No room for old dream(er)s
Thoughts on the State of the Nation Address by German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier on October 28, 2022 at Schloss Bellevue
»Every person in our country who woke on 24 February and saw the images of rocket attacks in Kyiv, of columns of tanks on Ukrainian streets, of the vast scale of the Russian invasion – everyone who woke to these images knew that, on that morning, the world had become a different one.«
(Note: All excerpts of Steinmeier’s speech quoted below are taken from the original English translation by the Office of the Federal President and have been reproduced word for word so as not to distort their “expression and style”. The whole speech (Engl.; pdf; 12p.) can be downloaded here.)
I don’t know how you woke up on February 24. All I know is that, from memory, I couldn’t tell that the world had become a different place virtually overnight. After almost three years of C0V¡d hysteria, it’s easy for me to wake up in the morning and realize that nothing has changed at all - even if “every person in our country” woke up that morning “knowing” that it had, as Steinmeier suggested. I, for one, did not wake up to images of missile strikes in Kiev.
»Nobody felt the dreadful horror of that morning as deeply as the people of Ukraine itself. I sat with some of them on Tuesday [October 25] in Koriukivka, a small town near the Belarusian border, in an underground bomb shelter.«
Somehow strange, if one investigates, that on that Tuesday, when the German president had to flee into a shelter because an air raid siren went off, no “combat operations” or Russian air raids took place in the city of Koryukivka, 300 km away from Kiev. Neither German nor international nor Ukrainian media reported anything to that effect. Meanwhile, columnist Thomas Fischer raised several questions in Der Spiegel on Monday about Steinmeier’s recent visit to Ukraine, during which he was forced to spend more than an hour in an air-raid shelter because of, among other things, an alleged airstrike by Russian forces on Koryukivka. “Could this have been part of a staged propaganda stunt?” Fischer asks laconically there. - But that’s only in passing.
(Interim comment: Propaganda, by the way, is practiced by all parties to the conflict. However, a comparison of the reality presented by any propaganda with the “real” reality reveals to the attentive observer certain contradictions between the presented and the “real” reality - contradictions that allow one to assess which propagated reality is further away from the “real” reality. I leave it to your own judgment to decide which reality is the most distant in the current conflict.)
Whereas Chancellor Scholz’s government declaration on February 27 spoke of a “turning point in time,“ on October 28, in the speech by Steinmeier, the notorious federal phrase-monger, on the state of the nation, this turned into an “epochal shift.” An epochal shift that “put our successful model of a globally networked economy under pressure” - that plunged us into a time “in which social cohesion, trust in democracy, and even more: trust in ourselves have been damaged.”
“Trust in democracy ... has been damaged”? In less pathetic terms, he should have formulated: People feel increasingly screwed. And “social cohesion” in Germany had already been history for at least two and a half years on February 24, 2022. Nor was it certainly the “epochal shift” that destroyed our “successful model blah blah blah...”, but rather the borderline-debilitarian policies of our successful politicians over the last three decades - not to mention the completely inane sanctions that have harmed us more than Putin.
»And let me add that our own German good fortune shaped our view of the world. We counted on the conviction that we were surrounded by friends and that war at least in Europe had become inconceivable. Freedom and democracy seemed to be gaining ground everywhere, trade and prosperity seemed possible in every direction.«
Doesn’t the man actually read a newspaper? Moreover, since the CIA wiretapping scandal involving Merkel’s cell phone and at the latest since the Nordstream attack, these statements testify to his downright criminal naiveté in believing that we are “surrounded by friends” and that “freedom and democracy seem to be on the rise everywhere.” More detachment from reality is hardly possible. In any case, one might have the impression that our head of state has been strangely absent during the past three years of crisis.
