The Russia-Ukraine War in Germany V. German appeals for surrender.

The Russian Attack on Ukraine – „Blame the West“

The argument widespread in Germany that „the West“ is to blame – or partly to blame – for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is infamous. It is true that the West, the US with the EU in tow, made many mistakes in its dealings with Russia after the end of the Cold War that were bound to irritate the revanchist KGB agent Putin.¹ And yes, the US has waged wars of aggression that were not covered by the UN Security Council. And the US has committed war crimes –  unpunished – in Vietnam, Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. „In general, one has the impression that almost everywhere […] where the US goes to impose its order, bloody, non-healing wounds, boils of international terrorism and extremism are left behind“ said Putin in his televised address of 24 February 2022 – not entirely wrongly.

But: all this does not justify Putin’s war of aggression against Ukraine. „The misconduct of the West is not a justification of Russian misconduct,“ explains German legal scholar Stefan Oeter (University of Hamburg); and „the violation of international law by certain Western countries does not entitle Russia to break international law by violating the territorial integrity of Ukraine,“ clarifies Theodore Christakis, Professor of European and International Law at the University of Grenoble-Alpes.

„Neutralization“ of Ukraine

The demand for the „neutralization“ of Ukraine is not infamous, but unqualified. Ukraine has been neutral for 30 years since it became independent. It had no prospect of NATO membership and a majority of the population opposed NATO membership until February 24, 2022. Putin was able to invade Ukraine precisely because Ukraine is not a member of NATO.

Egon Bahr wrote about this as early as 2005: „Historical experience teaches us that a power-political vacuum only remains a vacuum for a limited time, until it is filled by a stronger unity.“²

Finland and Sweden have drawn the consequences of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and have given up their neutrality.

The German political scientist Herfried Münkler called for a neutral Ukraine with European security guarantees. But what are „European security guarantees“ worth if Europe cannot even guarantee itself security and is still dependent on the US protective umbrella. Only NATO can give Ukraine guarantees – specifically: only the USA.

„Compromise!“ – „Emma’s“ letter to the Chancellor

On April 29, 2022, the feminist and self-confessed “Putin understander”³ Alice Schwarzer published an open letter from 28 “cultural workers” to Chancellor Scholz in the magazine “Emma” (published by her), in which they urgently ask him: “to do everything possible that there can be a ceasefire as soon as possible […] a compromise that both sides can accept.”

In the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, the Ukrainian President Selenskyj quoted the Kiev-born former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir (1969 – 1974): During the Six-Day War (June 5-10, 1967), as Israeli Foreign Minister (1956-1965) she coined the phrase: “We want to stay alive. Our neighbors want us dead. There is not much room for compromise.”⁴ Zelenskyj added: “It is possible to mediate between states. But not between good and evil.”

Emma’s letter to the Chancellor reveals sheer political naivety: negotiations with Putin would be pure sham negotiations, which he would use to „pacify“ the West, to beguile the West into abandoning its arms sales to Ukraine, into urging Ukraine to capitulate – and into producing appeals such as the „Letter of the 28“.

„Resistance has limits“ – in the „political ethics“, the signers of the letter argue – and refer to the „level of destruction and human suffering among the Ukrainian civilian population. „Even justified resistance against an aggressor“ would be „at some point in an intolerable disproportion.“

Even if Ukrainian resistance to the Russian aggressor were reduced to a „tolerable level,“ the „level of destruction and human suffering“ would not stop. After the capitulation of Ukraine and the subsequent occupation of the entire country by the Russian army – because that is what they demand from Chancellor Scholz – the destruction of residential buildings will stop, but human suffering will be many times higher than today.

What the Ukrainian population can expect from Russian occupation can already be seen in the areas occupied by the Russian army: people are subjected to a so-called “filtration” (Russian: “filtracija”), reminding of the segregation for the “special treatment” of a time that was considered to have passed. Men who refuse to “forswear” Ukraine, to renounce the use of the  Ukrainian language, end up in so-called „filtration camps“ where they are tortured and many of them shot. One fifth of Ukraine’s population will not survive this „purge“ (Russ: čistka) especially if Russian troops should conquer western Ukraine, whose entire population is blanketly denigrated as „Nazis“.

According to Mikhail Podoliak, adviser to President Zelens’kyj, Russia was planning genocide: the Russian occupiers carried mobile crematoria – to cover up the killing of civilians. They had 40,000 body bags in their luggage – hardly for their own fallen soldiers, because they certainly hadn’t reckoned with so many dead within their own ranks. The fact that the Russian army committed a “genocide” in the Ukrainian port city of Mariupol is beyond any (legal) doubt, states the legal scholar Otto Luchterhand.⁵

Another fifth of Ukraine’s population will be deported to „penal camps“ in Siberia – with the prospect of forced permanent „settlement“ upon release. The “expatriated” Ukrainians are intended to compensate for the declining numbers of the Russian population in the areas east of the Urals – a covert war aim of Moscow, as can be assumed. By the end of June 2022, an estimated 300,000 children and one million adults had already been abducted from the occupied territories.

Another fifth will be able to flee west. It is uncertain how many of the women and children who have fled (men between the ages of 18 and 60 who are capable of military service are not allowed to leave the country) will return; it also depends on the outcome of the war. The living quarters left by the refugees will be assigned to Russian soldiers – just as the confiscated houses and apartments of Jews were assigned to „Aryan“ Germans in Hitler’s Germany.

The remaining part of the Ukrainian population, 15/16 million, will be “brainwashed”, i.e. that is, emptied and filled with Putinist trash—as has been happening with the Russian population for years. It will be subjected to a propaganda „mankurtisation“⁶ which will result in its total Russification, the total obliteration of its Ukrainian identity.

In view of the murderous methods demonstrated by KGB agent Putin in the Second Chechen War (Grozny) and in the Syrian civil war (Aleppo and Idlib), the request of the 28 cultural workers is immoral. To expect a „compromise“ with Putin from Ukrainians who risk their lives for their freedom, who are willing to die rather than live under Moscow’s thumb, is shameless. Putin doesn’t want „compromise,“ he wants submission; anyone who credits Putin with the ability to compromise is ignorant.

Among the “28” are respectable personalities whose signatures arouse consternation. (The writer Martin Walser said in an interview with the German daily newspaper „Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger“: „We are lucky with Putin […] and Obama. The two politicians guarantee „peace more than nuclear weapons could ever guarantee it“ – what a naivety!

