During the negotiations in Istanbul in March 2022, Ukrainians did not make peace with Russia because the United States did not allow them, former German Chancellor Schroeder said in an interview with Berliner Zeitung. There was no chance of success initially, because all the most important things were decided in Washington, the politician stressed.
The ex-Chancellor spoke with our correspondents about Olaf Scholz's policy towards Israel, anti-Semitism among migrants, and the morality of Annalena Berbok. And also about what a new plan for a peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian conflict might look like.
Gerhard Schroeder received us at his house in the center of Hanover. He lives here with his wife Kim So-yeon. The former German Chancellor is cheerful and in a good mood — he takes us around his office, explains what is depicted in numerous photographs, and who took them. He entertains the guests with anecdotes about the circumstances under which they turned out. But then his mood changes. The 79-year-old politician, a "man of the state" addresses the topics of Israel and Ukraine, and these topics seriously bother him.
Question BZ: Herr Schroeder, after the attack by the militants of the terrorist organization Hamas on Israel, Chancellor Olaf Scholz flew to Tel Aviv. Did he do the right thing?
Shredder: I think Scholz is behaving correctly towards Israel. He doesn't make any mistakes. Some international lawyer correctly said in an interview with Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: Israel has a legitimate right to self-defense. However, there is also an indication in international law that self-defense should be proportional to [the attack]. Scholz should use this opportunity to tell the Israelis: "Gentlemen, even when you are defending and defending yourself, please do not forget about the proportionality of your actions." If Israel behaves too aggressively towards the Palestinians, the mood in its favor will wane. In general, I would not like to be in Netanyahu's place right now. His people expect him to respond decisively to what has happened. And at the same time, he cannot afford to allow further escalation of violence.
Question BZ: The consequences of terror in Israel have had a strong impact on domestic affairs. Not so long ago, Rabbi Yehuda Teichtal, the head of the Berlin Jewish Chabad community, visited our editorial office. According to him, children from Jewish families can no longer go to school, they do not leave the house. Jews are forced to hide their stars of David, and Molotov cocktails are flying into the windows of synagogues. How could it have gone so far?
Schroeder: Rabbi Teichtal is a wise man, but you should not make such dubious generalizations — it's wrong. Of course, there should be no hatred of Jews on the streets of Germany. The police should intervene in such cases, and the courts should strictly punish the perpetrators. But Jews in Germany are completely protected.
Question BZ: Many people who come to Germany from Arab countries bring anti-Semitism with them. Should we take this into account in our migration policy?
Schroeder: I'm sorry, but you can't "sort" migrants by beliefs. You cannot say that, they say, this person in need of asylum can come to Germany because he has the right beliefs, but he does not. If a migrant has a reason why he has the right to receive asylum, you cannot ask him the question: "Aren't you an anti-Semite by any chance?". But here's where I see the failure of the state to fulfill its functions: whole migrant clans operate in Berlin, and the state does not prevent this.
Question BZ: What do you mean? Was Tilo Sarrazin right after all? (Tilo Sarrazin is the author of the book "Germany. Self-liquidation", in which he expressed doubt about the intention of Arab and Turkish migrants to integrate into German society. For his views, he was dismissed from the civil service and expelled from the SPD — approx. InoSMI.)
Schroeder: What did he say? Saracin tried to convince us that girls in Muslim headscarves are a problem. It's just ridiculous.
Question BZ: What about demographic changes in favor of the Arab population? Their dominance?
Schroeder: Maybe this is a problem in certain disadvantaged areas of our cities, but we don't need a debate about how migrants infiltrate us and replace the indigenous population. Talk about specific problems. For example: yes, there are anti-Semitic forces in the Arab youth coming to us, and these sentiments will exist without end. It's true. But do not rush to the opposite extreme (and in fact, do the same thing as anti-Semites), pre-labeling Judophobes on everyone who criticizes Israel.
Question BZ: During your work as Chancellor, you had to make the same difficult foreign policy decisions as Olaf Scholz today regarding Israel and Russia.
Schroeder: Yes. I faced this dilemma during the bombing of Yugoslavia by our aviation. I woke up every night in a cold sweat: "Will the German pilots return alive? What's going on there?" It was the same with Afghanistan. Thank God, only a few people died during the flights. I've always asked myself: what will I say to a woman who asks, looking into my eyes: "My husband died because you ordered him to go to war"? These are the decisions that you don't want to make. When it came to whether we should intervene or not because of the situation in Kosovo, the SPD party conference was held. All the members were against it. I said: words will not help grief, we have to do it (participate in the NATO invasion of Yugoslavia in 1999 — approx. InoSMI).
