lot of the media. I mean, there's a lot of hate speech. I mean, unbelievable accusations, you know, that we are red, brown in color. I don't know what that means, but then all these type of things. So people who feel very strong about it, we don't even know the identity of the person who attacked Turner, apparently. they spoke Eastern language.

No, she is in great danger and I think we have to we hope that the state takes it seriously, but of course I mean the state presently sees her as one of the main enemies because she takes votes away from their parties. If you see where the shifts are, they're

mostly from established parties. I think in Turingen the our party has helped to prevent a majority of Hucker, I mean of the AFD. And in Sox, not so much, but I think in Turing we did. Because there are so many dissatisfied people who, I mean, people who vote for the AFD

because they're dissatisfied, it's not because they're suddenly fascists or anything like this. So they had now an alternative. If these votes have gone over to the other side because of all the disinfection, we would have Mr. Hacker as a first prime minister of a state, inside Germany. I mean, what a message to out in the world? What a message. So they should be very happy that we are there. Absolutely. Absolutely. Because again, I mean, this whole thing about, can you actually say a little bit about this? Because I'm getting very tired of having people

tell me that the IFDA and Zaravaganek's movement are somehow similar. Apart from the one issue of peace, they are completely different from each other. This is something that I find. We've had articles now. In the British media, the talk about Sarah Variegnecht being on the far right. John Kauffner wrote an article to this effect. In The Guardian, people are being systematically misinformed about this. They said the same about what it feeds on.

Especially with your kind of labor party you're having. Mr. Blair. Well, indeed. Robert Fitzer is now also apparently on the far right. Everybody's on the far right. But, I mean, if you look at the programs of these two parties, Zara Vagniks and the IFTA, they are completely different.

There is no overlap at all except on this one issue. Not even that one. You know, the IFD wanted for the increase in military spending. I mean, you know, they have also this type of thing that you want to have a strong military. We don't think that military is in the end the solution. You know, I've just written at last time an article about the UN Charter because, you know, of course, something that was all my life, important, the UN Charter, no? In Europe, it's not.

And I think it's even in certain parties, I'm surprised about the reaction to it, because I think the Europeans have still instilled in us that an order is only done by force. And, you know, that's how we make colonial powers and, you know, the rest of it. You know, we felt force and decide the things. But it will not in the future. And I want just to remind you on something which happens next month in Russia, the big countries will meet in Russia. And the president of this meeting is going to be Mr. Putin.

Now that these countries have chosen to go to Russia and not say, you have a war, we go maybe to Singapore or something like this one, it saves everything. There are 45%, as they are now, 45% of the world population. And they control 37% of GDP in the world. You know, Europe is a little bit more than 5%. And our GDP in the world is 14%. And ours is declining.

there is increasing. There are 30 countries now have applied also to become member. And now comes, if Bloomberg is right, and I know that Turks a little bit, the Turks have applied become a member. That means a first time a NATO country, a European NATO country, because it's partly also in Europe, is joining which countries. Yeah, I mean, that's, I mean, the Turks see us now, before they wanted to always be part of the European Union, they see us as a declining thing since they jump on something which they say has a future.

It is, I mean, they're not stupid. We make everybody stupid who doesn't agree with us, but it is not the case. So I think this movement of Turkey is extremely important. In which German papers do we have that? None. Sorry, it was my telephone. Yeah. I have a telephone here, a landline.

I think you're right on the Turkish side, but also you saw now, Recently, Putin went to Mongolia, which is a signatory of the ICC. And we were very upset because he wasn't arrested. But it also shows that the power is shifting to the east. Do Brazil and not be arrested? I mean, what is this? No, I think you're correct. But also, I think it's important what I think could be quite positive what Turk is doing,

because what we really want to avoid is the formation of block politics. So it's often said that regions should have more the format of Olympic rings. or go a little bit into each other. So the fact that it's not always us or them that Turkey can be essentially in two clubs, it can have a mitigating effect, I guess. But I wanted to just stare a little bit towards Ukraine because you mentioned that the EU seems to have closed itself off to peace.