In the letter of the “28”, Ukraine is implicitly held responsible for the war: It is a “mistake that responsibility for the risk of an escalation to a nuclear conflict rests solely with the original aggressor and not also with those who provide him with a motive for a possibly criminal action” – probably the most perfidious sentence in this letter”, as the musician Wolfgang Müller puts it. It means that Ukraine is complicit in Russia’s incursion. This is a perverse perpetrator-victim reversal. Wolfgang Müller compared this infamous argument with the slogan of the regulars‘ table, according to which a woman is to blame for her rape because she wore a skirt that was too short.

In the letter to Federal Chancellor Scholz, the authors demand that no weapons be delivered to Ukraine so that the “war criminals” (in the Kremlin) are not given a pretext for a nuclear war. But Putin constructs his own pretexts for his war – varying according to the war situation – from the grotesque reason „denazification“ of Ukraine to the „liberation“ of the Donbas in the east to securing Crimea by Russifying the province bordering the peninsula, Cherson which is occupied by Russian troops.

Putin’s threat of nuclear weapons serves to agitate the western public to put pressure on governments to stop arms supplies to Ukraine. Putin achieved this in Germany with the 28 subscribers of the letter to Scholz: “The 28” have turned themselves into useful idiots.

Philosophical support for the German defeatists

The German philosopher Jürgen Habermas commented on this issue in a guest article in the „Süddeutsche Zeitung“.  He criticised the „morally indignant prosecutors“ who demand greater support for Ukraine, including heavy weapons, and praised the „restrained Federal Government“ that does not want to make Germany a party to the war, which is „morally well founded“. Habermas fails to realise that it is primarily not a matter of „morality“ but of „law“ –  including Ukraine’s right to exist. For the first time, Putin has grossly violated what has been considered immutable in Europe since the end of World War II: the territorial integrity of states.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz never tires of declaring that Germany must not become a party to the war. But whether Germany is a party to the war is not decided by Scholz, but by Putin, as Habermas on the other hand rightly states himself: „When the West crosses the threshold defined by international law, beyond which it also formally regards military support for Ukraine as the West’s entry into the war“, is decided by Putin.⁷

Habermas criticises Ukrainian President Selenskyj’s video message to the German Bundestag as „moral blackmail“ –  wrongly so: it was the distress call of an existentially endangered country, not a „moral call to order“, as Habermas writes.

Habermas, a philosopher, not a psychologist, sees in Putin – despite everything – predictability; an agreement with him is possible. Habermas wants to change the paranoid aggressor’s mind with „weighing reason“ and advises a „comparison with a rational assessment of his“ (Putin’s) „interests“.

Thomas Schmid, the former editor of the daily newspaper „Die Welt“, quotes from Habermas‘ main work „Theory of Communicative Action“ in order to understand this: No one can „escape the gentle force of the better argument“. What an unrealistic theory! The world has experienced terrible figures (like Hitler), Thomas Schmid comments, who „could not be captured communicatively even with the most beautiful flute notes“.

The former US Vice Minister of Defence Walter B. Slócombe⁸ comments: „The relevance of reason-driven action has lost massive force since March 2022.“

A (conventional) war against a nuclear-armed opponent „cannot be won in any rational sense“, Habermas writes, which is not entirely wrong, but not entirely right either (Thomas Schmidt). Russia has already experienced regional defeats in the recent past: in Afghanistan and in the first Chechen war.

Leaving Ukraine to its fate would be „not only a scandal from a political and moral point of view, but also not in the West’s own interest. […] Who would be next?“ Habermas then asks. The risk of nuclear war, however, leaves „no room for risky poker playing“; but the West should also „not allow itself to be blackmailed at will“. It is difficult to distil a practical political guideline from this double insight of the philosopher.

Habermas spoke in favour of military support for Ukraine – „up to the point of immediate involvement“. Expressis verbis he declared „that Ukraine must not lose the war.“

He rightly criticises the Russia policy of former Chancellor Merkel and (her then) Foreign Minister Steinmeier – without mentioning their names: „Political misjudgements and wrong course set by previous federal governments…“. From his correct analysis, Habermas draws the wrong conclusion, that negotiations must be held with Putin – about the „end of the war, at least about a ceasefire.“

Habermas speculates on Putin’s motivation, noting in Putin „a certain disquiet about political protest in the progressively more liberal-minded circles of his own society“. Apart from Habermas, no one sees „progressively more liberal-minded circles“ in Russian society; this is philosophical wishful thinking.

While philosopher Habermas merely rebukes Selenskyj’s distress call to the German Bundestag as „moral blackmail“, philosopher Peter Sloterdijk said, the Ukrainian president is trying to „talk the West into war.“

Eastern Europe Ignoramuses: „Ceasefire Now!”

After the magazine „Emma“, the weekly newspaper „Die Zeit“ published an appeal „Ceasefire now!“ by 21 German intellectuals (among them the initiator of the appeal, philosopher and publicist Richard David Precht), calling for an end to the war in Ukraine through negotiations.

„The 21“ imply that Ukraine decides how long the war lasts. Certainly, Ukraine could capitulate and the war would be over. “It is up to Ukraine to decide whether it wants to continue the war” until it recaptures the territories occupied by Russia since 2014 or those occupied since 2022, “the 21” concede;  the West, however, must decide whether it wants to support Ukraine’s military efforts.

Ukraine does not need the defeatist advice of German intellectuals who seem indifferent to the future fate of the Ukrainian population under Russian occupation.  The declared Russian war aim is not only to conquer that part of the Donbas, which is still under the Ukrainian government’s control, but the whole of southern Ukraine along the Black Sea shore up to Moldova, which would turn „residual Ukraine“ into a landlocked state if Russia succeeded. But Putin’s undeclared goal, discernible through implied statements, is the subsequent „break-up of the rest of Ukraine“ – in analogy to the „break-up of the rest of Czechoslovakia“ (“Rest-Tschechei”) after Hitler’s annexation of the Sudetenland.

The appeal of “the 21″ is not directed at Russia, not at Putin, but at Ukraine, at its president Selenskyj. With their implicit appeal to the West to stop supplying weapons to Ukraine, they stab Ukraine in the back. The 21 German intellectuals appeal is not only un-intelligent – it is amoral.

“The 21’s“ call for the West to „create conditions under which negotiations are possible“ is nonsense. The arms deliveries to Ukraine are the precondition for any negotiations. Putin will –  if at all – be willing to negotiate  (and then only in appearance ) if he cannot win militarily. And that will be the case only if the West continues to supply weapons to Ukraine.