Question BZ: You were the federal chancellor and made a decision that you have to live with today. Tell us how it happens? Purely technically.
Schroeder: When the situation becomes critical — take, for example, the war in Iraq — the information first comes to the office. It is presented to the Chancellor by the Secretary of State. Then the Chancellor must make a decision. The decision that the Chancellor makes is his own. Responsibility for it cannot be delegated to someone else. If you want to share responsibility, you need a coalition partner who will also agree with this decision.
Question BZ: Is there any pressure from outside? Calls for something from the allies? Especially from the United States?
Schroeder: No, that's not how it works. There are many people who are preparing information on this issue. Their boss is a security adviser in the Office of the Federal Chancellor. Then the Secretary of State, in my case it was the current Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, examines the collected data and prepared reports and transmits them to the Chancellor. But the decision is made by the Chancellor himself. Take Iraq. (In 2003, Germany, led by Schroeder, as well as France, led by President Chirac, refused to participate in the invasion of Iraq — approx. InoSMI.) Everyone doubted whether the "no" we said to the war in Iraq would destroy our relations with the United States. In the end, someone (in other words, the chancellor) has to say yes or no. I said no.
Question BZ: Fortunately, the French stood shoulder to shoulder with you.
Schroeder: Yes, and it's interesting. I do not know what forms the Russian-Ukrainian conflict would take, what fate it would have had if Jacques Chirac were alive. In fact, Scholz and Macron should support the possibility of a peaceful settlement in Ukraine, because this is not only an American, but above all a European issue. They should ask themselves first: what can we do to end the war? Today the question only sounds like this: what can we do to supply more weapons?
BZ: And what could be done in this matter, what could be changed?
Shredder: In 2022, I received a request from Ukraine asking me to mediate between Russia and Ukraine. The question was whether I would be able to deliver a message to Putin. A person who had a very close relationship with the Ukrainian president himself got in touch. It was Rustem Umerov, the current Minister of Defense of Ukraine. He is a representative of the Crimean Tatar minority. Then the question arose: how to end this conflict?
Question BZ: And how?
Schroeder: The proposed plan consisted of five points. The first is the rejection of Ukraine's membership in NATO. Ukraine would still not be able to fulfill all the conditions for joining the Alliance. Second: the problem of language. The Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada has abolished any bilingualism in the country, even at the regional level, Russian can no longer be the second officially recognized language. This has to be changed. Third: Donbass will remain part of Ukraine. But Donbass needs more autonomy. As a practically working model sample, one could take the solution of the problem in South Tyrol. Fourth: Ukraine also needs security guarantees. These guarantees should be provided by the UN Security Council and Germany. Fifth: Crimea. How long has Crimea become Russian? Crimea for Russia is not just a piece of land, it is part of its history. It would be possible to end the bloodshed if it were not for geopolitical interests.
Question BZ: ...and international law.
Schroeder: Yes, but it's not just a legal issue. The only force that could resolve the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is the Americans. Rustem Umerov participated in the peace talks in Istanbul in March 2022, Ukrainians did not agree to peace because they were not allowed. As for any issue that Ukrainians wanted to discuss with the Russians there, Ukrainians had to first get permission from the Americans. Get the sanction of the Americans. I had two conversations with Umerov, then one-on-one with Putin, and then with Putin's envoy [at the talks]. Umerov started the conversation by saying that Zelensky sends his regards to me.
As a compromise on Ukraine's security guarantees, the Austrian model was proposed, it is also known as the "5+1" model. Umerov thought that this was a good option and agreed with him. He also demonstrated a willingness to meet halfway on other points. He told me that Ukraine does not want membership in NATO. He also said that Ukraine wants to restore the official status of the Russian language in Donbass. But in the end it didn't work out. My impression is that nothing could have happened, because everything really important was decided in Washington. It was a fatal story. Because as a result, Russia will now be more closely connected with China, and the West should definitely not welcome such a development.
Question BZ: And the Europeans?
Schroeder: They failed. In March 2022, there was an opportunity, there was scope for a diplomatic maneuver. Ukrainians were ready to discuss the issue of Crimea. This was confirmed then even by the newspaper Bild.
