Presseclub: Heute Panzer, morgen Kampfjets? Wie weit wird der Westen gehen?

Now live from Cologne, the press club with Jörg Schönborn welcomes you this Sunday at noon. It's fantastic that they are here at the end of a week that we will probably only know in hindsight if it brought us a little closer. To put an end to this war of Russian aggression in Ukraine or if it marks a new level of escalation in this war, this week's decision marks that the Federal Republic, together with European NATO partners, will deliver around 90 battle tanks main Leopard 2 to Ukraine. Scholz bowed to pressure from kyiv, but also insisted that the Americans would participate with their own tank supplies at the end of the year, a day after Scholz's explanations in the Bundestag, the next debate is gaining momentum.

Ukraine has a counterpoint when it also needs fighter jets to defend its lines. Above all, this is the big question: What does the West have to do to support Ukraine in its defense? I look forward to these guests Sabine Adler is with us again, she is an expert on Eastern Europe at Deutschlandfunk. Welcome Tina Hildebrandt, head of the political department of the weekly Die Zeit. I'm looking forward to Moritz Eichhorn, she directs. The political department of the Berliner Zeitung and Matthias Gebauer is our chief reporter at Spiegel. Mr. Gebauer, please let's start with the question I asked at the beginning and get a little closer to the war until the end of this week.

What does this decision mean? I always find it very difficult to make predictions like this. I think we have all been wrong several times, but I think the decision represents a kind of turning point and, rather politically, the West has prevailed. if there are some setbacks, take a significant step forward, so to speak, to deliver significantly more modern weapons. In my opinion, that in itself opens the door for more deliveries, what worries me is whether there will be real change in Ukraine. I think it's very difficult to predict because you also don't know how the Russians will react if you look at it from a purely military perspective.

They now have about two tank battalions that will be formed at the end of March and delivered to Ukraine. From a military point of view, it would be said that with a battalion of tanks you can cover about five kilometers, maybe a little more. Covering a front line, this is how you can recognize the front itself, which is several hundred kilometers long, which means that. In focal points like now, for example, in Bakhmut, this delivery of tanks will certainly change something militarily, but there will be a real change on the entire front line. So in this case, where they talk about it being a game changer, I think it remains to be seen because they have their assessment of the political tipping point, Gebauer said they don't share the tipping point, but I think it is a tipping point. , I think they said we will do it.

Only later will we know what kind. At the moment it was, that is in the nature of things, but I think I already have the feeling that it is an after-time in which Olaf Scholz's speech refers to Germany, it is a decisive moment in this conflict and I think that that is the basic problem. You only know if something is the appropriate instrument with respect to an objective and I think that is a basic problem in this conflict, that the objectives are not described. I don't think they can do it at all. There are good reasons for this.

They can't be described, but that's why, of course, it's always a little difficult when you ask yourself the question. That's enough because it's always the question for who and for what, but I think you can definitely say that that's still the case. I would not say that a new stage is a turning point because it is in line with the fact that more and more weapons are delivered with that objective in mind. I'll keep that in mind, we should definitely address it later, ma'am. Adler is a political and military turning point. I would also say that there is a new quality to the transatlantic partnership, as it is now clear that the US is responsible for a trap on a Tim boy, whatever Olaf Scholz is.

You always want to describe it as they also take responsibility and that also means that they have not retreated from the fact that they are the ones who deliver the most and already do the most, but they have now committed themselves even more and therefore allow themselves to be involved. In this way, not rejecting saying that we have already done it and that we decided for ourselves, but that we really have to get involved in front of the entire world to be together with Europe in this war. I think it's a new quality. I take this opportunity to thank everyone who is already on social media and on

presseclub

.de participating in our debate, yes, and also raises the question in many words: is this something that brings us closer to the end of the war?

Or the risk that the danger is now much greater? I think this has definitely prevented the tipping point where the war could tilt in Russia's favor due to the supposed spring offensive being expected to at least be able to do so. Ukraine asks for these tanks, I think in part it is explained too little from a military point of view, but rather over and over again. Background discussions and alliances, so to speak, reinforcements and how we can do it with the Americans. and the question is what is really needed on the battlefield and is this not explained?

It certainly has a new quality but I also believe that the promise of Ukraine will be like that. Will she support herself for a long time because she needs to be redeemed and? I found it interesting what I heard from the SPD, for example from Ms. Esken last week, when she was asked about fighter jets, she said that there are no red lines, not even on the federal border. I just have one question that I don't have. "I know in my head if someone can answer, then the promise will be fulfilled, Ukraine will get what it needs," they simply emphasized, we had a week-long discussion and of course you are already asking yourself the question: the Russians The spring offensive can start soon, the tanks don't fit.