“The 21″ (and only they) have noted „an initial willingness to reach an understanding“ in Moscow. The demand to „involve“ Putin in a strategy of „gradual de-escalation“ is almost frighteningly naive. The messages of “the 21″ may be valid in times of peace; in times of war they are dangerous because they cloud the sense of reality.

„A continuation of the war in Ukraine is not the solution to the problem“, the authors write. Which „problem“ do they mean? The problem that Putin has with Ukraine?

Europe faces the „task of restoring peace on the continent“. But the decision on peace lies exclusively with Russian President Putin, who started this war – and who could establish „peace“, i.e. „non-war“, immediately by withdrawing Russian troops from Ukraine.

Ukraine has so far been able to defend itself against Russian aggression thanks to military support from Europe and the USA, the authors of the appeal state. They think that the longer Western military support continues, the less clear it becomes what the “war aims” are. A Ukrainian victory with the recapture of all occupied territories, including the Donetsk and Luhans’k oblasts and Crimea, is unrealistic by military experts, as Russia is militarily superior and has the capacity for further military escalation, the authors of the appeal argue. „Western countries providing military support to Ukraine need to ask themselves, what exactly their objective  is and whether (and for how long) arms deliveries continue to be the right thing to do.“ Continuing the war with the goal of Ukraine’s complete victory over Russia means thousands more war victims dying for a goal that does not seem realistic.

Implicitly, “the 21″ call on Ukraine to give itself up so that „the humanitarian and economic hardships around the world“ will stop, instead of trying to make the affected countries in the North and South of the world understand, who has plunged them into this calamity.

According to “the 21” the West must do everything in its power to ensure that the parties reach a negotiated settlement in a timely manner. This alone could prevent a war of attrition lasting for years, with its fatal local and global consequences, as well as a military escalation that could go as far as the use of nuclear weapons. What “the 21″ do not mention with a single word: Putin had the opportunity to end the war after the Russian attack on Kiev failed, instead of dragging Ukraine into a war of attrition in the Donbas.

Anticipating objections, the authors assure, that their aim is not „to dictate surrender to Ukraine.“ Negotiating does not mean capitulating, as is sometimes implied, the authors of the appeal affirm. There should be no dictatorial peace on Putin’s part. Negotiations do not mean deciding something over the heads of the parties involved.

The international community must do everything to „create conditions under which negotiations are possible at all“. This includes the statement that the Western actors have no interest in a continuation of the war – a statement of a self-evident fact, which, however, forms the transition to the treacherous sentence: „… and will adjust their strategies accordingly“, which means that they will stop supplying weapons to Ukraine.

„The West must make every effort to influence the governments of Russia and Ukraine to suspend hostilities“. In real terms, this means influencing Ukraine, because the West cannot influence Russia, as the many appeasement attempts and visits to the Kremlin have proven. But it is not the „suspension of hostilities“ that creates the precondition for negotiations, but a military stalemate in which Putin is forced to think of an exit strategy.

It is amazing how easily the German „intelligentsia“ – after “the 28″ now “the 21″ – turns itself into Putin’s „useful idiots“.

The call for a ceasefire is understandable but short-sighted. Experience teaches that Russia uses a ceasefire to regroup its troops and prepare for a new attack. Hoping for a negotiated peace fails to recognise Putin’s character. „The only way to end the war is a decisive Ukrainian victory that forces Russia to recognise its defeat,“ states Swedish economist and Russia expert Anders Åslund.

However, the recognition of defeat on the part of the aggressor Putin is difficult to imagine. It would already be a „Ukrainian victory“ if Russia withdrew its troops from Ukraine – without acknowledging their „defeat“. A guarantee that Russia will not attack Ukraine again at a new opportunity is Ukraine’s admission to NATO.

Eastern Europe experts: „Heavy weapons – now!“

The „Appeal of the 21“ did not remain without objection: Under the title „Heavy weapons – now!“ Andreas Umland of the Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies (SCEEUS)⁹

initiated a response to the open letter „Ceasefire now!“, which – unlike the appeals of the „28“ and the „21“ – was signed by Russia and Ukraine experts¹⁰ (including the author).

None of the signatories of the letter to chancellor Scholz (the “28”) und of the appeal “Ceasefire now!” (the “21”) had previously been known for particular interest in Russian-Ukrainian relations, and it can be assumed that none of them understands Ukrainian or Russian. The complete absence of prominent historians of Eastern Europe, of analysts of Russian and Ukrainian politics in the group of these signatories is surprising. The experts state that “The signatories of the appeal entitled „Ceasefire Now!“ misjudge the nature of Putin’s internal regime and foreign policy doctrine, and propose the opposite of the measures needed to deter the Kremlin: namely, the delivery of heavy weapons to Ukraine – now.” Instead they recommend „the continuation of a Western policy towards Russia that has brought us into today’s predicament,“ i.e. the continuation of the „appeasement policy“ from before 24 February 2022, it says in their public response.

The 21 and 28 ignoramuses have – beyond their ignorance – a “moral deficit: they consider the war crimes of the Russian occupation forces, the systematic murder and deportation of civilians in the newly occupied territories since the beginning of the war, to be “secondary”. Their proposition amounts to allowing Russia the continuation of its genocidal practices in the occupied parts of Ukraine, the expert response to their appeals states.

The author and journalist (known for his straightforwardness) Henryk M. Broder strongly criticises the pacifism of German society in general¹¹: „In Ukraine, people fight and die to be free. A German cannot understand that“. After 1945, Germans radically eradicated their patriotism. „Pro patria mori“ is no longer considered honourable by any German; “they would not fight, let alone die, even for their own freedom. German pacifism is suicidal”, says Broder.

„Capable of peace in times of war“ –  the expert opinion of German peace researchers

In their 150-page report „Friedensfähig in Kriegszeiten“ („Capable of Peace in Times of War“) of 21 June 2022, the leading German peace research institutes consider arms deliveries to Ukraine („We welcome the arms deliveries“) as well as sanctions against Russia to be correct. At the same time, however, they warn against a nuclear escalation.

However, their reasoning falls short: it is necessary to increase the pressure on Putin in order to put Ukraine in a position of strength at the negotiating table, they argue. But what could be negotiated at all? About the share of the spoils of war that the robber-murderer gets to keep? Putin is not negotiating, certainly not from a position of weakness (should Ukraine be in a „position of strength“).