And I was kind of curious because you have written articles as well with the German general, Harold Kuyat, who was the former head of the Bundeswehr and also chairman, former chairman of NATO's military committee in which NATO's role has been criticized in this war. And Kuyat, I guess, has been very outspoken in terms of the US and UK role in sabotaging the peace agreements as well in Istanbul in early 2022. So I was just curious, how do you see,

it's often very difficult to bring this up. Because whenever I discuss our role in this war, it's always framed as excusing or making excuses or legitimizing how Russia responded. But on its own, I think this is kind of important, our own role in this war. I mean, the important thing for me is, of course, the UN Charter. When we say Russia does what we say in German-Fergerger, the illegal war of attack, we mean, of course, a UN Charter. And we mean when we see about the right of self-defense, we talk about Article 51. But the Charter has 50 articles before, and we forget about them. And if you read all these articles, also 51, looks very different.

I think the big what makes us guilty of the war is that we should have negotiated Russia's concern about security. We are obliged by the UN Charter to seek in any conflict we have a negotiated solution. and we refused that. And that means us being party of this war. We cannot only say that it's on one side. It is very, very important. This war was preventable. The issue of that the state feels threatened,

and we have a lot of this, it follows only the OSCE agenda, the Paris agenda. I mean, it's all in agreements. Would have been, could have been avoided. It's a very typical diplomatic thing you negotiate and you fight. the solution.

We didn't want to. We didn't want to. We armed Ukraine and we put Russia in such a position that it had to choose either to go to war or lose its access to the Black Sea and so on. That's the one thing. And after one month when Russia and Ukraine made an agreement to which Putin had agreed, actually, you know, this agreement was presented by the Ukrainians. And I can tell you from the UN point of view, because, you know, we know all this agreements

which we have since the Second World War, it is a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, the, it's not, like that so quickly, two countries could agree on the main principles of, and, and Putin agreed. The only difference was made that Russia should, remain in control of the crime and peninsula, and there should be a political solution within 15 years, but they have not said that should be part of Russia. So I think it would be a very good thing. It was neutrality against territorial integrity, and we should have done this.

We boycotted it, and people say, oh, we are, we didn't. And then read the decision of the special summit of NATO in Brussels on 24 of March to which, Biden came in which they said they would support no negotiated solution with Russia until Russia withdraws first, which would of course mean that in this case Russia could not have and it would not be neutral and it would turn into an ender state unacceptable for Russia. And then of course a visit of Johnson and in Kiev to tell them, you know, if they sign anything with Russia, I mean they would lose all the support. So I think we bombarded this out of our own interests because we didn't want an agreement, which said Ukraine is neutral.

Because, of course, people would ask, why didn't we agree on this before? I mean, why didn't we know anything shit before? Why did it have Russia go to war for this one? It would suddenly justify Russia's war. So we couldn't agree on this whole thing. But we have now this war. And I think at least since April 22, we are amazing. West who is guilty of this war, of continuing the war, if you apply the UN Charter,

you cannot only use the GS Charter on Article 51, you know, and ignore all the rest of it. You can't. But that's what's done. Which is probably why, by the way, the story of the Istanbul negotiations, the negotiations that took place in March and April 2022 are barely discussed. On 29 April, there was this one thing. But it was initial by all the side. We have now, we have the information from diplomats who were in the Ukrainian teams who confirmed that they had the agreement.

I mean, it was initialed by two foreign ministers, had the agreement of Putin, that this would be the way to go ahead. You know, it's a brilliant achievement of the Ukrainian diplomacy. And we killed it. We killed it. And with it, we killed, we killed now hundreds thousands of Ukrainian. You shouldn't forget this. Yeah. Well, that's exactly the point.

because continuing the war isn't helping Ukraine. It is destroying it. It is causing enormous damage and human tragedy to this tormented country. And yet it's always been spoken about in the West as if we must continue to support Ukraine. Now, hardly anybody in Britain knows about what happened in March, April, 22, about the role that Boris Johnson played,

even though, by the way, the London Times was reporting it at the time, as was the Financial Times. But all of that has now been forgotten. It's barely talked about. There were a few articles that appeared briefly, I think, in The Spectator, but that's only read by limited circle of people.

Is it any different in Germany? Did the analysis that cool you out in the... You know, the first one who wrote about it was actually I, no? Yeah. And then we did this, this clear again, things like this one. And we even we even copied the 10 points.