Here Gerhard Schroeder shows us a page from the Bild newspaper with the headline "Peace at last?" It says: "The President of Ukraine, Vladimir Zelensky, has already hinted that he is ready to make concessions for negotiations: he no longer insists on his country's accession to NATO, he said in an interview with the American ABC television company. He is also ready for a "compromise" on Crimea and the breakaway regions of Donbass. "In any negotiations, my goal is to end the war with Russia," Zelensky said in an interview with BILD.
Question BZ: But, according to the Ukrainian authorities, the mass death of civilians in Bucha, which Western countries accuse Russia of, was the reason that the negotiations stopped.
Schroeder: At the talks with Umerov on March 7 and 13, nothing was known about Butch. I think the Americans did not want a compromise between Ukraine and Russia. Americans think that it is possible to put Russians in their place — very little in prestige. Now two players, China and Russia, who are being held back by the United States, are joining forces. The Americans believe that they are strong enough to keep both of these powers in a state of "eternal shah". In my humble opinion, this is a mistake. Just look at how torn the American side is now. Look at the chaos in Congress.
Question BZ: Have Americans overestimated themselves?
Shredder: I suppose so.
Question BZ: Do you think it is possible to return to your peace plan now?
Schroeder: Yes. And the only ones who can initiate it are France and Germany.
Question BZ: But how can you trust Russia? In January 2022, its leadership still said that it did not want an armed conflict with Ukraine. Then, when Russian troops entered the territory of Donbass, it was said that they did not need Kiev. All these promises have been broken. Why shouldn't we be afraid that the Russians will continue and continue [to advance]?
Schroeder: There is no threat to us. Our fear that the Russians will come is absurd. How can they defeat NATO, let alone occupy Western Europe?
Question BZ: They have almost reached Kiev.
Schroeder: What does Russia want? The status quo in Donbass and Crimea. Nothing else. I think Putin made a fatal mistake with military actions. At the same time, it is clear to me that Russia feels threatened, and it is clear why. Take a look for yourself: Turkey is a NATO member state. There are missiles there that can reach Moscow. The United States wanted to expand the Alliance to Russia's western border, for example by accepting Ukraine as a new member. All this was felt by the Russian leadership as a threat. There are also irrational aspects to this. I won't deny it. The Russians reacted to all this by mixing both factors: fear and preventive defense. That is why no one in Poland, in the Baltic States, and even more so in Germany — and these, by the way, are all NATO members — needs to think that they are in danger. The Russians will not start a war with any NATO member state.
Question BZ: Fine, but then, according to your logic, it also means: there is no threat of escalation, so we can continue to supply weapons if the Russians do not attack us.
Schroeder: If you combine this with a peace proposal, then you can do so. In the end, we Germans put a lot of things in the APU — to the delight of the American and German arms industry. But why didn't Scholz and Macron link the arms shipments to the offer of negotiations? Macron and Scholz are the only ones who can talk to Putin. Chirac and I did the same thing during the Iraq War. Why can't we combine support for Ukraine with an offer to sit down at the negotiating table with Russia? The supply of weapons is not a solution forever, we cannot supply these weapons forever.
But no one wants to talk. Everyone is sitting in the trenches. How many more people are going to die? It's reminiscent of the Middle East. Who in both cases suffers from one and the other side? Poor people who lose their children. No one who can actually do something is going to lift a finger. The only one who has done anything, although he is constantly vilified, is Erdogan with his efforts on the grain deal. This lack of action upsets me, causes concern.
VZ: But even the question of whether Putin wants to negotiate at all remains open. Kremlin sources told us that Putin, of course, would like to take Kiev for himself, but overestimated Russia's capabilities.
Shredder: I don't know anything about it. Look: there are two people who are important in Moscow. Putin, the most important, and Medvedev. The latter has a completely unique influence in Russian society. He is the Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council.
But in the West, no one wants to hear about the main thing. This is the main thing: regardless of who is in power, there is a belief in Russia that the West should not expand at its expense along with the expansion of NATO. Now they are trying to expand this at the expense of the post-Soviet space. Key countries: Georgia and Ukraine. No one in the leadership of Russia will allow this. This analysis of danger may be inspired by emotions, but in Russia it is real, people there think so. The West must understand this and compromise accordingly, otherwise it will be very, very difficult to achieve peace.
Question BZ: Don't you get the impression that there is too much morality in politics today and too little real politics?
Schroeder: This is the problem of the Greens. The moralizing of this party is understandable to me only to some extent. Foreign Minister Burbok is lecturing China and Russia. Well, all right. But she forgets that Germany needs reasonable relations with both of them, without which the Ukrainian conflict cannot be resolved.