»Russia’s brutal war of aggression in Ukraine has reduced the European security order to ashes. In his imperial obsession, the Russian President has broken international law, committed land grabs, called borders into question. The Russian attack is an attack on all of the lessons that the world had learned from the last century’s two World Wars.«
Russia [has] reduced the European security order to rubble? Imperial obsession? International law, land theft ... Strong signal words - but no strong arguments. Lessons the world had learned from two world wars? ... Empty words or empty lessons? - Well, the above paragraph needs a closer look not only because of its antifactual choice of words:
“Russia’s brutal war of aggression in Ukraine...” - There is no doubt that Russia started miltitary actions against a neighboring country on February 24, 2022. Thus, these actions can certainly be called a war of aggression - whether this attack was brutal, I will come back to this later. Whether a war was started with this attack, however, is at least debatable if one takes a closer look at the long history leading up to this conflict and thinks about it more carefully. Unless one has decided to look at the whole matter exclusively through Western propaganda glasses. The prehistory to this conflict, which has now turned into a hot war - starting from the advancing NATO expansion to the East, via the U.S.-initiated Maidan coup in 2014 and the following eight years of war in the Donbass (with more than 14,000 mostly civilian casualties), up to the Minsk agreements, which were broken by the Western side - rather testifies to the fact that this war was already started more than eight years ago, guided by U.S. interests.
“...has reduced the European security order to rubble.” - Here I must first imperatively ask myself the question: What is the “European security order” and what is it based on? Is it based on NATO’s massive eastward expansion since German reunification? Or on the deployment of medium-range nuclear missiles moving ever closer to Russia, or perhaps on the “imperial obsession” of the relentless United States and the European Union that dutifully follows them? Perhaps even Putin has contributed to this with his reliable energy supplies - who knows?
Speaking of the “imperialist obsession” that Steinmeier accuses the Russian president of and on the basis of which Putin is said to have “broken international law, called borders into question [and] committed land grabs”: Was it also imperialist obsession that moved the U.S./NATO to break international law in their “brutal wars of aggression” in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria or Libya? Did these breaches of international law serve higher goals such as the “war on terror” or even the defense of human rights? Or did they simply serve an ostensible “security order” to ensure the continued imperialist ambitions of the U.S., which may have been in jeopardy? The latter seems most plausible to me. But that is only my humble opinion.
In any case, in my view, “in rubble” lie the plans of the U.S. and the so-called collective West to let Russia step down from the world stage once and for all, thus preventing or at least slowing down the transition to a new multipolar world order. A new world order that, quite unlike the “New World Order” longed for by the West, would presumably result in the end of U.S. global hegemony (and probably also of the “European security order”).
But there is now “the Russian attack on all the lessons the world had learned from two world wars in the past century.” It would be hard to find a worse excuse for one’s own forgetfulness of history. Who is actually “the world that had learned ‘all the lessons’ from two world wars”? Steinmeier’s world? That of the U.S. and its vassals? Or perhaps rather the Russian world, which had to mourn some 30 million victims in two world wars? Steinmeier suggests - consciously or unconsciously? - that the so-called collective West has learned the lessons of two world wars, but not Russia, which suffered much more from these wars. He accuses Russia of being “attacker of the lessons” that the West allegedly learned from the two world wars. However, the aggressive policies of the U.S. and its vassals over the past decades and their results make me seriously doubt that the collective West, including Steinmeier, really learned any lessons from two terrible world wars. The good/evil view was de facto never ended. Neither has the Cold War.
»Today, these shared lessons that kept the peace have faded away. Dialogue and searching for common ground have been increasingly replaced by struggles for dominance.«
What a hypocrisy beyond compare! Which “peacekeeping lessons” have faded away with whom? Who has made the greatest efforts since the end of the Second World War to become the globally dominant world power? The second sentence, if read carefully and also between the lines, provides a correct insight and the admission of ignorance of this insight at the same time. Yes, “exchange” and “the search for what unites” would be more important today than ever before. Putin had tried nothing else in the past years before the beginning of the hot war in Ukraine until the very end. The West’s responses - in addition to the Maidan coup and NATO’s progressive eastward expansion - were to break the Minsk agreements, to ignore Putin’s demand for Ukraine’s neutrality, and to provide even greater financial and military support for Ukraine.