In order to prevent a „nuclear escalation“, it is necessary to „drive on sight“; „step by step“ it must be examined what effect the delivery of certain weapons systems“ would have – a completely unrealistic recommendation by the peace researchers.¹² According to them, the German government’s „double strategy“ is correct: supply weapons, at the same time signal a willingness to talk. But this is a misjudgement of Putin; the German professors look at the Moscow Kremlin from an „ivory tower“.

The German peace researchers recommend letting Moscow know that sanctions would be lifted if Russia withdrew its troops from Ukraine – oh sancta simplicitas! – as if Putin could be dissuaded from his aggressive enterprises by sanctions.

Alice Schwarzer’s and Sahra Wagenknecht’s „Manifesto for Peace“ – a manifestation of useful idiocy

„Uprising for Peace“

On 10 February 2023, the self-confessed Putin-understanding Alice Schwarzer¹³ published –  together with (Putin even better understanding) Sahra Wagenknecht –  a „Manifesto for Peace“, for which they had already recruited 69 initial signatories. On the basis of this manifesto, Alice Schwarzer and Sahra Wagenknecht, together with retired Brigadier General Erich Vad invited people to a rally on 25 February at 2 pm at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin. By March 31, 2023 the manifesto was signed by around 750,000 people.

Among the 69 first signatories of this manifesto are honourable and well-meaning people – but they are all subject to a misjudgement of the initiator of the atrocities of the war they address at the beginning („The Ukrainian population brutally invaded by Russia…“). 

The signatories of the „Manifesto for Peace“ think that „our solidarity“ should consist of forcing Ukraine to negotiate with Russia – which is „not the same as capitulating“ –  a „hollow phrase“, as retired General Klaus Wittmann states. What should Ukraine negotiate with the aggressor about, what compromise should it make? About how much of the spoils of war Russia may keep if it voluntarily withdraws its troops? After Putin has realised that he cannot take the whole of Ukraine – as planned – in a coup de main, the major war criminal in the Kremlin demands that Ukraine recognise the „military realities on the ground“, i.e. that it recognise the part of Ukrainian territory occupied by Russian troops as Russian – in other words, that it cede that part of its territory.  The robber demands that the victim recognise his booty as rightfully belonging to the robber.

This is not just about territory: it is about the people who live on that occupied territory. Implicitly, the manifestants demand that the Ukrainian government extradite its compatriots to Russia as its concession in a compromise. What awaits the extradited Ukrainians under Russian rule has been revealed in the occupied territories: „filtration“ or, in other words, „selection“, deportation, erasure of their Ukrainian identity and total Russification, not to mention the war crimes committed by the Russian soldiery and the arbitrariness of the occupying authorities.

The sympathy of the signatories of the „Manifesto for Peace“ with the „Ukrainian population brutally invaded by Russia“, which needs „our solidarity“ – an „alibi sentence“ (Reinhard Veser, FAZ¹⁴) – turns out to be mendacious.

The renowned political scientist Herfried Münkler described – almost trivialising – the „peace manifesto“ of Schwarzer and Wagenknecht as „mendacious, ignorant talk“, only to call it what it really is: a „conscienceless manifesto“¹⁵, which enters into a „complicity with the aggressor Putin“.

On 25 February (2023), a large crowd (13,000 according to the police) indeed followed Alice Schwarzer’s and Sahra Wagenknecht’s call for an „uprising for peace“ –  „concerned citizens“ of every hue, though obviously of low intellectual „insightfulness“ (in the legal sense). There were no Ukrainian flags as a sign of solidarity with the victim of the Russian attack; instead there were many Russian flags – as a sign of complicity with the perpetrator. Sahra Wagenknecht outed herself no longer only as Putin’s „understander“, but as Putin’s accomplice, while Putin’s useful idiot Alice Schwarzer made a fool of herself by her behavior on the tribune.

Retired Brigadier General Erich Vad –  the „anti-militarist“

To strengthen the credibility of their peace message, the two peace loving ladies brought military expertise on board, namely retired Brigadier General Erich Vad. From 2006 to 2013, Vad was military policy advisor to German Chancellor Angela Merkel (which does not speak in his favour). However, Brigadier General Vad, who retired early in 2013 at the age of 56 for unexplained reasons, does not distinguish himself by military competence: On 24 February 2022, the day of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, he declared in a special session of Maybritt Illner’s talk show (ZDF, “Second German Television”) : „From a military point of view, the matter is over. And my assessment is that it will only be a matter of a few days and no more. […] Putin will win this war because the Russian armed forces are modern, well-equipped, because they have multiple superiority as well, because they have a strategic base against which you simply cannot defend yourself.“¹⁶

Vad’s „assessments of the situation“ throughout 2022, in which he maintained Russian victory and Ukrainian defeat, were all beside the point. One could almost think that Vad, now a management consultant („Erich Vad Consulting“, „Strategic Industrial and Management Consulting“), was hired by Putin for his foreign propaganda. After the destruction of the maternity clinic in Mariupol‘ in April 2022, Vad felt he had to come to Putin’s defence: The destruction was „not Putin’s intention“; it was „collateral damage“;¹⁷ Vad’s business consultant’s assignments also seem to include image cultivation of the aggressor in the Moscow Kremlin.

Notwithstanding his misjudgments, Vad advocated a „face-saving“ solution to the armed conflict. He opposed the delivery of heavy weapons („the road to the Third World War“¹⁸); the “Leopard” main battle tank or the “Marder” infantry fighting vehicle could only be used usefully after „years of training“ anyway.¹⁹ 

In July (2022), Vad recommended “negotiations now”, otherwise the Russians would no longer have any reason to negotiate because of their foreseeable victory. Vad assessed the withdrawal of Russian troops from Kherson in November 2022 not as a defeat but as a „regroupment“²⁰.

In January 2023, Putin’s propagandist Erich Vad called in Alice Schwarzer’s „Emma“ arms deliveries without a political-strategic concept „pure militarism“. Vad seems to be not only Putin’s „useful idiot“ but a „general“ in Putin’s „troll army“.

Retired Brigadier General Klaus Wittmann – „shocking blindness for Moscow’s goals“.

Retired Brigadier General and historian Klaus Wittmann attests to the two peace movement women and their military policy advisor Erich Vad’s „shocking blindness to Moscow’s goals“.²¹  „Objectively, the signatories of this ‚manifesto‘ are pursuing the cause of the Russian dictator, whom they do not call upon at any point in their manifesto to cease his war of aggression against Ukraine and to withdraw his troops from the neighbouring country, but only demand that the West cease its arms deliveries, the ‚lifeline‘ of Ukraine.“ Aggressor and victim of attack are almost „equated“ in the manifesto. The character of this war – a „war of extermination“ –  is completely disregarded in the manifesto, Wittmann comments.