It takes 8 weeks to get there, whereas things would be different if the decision had already been made two or three months ago. I can't say for sure, I'm not. I'm not a military expert either, I think it depends much more on the needs on the battlefield than on what we can experience this directly in the debate, ask Ukraine and at some point you will actually find it and at some point maybe it will be justified by American secret services, so to speak, so I prefer to imagine that, but of course this need and desire are also limited.

It is a decision that was basically made at the beginning when Ukraine asked for a no-fly zone and the best We said we would not do that and that involved the assertion that it was not, let's say, the objective point or the number one priority feature that Ukraine needs, but it is exactly what you have described, always this delicate exploration of how we can prevent history from turning in favor of Russia and how far we can go, but that is always a popular argument in the debate about what Ukraine needs and obviously it is not the only relevant criterion and not only for Olaf Scholz but for all allies.

Yes, I'll try again. Damage has been done because the signal was not given three months ago, because we have seen that there really has not been much to gain for the Russian armed forces since the summer, so there was. actually a stalemate situation in Dornbas, there were no more conquests on the other side but no reconquests either and that would have been now Of course how you would have started the sentence is stupid but I will continue anyway so if Ukraine had had tanks, would have had more tanks, could have been able to repel these conquests more quickly, make reconquests more quickly and would have had to resolve this with Ukraine.

The fact that the Russian side actually took advantage of this moment for themselves and that this really good moment not only lasted for a brief moment but actually lasted a long time and that it had to happen like this is actually a real shame from the Ukrainian point of view. You also have a question from a user: If the West now supplies more weapons to Ukraine, Russia will respond with even more weapons. First of all, to the first question, the damage occurred, in my opinion, because the political decision was not adequately prepared and I. I find it a little disappointing, not just from the federal government, that they didn't talk to the industry early enough, just get things ready, tanks ready, maybe start some training, of course, I keep hearing that they don't. we would do I have not done it because with that we would have anticipated a political decision.

I see it differently in a war situation like this, in the war situation we're in right now, not as a participant, but we have this ongoing conflict. You also have to prepare things that you can, so to speak, prepare cards that you can use. I don't see the end and that's what Scholz and his team missed and I think it's a mistake that also caused damage, especially to allies who could expect something like that. The US, for example, prepares much better for certain scenarios because of their greater experience so that they go unnoticed without you, like I said, making decisions in advance, but they review it every day, so to speak. , what could be the next stage, I am also sure that in the US it is very intensive and, so to speak, they are already thinking about it or coming up with the idea.

What is at stake is what would really happen with the decision of a fighter jet, what. How can this be solved technically? I think we are always a little behind on the issue and then I raise the issue again. They now have their eyes on the federal government's vacation Scholz, that is one aspect. that we have to consider, so I suggest that we do it on the first Wednesday in the German Bundestag. According to his words, there are many citizens in this country who are worried about such a decision and in view of the dimensions that this weapon brings with it and that is why I would like to tell these citizens here and at this moment, believe me, trust the Federal Government, we will continue because we act in an internationally coordinated manner to ensure that this support is possible without the risks of our country becoming one. direction That's why we do it this way and that's how we will continue to do it.

This is someone who was tattooed for weeks as a dithering, indecisive, indecisive, silent man, who now has a very state management appearance, deserves trust. and he asks, "I don't think I have to do it first." After a decision like this, I think there are people in Germany who are worried about this, regardless of the polls, between 35 and 45% are against the supply of weapons against heavy tanks. There are many people who are worried about this. But in my opinion, they are not Putin trolls or cynical, evil people who do not want to help Ukraine, but are worried about Germany, Europe, etc. and address it directly with them to address this concern rather than at the end after a decision, so to speak, please trust you, we are already doing it and now that we have had a few weeks again, somehow you will hear it. rumors and at the end I will tell you how it was.

I think there are many calls for diplomacy in Moscow, but perhaps a little more flower animals are needed. Maybe it should proudly appear in Schwerin or Erfurt or. something to get booed at but talk to people Respect that he was here, that we talked to each other and tried to recognize that, I think even if you are fully aware of the things that are being weighed, then he also has the confidence, so what? What makes Mr. Scholz doubt, what does he talk about it, what does he do? This would be something that would really be something, so he deserves trust, then he gets it, but he doesn't do it and he doesn't do it again and again and so it's about saying afterwards, please trust.

Now he writes to me and I have also told him what the objective pursued by the federal government really is, a thought that we are used to from Vladimir Putin, who deceives, who lies, what can be expected from a democratically elected government in a war situation ? Doing yes, almost what my colleagues have said, always preparing something, so to speak, means that you know what you're going to do and I think that's not necessarily the case, but that's how it is a conditioned doing and Scholz made a different comment. about the participation of the Americans and it's not like I already knew three months ago that we want to deliver the tanks and that we want the Americans to participate and we know that they will participate, I think that's really what I'm talking about are results of the process and in this sense I have, so I definitely don't want to defend his communicative performance, which I think is difficult, it also brings with it completely different difficulties, it is not a question of style, but Because the problem with this communication is that interpretations are attributed to it.