Yeah. They call it. If I can just say quickly, it's by far the best account that exists of what actually happened in March and April 2022. It's, you laid it all out.

You provided a chronology. It's all there. Many things in war, you don't know what happens. But this one, there can be doubt. There can be no doubt what happened. I know that quite well the Turkish diplomats, you know, very able, Turkish have very able diplomats. Now it's, of course, with the president, so I don't have access anymore, but at the time it wasn't. And of course, I talked to Schroeder, who was personally also there in Istanbul, do you know that? So, and then of course my own knowledge.

There is no question that that happened like this one. And our sources are not Russian sources. Our sources are Ukrainian sources. And the Ukrainian will bitter. bitter one day accuse us why we have boycotted these solutions. They would have been much better. And what we also don't know, that the third point was that Russia agreed to support EU membership of the Ukraine. I mean, who knows it?

Well, that's the point. That's the question. Have you broken through in terms of German public opinion? Do people in Germany know about what was lost in Istanbul? I think thanks to us, more people know it in German than in most of those countries. I mean, in France, there's absolutely no knowledge to mine as much in Italy, not. UK is, of course, I mean, you're a warrior country. I mean, you like war somehow.

The same thing, by the way, in the Netherlands. My wife is Dutch. I mean, there's no peace movement. There's nothing of Wagnernecht. There's no newspaper bringing anything else. They would not even answer me when I sent an article in on these type of things. I mean, they go to, and you shouldn't forget. I mean, the UK and Netherlands are the countries who go in all the illegal wars we have.

Most of the wars were illegal by the EU standards. I mean, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Libya, Serbia, all illegal wars. Maybe there were 251 military interventions by the Americans on virtually all the British participated. I mean, you have a society in which these arguments just very difficult to hold. But, you know, it's a declining thing. We are on the decline. We are on the decline. It doesn't pay anymore.

Before we were strong enough to say our opinion was governed, you know, because you're powerful and people who are. It's gone. It's gone. And we have now a massive change, noble geopolitical change. We have to account for. Also little England. I mean, I mean, UK. I mean, who are you there over there?

I mean, to talk like this one, I mean, this is, same for Germany, I'm not anti-British at all, but I think that I've, of course, seen the British army operating in Afghanistan, and especially in Iraq, where, by the way, the Iranians helped you not to be beaten into pieces. You will never, they never acknowledge this. I mean, I was personally. I know British soldiers who've talked about it, so it's not acknowledged, but it's absolutely true. You know, you have to realize it is, I mean, maybe in the 1990s still, we had the power to insist on what we say it was right. We don't have it anymore.

You know, in 2025, it's not possible anymore. It's gone. And we better adjust and also the European Union adjust. And if Mrs. von der Leyen gives here a speech for a re-election being elected more, it sounds a peach. She wants to create a sort of superpower Europe. And it won't happen. It just won't happen. And so we wanted to bring into Parliament a counterproposal at Christmas, which we call them the peace power Europe.

Lots of war power. I mean, Europe is on the European Union is on the wrong truck. And I think that they will have to pay for it. They will have to pay for it. And they will also pay with their unity on it. because we have Trump, you will see one European state after the other will fall and not adhere to that resolution. This resolution is built on sand, and it's only provocative, but it's not real,

and it isolates the European Union. You mentioned before you didn't have to rely on Russian sources, and I would take further. I think we can use Ukrainian sources, because, as I point out many times, on the first day after the Russians invaded, Zelensky himself, which is posted on Ukraine's on government websites, argued they were contacted by the Russians on the first day that they wanted to talk about neutrality in which they said yes. Without preconditions, the Ukrainians confirmed. And on the third day, they said they were written now to start the negotiations. Meanwhile, then you saw at the same time across the Atlantic, the US spokesperson, Ned Price,

saying, well, we do not support any negotiations without preconditions. First, Russia capitulates, in other words, leave, then we can talk. And later on, when even confronted with this, when he was asked, if, you know, the Ukrainians will go negotiate with the Russians, will he support this? And even said, no, this war is bigger than Russia and Ukraine. This is about a much greater game. So, and we, and thereafter, you know, the Israelis, the Turkish as mediators, they confirmed, yes, it was sabotaged. But it seems that the reality does matter, because these are facts. They can't be disputed unless we're saying Zelensky is lying to us now.