After Putin decided to no longer stand idly by and on February 24 followed up his unsuccessful efforts to protect Russia’s security interests and ensure the protection of the Russian population in eastern Ukraine with military action, the West’s “responses” continued with sanctions, the U.S. ban on peace talks between Zelenskyj and Putin in April, the attacks on the Nordstream pipelines and the Crimean bridge, and most recently the attack on Sevastopol. One wonders who is vying for dominance here. After all, anyone who is serious about “searching for the unifying factor” cannot simply ignore the interests of the other.
Steinmeier then briefly touches on China’s claim to economic and political power in the world, before summarizing that “this struggle for dominance [will] shape the future of international relations in the long term.” He then soberly states:
»Unfortunately, the sad truth is that the world is on the path to a phase of confrontation – although it depends on cooperation more urgently than ever. Climate change, species loss, pandemics, hunger and migration – none of this can be solved without a readiness and willingness for international cooperation. That is why we must not slacken our efforts – despite the crisis and the war.«
»[…] harder years, tough years are coming [for the Germans].«
What a groundbreaking insight! Let’s leave his sentence about international cooperation as it is - but with the remark that Russia (as part of the world) should also be part of this international cooperation. Whether “climate change, extinction of species, pandemics, hunger and migration” can be “solved” at all with the means of Western politics is another matter altogether. But Western narratives need their catchy keywords - “despite crisis and war”!
What follows is a long litany of adulation of German strengths and experiences, the commentary on which I will spare you and myself here. Here are just a few examples that show Steinmeier’s detachment from reality in embarrassing clarity:
»To prevail in this time, we can build on the strength and power that we have worked to gain over the past years. The experience that we have acquired in overcoming other severe crises will help us. Despite all of our concerns, we must not forget, now in particular, that we have a strong economy, stronger than many others. We have good research, strong businesses and a capable state. We have a broad and strong centre-ground in our society.«
»We do not need a war mentality – but we do need resilience and a spirit of resistance.«
»This includes, first and foremost, a strong and well-equipped Bundeswehr [German Army]. Something that is expected by the people of our country, as well as by our neighbours and partners. We are the strong country at the heart of Europe. We have a duty to contribute our share to collective defence – today much more than at a time when others, particularly the US, took us under their protection.«
»I assure our partners that Germany accepts its responsibility, within NATO and within Europe. This is borne out by the security policy decisions that the Federal Government has made since the watershed of 24 February. It is above all also borne out by the broad public consensus backing these decisions.«
»Looking ahead to this new time with an open mind also means asking difficult questions of ourselves. The world has been a different one since this epochal shift – and that means that we must cast off old ways of thinking and old hopes.«
»That applies very particularly to our view of Russia.«
»But when we look at today’s Russia, there simply is no place for OLD DREAMS. Our countries are today opposed.«
Stop! This is where I would like to interject or rather strongly disagree. “Our countries are today opposed” - Steinmeier asserts. Whether many Germans, who according to Steinmeier “feel connected to Russia and its people, love Russian music and literature” and who would rather continue to buy gas from Russia than freeze for Ukraine, see it the same way, I dare to doubt. Is it not rather the case that legitimate Russian security interests are juxtaposed with U.S. geopolitical interests and fantasies of omnipotence?
»Russia’s war of aggression has demolished Gorbachev’s dream of a “common European home”. […] It is an attack on everything that we Germans too stand for. […] And so, Ambassador Makeiev [Successor to Andrij Melnyk.], we support Ukraine and will do so for as long as necessary. This includes military support - […].«
No place for old dreams, it said a few lines earlier, now it is Gorbachev’s dream that is being shattered. One could almost get the impression that the dream world of a German president is collapsing here rather than the German economy or the infrastructure of Ukraine. Whether the support that Steinmeier generously assures the dear Mr. Ambassador will still have any effect and how long it can still be provided remains an open question. As long as it will be necessary, that is.