Scholz does not want to deliver tanks. Scholz doesn't think he said anything, but that, of course, leaves room for such interpretations and that's why. It doesn't matter in the end. He himself always said that everyone should talk, in the end it will be the Chancellor's decision. I don't think that's the case, but I understand that it is a process in which you explore between these. Poles and because you may not know well in advance what you have to prepare.I think, as Matthias Gebauer said, I can't prepare something and then say, oh no, let's not do it now, I think that would be difficult.

I don't have the routine like Americans. I think it would be difficult to do it in a more hidden way, but that would hardly be possible here. It's a little harsh to say it now, but it's still a little bit in kindergarten, almost kindergarten. In contrast to the Americans, who of course do something like this more or less every day, so the president has options every day in a certain direction, which I think is a little lacking here and, in fact, may lack a separate strategy. committee in the federal government, I think they approach these types of issues at a different level of confidentiality where partisan interests don't play as much of a role, so if you have one Looking a little further into the future, I think we can learn a lot from this. : We often lack a bit of strategic muscle that deals with issues outside of everyday politics and then gives options to those in power;

These are, as I said, options that politics ultimately uses and decides. I just wanted to say something again about the appearance of the Bundestag and the evening at the ZDF last Wednesday because it is a very communicative topic. It has since been reported that Mr. Scholz had ruled out the delivery of fighter jets, but if you listen carefully to his answers, then you can see it. You will not do it? They ask him if they deliver fighter planes and then he says no. We said from the beginning that we would not establish a no-fly zone in Ukraine, but that is not the same as imposing a no-fly zone. by NATO troops Western troops, but these are planes to deliver to Ukraine for Ukraine and that would be like asking Mr.

Scholz two weeks ago if they would deliver leopards to Ukraine, he would have said no, German soldiers will not fly leopards to Ukraine and he doesn't It's not true that his memory doesn't correct that. This is still happening and in three or four weeks when the discussion about fighter jets resumes, people will be wondering why that shit ruled that out, although I got the impression that he ruled that out more than tanks, so yeah , but what he said can speak if a user on Twitter wants why the Chancellor has no strategy when it comes to Ukraine that is the impression formulated in the question, the impression is correct, I think yes and no, he had a strategy when it comes to peace negotiations, he is very, very clear in saying over and over again that decisions and negotiations on Ukraine will not be made without Ukraine, not everyone is very clear on this point, there are already opinions that they should negotiations between NATO and Russia to take place and I think he is very clear about the rest.

It's what Mrs. Hildebrand said, that this undefined goal, I'm not sure if you really can't define a goal, what should it be like? We don't know exactly what Ukraine should look like after this war, of course not all of us do because there is a long way to go until then, but maybe we have an idea of ​​where we should go. In terms of purely international law, it would have to be that the 1991 borders are respected and we do not define this objective, of course there are reasons for this, but it would be good to hear them say theirs.

He would also like it or one can speculate. I can only say that he may want to leave a window open for peace negotiations, that is, there is a bargaining chip, but I would have to say that myself, I think the connection or. The difficulty is there: it is not that one is the objectives and the other the deliveries of weapons, but that the weapons we have are, of course, always implicitly a statement about what I really believe is possible in this war at this moment and that has changed. A lot, so we remember the experts who said at the beginning that after three days it was over and Russia won and I think that is exactly what you describe.

The point is, for example, in Crimea, which played a role when it came to these tanks. you deliver because you kept hearing about it and that's how it is sometimes, you hear things and you don't know exactly why it's not explained. Another reason for the hesitation was that they did not want Ukraine to use these tanks to enter Crimea. Obviously, there are different evaluations on this, including whether this is desirable, whether it is even acceptable, whether it is something that can happen if what has been decided under international law is respected; Of course, it belongs to Ukraine, but there are possible consequences associated with this, Russia's reaction which is then taken into account and that is when it starts to be very stressful when you think about what kind of Ukraine it will be.

In an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine newspaper, the renowned democratic defense politician Adam Smith said that according to his knowledge, the Leopards would not be used for the cream, but as an insert, I would like to take up what he just said with my words, may have a long-term goal, but what means are appropriate? can change from day to day, in my opinion, the decision to send leopards can now be evaluated and classified completely differently than it was two, three or four months ago, now also with a view to the battle of the debate, Mr Gebauer. , each instrument needs the right moment.