Does Selenskyj demand now – „after the promised tanks – fighter jets, long-range missiles and warships in order to defeat Russia all along the line?“ Schwarzer and Wagenknecht ask rhetorically. They call for „compromises on both sides“; part of Ukrainian territory should be „ceded“. The consequences for the inhabitants of Russian-occupied territories are well known: „murder, torture, rape, looting and destruction, deportation“ and child abduction. „No ‚compromise‘ is conceivable between annihilation and the will to survive,“ warns Klaus Wittmann. „…Ukraine must be further empowered to defend itself and to liberate stolen territories, i.e. to reconquer them. For this, it needs the combination of armoured combat vehicles, artillery (also long-range systems against supply lines and command centres), air defence,“  rightly concludes retired General Klaus Wittmann.

Ukrainian „attack on Crimea“ – Putin’s language

In the manifesto there is a treacherous formulation: „It is to be feared that Putin, at the latest in an attack on Crimea …“. This is Putin’s language. A possible attempt by the victim of the Russian invasion to reconquer part of its territory annexed by Russia is described in the manifesto as an „attack“ – pure Russian propaganda.

For the war goal of „reconquering Crimea“, however, Ukraine is indeed unlikely to find military support in the West; it will probably remain with the non-recognition of the annexation under international law, with a de facto further „frozen conflict“ on the territory of the former Soviet Union. In a private conversation (in camera) with four experts, the American Secretary of State Antony Blinken said, according to the American daily „Politico“, that they were convinced in the government to this day that Putin would regard an attempt by Ukraine to reconquer sacralised  Crimea as crossing a „red line“ and that there could possibly be a „serious escalation“. Blinken, when asked if the US would help Ukraine achieve its stated goal of liberating all occupied territories, including Crimea, is reported to have said that the US would not particularly encourage Ukraine to return Crimea, but that the decision was „entirely up to Kiev“.

If Ukraine were to attack Russian objects in Crimea, the part of Ukraine that would remain with the government in Kiev would „go up in flames“, the Deputy Head of the National Security and Defence Council of the Russian Federation, Dmitry Medvedev, threatened on 4 February 2023 in an interview,²² warningly quoting point 19 of the Russian Federation’s „Fundamentals of Nuclear Deterrence Policy“ (Osnovi gosudarstvennoj politiki v oblasti jadernogo sderživanija).

Nuclear escalation – „self-deterrence“?

The authors of the manifesto believe they know that Putin will launch a „maximum counter-attack“ (meaning the use of nuclear weapons) in the event of a Ukrainian „attack on Crimea“. Brigadier General Wittmann calls this argument „self-deterrence“. Putin knows very well that nuclear weapons are not suitable for waging war, but serve as a deterrent²³ – and for blackmail. Putin’s threat of nuclear weapons serves to agitate Western public opinion; it is meant to put pressure on governments to stop supplying weapons to Ukraine. As the „Uprising for Peace“ in Berlin on 25 February shows, Putin is having some success with this in Germany.

Certainly, Putin’s threat of nuclear weapons must be taken seriously – but this is because the current Russian regime is „leaving the paths of habitual rationality on which we could rely even in the Cold War with the old men in the Kremlin“, as the director of the Institute for International Law at the University of Bonn, Matthias Herdegen, said.²⁴

„Goal of the war“ –  insinuation in disguise

What is „actually the aim of this war“, ask Schwarzer and Wagenknecht. What a nonsensical question! What is the goal of the aggressor, it must be asked, and what is the goal of the defender and his supporters.

Ukraine’s goal is to expel the Russian invaders from its territory. And in order to „prevent hundreds of thousands more deaths and worse“ (Manifesto), it is not negotiations that are called for; for this goal, Ukraine must be empowered by delivering superior weapons as quickly as possible. The faster this is done, and the more effective the weapons delivered, the faster the war will end and the smaller the number of soldiers who will still die by then.

The criticised sentence of the German Foreign Minister Anna-Lena Baerbock, half quoted in the manifesto, with which she called for the cohesion of the Western allies in Strasbourg at the end of January 2023 – „we are fighting a war against Russia and not against each other“ – may be controversially formulated; it would have been clearer if she had said: Russia is waging a war against Europe – and the Ukrainians are fighting on their soil not only for the existence of their country, but also for Europe – then she would have described the situation incontestably. 

It is not about whether Ukraine can „win a war against the world’s biggest nuclear power“, as the manifestants claim; it is about winning the war against the Russian army on Ukrainian soil. „Averting harm from the German people“ – Schwarzer and Wagenknecht remind the chancellor of his oath of office – does not mean, under the given circumstances, as they demand, stopping the delivery of weapons to Ukraine, but on the contrary, providing the Ukrainians with modern weapons as soon as possible.

The „other cheek“ of Christian pacifist Margot Käßmann

„The task of Christians [is to …] call for peace, not for arms.“ The Protestant theologian Margot Käßmann (former Chairwoman of the Council of the Protestant Church in Germany and one of the first signatories of the „Manifesto for Peace“ by Sahra Wagenknecht and Alice Schwarzer) criticises arms deliveries to Ukraine²⁵ and justifies her stance with references to the „New Testament“. (For good reason, she does not refer to the „Old Testament“ – the first of the five classical disciplines of the study of theology – in which she would meet again a completely different, war-mongering and vengeful God.) But even peace preaching Jesus („but I say unto you, love your enemies … Mt 5:44) also says something that the theologian Käßmann omits: „I have not come to bring peace, but the sword“ (Mt 10:34).

Pacifism is a legitimate attitude in times of peace; but in view of the war unleashed by Russia in Europe, it is a public menace. The refusal to supply weapons to Ukraine, which is in the truest sense of the word fighting for its existence, is non-rendering of assistance of the most serious kind. Even Käßmann’s differentiating arguments do not change her guilt: „I know that I can become guilty if I plead against supplying weapons to people in Ukraine…“, or „I will not tell the Ukrainians what they must and must not do. But I think we as Germans have to consider what we do – according to the motto „every man for himself !“.

Evangelical Lutheran theologian Käßmann’s call for „negotiations“ (with Putin), for „stepping up diplomatic efforts“ – for “phantasy for peace“! – betrays an astonishing unworldliness.

