Pistorius gegen Waffenforderungen der Ukraine | Markus Lanz vom 22. Februar 2023

I'm very glad it worked, Mr. Pistorius. An interesting figure, perhaps at first. 49% of Germans. The country is totally divided on this issue. They want us to limit the supply of weapons. At the same time, you are the most popular politician in the country. How does this work? I think that's why it works because I try to see and understand both sides and I actually do and if we're honest, neither of us likes spending that much money. about weapons. None of us would rather do anything other than supply weapons to a war. But there is nothing left at this moment if we do not want to let Ukraine down and there is a large majority in favor of not doing that, that is, they say that is the only way, yes, we have to do it that way, that is the way .

The question behind this is that we shouldn't have to all pull together so that we can finally come to a different solution or, to put it another way, the fact that now there is suddenly a piece of land in the center of Europe, a large piece of land, certainly infested with weapons. He is so full of fear that it scares him. "I think that scares everyone and me too. I have often said that I was born during the Cold War era, but at the same time I grew up as a young man with relationships of twin cities throughout Europe that raised us in the belief that they made a twinning of cities, so to speak, that if they just know each other, if the young generation knows each other, then they don't shoot each other, then the Cold War is over, the wall fell, the end of Warsaw An era came and suddenly I I woke up in a different world when I was in my early 30s and I would never have believed and probably many others felt the same that we would live in times like this again, but history also teaches us that a sovereign state that is attacked in this Cannot be allowed to the brutal and unprovoked imperialist way is left alone, first of all personally, but for that reason.

Not even because it is not just about Ukraine, it is about much more. Putin is attacking not only Ukraine but the free world, the world of free thought. freedom for all, democracy and there was fear of how great is your understanding of those who say we don't want that, we are afraid of being dragged into this, I understand everyone who says I don't want to get involved in By the way, we want it and that is the federal government's clear line: we will not become a party to the war. That must be emphasized very clearly again and again.

We do not want to become a party in the war and I understand everyone who is worried, who is afraid, who can no longer keep up with these enormous numbers that we are talking about. I understand that 100 percent, the question is just who is going to demand peace just because I don't want to demand that more weapons be handed over, but at the same time you say that Ukraine simply has to give in, I can be the solution, it's interesting how You put it, you say we don't want to become a part of the war, we could become a part of the war, that could happen, we will hear it very briefly.

You remember very clearly a statement from them when they did not take the oath on January 17 because that was the wording that was The purely cinematographic criticism of the Ministry of Defense is a great challenge even in civilian times of peace and the times when you, as a Republic Federal of Germany, is involved in the war, is once again particularly special and from that point of view, of course, I am very aware of the responsibility of the great importance of this task and I am even more grateful that you trust me to do it and I will give myself 150% to this task from the first day Annalena Baerbock has not formulated anyway, no Annalena Baerbock said that we know in a we are fighting against Russia fighting a war against Russia I didn't say anything like that, I said that we are indirectly involved in a war through the supply of weapons, that is an indirect difference it means that we are not a direct part of the war and we are not Indirect distributors of the war, we are indirectly involved in the war, that is a difference being involved in some way way because they realize it, but that's what we're experiencing with all of this.

Each word has many interpretation backgrounds and you can see everything. in it it means one direction or the other, so to speak, but I am not one of those who attack the other Lena Bär Bock, but we realize according to the language The language is always as treacherous as Navi, are there that the point is ? another treacherous formulation they say that Ukraine has to win this war Olaf Scholz says that Lucreno must not lose this war what is the difference this is a matter of interpretation as we just said in the end that is what it is about, this is what I have I have been saying During the last few days that Russia is allowed to carry out this attack without reaching Ukraine, that means something different again.

In the end, it's not about who the military winner is, but what will happen in the end. and we cannot decide that in Germany, in the USA or in Great Britain or in France, that decides above all things that the attacked state is the sovereign state of Ukraine that we support and Ukraine has to define in what point he takes and what path "And what decision to make and then we have to decide which path to follow is the right one, but again when you say that Ukraine has to win this war, what does that mean for them?