Waiting to make decisions also has to do with the fact that things can be bad today and good tomorrow. I think the problem is that the decision is always made a little late because it has the correct process. The decision only begins when the military need is seen and then the political discussion process lasts two or three months and this time is really too long. I think the need for more modern tanks or tanks for Ukraine was felt at the end of last year. years in November December at the latest Defined or suddenly everyone agreed and then another month and a half passed until the decision was made and I think we need a learning process that has to be faster, also in international coordination and therefore that I repeat what I said before that if you already have it, I would have prepared a little, for example, I only spoke with the Poles, something that you can imagine, what you have, how we could combine it, then you would not have such a delay.

Well, I'll be summarizing Olaf Scholz with a view to the federal government, so that's the assumption. As expressed by Ms. Adler, in peace negotiations, as far as other issues are concerned, there is a strategy and an objective. , but from day one, depending on the situation, you always have to weigh and check, which, according to Erhebauer, takes a long time because we don't want to have options ready in the drawer yet. Let's explain something about the topic. of communication, I think Olaf is quite shy at first in a Spiegel interview, he opened his mouth a little, so that was this Spiegel cover, they were afraid, Mr.

Scholz, and that's where he reported because for the first time he says a lot of things correct in relatively great detail there is no textbook for war that the military situation is changing and mentions the fear of a nuclear war that has gone around the world Olaf Scholz is afraid of a nuclear war and he too has received many criticism because, from the point of view of the Allies, it was the wrong message for them to come back and say that we are afraid of Putin, that this issue will come up and I think he learned a little bit from that or at least he learned. since he doesn't look at him like that anymore.

That it also takes a backseat and that, of course, is tragic because I think such explanations and communication always feel like it's possible to make things look good, so to speak, I think with Olaf. Scholz and especially with these really important decisions. In democracy it is not about making it look good, but rather it has to explain what it does and what it does not do well, thank you. Previously he had asked the question to our users how he will do it. If Russians react with fear to what you just described, I think everyone at the table would be lying if they didn't think about what this could lead to as a journalist, or as a nationalist.

Politician, you may have to think more carefully Ms. Adler, you also reported from Moscow earlier. I quote the reactions. Kremlin spokesman Pestov says these tanks will burn like the others, the ambassador in Berlin says it is extremely dangerous, there are voices. of the propagandists in the Kremlin who talk about the destruction of Berlin as the next step, look at Russia and Putin, what is the reaction that can be expected now, so this reaction has shown that they are sensitively affected by this decision and I suppose that was not like that. the decision to send tanks, but it was the decision that the Americans really wanted to separate themselves from the Europeans in this way and what is now becoming evident is that on the Russian side they are recruiting as many people as possible. visible, so the recruitment is taking place in the prison colonies of Pregoria, that is, in the so-called Wagner mercenary troops, anyway they continue, although it has not yet been explained to them, they are in another mobilization that is supposed to It is bigger than the The first with 500,000 men, not 300,000 like in September and if you see that I had Putin photographed, especially in the last days and weeks, in defense factories and there he always played numbers games.

Well, Russia produces as many missiles as everyone else. in the world and consider whether we should prevent defense workers from performing military service. Of course he doesn't say it. So these are all signs that Russia has decided to throw it all away and I would like to get rid of one more. Thought Regarding fighter jets, I think that the decision in favor of this weapon should also be made taking into account how Ukraine has acted so far, what role fighter jets have played so far and at a time or two even played my quite decisive role when they attacked the Ukrainian bases with bases in Crimea where fighter jets were stationed, that means that it can definitely make sense to use these fighter jets if it means the liberation of one's own territory, if that means that the attacks have to be carried out on Russian territory If you look at it in detail, I don't think you can completely rule it out at this point, that was the link with the planes, we'll talk about that in a moment, we came From the observations that Ms.

Adler made about the reactions Russians, that's based on that. Following on from that, a lady in her 50s recently asked me something that I felt was somehow disarming, she told me and I know, so to speak, a woman who is interested in police development in Ukraine but is not now She is a politician, she is not an expert and she said: There are many more people living in Russia than in Ukraine, what happens if they keep sending new people to the front? and again and again, how is Ukraine supposed to reject that? So if Putin does everything he can and I really don't know what to do, I should answer that, I would like to answer that because a Ukraine, not any other. vice president, answered my question that human resources, if you can call them that, are of course disproportionate on the one hand and 40 million on the other 140 million and said that it does not depend on the number of combatants but on the quality, they have a lot of confidence.

