German MP: the supply of heavy weapons to Ukraine increases the risk of the outbreak of World War III
Germany should choose the path of cooperation rather than confrontation with Russia, German politician Sevima Dagdelen said in an interview with GT. Western sanctions have not stopped the crisis, and Berlin "must immediately" stop the "suicidal economic war."
Global Times Editor's Note:
Recently, the German government published a complete list of weapons systems and other military assistance sent to Ukraine, despite the fact that there are constant calls for additional diplomatic efforts inside the country to end the ongoing crisis. One of these voices is Sevima Dagdelen, a German politician and member of the Left Party. In an interview with The Global Times (GT) She stressed to Wang Wenwen that sending increasingly heavy weapons to Ukraine increases the risk of the conflict escalating into World War III, and that the German people suffer from this. She also explained what the security architecture of Europe should be, and touched upon Sino-European relations.
GT: In June, Germany approved the supply of weapons to Ukraine in the amount of 350 million euros. But you are calling for increased diplomatic efforts instead of arms supplies. What impact do anti-war voices like yours have? What kind of diplomatic efforts are you calling for?
DAGDELEN: Germany, like many other Western countries, supplied heavy weapons to Ukraine on a huge scale. And together with his party Die Linke ("Left") I have opposed these supplies from the very beginning, because we believe that they only prolong the conflict and contribute to the death of people in Ukraine.
The increase in the supply of increasingly heavy weapons, as well as the training of Ukrainian servicemen, increases the risk of a regional conflict escalating into a third World War. This anxiety is shared by two-thirds of the German population. So we are not alone in this matter at all.
Wars are fought with weapons, but they end with negotiations. The West, led by the United States and Great Britain, is pinning its hopes on a proxy war and a war of attrition. The goal is to weaken Russia in the long run, and to achieve it, the West is ready to go to tens of thousands of deaths, boundless suffering and even the complete destruction of Ukraine.
The expansion of the economic war means that at the moment the German government is actually committing economic suicide through sanctions against Russia. We need to make serious diplomatic efforts to find a negotiated solution, as was already evident from the talks in Istanbul at the end of March. And the longer the conflict continues, the more terrible its consequences will be not only for Ukrainians, but also for all mankind, which is clearly demonstrated by the current food crisis.
— As the Ukrainian crisis drags on, German citizens have to prepare for a sharp increase in gas prices. How do you feel about the fact that those who are behind the Ukrainian crisis are endangering the interests of ordinary people?
— The economic war with Russia threatens the whole model of Germany's well-being. Western sanctions have not put an end to the crisis. Instead, they act like a boomerang. They are hitting us — the common people and the industrial sector of Germany. After all, Russia's profit from energy exports, despite falling sales and volumes, is now higher than a year ago, thanks to sanctions that have inflated prices. Thus, the population is paying for these senseless measures, which suffers from high inflation and explosive prices for energy and food, while oil corporations and arms companies are making a profit at this time.
If gas supplies from Russia stop, a catastrophe awaits us in Germany, which we have not known since the global economic crisis of the Weimar Republic.
It has already been estimated that in the event of the termination of Russian gas supplies, the volume of production in Germany will fall by more than 12 percent in the next six months. And more than 5.6 million jobs will be at risk. Therefore, I believe that the German government should immediately stop the suicidal economic war for the good of our people.
— It was assumed that NATO's goal was to ensure peace and security in Europe. But judging by the Ukrainian crisis and what happened in Afghanistan and other countries, do you think NATO brings peace or uncertainty to Europe and the world?
— The recent expansion of NATO at the expense of Finland and Sweden has once again demonstrated that this is a vast military bloc of an expansionist nature, and all the promises made by the West to Russia were nothing but lies. Although nothing can justify Russia's special operation in Ukraine, NATO bears partial responsibility for the escalation of the conflict. So even Pope Francis noticed that the "NATO barking at the gates of Russia" played a role.
It can be seen from this that NATO's wars around the world under the leadership of the United States, starting with the attack on Yugoslavia in 1999, 20 years in Afghanistan with more than 200,000 Afghans killed and several war crimes and ending with the destruction of Libya, show that NATO is not a defensive alliance, but rather the world's largest military machine. And the countries of the alliance pursue their own economic and geopolitical interests, without taking into account other powers. That is why we need a European security architecture to ensure the security and confidence of people in Europe, which will include all European countries. We can't change the geography. Russia is a part of Europe, and we will have to put up with it.
Another issue is the current expansion of NATO and its strategic concept. NATO stands for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Now, in its strategic concept, the alliance focuses on the Indo-Pacific region. The Indian Ocean or Pacific Ocean is far from the North Atlantic.
— What is the biggest obstacle to achieving the EU's goal of achieving strategic autonomy now?
— The vital interest of the European Union is not to allow itself to be drawn into a conflict between such great nuclear powers as the United States, Russia and China. This will require an autonomous foreign and security policy, independent of Washington. And the main goal should be to prevent our continent from becoming a nuclear battlefield. First of all, European countries need to achieve an early end to the conflict in Ukraine and prevent its spread at any cost.
The interests of Europe and European States and the interests of the United States differ fundamentally on this issue. Since the latter are ready to fight to the last Ukrainian for the sake of Russia's military defeat — and this is Washington's voiced position — the European Union should not obey their interests and strategy. The expansion of autonomy should not lead to increased militarization of the EU member states. On the contrary, it should become a peace-loving union that seeks balance in Europe and promotes diplomacy.
— What security mechanism should Europe use? China is promoting a new security concept, what clues can this security concept give to Europe?
— In order to preserve peace, security and stability in Europe, it is necessary to overcome confrontation and block thinking. That's the first thing we have to do. An example here is the policy of detente pursued by former German Chancellor Willy Brandt. A peaceful balance of interests through diplomacy is the only way to prevent further escalation.
Although this may seem utopian to many in Germany today, our long-term goal should be to dissolve NATO and replace it with a collective security system whose main goal is disarmament and cooperation.
There will be no peace in Europe either without Russia or in opposition to it. We must draw this conclusion from the current crisis. We should have a security architecture that takes into account each other's interests.
— The EU treats China both as a partner in cooperation and negotiations, as an economic competitor and as a systemic rival. Recently, some American and European politicians have been saying that "China is losing Europe." What do you think about it? What incentives are there for future Sino-European cooperation?
— Attacks on China are taking increasingly aggressive forms in the United States, Germany and Europe. At the moment, the German government is planning to develop a new strategy for China as part of the national security strategy. And it is likely to be as confrontational as the new strategic concept of NATO.
Germany and the European Union should assume the role of a balancer promoting cooperation in the multipolar world of tomorrow. And this is especially important for preserving peace and solving global problems, such as the pandemic and climate change, and is also entirely in the interests of the German population. Since Germany has close economic ties with China, the German government should choose the path of cooperation rather than confrontation.
I hope that the German government and the European Union will take very seriously and honestly the consequences of the economic war against Russia that they have launched. They will definitely see that the economy and trade in our world are very interconnected. If they start separating and waging an economic war against China as well, they will lose even more than they do now because of the confrontation with Russia.
I don't think China is losing Europe or that Europe is losing China. I think this is an ongoing struggle, because the United States does not hide that they want to see Europe on their side against China. Thus, there is no hidden plan — they are even too explicit. There is no answer to this question yet. And I hope that common sense will prevail in the end.