A different consequence than saying that Ukraine must not lose this war. I honestly don't see the difference. If she wins the war, she would take back the territories and they wouldn't be occupied anymore, which means that in the end it doesn't make a significant difference, but it can make a big difference if you reject it. That and, so to speak, fresh liver, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine says we need phosphorus tree why litter Ammunition we need fighter planes and to win and Olaf Scholz that is really interesting Olaf Scholz is often accused of plotting so many red lines and then everyone concedes at some point.

The truth is that he did not draw a single red line verbally, not only the feeling that The reason that emerged in public is exactly that the tanks we are going to Ukraine are definitely not working now, but we will talk about it in a moment, what What about phosphorus bombs? I have to take a second to say that Olaf Scholz has never said, as far as I know, that this is why he never buys tanks. That is exactly the problem we have, especially in our country. society, if he never ruled it out but always said that we do not do it alone, that we do it in coordination with our European and transatlantic partners, then that is another thing than saying what is coming because I am not in doubt, it is a red line, for that took this path and I support it 100 percent because it is right not to go down this path alone and we are seeing what is happening right now, we are waiting for at least some of the tanks that we should You expected it according to the announcement and the red lines are always bad because the red lines not only fix you in a certain position, how to put it, but also the enemy makes it clear what step he has to take for this or that to happen. but in fact there is a limit and that is where this explosion is, I mean, with the phosphorus and the lost substances, we are clear that we have and have signed the relevant international conventions that we produce, we no longer reproach them, we no longer take them into account, we have they signed a contractual promise that they will no longer use them, that is, if the Russians did that, they still wouldn't do it because that's what you argue, yes, you Ukraine and say that they do that too, we need it too, yes , but we have a clear line in all these questions of international law: we always say that strengthening the law does not violate the law and that also means that we stick to our own rules and the rules mean that we do not use weapons if we have them, we do not use them , we don't use them, we don't use them, we don't use them, we don't use phosphorus bombs, then we get to the fighter planes, what about the fighter planes?

Jet aircraft is a very interesting question, by the way, everyone has been talking about tanks for months, although in reality the much more important issue, according to all the experts, including General Millies in the United States, was air defense over the air defense of Ukraine. A safe sky over Ukraine is a prerequisite for the war in Ukraine to continue or be even more positive than before, but no one wanted to talk about it because it might not be attractive enough to talk about air defense ammunition or its maintenance. so everyone is already over it. Talking about tanks because it is very easy to grab, now everyone talks about fighter jets that can play a role, but now we as Germany can focus on tanks thanks to the Leopard manufacturing nation, as much as we were focused. , now we can back up a little bit because this is Now it works, we don't have it, we don't even have it in stock, we don't fly it and it doesn't make sense for an air force.

In this case, the experts tell me that the experts who are in charge of the air force, which is at war, depend on several systems, that is complicated. The training is complicated, from repairing the fuel supply, etc., but we still have to develop a West, the so-called West, it has to appear very united because it must not give rise to the feeling that we are divided on any issue. The Chancellor's arguments in particular raise again the question of whether you join someone who values ​​"Combat, do you support it or not? If the nation that has the appropriate fighter aircraft decides for itself in coordination with the other partners , then we have to support it.

We simply won't be able to deliver them ourselves and we will." We do not have to hand them over because we have the adequate means and what Ukraine can do with these fighter jets or that is a question that has to be answered by those who provide the fighter jets and that requires clear agreements. For example, everything that then goes to the original Russian territory. and it would not only be used for preventive defense, for example, it is already a delicate issue and you have to talk about it with your partners in Ukraine, which is a really delicate issue, you could argue and say, well, do it well, but The Russians also criticize rhetorical attacks on another sovereign country and there is no question whether they are allowed to do so or not and as a result, for defense reasons and also for moral reasons, Ukraine ultimately has the right to have things in places, especially ammunition depots.