The reference to the outcome of other wars („thinking war from the end“²⁶), such as the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, is also a misunderstanding: these wars involve opponents of a completely different kind; the only valid reference is the Second World War: if Adolf Hitler had not been defeated by force of arms, then the Slavic population of Eastern Europe – certainly the population of Ukraine, which suffered the longest under German occupation –  would have been enslaved. And it is precisely for this reason that Germany should „out of its history“ – not as Käßmann demands – „offer itself as a diplomatic mediator“, but enable Ukraine through arms deliveries to resist enslavement by Putin, Hitler’s „revenant“ in the Moscow Kremlin. Hitler had to suffer total military defeat on German soil; Putin must be defeated militarily today on Ukrainian soil; unfortunately, the nuclear potential in the hands of a paranoid tyrant in Moscow prohibits defeat on Russian soil.

Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (FDP, Liberal Democratic Party) described the participants of the (traditional) “Easter marches” as „Putin’s fifth column“. This they are probably not – but they are certainly Putin’s „useful idiots“. Those who march „for peace“ at Easter in view of Russia’s war of extermination against Ukraine are asking the Ukrainians to capitulate – and to be „led to the slaughter“ – to use a Christian image.

„Not accepting the monstrous!“

Ralf Fücks, Managing Director, and Marieluise Beck, Director East-Central Europe of the political think tank „Zentrum Liberale Moderne“ / „LibMed“²⁷ –  prominent supporters of Ukraine from the beginning – wrote an appeal entitled „Don’t accept the monstrous!“, which was supported by renowned scholars,²⁸ including Karl Schlögel, Timothy Snyder, Andreas Kappeler and Andreas Umland, as well as renowned politicians (including Bundestag members Katrin Goering-Eckart,), Anton Hofreiter, Roderich Kiesewetter, Norbert Röttgen, Thomas Roth, Marie-Agnes Strack Zimmermann and Rebecca Harms, a former Member of the European Parliament, the former ministers Gerhart Baum, Markus Meckel and Joschka Fischer, as well as three Nobel Prize winners (Svetlana Alexievich, Herta Müller and Wole Soyinka).

Together with the Ukrainian diaspora organisation „Vitsche“ (viče), they called for a rally at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin on 24 February, the anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

The tenor of the call by Fücks and Beck is fundamentally different from the manifesto by Schwarzer and Wagenknecht, which mentions Russian war crimes in Ukraine, but puts the accent on German fears of escalation – and expansion – of the war in Ukraine. „A war of extermination is taking place before our eyes, the likes of which Europe has not seen since World War 2,“ reads the appeal by Fücks and Beck. „Tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians have been killed so far, […] Whole cities lie in ruins, […] Russia is deliberately attacking the civilian energy supply – Ukraine is to sink into cold and darkness. Russian troops use rape as a weapon. Prisoners of war and civilians are tortured. Deported Ukrainian children are offered for adoption in Russia. About 14 million Ukrainians had to flee, half of them abroad. Taken together, these atrocities fulfil key criteria of the United Nations Genocide Convention.“

Completely irrelevant to Schwarzer and Wagenknecht seems Russia’s egregious breach of international law and its potential consequences. Fücks and Beck call the Russian invasion of Ukraine a „frontal attack on international law and the European peace order. If Putin gets away with it, all of Europe is heading for dark times.“

In contrast to Schwarzer and Wagenknecht, who want to see Western arms deliveries stopped, Fücks and Beck draw the right conclusion from Russia’s war of aggression: „Russian neo-imperialism must be stopped in Ukraine, otherwise the next war is only a matter of time. […] Ukraine now needs the (necessary) armament to stop the air attacks and free its territory from Russian occupation.“

To be sure, they conceded, German policy has moved a long way in recent months. „But measured against the tragedy Ukraine is experiencing, our support still comes too hesitantly. The delivery of Leopard tanks is an important step, more must follow,“ they demand. And they rightly state: „Our fear of Putin’s threat to escalate the war gives him a free hand to increase the violence against Ukraine more and more. We cannot stand by and watch a European country fighting for its freedom and independence being destroyed.“

And an important reason for supporting the Ukrainian army with modern weapons, which the two spokespersons of the “German Angst”, Schwarzer and Wagenknecht,  cannot or do not want to see, is emphasised expressis verbis by Fücks and Beck: The arms deliveries to the Ukrainian army are „not only a question of solidarity with Ukraine, but of our own security…“.

And there is something else that does not occur to the unrealistic signatories of the „Emma“ manifesto: „Last but not least, those politically responsible for the Russian war crimes must also be held criminally accountable“, demand Fücks and Beck.²⁹

„Every war is a humanitarian catastrophe. But in this case, the path to a just peace only leads through a failure of Russian aggression. The democratic world must throw its weight into the balance so that Ukraine can win this war.“

The SPD-pensioners‘ letter to the Chancellor – „Create peace! Ceasefire and common security now!“³⁰

On 1 April (2023) the daily „Berliner Zeitung“ published an appeal „Create peace! Ceasefire and common security now!“(Frieden schaffen! Waffenstillstand und gemeinsame Sicherheit jetzt!”) –  initiated by historian Peter Brandt (a son of former chancellor Willy Brandt, SPD),the former chairman of the German Trade Union Confederation (Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund / DGB) Reiner Hoffmann and former member of the Bundestag Michael Müller, SPD, the federal chairman of the SPD-related „Nature Friends“ (“Naturfreunde”). Other signatories are former officials of the Social Democratic Party of Germany / SPD and the German Trade Union Confederation / DGB – as well as the former co-chairman of the SPD Norbert Walter Borjans, the former federal executive director of the SPD, Klaus Uwe Benneter, the former ministers Hertha Deubler-Gmelin and Hans Eichel, both SPD, and (unfortunately) also the former Federal President Wolfgang Thierse (SPD), who as an East German dissident should know better. Four former chairpersons of “IG-Metall” (trade union of metal workers) have also signed the letter.

Among the signatories is not a single current member of the German Bundestag; however, the current chair of the SPD parliamentary group in the German Parliament, Rolf Mützenich, supports the letter of the SPD retirees to Chancellor Scholz (SPD): „The call comes at the right time. We must […] not (put) diplomacy aside“, he said in an interview with the „Frankfurter Rundschau“.³¹

In the letter, they SPD-pensioners call on the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, to convince together with France the countries China, India, Brazil and Indonesia to mediate a quick ceasefire in Ukraine –  as a „necessary step to stop the killing and explore peace possibilities“. „With each passing day, the danger of the expansion of hostilities grows. […] The shadow of nuclear war lies over Europe“.

