Transcript below. Machine-translated, not checked by author. 

Daniel Davis: …a part of the European Union and on the Committee of Security and Defense. He is a non-attached member of the European Parliament, has been on there for two years. And 34 years a diplomat. Michael, welcome to the show.

Michael von der Schulenburg: Yeah, of course. I’ve worked in war countries almost all the time and I lived in these countries now. So it’s not that I went only on missions. So I actually lived in these countries. I mean 30 years I permanently lived in these countries one country after the other.

Daniel Davis: Yeah. But one of the big problems is that not only do you not live in these places, many times we don’t hardly know anything about them. So your 34 years of living in these places, not just in the UN, but actually doing the work of diplomacy on the ground talking to people. I wonder if you could tell us just a little bit about some of the things that you’ve actually done during that time.

Michael von der Schulenburg: Many things. I mean in Iran I was when I was very young I was part of when the accepted the ceasefire in the Iran-Iraq war. It was actually happening in my house, and the first discussion and we were almost all killed because of course there you know peacemaking is a very dangerous thing because you have always people who are very much opposed it. They think they they can still win wars and or we give away uh certain compromises they don’t want to have and and there was a was a great opposition to it and when we were in the house we suddenly felt that the whole city was – not the whole city – but the whole quarter of Tehran, a huge city you know was blackened out and there were military vehicles for to not allow people to come inside and blah blah blah and you know there was of course an opposition and I mean one rocket would have been enough to to finish us all off. But we were saved by by Ayatollah Khomeinei.

Daniel Davis: That’s interesting. Wow.

Michael von der Schulenburg: Yeah. I mean, maybe he didn’t want to save us particularly, but you know, because there was this tension in the country – accept or not accept a ceasefire – that he went on television and radio and says, you know, I have to drink poison, but it’s a bad thing. But, you know, he supported Raf Sanjani. Then also we were also off the hook and um so so you know because he had the authority also about the revolutionary guards and these people like this but I can understand that these people are against the sometimes against the peace. I mean they see all their friends have been dying and suddenly you make a peace where they don’t gain anything and just just because you want to have a ceasefire, it’s a very emotionally very very difficult thing. You know people to meet people in war also those who are totally against you you know that’s uh you have to try to understand them too.

Daniel Davis: Yeah, indeed. And in fact, understanding people is at the heart of trying to find a way to end the bloodshed before it happens. And I want to focus on uh on something that you have a lot of experience with and that is with the European side being a member of parliament. Uh we oftentimes show sound bites of Ursula von der Leyen of Kaja Kallas and a few others and unfortunately we remark about how they seem very detached from reality and not paying attention at all. Given the fact that at least as we see it that there is no military solution for Ukraine ever under any circumstances, the only thing that solution that can be met is that they could lose the war. They can never ever roll Russia back.

There’s a bunch of reasons for that. Given that what we’re going to call the reality, why is it so hard for the European side to acknowledge that and instead continue to try to pretend otherwise?

Michael von der Schulenburg: Well, first of all, I’m not so sure that there is not a military solution to the whole thing. And you know, uh, we have to be realistic. I mean, not that I want it, but we have to be realistic. There might be a military solution. Of course, the military solution is not a peace. You know that there’s a difference.

You can win a war, but you don’t win the peace. And we will talk about this maybe later but let me first say about the European Union or let’s say the NATO European NATO states you know not all Europe is of course, Russia is Europe and so on you know  we are in an exceptionally difficult position when we compare us with the United States for instance or with China or with Russia then we are the place which is surrounded by most of the ongoing wars in this world. Most. Yeah. And two of them have even the potential to to turn nuclear. Ukraine and Iran.

But you have all the other Israeli wars in the West Bank in you know Gaza, Lebanon also Syria. You have Houthis now you have Sudan. I mean there’s also wars which happen which are the typical wars we had also before or we have all the conflicts in the Sahel zone with Mali and things like this one and of course the biggest war for us is of course the one in Ukraine. What you would assume that a continent like others or a political unit like the European Union would have a very strong foreign and security policy in order to react to this all but we don’t have any. This is strange. We don’t have, I mean I’m two years in the parliament and I hear in two days I will hear again Mrs. von der Leyen’s state of the nation or whatever she does.