For example, to attack on Russian territory, they are only allowed to limit it very much and that must be brought out when the question arises. I just don't think anything about it. Decisions must be made under different framework conditions than we might have today, but they could be different in three weeks or three months. These are questions you don't have to decide today. You don't have to decide, but you are the one who thinks about these exact questions afterwards I still have an attitude about it, yes I think about a lot of things, but not everything I think about, I also have to talk publicly about something else, no, and I think that the question in question, no, that is one of the questions, there are many others that can and should be clarified and discussed internally, but all possible positions must be publicly taken on each possible hypothetical or probable event. already written, because that limits your freedom of movement internally, even when making a decision, so I am always very cautious with hypothetical questions.

Equally fundamental questions: yes, I understand answering immediately: a country for Ukraine that is being bombed with ammunition, yes, stored 30 kilometers behind the border. They are allowed to blow up this ammunition depot. It's a good try. We can play a little more now. But as far as I know, a hit like this has happened before, so it will happen again and again and I won't have a cleanup. health certificate for anything, but it is not my role and my understanding is clear, but these are things that are designed to be defensive, but one that supposedly has an offensive effect is crucial, but it is a completely different issue that has to do with coming together, and that is what we have to talk about, for example, the occupation of Russian territory as a result of such attacks, but that is a completely different dimension and I think we have other questions to answer at the moment besides what What could happen on the battlefield in three to six months, now we must try to support Ukraine with everything that is necessary, possible and justifiable, to make it clear that Russia and Putin must not get their way in this war, as they have done in In this context, Joe Biden's visit to kyiv was perceived as a great gesture, a great important gesture, more than that, a strong signal that had never been seen before in the history of the United States of America .that a president appears in a war zone where the Americans on the ground never intervene, that they do not control it, is a great sign of solidarity that cannot be overestimated, since when did they know that the day he arrived there?

I found out, yes, from the report, that in the meantime he was traveling in Germany. No, he was not informed about it. No, that's not usual. Rammstein landed It doesn't matter at all, I mean someone goes there and then passes through another country. There was a stopover here for two journalists with the word even tell the Russians and they say be careful, II'm getting on this train now just so you know and now I'm going to Kiel. They say that's a great gesture, I also think my colleague from the Süddeutsche described it well, he said, that was the end of this impression.

As my predecessor was there, I was there less than three weeks after taking office, so I just don't like this accusation of printing time because it means that a cautious approach is a prudent approach, it's the same as from the impression, that's not it, we have a great responsibility for peace, security in Europe, for Germany, for the people who live here. and you don't drive like a cowboy and do this or that just because you want the applause, our role is that of the person who assumes the responsibility that comes from the American President on the German Chancellor and the other heads of State, you are the responsible Ministers, We are obliged to act calmly and determinedly, not to give in to war cries and not to fall into pure symbolism;

These are gestures of solidarity that are important, especially for a person who bravely fights against people like the victors of the U, but this is not about overeducating each other with pithy sayings, let's just listen to Joe Biden what he said there, it was very interesting, it has to be done, but all the thinking comes from the Munich Security Conference. There has to be a scenario in 2024. the elections and then in the US in Russia there are also elections, there is actually no what Putin thinks are elections and now suddenly someone completely different is sitting in the White House and says what the hell, it's not my war, take care of it. then suddenly the situation is completely different: to what extent are we willing to take on this kind of responsibility, so it has to be clear to everyone, no country in Europe is capable of taking on this responsibility on its own and no one would do it, By the way, the American president, no matter what his name, with a different basic attitude towards Europe, would not abandon NATO, that is, NATO's alliance commitment, but that would call everything into question and then we would think about abandoning the NATO. very often and we talk about it a lot, he thought about everything, that's nice, but it can happen that he talks about it a lot again, yes, and don't think about it, anything can happen, but prepare for it.

