Moscow on May 9th: Lots of goose-stepping, medals and hurray, but no general mobilization, no victory celebrations and no new nuclear fears. In “Hart aber fair” Frank Plasberg asks: “Putin’s parade – isn’t a threat a reason for hope?”
The guests
Michael Roth (51, SPD). The head of the foreign affairs committee warns: “Putin has not achieved any of his war goals. He failed miserably. But he will continue the brutal war!”
Roderich Kiesewetter (58, CDU). The foreign policy expert and former colonel criticizes the “intellectual letter” against arms deliveries: “I very much regret that Ms. Schwarzer is making herself Putin’s henchman!”
Claudia Major (45). The defense expert advises: “Ukraine must win back as much as possible militarily, with our help, because it needs a strong negotiating position!”
Prof. Wolfgang Merkel (70). The political scientist hopes: “Weapons are definitely not the only option.”
Gesine Dornbluth (53). The journalist (Deutschlandradio) emphasizes the “blatant contrast between the “high-gloss pictures of the parade and the pictures of the war in Ukraine”.
The individual tables with the bar stools at the Corona distance are gone, the guests are sitting together again at the counter as they used to be. The Zoff-O-Meter also hopes for as much harmony as possible in terms of content.
First disappointment
“One can guess that there was a reality check,” expert Major interprets Putin’s speech, “because he spoke of the fallen sons and of the families who have fallen to mourn. It’s a bit like, yes, he acknowledges that things aren’t going according to plan.”
But: “For me it was more of a confirmation of what Russia is planning,” Major then admits. “It’s not a departure from the goals. The war is justified. That’s why I see it more as a confirmation of the previous policy. I see no desire for negotiations or de-escalation.” Uff!
Most significant reaction
The talk show host would have liked to hear something else: “I’m looking for a glimmer of hope without being naïve,” he sighs. “Is there anyone around here who sees it a nuance differently?”
No reaction. “Silence is also an answer,” Plasberg scoffs. “I’ll give you a little more time to think…”
The Zoff-O-Meter starts up
With this keyword, the professor feels it is his duty. “If Putin had talked about some kind of victory, then he would have started to save face, and that could have led to new steps,” he says, disappointed.
“When I hear that he needs a face-saving solution!” the SPD man gets angry. “Even if he failed miserably, as he has done up until now, he alone has the ability to explain to his people that he has won. Because there is no longer anyone who contradicts him.”
Roth’s advice: “We should continue with the massive support of Ukraine, because worse can only be prevented from a position of strength.” There’s the first round of applause.
Smartest analyses
“Putin is under enormous pressure,” comments DLR journalist Dornblüth. “For me, this speech was a lavish ‘Keep it up’. No retreat, no deviation, no definition of goals. He’s keeping a door open.”
“Putin had the chance to declare today that he had largely achieved his war goals,” Kiesewetter assists. “We must prepare for a longer war.”
Artigster Dialog
“As Michael Roth said very clearly, we must stand by Ukraine so that it does not lose this war,” demands CDU-Kiesewetter. “The four state-supporting parties show that they have a common goal. Party politics has no place there.” Applause again.
“Mr. Roth, do you accept this hug?” Grins the talk show host.
“It’s not a hug, it’s a very honorable step that I respect very much,” replies the SPD man. “The CDU/CSU could also behave differently. That’s why it deserves recognition. You have to say that clearly. That might also take away some of the fears of the citizens.” Fits!
Photo: ARD
” data-zoom-src=”https://bilder.bild.de/fotos/putins-parade–ist-keine-drohung-schon-grund-zu-hope–was-the-title-of-the-hard- aber-fair-cd9bb1fe0a3d4f46a7be6e838239009c-80033036/Bild/1.bild.jpg”/> “Putin’s parade – isn’t a threat a reason for hope?” was the title of the “hard but fair” talkPhoto: ARD
Most painful clarification
The professor sprinkles itching powder on the harmony: “We must come to an armistice as quickly as possible in which both sides can recognize each other,” he warns. If Putin loses face, he will have his back against the wall, “and then completely different catastrophes can occur!”
“Ukraine doesn’t have a choice between war and peace,” counters Major. “It has a de facto choice between war and annihilation or submission. The second misconception is that Russia has a genuine interest in negotiations. Even with a ceasefire, we would only have frozen the military conflict.”
