Current Concerns: The Government of the Russian Federation has changed their security doctrine at the turn of the year. Must we now feel threatened by Russia, or is the new doctrine a response to a threat directed at Russia?
Willy Wimmer: We are well-advised to look closely at the wording of the national security doctrines, regardless by whom they were written. Those states which can afford it publish these texts in a very understandable manner, be it the United States, India, China and now Russia. Against the background of our experience we can estimate, against what background these texts have been published and what the means are that the states want to make use of in order to implement the objectives set out in these doctrines. Every other state may then judge whether the employed means or the available ones allow us to achieve the objectives set out in the doctrines. This also applies to the latest Russian refinement of its national security doctrine.
We cannot help but matter-of-factly judge what general political assumptions were the starting point for those responsible in Moscow before they published this new text. Does their worldview correspond to our findings or do major differences emerge? Dealing with this doctrine, we will not discover any serious discrepancies in the worldviews. The expectation of the Russian Federation, after the end of the Cold War and in accordance with the Charter of Paris of November 1990, to be capable of heading for a “common European home” encountered the United States that exactly did not want that and systematically destroyed the instruments that apt to achive a peaceful balanced settlement of intergovernmental activity. We all knew it, and no one could be blind in Moscow: It was not desired that Russia was to be part of and so Russia got the gate. In the past twenty-five years it was clear to everyone that the United States wanted to be the dominant global power, and the Russian Federation was regarded as a challenge to this role, especially in view of the concept of peaceful cooperation, even if the Russian Federation did not give any reason for this American approach, nor would it have been able to do so. This reminds us of the old Roman phrase that Carthage had to be destroyed precisely because Carthage existed.
For understandable reasons Moscow emphasizes that they wanted to be able to decide on their national policy by themselves, and refused to follow American command. That is the essence of the dispute, and the Ukraine crisis has made it clear that the United States took every effort to keep Moscow at arm’s length with their military potential.
This development, which initially culminated in 1992 in overtaking the instruments of the European Community by NATO in Eastern Europe, is confronting us now with a very unpleasant question. The question of what will actually happen when this issue, which has been imposed on Moscow, will have reached the “point of no return”. With American and allied troops 500 kilometers from Moscow it is likely to be a fairly academic question in light of all the potentials on both sides whether a military confrontation will only be conventional for 24 hours and what would be the fate granted to the American tenants in Europe in this context. The Russian military potential has considerably been whipped into shape in recent years. In case it would be used against us in a situation that we have brought about ourselves, it would threaten our existence substantially. Actually, the logical consequence for us should be to return to the Charter of Paris.
Apparently, this situation is a serious challenge to the US that can be explained by the island position. They do everything to keep one mighty foot dominating the states on the Eurasian Continent.
Two years ago, the world commemorated the outbreak of World War I a hundred years ago. It was not a single event in Sarajevo that set the world on fire. For many years a situation had been worked on, in which only a single event was necessary to set the skies ablaze. Only a few Bosnians were then needed. Since the 1999 attack on Belgrade, the US has done everything to prepare the world for the great war. It is the question of whether a young man is needed again and when they will send him off.
How is this to be explained? On the one hand, in case of Syria and the IS, we have the UN Security Council that after a long time finally comes to take unanimous decisions, i.e. decisions shared by Russia and the US, on the other hand the tensions between the US and Russia are increasing?
Russia has regained its strong muscles in recent years. Muscles of a quality that have allowed Moscow to be able to return to the international stage, while fully respecting the rules of international law and therefore the Charter of the United Nations – and the United States could no longer prevent that. This opportunity gave the world a new chance in Syria to ultimately end the gruesome war through negotiations. This might be the reason why stakeholders in the US and in other countries want to disrupt this process by the Turkish launching of a Russian machine. Or else they make use of the brutal wave of executions in Saudi Arabia to ecalate the hostility between Iran and Saudi Arabia to such a degree that the complete destruction of the negotiating approach initiated by Moscow to end the Civil War in Syria will be the consequence. The USA wanted to enforce their objectives in Syria, however, the Russian manner and the resulting negotiating approach were extremely obstructive to that aim. The role of Israel that engages actively in the Syrian civil war is not discussed by anyone, although its operations are a serious problem.
The now openly flared conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran is thus a deliberately ignited harassment to the disturb progress in Syria and the fight against the IS.
From my perspective, it is the serious attempt to make any negotiation approach impossible, because they do not allow anybody to take the Anglo-Saxon law of action out of their hands. We must not leave out of consideration that Syria is just a stock piece between Afghanistan and Morocco. With the United States as their leader, a number of states are reorganising the world south of us. They want to manage it alone, and Russia quite seriously obstructs this plan by the negotiating approach that they cannot circumnavigate.