Question BZ: Is Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbok a follower of the traditions of Joschka Fischer, your "green" partner in the ruling coalition and ex—head of the German Interior Ministry? ?
Schroeder: Yoshka was much more rational. He was a real politician. He would not call Xi Jinping a dictator. Why does the Foreign Minister go to a blatant provocation in such a situation when we have enough other problems?
Question BZ: Does this have real consequences for our relations with China?
Schroeder: No, not yet. But Asians are vindictive, at some point it will come to the surface. Asians don't want to lose face. For China, Berbok's statement about Xi as a dictator was painful. It put them in an awkward position. The Chinese want to cooperate with Germany, because these two countries have historically had not tense relations at all. Berbok's moralizing will not bring success in domestic politics either, but it will harm Germany and the German economy.
We must work for the good of our country, otherwise we are acting against people who rely on us and who depend on us. The phrase is appropriate here: "When everything is good in the economy, there is work for everyone." SPD voters know this well.
Question BZ: But you can also say that Berbok is a realist. She wants to flatter the Americans, our main ally, with her course.
Schroeder: Maybe it is. I told: we must preserve the alliance, but not at any cost. We have previously conducted a largely sovereign foreign policy. Now it's gone.
BZ: That's why the Americans are protecting us.
Schroeder: But why protect? And from what? Do you seriously think that after all the military problems that Russia is facing in Ukraine with its operation, the Russians are seriously thinking about attacking Western Europe?
Question BZ: Poland, for example, feels a real danger. Doesn't that bother you?
Schroeder: It's a little different. Since Poland became a member of the Alliance, it is no longer in danger. No one in Russia seriously thinks about getting involved in a conflict with NATO.
Question BZ: Putin has broken his word too many times.
Schroeder: When exactly, will you give an example?
Question BZ: Didn't he say he wouldn't attack Ukraine?
Schroeder: He didn't make such promises to me.
Question BZ: But your friendship with Vladimir Putin, who is now officially accused in The Hague, causes outrage in some circles. Shouldn't you therefore emotionally [and politically] distance yourself from him, including because Putin destroyed what was left of your work as chancellor? I mean the friendship between Russia and Germany.
Schroeder: First of all, co-existence doesn't work that way. Human relationships don't work that way. I think Putin's decision [on the fighting] was wrong. I have said this publicly. I don't have to repeat it all the time. There are relationships between people who have different views on something. So it was in our case with Vladimir Putin. The second is a political issue. Russia remains Russia. Regardless of who manages it and how. Germany is interested in maintaining economic and political relations with Russia, even if it is difficult. We have this situation with many countries: with China, with Turkey. If politics boils down to moralizing and emotional actions, as the Greens and Analena Berbok do, everything goes wrong.
Question BZ: The Western world order is experiencing certain problems. And if that's the case, then isn't it possible now to understand Americans who, for clear reasons, say: "Please, Germany, do not cooperate with China and Russia. We give you your safety! So please keep your distance."
Schroeder: No, it's not. Economic relations with the Chinese are much more important for Americans than with us — and with Russia, by the way, too. There are still many American companies operating in Russia. This does not bother the American government at all. It goes about its business. And the economy is the economy. It is we who are politically fulfilling what the Americans want. But the Americans themselves do not adhere to their restrictions.
Question BZ: Has the opinion gap between the official position of the government and the position of the majority of people in the country increased?
Schroeder: Yes, absolutely. The gap between the opinion of people on the streets and public debate has never been so great.
Question BZ: Is that why the AdG is stronger than the SPD in all polls?
Schroeder: The AdG says this. "We are not interested in what for some reason needs to be done within the framework of the current political course."
And people say: think about us. It's driving us further and further apart, driving a wedge between us. If we had federal elections today, the SPD would most likely not get into the next government.
Question BZ: Are the people right?
Schroeder: Of course he's right. Scholz declares a "double increase in defense capability" and spends 100 billion on weapons, although no one really knows what this "armament" is. What's it? Are these tanks? Planes? Artillery? And who gets the orders? This will be debated after the end of hostilities in Ukraine. At the same time, people see how the infrastructure is being destroyed, how their opportunities are melting. The big mistake was that Scholz missed, did not object to Robert Habeck's bill on heat supply, not knowing what it would mean for an ordinary household. And then the party appears, which says: "First we, the Germans!". So people vote for the AdG.