But it doesn't seem reality matters that much anymore because no media will discuss it. It's kind of dismissed as if it would be a conspiracy theory. Politicians don't want to talk about it. So it's a bit frustrating. It doesn't matter. It's very interesting. You know, when America, when the West realized that they were close to an agreement at the time

they met, there were still 15 points Later, in Istanbul, they condensed it to 10 points. Brilliant document. A brilliant document that would have been the document in the world to see how you make peace, very quickly. That's when they had the summit of NATO. And you can read this. I mean, this document basically says, we don't want that.

And the interesting thing is that three days later on 27th, Zelensky gave an interview to journalists, which also included five Russian journalists, in which she's confirmed that this is a way to go. And on 29th, he agreed that his foreign minister initials the 10 points of Istanbul. So Zelensky actually opposed NATO decision in the initials. We have the poor guy. I mean, you know, and if he hadn't threatened him, and probably he's threatened also by his own nationalists.

And, you know, and let's be very fair, also fascist, a type of, armed groups. I mean, he was in a terror position. And, you know, also the other thing is that Russia announced on 28, one day before Istanbul, that they withdrew their army from Kiev and Kharkiv as a gesture of goodwill, because that's what was foreseen there. You do that often to say that, okay, let's sign it because it was very close to it. We say, of course, because they were beaten. They were not beaten. They were, they were destroying. And then, of course, Kermit is which I think we, who knows what the truth is and about the whole thing. But one thing is true that they didn't stop the negotiations because you have peace negotiations or ceasefire negotiations.

Because you want to prevent this type of things, not to stop it. I mean, it's just it doesn't make any sense the argument we have in the West. So I think there's a lot of things happening. And I think the history will not give us right on how we see it. And may I add to one more thing because, you know, I've lived always in the international community. You must not forget now that this account is only invest in European countries, not even anymore in the United States to that degree. It is not by 90% of the rest of the population. Maybe maybe this Markos there in Philippines, but you know, that's it.

And people don't believe it. even India and China aren't. We also don't want, because the crux of this war is NATO expansion. It's not imperialism of Russia. It's our way of trying to control the world. And that's what India doesn't want, what China doesn't want, what Indonesia doesn't want, what the Africans don't want, and what the Latin Americans don't want. They don't want NATO to expand further and therefore cement the control of the Western world

in what they call the rule-based order, which is basically where they only play a subversive role. And there are why the UN Charter becomes so important. And this is something which you also in the West don't understand, how important the UN Charter is. Absolutely. And of course, the point that you always hear from all kinds of states outside the West

is that the UN for them remains the core of the entire international system. the UN Charter remains the core of the international system. When we talk about a rules-based order, I get the sense that many states, we've spoken to two Indian diplomats on this channel in this format, Glenn Dyson and I, they see talk about things like the rules-based order as an attack on the UN Charter and the international system, which they are totally committed to. And I think this is something to people in the West.

You know, the BRIC's countries are our whole. And that's why I'm going now also to New York. You know, I'm invited there at Columbia University because I want to have more contact. You know, my articles are all published, by the way, in India. IDN, big thing. Yeah, it has a big readership. And even in the United States.

So India is interested in this type of things, no? But, you know, look at NATO. If you're sitting on the other side in a non-white Western country, what do you see? The only military alliance in the world, which thinks that they can send their military equipment around the world to China and whatever, is, of course, an alliance for them of the ex-colonial powers, dominated by white people. Of course they must object to it. They must object to it. And they don't want this NATO to take control of the Black Sea and Ukraine. And that's why Zelensky has never gotten really a hold,

a grip in the third world saying, you know, they take away our country. Because these countries are very worried about loss of territory and, you know, this type of things. And things like this one. No, they don't want this. And we are there alone. And we speak here in the UNP in Parliament as if we threaten countries which don't do the sanctions well that we will also sanction them and we don't realize that we

have lost it already. I mean, it's pathetic. Pathetic. Pathetic if it wouldn't be so dangerous. What are we going to do? What are we going to do? Are we going to have a situation in Europe where the outside world for the first time ever comes and

sorts out for us European problems that Chinese and Indian mediation comes along and actually plays a role? I mean, that would be radical change. something that has never happened in European history, that I can remember. But we are used for 400 years, that we were colonial powers, that we, you know, is a threat because of Christianity, that's because we brought civilization, we do all the sort of things,

and we allegedly bring democracy. I mean, that's how they see us. We have gone. But I think it's important. If we don't adjust in Europe, it will be, we will pay a very high price. You cannot have politics again. against reality. You know,

the, I don't know what you say in English, but we say the, the, translated, um, uh, the art of,

um, uh, politics is always to do the feasible. I mean, you have to, politics is the art of the possible. If you have Mrs. Mrs.