It is not a matter of a year and a half, mind you, so you have to be clear about when the Americans would do what I had ruled out, and an American president would not do it without parliamentary support. NATO would be the furthest option. I have had the experience that the United States could always be trusted when necessary, and that was always the case everywhere. Decade In my personal experience I lived through the Cold War, the threat we were on the eastern flank of the Federal Republic of Germany. we were the first flag and we could always trust the Americans in exactly the same way and if the Americans assumed that this can also happen for other reasons, the Indo-Pacific would gain geopolitical importance for the Americans, that is, the Americans could also come to This conclusion agrees with us in the next 10 years.

They direct some of their attention more to the other region of the world and then you get exactly that, then exactly that happens. What I've talked about often in recent weeks is that we, as Europe, as European allies, also started within NATO, and where are we at now that they sound so incredibly frustrated, but no, so they're optimistic people? They are, yes, they are happy residents of Osnabrück, but nevertheless when it comes to tanks, they were suddenly left alone. They are talking about allies, that is, they just leave them out there in the rain, how cold, that is incredible, but it is about 31 Panzer 31. tanks this is a battalion on the A6 in Ukraine we have 14 that we want to make available Portuguese come and say well we also have three power 17 missing 14 the Danes have withdrawn the find have withdrawn the Dutch have withdrawn and when you ask them how things are going at the moment, they say, well, it's manageable, we're here to intoxicate me, exactly how much it bothers them.

I mean, it's not a new political experience, by the way, it's not just a political experience either. , they are not always the ones who announce most loudly what they would like to do if they are allowed, they are the ones who will ultimately resolve this situation. I haven't even come to Ramstein for 24 hours in office and I thought I was hoping that at this meeting I would find a balance with the headquarters of the NATO countries. They say that Germany is finally clearing the way, giving the export license and making tanks available and then we will go too and that was not the case.

So the impression was completely different. There were some nations that produced very clearly, please do it too and we are there and other goods, thoughtfully, they said we haven't even discussed it in our governments, but we don't even know what. We can do, others have said that we think it is right for Germany to proceed in such a balanced and coordinated way, how is she doing? We were clearing the way and then I thought, well, now the nations have to come and say what I want. They also made available A6 A4 in A4 we have a battalion together 31 We are now at the point where we are working with the arms industry to clarify how quickly we can have ammunition, not like in the Federal Republic because we don't have it.

There have been no tanks for more than 20 years, that is an issue that the arms industry is now clarifying with the Polish side and we have the 17 A6s, so there are many more, we need 31, that is what we promised. 31 yes and we are still working on it. You probably won't be able to get them together, so you'll have to stay sober, but it's no use. There is such a dramatic difference if you can fill them well, the battalions with armored personnel carriers with mine clearance tanks, that all makes sense from a military point of view and yet, of course, there is still a bit of disappointment, but that is why I have been saying it clearly for some time now, all of us in Europe, NATO allies, have to make it clear to ourselves that we have a different responsibility in these times since February 24 and 22 in southern Germany, that It's exactly what I see. , but in a different way Announcement Someone has a bite these days called announcement world champion now we are ready suddenly we are like those who push others ahead of them so to speak or we try to create facts and this time the context has history 31 tanks a battalion and the other 31 tanks make a total of 62 yes, there are also There are many Leopard 1s that will grow to at least three or four battalions by the first quarter of next year.

Now three yes 120 tanks 120 to 130 are being prepared and somehow it is still a very, very good tank, it is not as modern as two a246 a total of more than 200 tanks what are we talking about more we are talking about 200 bar exactly how many tanks they have the British Challenger and the American Abrams still has them, so it is a total of 300 tanks by 300, which is about the order of magnitude that Ukraine also talked about when, yes, it will grow, not all of them will be available of immediate, but no one can expect that. Seriously, no one was prepared for it, I have so much material in reserve, yes, and now I'm hearing from people who are familiar with this, the Russians have it.

