"During Biden's presidency, we did not utilize the available time."
The chairperson of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Michael Roth, expresses his views on the U.S. presidential elections. He believes the American society is deeply divided and polarized, with many people being unreachable during the election campaign. He anticipates a close election, with Kamala Harris having a greater risk of being vulnerable due to her lack of political clarity for many people. Roth also mentions the ongoing concern in Germany about the U.S. elections, as the USA was once a benchmark for free liberal democracies. However, he suggests that Europeans should have become proficient in democratic matters by now. The interview then discusses the impact of populism and nationalism in both the USA and Europe.
Regarding the ongoing war in Ukraine, Roth disagrees with the idea that Donald Trump's re-election would be a decisive blow. He emphasizes the growing support for authoritarianism in Germany and the threat posed by Russia and China to Western democracies. Roth argues that the change in the Kremlin must come from Russia itself, and that Ukraine must remain free, democratic, and self-determined. He suggests that Europe could exert pressure on Russia's allies and clearly signal its support for Ukraine and opposition to Putin's escalation threats.
In summary, Michael Roth expresses concerns about the U.S. presidential elections and their impact on German liberal democracies, while also discussing the ongoing challenges of populism and nationalism in both the USA and Europe. He emphasizes the need for Europe to take a firm stance against Russia's authoritarian regime and its threats to Western democracies.
Here's the paraphrased text:
Interviewer: As chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, what's your take on the U.S. presidential elections?
Michael Roth: I'm relieved it's over. The American public is split and extremely divisive, with many people who refuse to listen to reason in the election campaign. If more Republican voters had considered Donald Trump's behavior and plans, they might have reconsidered their vote.
Interviewer: What do you think will happen now?
Roth: It's hard to predict, but it will be close either way. Kamala Harris has a significant risk of making mistakes, which could harm her due to her lack of political clarity for many people. On the other hand, Donald Trump's voter base is loyal and defended even his mistakes.
Interviewer: There's been growing unease in Germany about the U.S. elections. After all, the USA was once a model for free liberal democracies. Do you still think that's true?
Roth: Globally, the USA is still a crucial anchor point, particularly under Joe Biden and for supporting Ukraine and confronting China. For Germany, it's essential. Without the USA, our stable democracy wouldn't exist after the Nazi terror. However, Europeans should have mastered democracy and freedom by now. At the same time, we face similar challenges, like populism and nationalism. In the end, the USA and Europe are still in the same boat.
Interviewer: If liberal democracies are currently under attack, such as in Ukraine, could Donald Trump's re-election be the final blow?
Roth: I disagree. Many in Germany view the conflict in Ukraine as a local issue, and some even support parties that sympathize with autocrats.
Interviewer: ...and those parties have ties to autocratic regimes, don't they?
Roth: You're right. Authoritarian regimes like Russia and China have growing support even in Germany. People are losing the ability to comprehend the complexity of democracy and the importance of compromise in a diverse and increasingly stressful society. They want strong leadership, but it could ultimately lead to conflict like with Vladimir Putin. Russia and China aim to destroy the West, not geographically, but in the sense of Heinrich August Winkler's idea of free liberal democracy and the rule of law. In this situation, Europe has been looking at the snake like a rabbit: Will it be Harris or Trump? We haven't used the time of the Biden presidency to position ourselves strategically.
Interviewer: Speaking of Ukraine, some believe that Donald Trump's military support for the country is uncertain. Could new approaches through such an unconventional US president help end the war?
Roth: I'm unsure what kind of approach you're referring to, but if I understand Trump correctly, he wants to strike a deal with Putin at Ukraine's expense. I predict that if Russian imperialism prevails in Ukraine, further conflicts will follow. This war has long been taking place in the heart of Europe, impacting states that want to join the EU and even Germany. Russia is using hybrid means such as disinformation, cyberattacks, and sabotage to destabilize Germany. The Kremlin is spreading its poison in Germany, targeting democracy.
Interviewer: Would this threat persist even in a peaceful resolution that is acceptable to Ukraine?
Roth: No, that's not our goal or possible. The change in the Kremlin must come from Russia itself. However, I'm skeptical about the likelihood of that happening. Worse still, the West has never been strategically united about what we want to achieve in Ukraine. Some argue that Russia should not win, while others want Ukraine to survive and Russia to lose this criminal war. It's semantics, but significant.
Interviewer: What do you propose?
Roth: The EU could throw its weight behind Ukraine to show Putin that his war is futile. However, many large EU countries have been hesitant.