Fondelian, I mean, she's a, she is a dreamer, actually, a dangerous dreamer. And, and it's just is

beyond any reality. It's beyond any reality. It's beyond any, reality? How do they want to win the war there? I mean, I don't know. It's interesting that when you go in a place like India, when we're wondering why they're not supporting our policies, it's always the assumption that they do not have the right facts, that they have been propagandized. But I'm also every once or twice a week on Indian TV. And you notice there that there's more scope for actually discussion, because if you look at

things like Nord Stream, for example, in which now the US attempts to blame the Ukrainians for it. And Schultz, by the way. Yeah, but what I find fascinating is now with this new story from America, they said all they knew about the attack and they tried to prevent it before it happened. But this is, for me, this is fascinating because, you know, first they say, we knew about the attack before it happened, but that there wasn't Russia. Nonetheless, then they're admitting to the world that when they said, you know, there was probably

the Russians behind it, they lied. And thereafter, they actually used this attack to justify. NATO militarizing more the oceans. So the Barans, sorry, not the Barents, the Baltic Sea and the Arctic, that NATO needed more control over the ocean. So again, they lied and then they admit that they used this to militarize relations further. And I look through the media, there's no discussion of this. There's no other perspective.

It's admitted, but no one will report on it. But if you go to India, China, they can talk about it. So it's more ability to live within the real world, I guess. You know, the interesting thing is when the discussion was in the Security Council, which I listened into, all the states, including America, called this economic terrorism, terrorism, you know, which it is. But outside, we suddenly, we think it's a sort of diving instructor who blew up the whole pipeline. It's ridiculous the whole thing.

But what is important on the news, when you read this article from the Wall Street Journal, what is important that they accuse Zelensky and Schultz of having known it before. They accuse them both. And you know, this is very serious because if Schultz knew before it and hadn't done anything about it, that is, I don't know what the English word is. That's actually betrayal. I mean, this is something which you could really persecute it for. I mean, his job as a prime minister is to defend German interests.

And if he doesn't do anything about it, I mean, he's complicit. And this is very serious. And what I find so interesting about the whole thing, you know, when the Washington-NATO summit was, basically what was said on the sideline, which was the most important thing, is that now Germany has to take the lead on the Ukraine thing and support Zelensky. and a few months later, these two guys are accused of having done the wrong thing. Why? It's really funny. No, it's not funny. It's terrible, actually.

It's tragic because, of course, the other thing to say is that Europe, when it was economically and politically powerful, I mean, because it was, you know, when I was born, in 1961, when I was born, Europe was still a mighty political, economic, cultural force politics. A lot of diplomacy happened within Europe. But we did do diplomacy then. There was actual diplomacy. I mean, Adanao, who was an extremely anti-communist chancellor, went to Moscow. And this is at the time when, you know, the Germans were divided and there were all kinds of issues, but he went to Moscow. He negotiated with Khrushchev and the Soviet leaders of that period. We don't do diplomacy anymore. We don't see. to understand what diplomacy is only longer

when it was the Europeans who invented... You don't even have four ministers anymore. I mean, Mrs. Bearbok, I mean, Mrs. Bearbok, I mean, Mrs. Beerbach is not, I mean, she has a one-dimensional mind and, and, and, and, uh, but I think it's also, yeah, it's, I, I think it's really a lack of intellectual capacity there. I mean, it's, it's, you know, as a foreign minister, we have invented diplomacy already with the Greeks.

You know, when you go to war, you must have one person outside who sort of sees if there is not a more peaceful solution. That's what they are for. That's what it is for. Or prevent the war. I mean, this is what they are for. And she is not at all. And she's a number one war monger.