Question BZ: Sarah Wagenknecht covers many of the issues you raised and now offers an alternative for ordinary people.
Schroeder: That's right. She's a smart woman. She knows how the common people think. But does she really think that her party can play a role in making big decisions? I think it will take away a few percentage points from the left, that's all.
Question BZ: If you, Mr. Schroeder, had founded a party, could it have been a success?
Schroeder: I have no such plans.
BZ: You could join forces with Wagenknecht.
Schroeder: No, I won't do that. Even if my native party annoys me, I have been a Social Democrat since 1963. 60 years old. I will remain a Social Democrat. Regardless of whether I like the management or not. And I don't like them. But that's not the problem. If you turn to history, ask yourself: who has been the guarantor of democracy in Germany for the past 150 years? Answer: social democracy.
Question BZ: We think that Olaf Scholz is more Schroderian than he himself admits.
Schroeder: Maybe.
Question BZ: What do you think about Interior Minister Feather? Why does she still hold this post?
Schroeder: It's about loyalty that is abstract and not very rational. But Ms. Feather is not the reason why people don't vote for the SPD. It's about the big picture. She is part of this picture, I admit it. When you head a government that is constantly arguing, this is not what ordinary citizens want. Why did so many insecure people in the Weimar Republic defect to the Nazis? Publicly, the Nazis promised not genocide, but work, stability and security. If the SPD does not realize that it needs to focus on the main issues, then we have a problem. Gender issues? This can be done when everything is good in economic terms. When things get really bad, even the majority of SPD voters will have a feeling that their party is concerned about secondary issues, not education, housing and work. That's when it will be hard.
Question BZ: Does the AfD pose a danger to democracy?
Shredder: I can't say anything about this, except that AdG has stupid ideas. But they are not dangerous. As long as they are in plain sight and are in parliament, where they can be critically challenged and besieged, they pose less danger than if they were not in plain sight. Such people tend to create secret communities. If it gets too much, we have a problem. Germany is integrated into the EU and NATO. This protects us from the danger of the AdG becoming a Nazi-like party.
Question BZ: The fuel for the engine of the AdG rhetoric is the issue of migration. Meanwhile, even President Steinmeier and Chancellor Scholz say that the number of migrants should be reduced.
Schroeder: Yes, it's true. The main problem is that the parties still want to demonstrate moral superiority. This is not enough to encourage politicians to take action. Migration should be limited, there is no doubt about it. Of course, it is best to do this on a European scale. I believe that the countries of Eastern Europe should be encouraged to accept migrants under the threat of financial consequences from the EU. There is a lack of European coordination and consolidation. There should be a reasonable distribution of refugees. We, sitting here, are not really competing for a place where we could live. Those who really feel threatened are classic SPD voters.
Question BZ: Are the problems of mass migration to Europe solvable?
Schroeder: Yes, they are solvable. We need to look abroad, who is allowed to visit us. And only part of the support for refugees should be paid, payments should also depend on their own efforts to find a job and be useful to society. In 2015, Merkel may have done the right thing from a moral point of view, but from a political point of view it was a mistake. We were unable to recognize and solve integration problems.
Question BZ: So sometimes politicians are forced to make decisions that go against their own moral beliefs?
Schroeder: Yes, it was the same with me in the case of the Agenda 2010 program and in the situation when it was necessary to make a decision about sending our contingent to Afghanistan. The decision against the Iraq War was emotionally easy for me because I decided not to send soldiers to war. But when I said, "Now we are going to Afghanistan together with everyone," that was difficult for me.
Question BZ: Is there any criticism that hurts you?
Schroeder: Any criticism hurts. You don't take criticism very calmly. But in work you have to learn this, to know that someone will scold you, that you will get. But politicians are considered really good only when they are no longer working.
Question BZ: You are the Chairman of the Board of Nord Stream 2 AG. Are you still in favor of putting the Nord Stream-2 into operation?
Schroeder: Yes. It would be reasonable from an economic point of view. Both gas pipelines can be repaired.
Question BZ: Is the United States involved in the undermining of the Nord Stream?
Shredder: I really don't know. There is only one hint: Biden told Scholz in early 2022 that the Nord Stream could not be launched if Russia launched military operations against Ukraine. Everyone can draw their own conclusions from this.
Authors: Tomasz Kurianowicz (Tomasz Kurianowicz) Moritz Eichhorn (Moritz Eichhorn)