How many tanks are there in Ukraine? I have no idea, I don't know. The numbers may not be the current 3000, but some of them are very, very old models, older than the T-72. You have to be able to understand everything and put it in context and what the neighbors are still this big mass of material and I hear. that there are another 4,000 tanks waiting somewhere in Siberia, which makes 7,000. I mean, where is the highest proportion? If that was the case, then Ukraine should not have stood a chance from the beginning, not even with our weapons deliveries, so here it works about the right way to wage war, the right defense strategy, Ukraine has done a lot of things well, even with the help of their allies, otherwise they wouldn't be where they are today, so the animals alone don't matter. what does not work in terms of supplies, what is the training of soldiers and many other things, how great is your understanding in this context for people who argue and say Sahra Wagenknecht, for example, also yes, who and some others too They say against a nuclear power, but also against a contending conventional power of this size like the Russians, we should let it go, it doesn't work like that, we have to get a handle on reality at some point, so to speak, we have to finish doing it somehow because we can't win a war against them, so I'm making a resolution now that I actually made before the broadcast, that's why I'm not asking Lara Wagen not to do it, but I still think that " I have to do it.

What is the alternative to that? Yes, the alternative to that is to leave Ukraine to its fate. Putin sends the signal to the West that you can't trust him, don't trust the West, the next countries that are on the menu, if I may put it so casually, of Putin. We all know if it is Georgia, if it is tomorrow, if it dares to go to the Baltics and we don't know if the alliance is over. maybe then he will take care of himself internally. We know that not at the same time would be a fatal signal for all the autocrats of the world.

You just have to be bold enough, be brutal enough and then the countries you are attacking will end sooner or later, I will be left alone because the West does not send a fatal signal geopolitically and that is why it should not happen and you can wish for peace as much as you want. I do too. I come from the city of peace in Osnabrück, where the Westphalian peace treaty was discussed. I am very close to this root of peace, but peace at the expense of those who are attacked simply because we feel uncomfortable because We don't want to supply weapons because someone is afraid, unfortunately that doesn't work because then it affects the people next door and then we are all together in the strait and what they are currently saying The new Geostrategy developments are emerging, this so-called peace initiative of the Chinese, you describe them ambivalently ambivalently. "On the one hand, because they certainly contain the right signals, but the crucial question is whether they are just signals or behind it there is an operational and practical policy and a clear positioning.

The Chinese expressed themselves very clearly when Olaf Scholz visited regarding the question of a nuclear war and that would be good, if necessary, especially so that this line is maintained and clear limits are established and it would be good if proposals came. of concrete peace, will be formulated in the subjunctive yes, because Until now we have only heard the announcement from Munich and the firefighters, I heard the speech, yes, how did you perceive it? The Chinese representative was the second man behind. I listen to people. They say I am if you listen to them in the In all context, that was an announcement, that is, it does not have much to do with the peace initiative.

You have to analyze it very carefully. I think it really has to be done, especially when it comes to the question of sovereignty claims and In the question of the unity of nations there were already phrases that can be interpreted in one sense or another and that is why I say that until now it is a request to speak, an announcement that must be filled with life, then the Americans come and say. We are really playing a double game. Do the Chinese hand over the weapons and the Russians hand them over? I do not know yet.

I think Americans have also been more careful about smoking. They have said that they are afraid or that they have information. that this could happen. Not that it has already happened until now. It is a supportive delivery but not of a lethal nature, so don't pour water, let's listen to it together, which is very interesting in some ways for the question of what will happen soon please. make a clear announcement and in theThere is a clear concern that you also have to share. If it comes to that, it would be a new situation that we would have to deal with and that would definitely have to depress us all together and there are people who say that it is all a setup game, there are two people.