»Sanctions, breaking off contact, supplying weapons for a raging war. Nothing about this is ordinary, nothing about it is compatible with our previous visions of peaceful coexistence. But we are simply not living in an ideal world. We are living in conflict. And so we need conflict instruments. […]
I have said that we are living in conflict, and that this war affects us too. But what is equally important to me is that our country is not at war. And we do not want that to change. Any spread of this war, let alone nuclear escalation – that must be prevented.«
We are living in conflict, supplying weapons to a warring party whose war is our business, but we are not at war? This logic, if it can be called such at all, seems a bit strange to me. Lauterbach was more direct there (“We are at war with Russia”). And how one wants to prevent an expansion of the war or even a nuclear escalation with more arms deliveries is a mystery (not only) to me.
Then there is talk of the face of evil. There is talk of goodwill and a “sham peace”, which, however, “would only increase Putin’s hunger.” So rather a victorious peace?
»Wanting peace, but supplying weapons to a warzone; supporting one side in the war without ourselves being at war; imposing sanctions on others but also suffering from them ourselves – these are all contradictions indeed, and I hear every day how many Germans are filled with doubt, and some even with despair, by them.«
He did indeed mention them, the contradictions! However, I doubt that he hears every day about the doubts and despair of many Germans. Their complaints hardly penetrate the walls of Schloss Bellevue or the air-raid shelter in Koryukivka.
This is followed by more hollow phrases about the situation of the people in Germany and unctuous declarations about the unwavering will to help them: “Our state will not leave you alone even in this time! It is using its power to help those who cannot make it on their own. Relief packages, defense umbrellas, gas price brakes, housing subsidies and support services for companies, both large and small, bear witness to this will.” - Although he himself had previously remarked that good will alone was not enough. Oh, I forgot, that was about evil, that is, about Putin.
Finally, he arrives at the perennial topic that no “major” speech should be without, even in wartime: climate change…
»Climate change is not taking a break during the war in Ukraine.«
Steinmeier concludes this section, which sounds more like a manifesto written by Die Grünen, with the following sentence:
»Without fighting climate change, everything becomes pointless.«
Perhaps the Federal President should have let the speech end with this sentence, because everything that follows is another rehash of what has already been said before - enriched with even more pathos, lip service and helpless empty phrases. And all this only to conclude with a feeble attempt at motivation:
»Let us have faith in one another – and let us have faith in ourselves. Let us not be discouraged by the wind in our face that this new day and age brings. This is not about everyone doing the same thing, but it is about us having a common goal: strengthening everything that connects us.«
The German president wanted to give a major speech to the nation - but it probably won’t make it into the history books. Not a shred of self-criticism, no criticism of the current federal government, no acknowledgement of the hair-raising mistakes that politics has made in the past three years. No remorse regarding the division of our society, no plea for forgiveness to the countless outcasts who did not bow to the prevailing narrative.
A hate speech and a pretty speech at the same time. And somehow superfluous in a time when there is no room for old dream(er)s.
Closing comment
When will the Germans and the Europeans realize that the US is not their friend, if not even Steinmeier, Scholz, VdL & Co seem to understand that? States do not have friends, but interests. Powerful states vehemently represent their interests - the US is the best example. Those who were elected to represent our national interests or even the European ones have been doing so for decades with bravura ... NOT!
A German president who swears in “his” people to freeze for Ukraine; a German chancellor who warns of nuclear war and at the same time misses no opportunity to further escalate this danger - as does his foreign minister actress who, as is well known, feels more obliged to the Ukrainians than to her own “electorate” and who is a (Green!) warmonger par excellence; a children’s book author who suddenly has the power to virtually single-handedly drive the world’s fourth-largest economy against the wall; and a von-und-zu-von-der-Leyen who is up to her ears in the ass of the WEF, BigPharma and the U.S. financial elites, give little hope that a sanity reset is even possible without the consequent replacement of this personnel - and this is unfortunately not to be expected.
And we will need more than dreams to live and have a future. We need a critical mass of reasonable, self-thinking and above all ACTING people who understand that they are the 99% - the sovereign.
The way you examined each phrase and reflected them in a truth mirror was brilliant and will hopefully help more people to understand what is really happening. So thank you!
Very well written article that breaks down and translates the twisted meaning of these diabolically strung together words and phrases designed to deceive and manipulate.