Most proven manslaughter argument
“I don’t understand how one can say that in a year’s time the military situation will possibly be completely different, the negotiating chips would then be clearer on the Ukrainian side,” doubts Prof. Merkel.
“That sounds a bit cynical about the casino,” Plasberg rebukes.
I’m sorry, what? The political scientist is reluctant to accept the instruction. “How many deaths would be my counter-question, and not at all polemical, but oriented towards understanding, how many deaths can we actually afford before we come to a ceasefire?” he snaps. Yes, not polemical at all!
Strongest objection
“Ukraine has decided that they want to fight,” the defense expert said. “The goal must be to put Ukraine in the best possible negotiating position. It also means reclaiming as much of the territory that Russia has conquered as possible.”
Prof. Merkel bangs his fist in the air. “How long is this war going to last?” he rumbles. “Can you say: Only when you have these lines do we negotiate, and then 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 may be dead?”
Bitter record
Roth is slowly getting angry: “For years, the policy of the West was shaped by not angering Russia despite its wars,” he recalls. “What is the result? We have a terrible war that is being waged exclusively and solely by Russia and Putin!”
His concern: “We must not make ourselves dependent on Putin’s threats. Even if we had only delivered five matches to Ukraine, he would probably have accused us of massive interference. Therefore, only containment, deterrence, support will help us.”
<img class="photo ondemand zoomable" src="https://bilder.bild.de/fotos-skaliert/cdu-aussenpolitiker-roderich-kiesewetter-dbc5718526e84ff8b7415de68ab1faf5-80033044/1,w=1280,c=0.bild.jpg" width="1280" alt="CDU-Außenpolitiker Roderich Kiesewetter" data-zoom-title="CDU-Außenpolitiker Roderich Kiesewetter
” data-zoom-src=”https://bilder.bild.de/fotos/cdu-aussenpolitiker-roderich-kiesewetter-dbc5718526e84ff8b7415de68ab1faf5-80033044/Bild/1.bild.jpg”/>
CDU foreign politician Roderich KiesewetterPhoto: ARD
Most reassuring realization
Expert Major informs about Putin’s nuclear power in a one-on-one interview. Since the beginning of the war, Russia has already made more than 20 nuclear threats, she reports about “this nuclear saber-rattling”. phew!
But, Major continued: “Russia keeps escalating, but keeps catching this threat. The President escalates, the Secretary of State catches up. We see in this war that nuclear deterrence worked.”
Scariest info
“There is no red button that you can simply press,” the expert continues. “There is no single person who decides that. In Russia they talk about the three-suitcase system: president, defense minister, chief of staff.”
Why is Russia threatening nuclear weapons? “One message goes to the West, to the USA and NATO: stay out of it!” Major analyzes. “The second message goes to the Western public and is intended to sow fear: think about the arms deliveries!”
Her warning: “If we panic, we’ll do what Putin wants!”
Treacherous coercive measures
The DLR reporter reports on the Russification in the occupied areas such as Cherson or Mariupol: “Mayors are being deposed, arrested and kidnapped. Dozens of mayors have disappeared. Pro-Ukrainian politicians, activists, journalists will be intimidated or disappear.”
And further: “There is only Russian state television and in some regions only Russian rubles. That is perfidious, because because of the blockade, people can only shop there with rubles.”
clearest edge
“I am in favor of Ukraine being given the opportunity to defend itself,” Roth concludes. “And, I say that very self-confidently, in order to be able to liberate territories occupied by Russia again.” Boom!
His witness: “During our visit to Lviv, a young Ukrainian colleague told me that the best humanitarian aid is when you deliver weapons. Every village, every district liberated by Russian troops is one less place where people are massacred, where war crimes are committed.”
Most sensible conclusion
Even the anti-weapon professor capitulated: “Such fates, you have to humbly follow what the people themselves say. I have no advice to give.” Amen!
quote of the evening
“People accuse Germany of many things, but certainly not that we are too fast.” Thomas Roth
Conclusion
Politicians and experts in tedious monotonous mode: Always the same answers to the same questions, and that too long. This was a talk show in the “stretching exercise” category.