We see you in the background, now someone travels to Moscow and then you act as if you are presenting a peace initiative, in reality it is a montage game. Putin is informed. about this and then you make an offer that you know exactly that Ukraine can do it. The so-called West cannot accept it and then you say, look, we would do it, but you are not interested in peace and therefore you drive another wedge into this. German society, for example, of which we already know that one half is in favor and the other half is on the other side, which is why it is so unfortunate that people like Sarah Wagenknecht play their game here and at the same time promote this game. with these exaggerations and simplifications, that is why I am so skeptical and I also have to say very clearly that this is the wrong approach.

Using people's concerns about an escalation of war to steer everything that is happening in one direction This is not good for us as an ally nor for the West. That's playing with fire. We are ready to defend ourselves. Nose, what situation did you find? Not NATO,We, the Bundeswehr, what did you expect? What did you find? "Now you've been filming for four weeks, always the night before the show. I said, eh, shitty job, no, and they said that everything is probably interesting, but they don't see it that way, not because I think that First of all, every job has It has to be done by someone and then ideally it should be someone who enjoys doing it, especially in times like this and it's no secret that we've been 30 years in.

For a long time since the end of the Warsaw war, everyone was packing their bags together Except for the Americans, who had a different geopolitical starting point. We no longer cared much about national and alliance defense because it was no longer necessary, we know that today it just seemed that way, but no one knew that the accusation could be assumed and This means that they switched to crisis interventions of an international nature, i.e. the mission of the Bundeswehr and other armed forces in Europe was another alliance and national defense did not play any role. The army's anti-aircraft defense was abolished for financial reasons. reasons, although today everyone rightly believes that it is wrong, so the decision was understandable at the time, but now it is costly due to the peace dividend that everyone gladly took, the call that will now be reimbursed .

At a very high price, the Bundeswehr had, you can ask, historically the SPD in particular when you say: Did we really make mistakes? Do you remember the debate, for example about arming some drones, yes, how long did the SPD block them? but, in retrospect, there is an old saying: we are all equally smart, some before others after, yes, at the moment of decision, which was understandable, even if the international missions had done it. necessary, but no one could have imagined what situation we would find ourselves in soon after. That's the smallest mistake. I think that in total my Theodor zur Gutenberg saved 8.3 billion euros in the Bundeswehr and other language rounds broke the backbone of the Bundeswehr. in parts so it is not incurable but it is expensive to recover and there we have to do it now we can defend ourselves we have ammunition we have more weapons we will be ready to defend ourselves we would not be alone nor would we be capable of both but we will not be alone we have to say it clearly but we never were if we are honest without the alliance partners national defense Europe was always also the defense of the alliance today we ensure the protection of the eastern flank with our with our soldiers our we We will not be able to defend ourselves, but we probably will not be able to defend ourselves in a short period of time, no Alone, how long will we last?

I definitely wouldn't say it publicly now or in weeks. I will not answer those days, no, I will win. t Answer, it's my job not to make this public, I understand that yes, you can't do that, but it doesn't matter at all because the alliance is designed to defend the alliance. We don't have to go. through the scenarios that can happen again. We are on the eastern flank in eastern Europe in Poland in liters and in Slovakia the French brigade has an exhibition project with which next year soon in the Baltic countries and Romania we are currently training. the ETF we are in the process of building a brigade that is partly constantly but not completely constantly in Lithuania will also mean that we are present, we are basically doing what the Americans and other allies did for us until 1990 as the eastern flank of what then It was NATO in Eastern Europe.

Then there will be a new hard border, we will maintain a new hard border. There will be a new hard border that will look like it, yes, and that's why I say yes, we have to prepare for it. "It's not about where we are now, but where we have to be in two or three years. Now we have to set the course, that's how difficult it is for me. I really wish we didn't have to talk about that." Not anymore, but unfortunately that's the way it is. The reality is different because Putin wants it that way because he started this attack and he is the one who could finish it.