The SPD retirees express most people’s longing for peace (who longs for war?); but „longing“ is escape from reality. The paranoid ruler in the Moscow Kremlin wants war; he started it and will continue it as long as he can. And calls like this are not harmless: they weaken Western unity in the defensive fight against the belligerent Putin, thus benefiting him and prolonging his war against Ukraine and against Europe. With their appeal to the chancellor, the retired members of the Social Democratic Party of Germany / SPD have joined Putin’s army of „useful idiots“.

The willingness of German public figures to „negotiate with the devil himself“³² is a non-starter. Putin does not want to and will not negotiate. His political – and probably also his personal –  fate depends on the outcome of his war in Ukraine.

The signatories are not „Putin-understanders“ (as Alice Schwarzer) in the ironic sense of the word “understand”³³; they simply do not understand (in the actual sense of the word) who they are dealing with in the Moscow Kremlin. But the devil does not have to be negotiated with, the devil has to be cast out, i.e. prosaically speaking; the Russian army has to suffer a defeat in Ukraine, in order to defuse the aggressive megalomania in the Kremlin – and among the Russian population.

While not ignoring the Russian president’s responsibility for the war of aggression against Ukraine, they cling to the now impressively disproven SPD formula that peace can only be made „with Russia“ (not against Russia). „Instead of the dominance of the military, we need the language of diplomacy and peace.“ There is no appeal to Putin to withdraw his troops from Ukraine in the SPD / DGB letter to the chancellor. The signatories invoke the late Willy Brandt, to whose time they remain attached: „The policy of peace and détente to which we owe German unity and the overcoming of European division is not outdated. We have worked for its goals in the past and continue to do so today.“ The Social Democratic Party’s old guard has not noticed the „turn of the times“ (”Zeitenwende”) proclaimed by the SPD chancellor – an indication of old-age cognitive immobility, i. e. senility?