I'll say it again. They still wanted to join. Yes, I think it needs to be explained, but those are just the questions. How can you explain this to people? Should this continue and how many people will have to die? They tell us about fighter planes. Mrs. Adler spoke again, Gebauer, so no one at this table is an aviation expert, but during the preparation I read that Ukraine has several Russian fighter jets, 29 of them the same. The design has also been supported with ammunition and spare parts from various European countries, but this is slowly coming to an end and therefore it may no longer be possible to fly them, and this is used as an argument for the fact that the best there is now.

In reality, Ukraine had a small fleet of 29 units since the beginning of the war, but it was used again and again. Its effectiveness was greatly increased because the Ukrainians, together with the Americans, managed to do it. use modern guided missiles. So screwing it in now sounds a little simple, but I wanted to go back to what Ms. Adler said and I think that's crucial. You have to ask yourself what fighter jets should really be used for before thinking if. launching them and the destruction of Russian bases on Russian territory would of course be a huge blow against the Russians, but these attacks would never be carried out with fighter aircraft, at least in my opinion, because you will not get air defense from the Los Russians on Russian territory and that is actually quite effective and that is their military assessment to overcome it, so to speak, then you would have to start with a sudden all-out war with Russia, first you have to turn off the air defense. that will be very difficult and in the war over Ukraine it will be brutal, so to speak, but fighter jets do not play an important role at the moment and they would also play a role in defense against drones, for example, you can do it with a fighter.

In reality, you cannot act against drones, that is, if you want to respond to the threat from the air, which at the moment are mainly drones, relatively simple rockets if you want to react to them and Ukraine if you want to react to them. wants to protect. You better have toprovide more air defense but not fighter jets, so apart from that I see that it is an interesting topic and of course politically very controversial, but from a military point of view I don't see the window for fighter jets. At this point I mean, I think it's politically sensitive.

The Foreign Secretary said a spectacular phrase this week, namely that we are at war with Russia, which I think is a quite fatal and wrong phrase and that is exactly the need and the line that has been. From the beginning, that is the line that no one really denies, that NATO does not want to get involved in the war and Ukraine wants to get NATO involved and that is, of course, a fundamental difference and if I understand it correctly, I am not a weapon. expert, but what is particularly sensitive about this next stage of fighter aircraft is that these issues of intentional or accidental involvement in the air can happen much more quickly.

Now I'll tell you what's on my mind. Great respect for international law, yes, and I read and understand that if I send tanks without people in them, that is not a war, participation is obviously an international legal agreement. On the other hand, I experience that Vladimir Putin does not care about international laws. and in recent months he has done everything according to his whim and not according to the norms of international law, so why do we continue to believe that there is no participation in the war if there are now German tanks in the place? I'm not saying that just because Putin doesn't adhere to international law, we don't either, so if we no longer take this distinction seriously then it will be difficult, I think, but it may be because of his reaction.

In the end, I think that I don't think it always plays a role at all, so it doesn't fulfill it and it will, so I think this definition of whether this is in accordance with international law or not is not of interest to you at all because then there would be no started this war, for example, so that this and that Criminal Thriller was not broadcast and, in general, that is not just saying it if we stick to this argument that I believe is absolutely legitimate and from our necessary point of view, which does not mean that, on the other hand, Vladimir Putin also makes his decisions depend on us making them against each other, so to speak, and I think it is not entirely unimportant if we deduce from that that Putin looks at international law and says: oh, no are involved, so I totally agree with that and I also think that against us also means that our soldiers are there.

So that's what I think, it's such a new category of having to participate in war, that is, with your own people. troops, that is really there, it would have to be discussed for a long time, I think in our guest book what the concrete consequences would be if that happened. From the Russian point of view, Germany would be a war party, probably It has no consequences from my point of view at the moment because we have this at the beginning of the war phase, I think this was discussed very intensively in the Chancellery and also with Americans, he sees this question what if?

Now, as a war group, he could also attack us, for example against Germany, they do not always have to be military attacks, they can also be his own attacks, they can be acts of sabotage. We have seen strange sabotage on Nord Stream 2. To this day no one knows who we were. Others have seen sabotage, so it may also be small punctures, but I no longer realize this consideration, it had already been raised before this tank issue, it was no longer in the matter. in the foreground because from Putin's point of view, the West is involved in the war by supplying weapons and yet he is not taking the step of attacking the West directly and I think that is why this question of what if already is not a question that is asked when the nuclear question is raised because, so to speak, there is a certain contradiction: on the one hand, Olaf Scholz does not say that Putin has threatened a nuclear war and denies that he is afraid.