And unfortunately, with Mrs. Kallas, we will have the same. It's a European Union now. So, but you know, the time has changed and all these things will now turn against us. We will not be able to use such an attitude to influence things our way. That's gone.

And the big loser is, therefore, of this war, is of course, is of course the, is of course, sorry, it's a voice's of course, sorry, it's a bloody telephone, is of course, is of course Ukraine, but the second losers is Europe. And it is already a loser. It is a loser. I mean, that's very clear. I mean, can you imagine now Ukraine coming into the European Union? The first country who protests would be Poland, no? They already are, actually.

They are already. Well, they said conditions. What she does there is so lacking any sense. of reality. That is, it's, I mean, it will cost us a fortune. It will cost us because we will have to pay for a collapsed Ukraine. You know, there are reports now from the, from diplomats in Kiev that they estimate that another 10 million people could leave Ukraine.

And they would leave it forever. So Ukraine is left, basically, with one third of the population from the time of independence. I mean, you can't lose more of war. than that. It hasn't even happened to Germany when we so many people were killed after thinking, you're going to war. There people just run off, not to speak of all the people left behind, which are injured,

which are traumatized, which are retired and things like this one. I mean, it's a huge failed state if it remains a state at all, which is left over there. We get very excited about the eastern part,

you know, the annexation. But let me say also to this one, when you look at the election results, they are much better than any opinion polls. Election results, which are very detailed because Ukraine always had, because of the commerce time, a very good registration system. I know a lot about elections because that is also part of the portfolios when you do peace building, housekeeping. You know, it was a divided country.

Two-thirds voted pro-Russia there and two-thirds voted more poor European power. It was always divided. Now we have given the one side our weapons, which are pounding all the time the Russian-speaking part. I mean, they are being pounded with our weapons. We pretend always Russia does a destruction, but we send them too. I mean, they've also explored somewhere, you know, except the 2% which is sent into Russia. They all explode on Ukrainian fighters. These people will never be one to be part of the Ukraine.

They can't. So I think this thing is all this is decided like very much like actually the war on Kosovo, because during the war of Kosovo, of course, Kosovo became more Kosovoian, and they didn't want to have it anymore. You didn't even have to have a referendum. I mean, they didn't want to be part of Serbia anymore. And I think something very similar happens there. I'm going to end on an optimistic note,

which is I think that one of the reasons these European Parliament Reservoirs, are completely unreal is because they're losing contact with the overall sentiment in Europe. We've seen that in Germany with the election results. I saw it for myself when I was in Germany a few weeks ago in the Rhineland and talking to people there. They were extremely unhappy. They were bringing up. I mean, I wasn't going out to talk about politics. It was a social visit, but people were bringing up themselves how concerned. and unhappy and worried they are.

We've had elections in Britain, and the most interesting thing about those elections was that the mainstream parties saw a major decline in their support, even though there was a lopsided effect because one party saw its decline, support declined, less than the other. I think Labour was voted only by 20% of the electorate, but that's the majority with your electoral system. Like in France, by the way, no?

Exactly. in France. So the mood in Europe is shifting strongly in exactly the way that you said. And you mentioned the fact that there are no protests and there's no rallies and there's that kind of thing. The reason that isn't that they don't exist in my opinion is because the political structures that once used to channel these protests for some reason are no longer there because over time they became assimilated to the system. What we're now starting, to see in Germany, to some extent in Britain, maybe eventually in France, is that new political structures are emerging, which are going to start to take their place. And when that happens,

and when that all starts to come together, we will definitely start to see the protests and the pushback and all of that. And it won't just be one demographic. It will be many of them from many different levels of society. I'm afraid we still have some way to go before that happens, but you can see it developing all the time. And the one thing that the war is doing is it's acting as a catalyst, accelerating this process of reawakening, if you like, in European politics. Right. And just like to say that. I just want to make one point because in the beginning of the talk, Umika,

I mentioned that the EU only has now moral arguments, which can't be translated into reality. But I wanted to add then, actually, that I think this is part of the huge problem we have in Europe, because on the face of it, moral arguments should seem like a positive thing. But the problem is all policies are then framed as right versus wrong or good versus evil.