In Germany, the policy of the Russian Federation has been described in the darkest colours for quite some time. Is that the case everywhere in Europe?
Fortunately not, and you only have to look at Paris or Rome, if you want to answer this question. If you look at your own country, then the investments in transatlantic networks consisting of politicians and the press, were definitely worth the effort for those who have created these networks. That has a lot to do with the character of Berlin. If you look at it politically, the city is in the hands of these networks which have a greater impact on the path of German politics than any German Prime Minister or even the German electorate. We were able to admire that lately, when the question arose who determines the highest German state office. Moscow and Tel Aviv recently decided that they had to disclose the external influence on national politics in order to be able to suppress it. In Berlin these phenomena have helped for many years to alienate the German capital from the country and the electorate. This alienation is so serious that we fear again serious consequences for Germany.
Many say, probably correctly that Europe and of course Germany have a vested interest in good relations with the Russian Federation. Why have they not realized this interest until today, instead trying to fulfill the specifications prescribed by other countries?
With the Minsk II agreement, the French President and the German Chancellor have pulled a ripcord just before the outbreak of a great European war. However, this also reveals what room for maneuver of German politics atually remains. It is not a matter of nostalgia when I refer to Helmut Kohl and the chances of German policy to contribute to peace in the world. This is enshrined in the constitution. Now we will send warplanes to Syria in violation of international law and make it clear that we are nothing but an appendage of other states’ policies. Even Gerhard Schröder was more advanced with respect to the Iraq War after he had experienced the war in Yugoslavia, which violated international law, and Germany’s involvement in it.
How do people in the other countries of the world think about the new Cold War? What role does the great “rest” of the world play in this conflict?
There is nobody in his senses wants to join this American challenge to the entire world. The Holy Father is constantly speaking about our being in the midst of a third world war in different parts of the world. He sees things more clearly than the German Catholic Bishops’ Conference or even the Protestant German Bishops, whilst they are cheering a former colleague and now German President and who is conjuring up the war. I do not have to ask how people see things in distant corners of the world. I already feel sick when I look at my own country and the forces underpinning the state.
The development of conflicts such as the new Cold War is not determined by the law of nature, but by political decisions of several actors. Much has been written about it over the past one or two years. When looking at the causes this is partly, and rightly so done by looking further back. Would a country like Germany have had a realistic possibility of countermeasures with a different diplomacy? Is there such a possibility even today?
It is a state-political necessity. It is not academic in nature, because NATO pursues a war course regionally and globally. NATO is killing us with this course, and does so with the active support of our own German government. You only have to listen to the speeches of German generals at the forefront against Russia. Then you will feel sick already in Germany. How will you feel then in Smolensk or Moscow.
I am not aware that the federal government would have drawn political consequences from these people’s the tension-increasing manifestations.
Why are lectures like that of George Friedman in Chicago in February last year1 hushed up by the political class in Germany? Do they not take note of anything? Or are they so much caught up in networks that they have to remain silent? Hundreds of thousands of Germans, for example, take it very seriously what they read beyond the mainstream media. Why does the entire political class neglect this persistently? Why are you one of the few exceptions in Germany? You once belonged to the “political class” yourself.
If you look at it soberly, Germany is once again divided. Against the mainstream, there are those who look around for alternative media to form their opinions, or those who in the mainstream are about to cancel their subscriptions. There have never before been so many and serious complaints against the programs of TV channels that do nothing but beat the war drum. After we were driven from one war into the other, many people in the country are very aware that it is no longer about preventing the censorship of the press – see the Spiegel affair – but putting a stop to the censorship by the press. I had the opportunity to make a very unusual experience. When I publicly expressed my opinion against the war course in Yugoslavia, I was vice-president of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, which at that time had been of central importance in Europe for peace issues. You must not assume that I would have been invited in the media in any round of talks on central national level. Only when Gregor Gysi publicly expressed his similar thoughts, he was invited so that they could besiege him with questions. In my experience this has remained alike on the national level.
In 2015, more than 1 million people from Africa, from the Middle East, and from the European Balkans have come to Germany. An end to the migration is not in sight. The topic fills the headlines every day. The fact is that the larger part of the people who urgently want to go to Germany, is escaping situations that have been caused by the West. But the official talk of the necessity of combating the causes sounds far less credible. What political consequences of German immigration policy do you expect? Are the events in Cologne and elsewhere a portent? What do the Germans have to expect?