There is the involvement of the US. The internal logic of this lies precisely in the fact that they want to minimize the risk for Germany, to know that we do not have our own nuclear weapons, to know that we depend on the Americans and on ourselves. To maintain a deterrence argument against Russia, it's also a bit of a fuzzy situation and of course these considerations still play a role and even if you agree that many experts say yes, it's very unlikely, but you just don't want to. I think he plays a political role, since Putin also sees the polls we have here in Germany and has doubts about the supply of weapons and whether he is in a position to use this potential. take advantage of people worried about etc. and say that people no longer comply with international law or that this will make my war party then this doubt can also grow and that could jeopardize the supply of weapons and apples to Putin, it seems to be This is so even without a army.

There is no point in making a losing war through a second war even more difficult, so to speak, opening more fronts, so if you have such difficulties in Ukraine, you should now drag NATO into this, at least not I can imagine that help, I'm not so sure when you see that, so the key word is the second front, which Belarus again considers it as an offensive, for example, NATO. Besides, this frontier has been too long anyway and is somehow coming to fruition. It can be managed and we noticed or saw that at the beginning of this invasion, that this attack from three sides was simply too much, it could not be handled. it was poorly executed and so on, and doing it again now is not out of the question, surprisingly I mean, bringing kyiv to the singing movement, I had also heard about that, but now I would say that we are waiting for the moment. when the West and NATO make a mistake and we can finally attack the Baltics, so I don't think that will be the case at all.

In his opinion, as I said, this opinion was again a very important point and I think it is a very crucial one of the Western strategy. As a risk diversification, I think it's fine, but what doesn't get a lot of attention in this discussion is that Scholz has also gone to great lengths to find other European partners who have been very, very calm. So far, for example, what was interesting about last week was that he brought Meloni with him. In the round of G7 incumbent leaders, Italy has so far played a role in arms, they have almost no role, they are critical of this. within the EU and also within the nature of it, and Scholz is also trying to get European partners, so to speak, who so far are still a bit unstable also on the eastern flank, with Hungary, for example, a country that is absolutely wobbly and either completely undecided or maybe even leaning more towards Russia and trying to bring it all together.

I think sometimes we focus too much on the United States; it's also a lot about that front, so the front sounds very harsh but it also holds up. the support line in Europe together yes, I'm going to the eagle. I'm coming to a question that you should definitely ask at the end. I'll try to summarize. We have explained why these tanks now. It was inevitable what meaning they had. We have, like the German balance between rationally, Putin wouldn't seek another war and irrationally, you still have to protect yourself and consider what protection the Americans offer, how to keep an alliance together.

We talked about the fact that the fighter. The planes are being discussed and evaluated in different ways, but the decision will come and yet, Hilde, you cannot close the program without asking how there is now a path to a ceasefire in the negotiations, how far it is and where it leads this path according to everything you hear If you talk to people who are dealing with this, they all say that they are actually quite far away because at this point it has not yet reached the point where one part is so weakened that it does not expect any benefit from proposing this and that's why you can do it.

I also think it's very difficult to predict when it will be because this moment has to happen and it's obviously not that far out of sight yet, there are other evaluations and things that happen that are not planned. , you cannot rule out what is happening right now. We are having discussions, but I hope the efforts continue in the background even if we don't hear anything about it. I really hope that efforts are being made, because at some point. You have to start negotiating something. I think, for example, of the data processing on the head of the Balkans, but at least it started at some point when no one dared to dream of peace. difficult at the moment, especially since Putin has invested so much in this war and it is not conceivable that during the peace negotiations, directly or without, so to speak, yes, a conviction of war criminals, for example, a return to a quota status The gas may flow again through the Nord Stream or something, so I have the feeling that, so to speak, it hasn't run out yet, unfortunately, and has moved further away.

Week I don't see any peace. This year, the bitter thing from my point of view is that only Putin himself can make this decision. In any normal war scenario, I would always say that I should have been around her for a long time, as you rightly said. the high losses, especially the high price in blood that has to be paid and that can no longer be kept secret from the Russian public, these satellite images, for example, are almost mass graves dug by barely trained soldiers and then sent to the fire Of course, it will have an effect at some point, but we haven't seen the effect yet and I think I said it again in yesterday's interview.

He will continue to speak with Putin by phone. That is also true. I think it's true one way or another. That was true. Scholz's theory has always been that Putin is so isolated in his own circle of people who may no longer confront him with reality, that it is good to talk to him and at least give him the Western thing. perspective again But so far, after everything we've heard, there hasn't been a shred of willingness to negotiate in these discussions and they've really chased every proverbial coincidence and tried to pick it up again. Thank you for this evaluation.

Now I give you the decision on ARD, Europa magazine will follow, among other things, with an interview with the director of the Munich Security Conference, Christoph Heusgen, and if you want to stay here on the Internet in Phoenix at WDR 5 then now the press club asked, thanks, bye and leave itWell, welcome back to the press club, asked on the Internet, on the radio at WDR 5 and on television in Phoenix. I will start in Berlin with Christoph Bovara. Good morning, yes, have a good day. Thank you very much for including me. show, these days I have also focused on reading online that all the support that the United States gives to Ukraine is loans or, in the case of weapons, that is not the case, it is a question of dungeons and this point is given very Little attention is paid to me in the media because I also have certain interests or interests here that the US economy wants, I just wanted a yes, thank you.