1. See Winfried Schneider-Deters: Ukraine’s  Fateful Years 2013 – 2019, Stuttgart (IBIDEM) 2022, Vol. II, Part II, p. 161 – 380.
2. Egon Bahr, Foreword to: Winfried Schneider-Deters, Peter Schulze, Heinz Timmermann (co-editors and co-authors): Die Europäische Union, Russland und Eurasien: die Rückkehr der Geopolitik, (The European Union, Russia and Eurasia: the Return of Geopolitics), Berlin (Berliner Wissenschaftsverlag) 2008.
3. Alice Schwarzer: „Warum ich trotz allem Putin verstehe!“ („Why I understand Putin despite everything!“), 18 März 2014; https://www.aliceschwarzer.de/artikel/warum-ich-trotz-allem-putin-verstehe-316675.
4. Uta Gerlant: „Wir haben den Krieg nicht gewollt“ (We did not want the war), 24 August 2022; https://vrds.de/wir-haben-den-krieg-nicht-gewollt/.  VRdS, Verband der Redenschreiber deutscher Sprache ( Association of German Language Speechwriters).
5. Otto Luchterhand: Völkermord in Mariupol. Russlands Kriegsführung in der Ukraine (Genocide in Mariupol. Russia’s warfare in Ukraine), in: OSTEUROPA, 72. Jg., 1-3 /2022, S. 65-85.  Christian Tomuschat: Russlands Überfall auf die Ukraine. Der Krieg und die Grundfragen des Rechts (Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The war and the fundamental questions of law ), in: OSTEUROPA, 72. Jg., 1-3 / 2022, pp. 33-50.
6. Mankurt“, a term from Chingiz Aitmatov’s novel: A Day Longer than Life („I dol’še veka dlitsja den'“). „Mankurtisation“ is (in the novel) a cruel practice of nomads of the Central Asian steppes, which completely erases the victim’s (Mankurt) consciousness of his identity and turns him into a will-less slave.
7. Jürgen Habermas: Krieg und Empörung, Gastbeitrag  (War and Outrage), in:  „Süddeutschen Zeitung“, 28 April 2022; https://www.sueddeutsche.de/projekte/artikel/kultur/das-dilemma-des-westens-juergen-habermas-zum-krieg-in-der-ukraine-e068321/>.
8. Walter Becker Slócombe was US Secretary of State in the Department of Defence in the Clinton administration, and Deputy Secretary of Defence under President George W. Bush.
9. Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies at the Swedish Institute for International Affairs (Utrikespolitiska Institutet); Andreas Umland is also Associate Professor of Political Science at the National University „Kyiv-Mohyla Academy“.
10. „96 Osteuropa-Experten weltweit fordern in offenem Brief: Schwere Waffen jetzt!“ (96 Eastern Europe experts worldwide demand in an open letter: Heavy weapons now!) Replica to the call „Ceasefire now!“ („Waffenstillstand jetzt!“), in: FOCUS online, Tuesday, 19 July 2022. https://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/ukraine-krise/96-osteuropa-experten-weltweit-fordern-schwere-waffen-jetzt_id_119428660.html. Jan Emendörfer: „Naiver Pazifismus“: Osteuropaexperten kritisieren deutsche Intellektuelle für Waffenstillstandsaufruf. Replik auf Appell in der „Zeit“  („Naive pacifism“: Eastern Europe experts criticise German intellectuals for ceasefire appeal), in: RND, RedaktionsNetzwerk Deutschland, 19 July 2022; https://www.rnd.de/politik/osteuropa-experten-fordern-schwere-waffen-jetzt-fuer-die-ukraine-RSDUPTEGGBHAZH2JHNJTQCCR7Y.html.
11. Henrik M. Broder: „Der deutsche Pazifismus ist eine Gefahr für die Ukraine – und für Deutschland!“ („German pacifism is a danger for Ukraine – and for Germany!“), in: „WELT Nachrichtensender“, on Youtube; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwASI3TbJzg.
12. This recommendation was repeated by Prof. Dr Nicole Deitelhoff, Executive Board Member of the Leibniz Institute Hessian Foundation for Peace and Conflict Research, in the ARD („Das Erste“ TV) talk show „Phönix Runde“ (Phoenix Round) on 2 February 2023.
13. Alice Schwarzer: „Warum ich trotz allem Putin verstehe!“ (“Why I understand Putin despite everything”), 18 March 2014; https://www.aliceschwarzer.de/artikel/warum-ich-trotz-allem-putin-verstehe-316675.
14. Reinhard Veser: Ein Friedensmanifest als Propaganda-Hilfe für Putin (A peace manifesto as propaganda aid for Putin), in: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 14.02.2023; https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/sahra-wagenknecht-und-alice-schwarzer-friedensmanifest-hilft-putin-18675923.html.
15. Herfried Münkler: Schwarzer und Wagenknecht „betreiben Putins Geschäft mit kenntnislosem Dahergerede“. Interview mit dem „Redaktionsnetzwerk Deutschland“ / rnd (Schwarzer and Wagenknecht „run Putin’s business with ignorant talk“. Interview with the „Redaktionsnetzwerk Deutschland / rnd, 14 February 2023; https://www.rnd.de/politik/politologe-herfried-muenkler-ueber-manifest-von-schwarzer-und-wagenknecht-kenntnisloses-dahergerede-GL2JZA2QOREILLOIRNNGBQ4JII.html.
16. „Es geht nur um ein paar Tage“ („It’s only a matter of a few days“); www.zdf.de, 24 February 2022).
17. „Putinversteher forever“ – Melnyk erzürnt über Ex-Merkel-Berater (Melnyk enraged about ex-Merkel adviser), in: „Die Welt“,  12  April 2022.
18. Ex-Merkel-Berater warnt: Schwere Waffen „Weg in den Dritten Weltkrieg“ (Ex-Merkel advisor warns: Heavy weapons „path to the Third World War“), in: ZDF.de. 12 April 2022. ZDF: Germany’s  2nd national public television broadcaster.
19. Vad’s ex-colleague, ex-general Wittmann contradicted him: „In one week I learned to drive a Leopard, to shoot with it and to hit“. In: WELT.de. 23 June 2022. Retired Brigadier General Dr Klaus Wittmann teaches contemporary history at the University of Potsdam.
20. Franziska Schwarz: Merkels Ex-Berater warnt vor Eskalation: Cherson „keine Niederlage“ für Putin – „Wir müssen aufpassen“ ( Merkel’s ex-advisor warns of escalation: Kherson „not a defeat“ for Putin –  „We must be careful“). in: Merkur.de. 10 November 2022.
21. Klaus Wittmann: Die erschütternde Blindheit für Moskaus Ziele – Was soll man da verhandeln? (The staggering blindness to Moscow’s goals – what is there to negotiate?), in: Welt.de, 12 February 2023; https://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/plus243728247/Friedensmanifest-Die-erschuetternde-Blindheit-fuer-Moskaus-Ziele.html.  Brigadier General (ret.) Dr Klaus Wittmann teaches contemporary history at the University of Potsdam.
22. Roman Petrenko: “Zapylaet vsja Ukraina”. Medvedev ugrožaet jadernym oružiem za udary po Krymu“. In „RBK-Ukraïna“, 04.02.2023; https://www.rbc.ua/ukr/news/medvedev-pogrozhue-yaderkoyu-udari-okupantah-1675518338.html.
23. In June 2021, three quarters of a year before the Russian conventional tank invasion, President Biden and President Putin reactivated the „Reagan-Gorbachev formula“ in Geneva, according to which a nuclear war „cannot be won and must not be waged“, which was unanimously reaffirmed by the UN Security Council.
24. „Militärischer Beistand auch ohne UN-Resolution möglich“ (Military assistance possible even without UN resolution), (written) Interview by Dr. Franziska Kring and Hasso Suliak, Legal Tribune Online / LTO, with Matthias Herdegen, 01 March 2022, Legal Tribune Online / LTO; https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/russland-ukraine-krieg-intervention-gewaltverbot-selbstverteidigung-un-charta/.
25. „Jesus war kein Revolutionär mit der Waffe in der Hand“ („Jesus was not a revolutionary with a gun in his hand“); Hilde Regeniter: Käßmann defends pacifism in the Ukraine war,; Hilde Regeniter: Käßmann verteidigt Pazifismus im Ukraine-Krieg, Interview with Margot Käßmann, in: DOMRADIO, 06 July 2022; https://www.domradio.de/artikel/kaessmann-verteidigt-pazifismus-im-ukraine-krieg.
26. Margot Käßmann distanziert sich von rechter Unterwanderung des „Manifests“ (Margot Käßmann distances herself from right-wing infiltration of the „Manifesto“), Interview with Mischa Kreiskott, in: NDR Radio and TV, 23 february 2023; https://www.ndr.de/kultur/Margot-Kaessmann-distanziert-sich-von-rechter-Unterwanderung-des-Manifests,kaessmann572.html.
27. Marieluise Beck was a member of the Bundestag, Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen (political party), until 2017 and spokesperson for her parliamentary group on Eastern Europe.
28. https://literaturfestival.com/aufruf-das-ungeheuerliche-nicht-hinnehmen/. https://twitter.com/fuecks/status/1622645792287621127.
29. https://literaturfestival.com/aufruf-das-ungeheuerliche-nicht-hinnehmen/. https://twitter.com/fuecks/status/1622645792287621127.
30. Full Wording: „Frieden schaffen!“ („Create Peace!“), in: Frankfurter Rundschau, 31 March 2023; https://www.fr.de/politik/frieden-schaffen-92185182.html.
31. Pitt von Bebenburg: Scharfe Reaktionen auf Friedensaufruf von Brandt, Hoffmann und Müller (Sharp reactions to the call for peace by Brandt, Hoffmann and Müller), in: Frankfurter Rundschau, 02.04.2023; https://www.fr.de/politik/scharfe-reaktionen-auf-friedensaufruf-92187776.html.
32. Der Umwelt- und Friedensaktivist, bekannte Journalist und bekennende Christ Franz Alt in der ARD TV-Diskussion „Hart aber Fair“ (the environmental and peace activist, well-known journalist and self-confessed Christian Franz Alt in the ARD TV discussion „Hart aber Fair“ on April 3 (2023). Natascha Koch: „Wenn es um Frieden geht, würde ich auch mit dem Teufel verhandeln“ („if it’s about peace, I would also negotiate with the devil“), Franz Alt rumbles, in: WELT (online), April 4th, 2023; https://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article244645252/Hart-aber-Fair-Wenn-es-um-Frieden-geht-wuerde-ich-auch-mit-dem-Teufel-verhandeln.html.
33. The German verb “verstehen” means “understand“ in English; „Versteher“ – „understander“ – is an ironic nominalisation of the verb „verstehen“.  Applied to those persons, who relativise Putin’s  war of aggression against Ukraine, it is meant in the sense of “approving” Putin.