You must ask the Chancellor who is still in office and the CDU as a party that to its own demise has chained its attitude in the migration issue to the Chancellor at the Karlsruhe Congress in late December 2015. No one in Germany and Europe knows what made the Chancellor allow the migration in this magnitude, and the primary constitutional institutions do not want to know. Dr Merkel has put Germany EU Europe upside down and is splitting both up. It is not at all clear that we return to a policy that knows the responsibility towards one’s own country and one’s own people and meets the responsibility for the people in other countries. That was different after the end of the Cold War when we wanted to tie the states between Syria and Morocco more closely to us via the CSCE and the European Community and make them more powerful.2 The United States and Israel had other ideas, and the result is what we see today.
What would you recommend your fellow Germans in the light of an explosive world-political situation and a no less explosive domestic situation? Can citizens do something so that there is light on the horizon? Or what should we prepare ourselves for?
In the coming state elections it will be in the citizens’ hand to obtain a federal government in Berlin that will not let the German legal and constitutional state go to the dogs. But you should also see clearly that now is the time when Germany’s way in its agony may start. Everyone can figure out what that would mean in Germany and Europe, as becomes apparent given the previous questions and answers. In Switzerland, each household pays scrupulously to the bunkers being ready for use. What have we actually done since 1990? Faced with the choice between Merkel and Germany, the people should vote for Germany.
Mr Wimmer, thank you very much for the interview.
(Interview Karl Müller)
* Willy Wimmer, born in 1943, was directly elected representative of the CDU in the German “Bundestag” from 1976 to 2009. From 1988 to 1992 he was Parliamentary Secretary at the German Ministry of Defense, from 1995 to 2000 Vice-President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. Together with Wolfgang Effenberger he published his book “Wiederkehr der Hasardeure. Schattenstrategien, Kriegstreiber, stille Profiteure 1914 und heute” in 2014. Willy Wimmer’s committed analyses and statements for a return to law and against the war policy, meet with great attention far beyond the borders of German-speaking countries.
1 George Friedman, founder and president of the US information service Stratfor (Strategic Forecasting, Inc) who was designated by the US magazine Barron’s as “Shadow CIA”, held a lecture on the strategic objectives of the US on 4 February 2015 on the invitation of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, in which he emphasized the US policy towards Russia and Germany. He said among other things: “The main concern of US foreign policy during the last century, during the First and Second World Wars and the Cold War were the relations between Germany and Russia […]. The priority of the USA is to prevent the German capital and German technology to be united with the Russian natural resources and labor, to form an invincible combination”. Friedman’s entire speech can be listened to at www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeLu_yyz3tc
2 Since the early 90s there were, for example, attempts by the CSCE to include the entire Mediterranean in the considerations for creating an area of security and cooperation together with the countries of North Africa and the Mediterranean countries of the Middle East and launch a CSCM, a Conference on Security and Cooperation in Mediterranean. The attempt failed, however. […] cf. Jens Bortloff. Die Organisation für Sicherheit und Zusammenarbeit in Europa. Eine völkerrechtliche Bestandsaufnahme, 1996, pp. 94 or Annette Jünemann. Europas Mittelmeerpolitik im regionalen und globalen Wandel. Interessen und Zielkonflikte, in: Zippel, Wulfdiether (ed.). Die Mittelmeerpolitik der EU, 1999, pp. 29–64.)
km. On 5 January 2016, the German edition of the Russian internet information service Russia today (RT) (https://deutsch.rt.com/international/36166-neue-sicherheitsstrategie-russischen-foderation/) reported that the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, had signed the new security strategy of the Russian Federation at the end of the year 2015 (it was published on 31 December 2015, RT German has a link to the original document in Russian).
RT reported that it was a national priority for Russia to secure and to strengthen its status as one of the global leading powers. It quotes verbatim from the new strategy that “consolidating the Russian Federation’s status as one of the leading world powers whose actions are aimed at ensuring strategic stability and mutually beneficial partnerships in a polycentric world” was one of Russia’s long-term national interests.
Russia is particularly focussing on reinforcing its defensive abilities, its sovereignty, the country’s territorial and national integrity, on strengthening the national consensus, raising the quality of life, on preserving and developing culture and improving economic competitiveness. Russia is striving for independence in its food supply.
The use of military force would only be an option if all non-military means had proven themselves to be ineffective. In view of the Russian nuclear weapons, RT German cites: “For strategic determent and prevention of military conflicts, a nuclear determent on a sufficient level will be maintained […].”
The new security strategy is based on the assumption that the danger of a global financial crisis is still imminent. In view of the US and EU policy, the paper adds in explanation that the attempt of states to enforce their individual geo-political interests with economic methods was weakening the international economic system. This was another reason why Russia’s continuing dependence on the export of raw materials was posing a threat for the country. This threat should be mitigated by an increased economic diversification.
Russia wishes to improve its relationships with the GUS states. Its relations with China are a “key factor for the maintenance of global and regional stability”.