I mean we don’t have any policy at all. We don’t have any influence on what happens in Israel. We have no influence in the Middle East, in the Gulf States. We don’t have any, we don’t speak to the Iranians. We have we’ve been just being kicked out of the Sil zone. Um I mean it and and of course on on Ukraine we don’t sit even on the negotiating table with the Americans.

I mean this it’s a war on the European continent. I mean when I go back and sometimes go in this parliament, I think how can a sophisticated group of states like Europe with so many wars, with so many experiences on on how to solve wars on diplomacy suddenly completely completely fail. That’s a complete failure. We don’t know what to do. We have this talk from Mrs. Kallas that she wants to beat Russia, but this is not a strategy and and you know and we we hide increasingly into not accepting realities anymore, right?

Daniel Davis: But so so I mean how do we how do we even get to that point? Because I mean just remember it’s as relatively recent back as the Minsk agreements you had Holland you had Merkel I mean they’re talking, even Volodymyr Zelensky was talking with Putin back then, and Macron right up until this war started but then once that war started then all of a sudden all talking ceased which is when ordinarily logically that’s when the talking should really kick into high gear to get it solved but it didn’t. Why the break completely across the board?

Michael von der Schulenburg: I would want to see it slightly different. You know, the war in Ukraine was mainly uh done by the United States and by Great Britain. Great Britain of course as a small small poodle next to it. The United States wanted to have this war and they wanted to have this you know this access to to put Russia as a small state to take off Russia’s access to the Black Sea and so on. I mean this whole thing of Ukraine being the key for whether Russia is a superpower or a small state. We had it in the first world war.

We lost it. We had it in the second world war where the Germans tried always to take Ukraine and we have it now again and we lose it again. It is really very strange. But what for me is the strangest is the elite was the Americans and we won behind them. I mean the European Union had basically no influence. But when Trump came to power and he wanted to make peace and he wanted to shift the responsibility for Ukraine to the Europeans, I would assume we would take the lead of the Americans because now we are in charge of this European war and the natural instinct should be that we should end this war.

We should solve this war. But it hasn’t happened. The Europeans became much more  hardline than the United States. I mean look at their conditions to talk to the Russians. Basically the European Union asked Russia to capitulate before they want to talk to them and that will not happen because the Russians are doing very well on the battlefield but we continue doing this. We say ah you have to withdraw from all the territories.

Uh you have to accept reparation payments. You have to accept that there will be a special court judging your responsible people. Or and that the country should become member of the NATO. I mean that’s why but Russia went on a war the first time. So we insist on things which we can’t insist anymore but we do it nonetheless. And that puts us in a way we are going to be the losers in this war and um and that’s what’s so difficult for us now to start negotiations because I mean we have to be very frank.

I mean I’ve seen many wars. This war is not only lost for Ukraine. The big big danger is that the Ukrainian army might collapse and this is also, the state will collapse and I’ve seen so many state collapses and you basically become ungoverned afterwards and this would be, we should prevent this and as we cannot prevent this militarily the only other way to do this, and I’m speaking now as a UN person, is of course to negotiate. We have to talk to the Russians, but refuse to do that.

Daniel Davis: And let me ask you a question based on your experience because you’ve seen state collapses before. What makes you concerned that Ukraine is now at risk of that when maybe they hadn’t been in the past four years? Because a lot of people thought they might over these years and then they didn’t. Now then the belief is many in the west. They just never will. They can go on indefinitely like this.

But you seem to have concerns. Why?

Michael von der Schulenburg: Yeah. What you see inside the country now the security services shoot each other, how they recruit people on the streets, but there is something even if you use only data from the Ukrainians because I’m sympathetic to the Ukrainians I’m just thinking that they are misused by us now I mean Ukraine’s population according to their minister of social affairs has dropped from 52 millions in 91 in 1991 at the time of independence to 22 million. I mean you have to think about it. I mean it would mean that if Germany has a conflict we have to admit that we are not anymore 80 million but only 35 million. I mean and we say that country can win. Now that what the social minister says that half of the population, which he probably means much more than half of population, are old people on pension or war veterans.