So what I often see in Europe, we're always speaking in slogans. So, you know, with slogans, which everyone agrees with or concepts, because we're all pro-peace. We all want to be pro-European. We all want to be pro-Ukrainian. We all agree with this. But then when you unpack what it actually means is, you know, peace, as Stoltenberg says, weapons are the path to peace.

And, you know, pro-European means, well, we have to, Europe has to be integrated with our military alliance, which red divides, remilitarizes Europe, making us less prosperous, less safe. And also, most important of pro-European means the two largest European countries, Germany and Russia should not integrate economically. And we do the same with the pro-Ukrainian. We say, you know, what is pro-Ukrainian? Well, we have to push NATO on Ukraine, even when the...

To get them all killed, that's poor Ukraine, in my view. Sorry? Not to get them all killed. Yeah, well, that would be pro-Ukrainian. That's how I would find it. It's funny thing. I mean, it's going from bad to worse for you. I mean, why should people now die for a war that is lost?

I mean, why? And we give them the weapons, and it's like, you know, having these dog fights in the old time. You know, they're already bloody and all the rest of it, and we throw them some meat all the time to continue fighting. And that's what we're doing. And, you know, all these parliamentarians who decide here, you know, they get each day 350 euros for just being here, yeah, just for being here. You know, the average in Ukraine now, who goes to the army and sits there, will not get, you know, would not get 100 a month. You know, and we decide here that this war has to continue. Unbelievable.

Unbelievable. But let me say something about moral, because I did a lot of these negotiations. You always had a saying that in the negotiations, of course, I'm not against moral, but in the negotiations, if one party speaks about morals, this party wants war. I mean, if the party starts talking about interests, it seeks a solution. Remind this, it's true probably for all the wars, also for this. You like it? I like it a lot. It reminds me of something, by the way, which lawyers always say, litigators always say.

You know, my background was in legal and litigation, which is that anybody who comes and talks to you about principles, that you're fighting for principles. You're going to bring a legal case of principles is a fool and it's going to lose. It is an iron rule, and I've seen this play out time and time again. It's a fact. Okay, very good.

Well, I guess it's a good place to finish it off. I publish quite a lot. And it's sometimes very, very difficult to get it known and do it also in English, not? And there's very few people who will have this insight in wars and in the European. So I hope it gets spread out, not that I, my name you can take even off. I don't care about these things, but to realize what Europe is presently doing is to destroy itself. I guess that's the moral arguments when we hear Berbock say.

I will support Ukraine no matter what my voters say. It sounds awfully moral, but what it really means is democracy means little and also how we define being supporting Ukraine, which means often, you know, pulling into military lines that didn't want, you know, sabotaging their peace agreements and, you know, pushing war. Of course, our democracy is suffering badly under this war. I mean, you know, it was already before. I mean, look at this, how difficult it is to publish something in Germany, how difficult it is to get this news into the radio channels. like this one. We need people like you. I mean, these public radio stations during the BBC wouldn't bring this type of thing.

We're just to ignore. Not even as a saying that is another opinion. We don't have that anymore. And they are going to lose. I tell you, they're going to lose. Okay. We almost finished on a happy note, but anyways, thank you so much.

I want to thank you because of important what you're doing. It's so important. You know, you know, I mean, I'm not reading any German newspapers anymore. It's just stopped reading them. It's not that I'm not interested. I'm not interested in other opinions and things like this. But it's so, so manipulates the whole thing. And, you know, for somebody who knows a little bit more about the things,

we just feel often sick, well, how about what it is written there. And these are. You're joining the great majority of people. It's one of the great, one of the events, one of the things has been happening. And what we have seen also in Germany, I mean, everywhere is, of course, the emergence of a parallel news channels, parallel newspapers on platforms and things like this one, very, very important. You know, I have some, I, in one of my things are usually sort of published in 10 to 15 different platforms. And in one platform already, I got 55,000 readers.

I would never have gotten this in any of the normal newspapers. So there's hope. There's hope that democracy doesn't die, reason doesn't die, that in the end we do the right thing, and we are for peace and not for war. Yeah? Yes. Thank you, Dan.

Thank you very much, Michael von de Schildenberg. Thank you very much for coming on our program. A wonderful program, if I missed that. Okay, fine. Okay. Thank you.