I also read in the discussion on the Internet, so the question is the gift or what kind of contractual relationship is this. In fact, someone in the group knows, so I know to a certain extent, but there are no loans, but the United States, for example in the case of Abrams tanks, is a bit strange, so they are not delivered from stocks from army. but in reality they are newly produced by the manufacturer Ukraine orders them from the manufacturer and the US the US government foots the bill with a Ukraine aid fund and the money donated is either tax money or something that Ukraine will have to give back at some point. point, at least theoretically, then this money is also what the EU funds are not, they are not debts, but they are gifts, yes, okay Mr.

Bohrer, thank you, I can't explain this fully, but the interest characteristics of the arms industry are clear, that is beyond any doubt, of course, they are completely different, which is why the arms industry also benefits from these supplies in the German case, because they simply come from the stocks of the Bundeswehr and already Negotiations are underway to replace them. tanks, the same applies to self-propelled howitzers and of course all of Europe, especially Eastern Europe, is currently being equipped with new weapons, which means that the arms industry benefits directly and indirectly from this arms aid. , there is no doubt about that, thank you and greetings to Berlin We are going to Rastatt to raulik good day welcome yes good day a nice greeting to all it always sounds to me as if Scholz was alone or with his head of the chancellery or very few The people and there in the SPD or in the cabinet think about the delivery of, for example, tanks to Ukraine, maybe there will somehow be a kind of constant wheel or death of military and politicians or in any way that Europe or NATO deal with strategic issues , the Munich Security Conference would not be the answer for me because it is just in the year, maybe it could be a topic or result after the war, yes, an interesting question, who knows what Matthias Gebauer said, sothere is a Federal Security Council. , but it is not this strategic body that primarily deals with requests for To decide on arms exports and that is exactly what Matthias Weber said, another thing would be a month-long national security council in which prepare and consider exactly those decisions and such ideas are taken into account, perhaps if you want to explain a little, of course, in the Federal Chancellery there are also military departments where the Chancellor can also obtain military advice.

Now he has repeatedly sought advice from the Inspector General of the Bundeswehr. before making decisions, but what you talk about is, of course, still a void and we had it in the program. It has already been said several times that what Germany lacks a little is a permanent committee that is not related to anything else that deals with crisis scenarios on a permanent basis; It is not just a conflict in Ukraine in the case of payments, but there are also other crisis situations in the world that have been going on for a long time in which, at least from my point of view, it would make a lot of sense for a committee with experts will deal with what is initially an exciting topic and we have heard that a turning point is also necessary, thanks to Rastatt and then we are in Bernau am Chiemsee with Markus Hofmann.

Hello. yes, hello, my name is Hofmann. I have the following question and here it is always said: Russia when they go all out and what do we have to vote for. How can we vote against? That? The question is whether Putin really wants everything. of him would go there conventionally. I'm not even talking about atomic in a conventional way. How long would it take until a city like this is completely scorched earth and completely laid as, for example, Königsberg does? Yeah, 70 80 years ago, how long would he take? of his power, Putin uses only one and what could be achieved if he used all of them, so one thing that is always under discussion is not entirely clear, there is a lot between tanks and a nuclear attack in between, there is still a lot There are many others areas of possibilities.

The bombing also includes other weapons, there are B and C weapons that the Russians have, so it's not like a direct nuclear war has to break out. I do not see Putin's strategy as a strategy of complete annihilation of all cities. in Ukraine at the same time there is also Ukrainian air defense. Not bad, especially with systems like the tea that the Germans also supplied and that the Germans delivered, that means the Russians don't have the air sovereignty to reduce everything to rubble, but put it that way. I think if the Russians did everything possible. As an expert, Gebauer would have to give one more second, then it wouldn't take long, well, let's leave it, thank you, Mr.

Hofmann. Another aspect, I think. by Ralf Langheim in Münster The day after Münster, it's his turn. Yes, I have a question: Putin is already in the final phase. He has turned 70 and has been in power for almost exactly a quarter of a century. "I don't want to, and if they don't say they don't want a nuclear war, then we'll leave ourselves. We still want to enjoy life the way we do. What are the chances that Putin will be eliminated internally?" not from outside but by other Russians, now we are really in Kremlastology that really has a chance to get so close, we don't know, we don't know exactly who is putting themselves in a position that is expendable is that there are fights and there is no glorification within of the army leadership.