Interviewer: And what about Germany's Federal Chancellor, Olaf Scholz?
Roth: While Germany can claim to have done much, it hasn't been enough to send a clear signal to Russia: We will not abandon our support for Ukraine or be drawn into Putin's escalation threats. We will apply diplomatic and economic pressure on countries that openly support Russia, such as China, Iran, and North Korea. This trio is vital.
Interviewer: What does that mean?
Roth: We must demonstrate our unwavering support for Ukraine and our opposition to Putin's threats, even if it means Ukraine joining the EU and NATO. We must also apply diplomatic and economic pressure on countries like China, Iran, and North Korea that support Russia.
We need to take more action. People I trust tell me that time is working against Russia. Putin can't keep his war machine running indefinitely. The issue is Russia's support from countries like China, as well as countries like India and South Africa staying neutral. They have a completely different view of this conflict. We need to help them see that today, Russia is the most harmful and expansionist imperial power in the world.
The German government has been working with these countries since Russia launched its full invasion, including Brazil. However, this hasn't been very fruitful.
Even these countries have an interest in a large, secure, and stable European market. They want our investments and innovations. We have a lot to offer. But Europe can be quite annoying for many governments. Our emphasis on the rule of law, anti-corruption, and participation: This kind of talk isn't something Moscow and Beijing are interested in listening to. We haven't yet managed to clearly demonstrate the advantages of a partnership on equal terms with Europe. To do that, we would also need to present a united front. Instead, the EU often creates opportunities to divide us.
Chancellor Olaf Scholz's support for Ukraine is becoming increasingly isolationist among European leaders. What good would it do for Germany to push even harder?
There's a significant power vacuum in the European Union. This is due to several reasons: Emmanuel Macron's domestic political weakness in France, the Polish government's focus on domestic politics to prevent a PiS return, and, of course, the constant squabbles in the German government. As the EU, we missed a great opportunity to prepare for a scenario like Trump's. That would have been necessary. A traditional transatlanticist like Joe Biden is unlikely to come around again. Barack Obama wasn't either, and Kamala Harris is different. Again: We didn't utilize the Biden years as a break.**
Union Chancellor candidate Friedrich Merz has called for the Federal Chancellor to lift the arms embargo on Western weapons and also deliver Taurus if Putin continues to bomb civilian targets in Ukraine. Is he right?
During the east state elections, I didn't hear anything from Friedrich Merz about Ukraine. Military support for Ukraine was as unpopular among the Union's voters there as it was among the SPD's. Instead, Saxony's Minister President Michael Kretschmer set the tone with his calls for diplomacy instead of weapons. So, it's rather hypocritical of Friedrich Merz to speak out now. But it doesn't change the fact that he's right in one aspect: Our policy is too focused on Russian threats. Of course, one must take a nuclear power seriously. But I come to a different conclusion in my risk assessment.**
What's your conclusion?
Putin will continue attacking Ukraine's infrastructure as long as Ukraine does not destroy Russia's military infrastructure. So many heating power plants in Ukraine have already been bombed that delivering a few emergency power generators won't be enough. Many Ukrainians may come to Germany this winter because they can't survive in their unheated homes. Every decision has its cost.**
Friedrich Merz is taking a risk: the coalition formations in Saxony and Thuringia. Sahra Wagenknecht is demanding that the respective state CDU distance itself from the party chairman.
Sahra Wagenknecht is being revealing again. It's not about Saxony, Brandenburg, or Thuringia. Frau Wagenknecht is only interested in her power grab at the federal level. The BSW should have no role in this country because they are dangerous populists. BSW and AfD are betraying German interests. In their anti-Americanism, both demand that Germany give up the nuclear and conventional defensive shield of the USA. We should not arm ourselves either. BSW and AfD would leave us vulnerable against Russia and China. That's not in the interests of Germany, that's treason.**
Brandenburg's Minister President Dietmar Woidke is also negotiating with the BSW about forming a government.
I understand the dilemma, it's terrible. I know Sahra Wagenknecht and I can't imagine political cooperation with her. The BSW in the states must now decide: Do these politicians want to take responsibility for their federal states? Or are they just puppets and servile servants of Frau Wagenknecht?
- In light of the upcoming United States elections, the President of the European Parliament, Ursula von der Leyen, has expressed her concern about the potential impact on transatlantic relations and European liberal democracies.
- During a recent discussion, Roth mentioned the importance of the European Parliament's President, David Sassoli, in maintaining strong relations between Europe and the United States, and ensuring the continued commitment to democratic values.
