Who wants war against Russia?

Ursula von der Leyen wants to become the biggest thief in the history of Europe, namely to embezzle 300 billion in confiscated Russian assets and pay them to Ukraine to prolong the war. Never before has a government dared to break international trust in property – the basis of all foreign trade – by stealing foreign property, expropriating international investors from Russian assets and thus destroying the property trust of European trading partners and international investors. This is not only illegal, but also punishable by law and threatens to shake the international legal order – all in order to reignite the long-lost war in Ukraine.

 EU-Europe wants to
continue the war against Russia

While the new US President Trump, i.e. the supreme commander of NATO and the EU, wants to stop a war that has become unsuccessful and pointless, the European war fanatics not only want to continue the war, but also escalate and take it over as a European war against Russia.
  Do the European people want this?
  If von der Leyen were to waste further EU funds on the war in Ukraine, this would be punishable by law because it is not the EU’s task. And if she even commits theft of Russian assets in order to finance the war in Ukraine, this is doubly punishable as soon as the immunity of the EU post no longer protects her.
  It is unclear why von der Leyen wants to take over and continue the US-Russian war so fanatically from the EU despite the withdrawal of the USA, but this may be due to her circle of warmongers.
  One of the fiercest warmongers is EU foreign policy chief Kallas (formerly Estonian head of government). She is characterised by a fundamental hatred of Russia and now wants to live this out in her new EU position without thinking about the consequences of her warmongering for the whole of Europe. Anyone who appoints such a fanatical Russia-hater to a leading EU office should actually know what this fanatic can do with it and at least block it, instead of mindlessly following her hatred.

 The candidate for chancellor
of the CDU is also fully
committed to the course of war

The fact that Annalena Baerbock has not only formally declared war on Russia, but always has been a warmonger also, has not been taken seriously internationally, nor did Baerbock take it seriously herself. It could become problematic after the next election that not only the Greens have become a warmongering party (formerly a peace party), but also the CDU with Röttgen, Kiesewetter (wants to bomb Moscow) and above all the probable new Federal Chancellor Merz.
  Anyone who lived through the last world war will be appalled by the carelessness with which Merz is provoking the next world war. If he is serious about this, he is dangerous and unsuitable as chancellor. But even if he didn’t mean it seriously, he would still be a danger as chancellor.
  The Ukraine war has already been adopted by the traffic light government as ‘their’ war and has harmed Germany more than any other country in Europe, tripled our energy costs, disarmed our Bundeswehr by giving weapons to Ukraine, cost us more than 100 billion euros through money and weapons deliveries and through the Ukraine refugees, and will cost us tens of billions of euros more through the EU’s warmongering.

Fighting until the ‘final victory’?

Ukraine is broke, over 1 trillion euros in debt, partially destroyed, partially depopulated and militarily finished. Nevertheless, it continues to talk about the ‘victory plan’, like Hitler used to talk about the ‘final victory’.
  Trump knows that the war in Ukraine is lost, that the USA no longer has any military or economic interest in it because it has economically completed the re-equipping necessary for the modern drone war by disposing of the old material in Ukraine and by placing orders worth 400 billion dollars with its defence industry (as “Ukraine aid”), meaning that apart from further damage to Russia, it will no longer benefit from continuing the war in Ukraine “to the last Ukrainian” or then “with European fresh meat”. They are now only interested in a face-saving exit so as not to experience another NATO escape like the one in Afghanistan.
  So, who is behind the warmongering of Merz and Co. Merz was an employee and lobbyist of the largest Anglo-Saxon asset manager BlackRock. When in doubt, he does what his clients want. However, according to the contract with von der Leyen, they want to rebuild Ukraine as a general contractor for 500 billion euros at European expense. They should therefore be more interested in an end to the war for their reconstruction business than in continuing the war.
  Or does he just want to save his warmongering face after the AfD and BSW, as well as the majority of the population, are increasingly clamouring for an end to the war and peace negotiations? In any case, as long as Merz wants to continue and escalate the war in Ukraine, he is unfit to be chancellor and a threat to Germany’s existence.