The Minister of Defense, well, the new head of state Grassimov then Pregorien and they say that's what I heard from Russian sources that it's not so much about the leadership in this matter. called special operation It's about war, but it's about who gets access first to these huge budgets that the Russian military gets and we'll have to wait and see, but I don't see the doves of peace fluttering on the gram. Thank you, Mr. Langhagen. Greetings to Münster and then we go to Gerstungen. Karl-heinz Brack is on the phone. Hello Mr. Brack, warm greetings to the group and my respect, Mr.

Schönbrunn, for your brilliant motivation and excellent summary from him. I have followed the Pressetopf for many decades and my question to the group is: is it not legitimate that a person who is attacked, threatened with various military tools by a cup portal and attacked in the strongest possible terms, also has every opportunity to defend himself. I notice that there is a constant change in terms of the weapons that are now possible and it also puts it in the initial question about what weapons can be delivered and I want to become warable, that is, a defender is allowed to defend himself with all the forces of he. the weapons with which they attack you and here is my round is not legitimate would you like an answer from a certain person Hildebrandt already took a breath Should I give him the floor and no one disputes it, but it is also legitimate that if you yourself are involved in such a way that contributes to it, which deals with the side effects it could have and how it could change, I think really what everyone wants, the main thing everyone wants, that is, for Russia to leave this country without having won. any terrain, how can the balance be weighed?

In this sense they are completely right, but even so you cannot get away from this point of view that teachers say you constantly have. You have to weigh the risk you are exposing. and that is what Scholz always points to when he talks about his position and what he feels obliged to and that, of course, is also something that cannot be ruled out outright and that at this point he is also right when he says that the population He expects you to make it difficult for him and actually do it, so not only does it show that you are making it difficult for him, but I think you actually do it.

Mr. Prag makes this assessment very, very carefully. Thank you. , be faithful to us. Thanks also for the flowers. Greetings to Gerstungen. We are now close to Lindau Weiler-Simmerberg, from mknecht. Hello, Mr. Frank Knecht's topic was Olaf Scholz, of course everyone agreed that Olaf Scholz's communication game would be. a way to improve, but I think it is too optimal in this situation, let's take Crimea for example, assuming Olaf Scholz said that he supports Ukraine from its roots. If they have been removed from all areas, including Crimea, then of course any red lines would have been removed and you would have to be proud of virtually any data.

Do you want Ukraine to have descendants? On the other hand, do you mean that no, you don't support a watch until it has removed the Russians? behind the borders on February 24. I don't want to know how the media will be picky the next day, especially probably not always, so my question is since then he has had nothing to do but communicate that way. here it's just happening, maybe you have to do it depending on the phase we are in now, so is it really a short term decision regarding tanks or is it a definition of what the objective can be of war and these are different discussions, what do I understand correctly from your question?

For example, Ukraine has the right to take back Crimea, that is a discussion that Mr. Scholz should have about taking it back by force of arms or whether that could be a story that we exclude in the course of the negotiation, so I think You have to weigh it as much as possible at each individual stage, but also explain that you cannot do one thing without doing the other, Mr. Frank, we already had it in the That is the dilemma: how frankly can a democratically elected head of government explain your intentions in a war situation, what effects, what side effects does that have?

What you said before explains and I think there is a difference between describing and justifying and unfortunately. even now he gives relatively little justification, he has given some interviews since he made this decision and what he really does is present what he does, but basically so little, so the question is why with the Americans we are trying to do that to penetrate everyone but he didn't say that thanks to Lindau in Düsseldorf Vincenzo Kalifano is on the line welcome to the program Mr. Kaliforno we are almost at the end I am excited to ask why 90% of the political media from Manta onwards fall into This military logic does not expire while half of the population presses against these weapons and offers them as an example and the second question was whether the media, which are simply financed by NATO from this toxic doctoral Atlanticism, or who themselves they comply with the wishes of the US and NATO you call so why this strange democratic reflection is um yes that was my critical question why is it so and then last week I also heard the accused so Eichhorn , I don't think that's the case in our In the case of the Berliner Zeitung, for example, we educate there.

We have different positions, we have guest contributions from Mrs Wagenknecht from Wels, we have talked about taking what you also mentioned and we try to show both sides. I think there is this type of equality and you wrote that, but of course there are at the factual, technical level, arguments that are exchanged and then in the end they not only give an opinion but what the experts say about it and what it is. The situation really on site? So, yes, so to speak, it would contradict your basic criticism. There are other ways, but in the end, of course, let's talk about the facts.

Ronda Thank you for the many interjections online, for the many calls. Yes, we are at one stage of a long journey in this war and we will continue to speak at this table in a new and different situation. Join us, have a great Sunday, all the best to the wild animals, day after day.