With a view to the West, we can, however, read, “The Russian Federation’s independent domestic and foreign politics is provoking the US and its allies to initiate counteraction as they are striving to maintain their dominant position in the world. Thus they are pursuing a policy of containment of Russia calling for political, economic, military and information pressure.”
NATO is again explicitly considered a “danger for national security” as it was still trying to expand towards the East, i.e. in the direction of Russia. In addition, there was a network of US operated biological-military laboratories on the territories of Russia’s neighbour states. In addition to the direct military threat, attempts for coup d’etats through so-called colour revolutions are considered a threat for the country’s security.
In part, the Russian Federation’s new security strategy is likely to be also a reaction to the new US security strategy of June 2015. (www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Publications/2015_National_Military_Strategy.pdf). This calls Russia an international outlaw and lists it at the head of the list of states threatening the US’ national safety. Only a few days later the designated (and now officiating) US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph F. Dunford, called Russia an “existential threat for the United States”. And in his latest analysis of the US policy in Syria (“Military to Military”: www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military), Seymour M. Hersh comes to the conclusion that there are no longer any voices in the Pentagon adopting a critical attitude towards an aggressive anti-Russian US policy.
In spite of all this the Russian Federation’s new security strategy invites the US and its allies to joint action. If the US and Russia would work together towards global stability, they would be able to solve some of the most severe global problems.
The recently deceased former-chancellor Helmut Schmidt (Social Democratic Party of Germany, SPD) demonstrated foresight in an interview in the “Frankfurter Rundschau” [from 12.9.1992] in 1992 – from today’s perspective – in an almost terrifying precision: “The idea that modern society should be able to establish itself as a multicultural society with as many cultural groups as possible, deems me devious. Germany, with its after all thousand-year old history since Otto I., cannot be transformed into a melting pot afterwards. Neither France, nor England or Germany are to be transformed into immigration countries. […] The societies cannot bear this. The society will degenerate.
The idea, which had been widely distributed by Heiner Geissler for years, that we can have several cultures in parallel, was always absurd to me. […] Since we live in a democracy, we should orientate ourselves a little bit towards the needs of society and not what professors come up with, if you please. It is absurd to make Germany an immigration country. It can happen that we will be overrun”.
Source: “Vertrauliche Mitteilungen” (“Confidential Notice”) from 12 January 2016, Nr. 4165
(Translation Current Concerns)
Angela Merkel did not “eat boiled crow”. The facts overran and alerted her and her party. The New Year’s incidents in Cologne are a clear beacon. The German government has, however, been alerted by a highly confidential “quick”-analysis by German intelligence agencies on “the state of the union regarding the surging waves of refugees”. This document distinguishes itself by bluntly conveying a comprehensive and realistic image of the status quo as well as “worst case prospects” – without having consideration for intraparty issues. What is written down here clearly shows the possibilities of how our European cultural and social culture could quickly and sustainably be softened and consequently be destroyed. Fanatics have declared war upon us. To ISIS, it is clear: “The next, deciding war zone will be the whole of Europe.”
The report states that ISIS “brought in” up to 200,000 potential warriors to Europe during the refugee wave in 2015. 20,000 to 30,000 of those are sleepers, ready for immediate deployment. Moreover, we – their enemies – host them and cater for them. Should it happen that the stream of refugees after the weather-related break (stormy weather and coldness in Europe) continue on the same level, we must calculate on an influx of another 200,000 potential warriors. Croatia is an open entrance, naval forces at Lampedusa act as a “smuggler-corps” rather than making use of military options. In addition, the EU transferred the protection of Greece’s borders to their neighbour Turkey, curiously for several billion euros (!). This all is not our propaganda; it is the content of intelligence reports addressed to the Berlin government. According to the report this is probably unique in world history.
The “Immigrants of 2015” so far have prepared the terrain accordingly, you can read between the lines. “Europe is an open barn door to us, a land of milk and honey par excellence.”
After another phase of the “Flooding of Europe”, the second stage is to be established and to be set off at the right time.
Here, we register the worst-case scenario, so that you know the bandwidth of terror, which ISIS is capable of, bombing and killing through Europe. ISIS defines its final goal clearly: elimination of millions of “infidels” and eventually a gradual establishment of an Islamic State! “Paris and other sites of assault were ‘harmless’ training tasks to the organisers”, as it is mundanely annotated. The gradual emigration of the already acting ISIS army in Syria to Western Europe (!) is planned within the second refugee-tsunami.
Source: “Confidential Swiss Letter”, No. 1454 from 12 January 2016
(Translation Current Concerns)
If you want to prevent the setting of cookies (for example, Google Analytics), you can set this up by using this browser add-on.