* * *

km. Born in 1932, Professor Hamer lived through the Second World War and knows what war means. Growing up in a Protestant parsonage, he not only learnt to actively shape his life through achievement – as a successful medium-sized businessman and also as a scientist – but he also experienced his parents’ strict rejection of National Socialism and war as a child and teenager. As a result, he is one of the few prominent liberal-conservatives in Germany today to take a firm stand against Germany’s war policy.
  As far as the CDU’s candidate for chancellor, Friederich Merz, is concerned, I would like to add a few words. Merz is in the unfortunate tradition of parts of the CDU that need blatant enemy images and believe they can use them to raise their own profile.
  “All roads of Marxism lead to Moscow”, read a poster in the CDU election campaign in 1953. And this poster was not directed against any agents of influence of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, CPSU, but against the German SPD at the time. The “Red Threat” was a constant theme in the Cold War from the late 1940s to the 1960s – and served not least to maintain power.

Once upon a time:
CIA admitted wrongful convictions

We have already pointed this out several times, but it cannot be said often enough: The Soviet Union’s foreign and defence policy was – deliberately – misjudged for many years. We owe this knowledge to Willy Wimmer, the former CDU foreign and defence politician and State Secretary in the German Ministry of Defence at the time of the GDR’s accession to the scope of the German Basic Law. In his book “Die Akte Moskau” (The Moscow File), published in 2016, he describes how the defence working group of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group travelled to Washington for a working visit in the early summer of 1988. Surprisingly, the travellers were taken directly from the airport to the CIA headquarters in Langley:

“We were astonished to listen to the explanations there, which focussed on a completely new American policy towards the Soviet Union: We should break away – so the message at the large round table – from what we had heard for decades about military potentials and strategies in the conflict between East and West in Europe. The results of a study on this topic were clear: The Soviet Union was pursuing purely defensive intentions. It was solely a matter of defence to protect “Mother Russia”. The Warsaw Pact’s strategy to date was ultimately the logical reaction to the murderous attacks by Napoleon and Hitler, so it had absolutely nothing to do with any aggression.”¹

1988 was a year of further rapprochement between the two presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. Reagan, who had still spoken of the “evil empire” with regard to the Soviet Union in the first half of the 1980s, had recognised this: With the new Soviet President Gorbachev, he was able to reach agreements that could have signalled a real “Zeitenwende” (turning point) in world politics towards peaceful and prosperous coexistence, taking into account the interests of all parties involved – if the US presidents after Reagan had continued to pursue this line. Which, however, was not the case – as is now very well documented.

Friedrich Merz
wants to be the new strong man

On 23 January 2025, Friedrich Merz, the CDU’s current candidate for chancellor, gave a keynote speech to a select audience at the German Körber Foundation on his foreign policy² should he become the next German chancellor. This speech was so historically blind and crude that Germans should be ashamed of themselves. He spoke of an “epochal break” with a view to 24 February 2022. Why has he never used this word when referring to the USA and NATO and their “illegal wars” (Daniele Ganser) with millions of deaths and immeasurable destruction? Merz referred to Helmut Kohl, but in fact represented something quite different from the former German Chancellor, who – as a result of his own war memories – was very keen to reach an understanding with every country, including the Soviet Union and then Russia. Merz’s concrete proposals did not contain a single seed of détente; his proposals were all warmongering (not only against Russia, but also against China and the nations plagued by Israel) and characterised by an authoritarian habitus: Merz wants to be the coming “strong man” and make Germany the “leading power” in Europe.

Germany, quo vadis?

His remarks were based on the familiar propaganda formulas for demonising Russia. Their constant repetition does not make them true. “Understanding Russia”, i.e. seriously investigating the question of what prompted Russia to intervene militarily in Ukraine in February 2022, as the CIA at Langley did in 1988, i.e. analysing the causes of the war and Russia’s concerns in a historically serious manner – not a word of this from Friedrich Merz. Instead, a string of half-truths and untruths.
  It was also a shame that no one mentioned this in the subsequent discussion with Merz. Germany, quo vadis? •

¹ Wimmer, Willy. Die Akte Moskau (The Moscow File), 2016, page 11f. (Translation Current Concerns)
² https://koerber-stiftung.de/mediathek/friedrich-merz-zu-aussen-und-europapolitischen-prioritaeten-fuer-deutschland/