And the third thing he said in his speech, it was only I think May. He said that he expects the moment the war stops and men are released from military services, they would not stay in the country but go abroad to where the women are because they have no chance for jobs or livelihood in their own country. That means we might end up a huge country withmaybe 15 million people and that’s all all people those people can’t go. I mean when you tell me this country is winning. No, this country is collapsing and I say this with my heart because I know what it means for people. I mean there are people living there and and people coming from there and that’s that’s our doing because we push this country.

The country would have gone long time out and had negotiated if it was not for us to push them. Always you have to continue the war and then of course we find an elite who goes with it. Uh and and I’m going and basically what we are doing we want to win the war. What we in reality are doing, we destroy Ukraine. I mean look at these um drone attacks. No the the drones going into the land of of Russia.

Of course it hurts Russia but you know in a war in the end it is always the relationship between the two countries who has more who you know and Russia suffers from it but I mean the retaliation from Russia, the retaliation is that they many times more bomb now, I mean now they have bombed all the ports, seaports are for a lifeline for Ukraine because 70% of all their trade goes, probably 70% of all their arms comes from there too. And 90% of the agriculture products go through these four ports. No, the four ports in the Black Sea. They are unusable now. So the country has become a landlocked country.

Daniel Davis: Now let the Russians also uh block the train routes because they can.

Michael von der Schulenburg: No, they don’t do it because there are still these diplomats going forward and back. But they could take it off. I mean if they if you can’t take by road anymore. I mean this is an awful situation and you know our press doesn’t say anything about the things. So you have now so many things being destroyed all your energy infrastructure of course in Russia too but I mean it’s nothing compared what what’s happening in Ukraine and in the end this relationship will decide the war, and you know no this cannot, and then you know the minister of defense the last one you know when he in January took over he gave also a speech there in parliament I’m talking about the Ukrainian minister of defense and he speaks about 200,000 deserters. 200,000 deserters.

Daniel Davis: That’s three army cores. I mean, it’s not a small issue.

Michael von der Schulenburg: Yeah. It’s a part of the army. And then you have a because I’ve also contact with people in the Rada there. Then in the Rada they spoke, others said no that’s already 300,000. I mean we talk about huge numbers of people who go and Daniel if if you have such large numbers of deserters I say it from experience from other countries you can only have it if the government has lost control over its own country because these people have to go somewhere, and they must be must be relatively sure that they are not being picked up and killed. So they go in their countries, they’re having jobs there and they try to have a normal life somehow again. So it means the the central government we see always in Kiev has very little influence. You know the other number the minister of defense said is that 2 million you know there’s a draft of course that 2 million uh drafties have not responded. 2 million. I mean, how can you conduct a war like this? And um so the war is there because we pump a lot of money into it and you know there’s NATO behind it. But now they are running out of money and we don’t even know if the European Union has paid the 90 billion they promised.

I have no idea in the parliament. I can’t ,I just can’t find out. I can’t find out. I mean maybe saying something when you can’t even find out. Now maybe I’m too silly but I mean I can’t I mean you know then they say oh they we gave only 30 million and now Zelensky wants another 60 billion which would be the rest and nobody wants to give it. Now the the European says you know what did you do with the last money and you know the New York Times even reported about this I mean we have starting all to pull back with money I mean they can’t even pay their soldiers. I mean how do you want to win the war okay so the problems you have in Russia they will have problems. They will also let many people killed.

And then of course you know you have no air defenses anymore. Virtually none. You know Russia can bomb what they want. I mean not that I want it but it’s what happening. 

Daniel Davis: Okay. So, see all of that together, whether it’s the financial issues, whether it’s the troop numbers, whether it’s the air defense, the Russia’s air offense, all those things make it crystal clear that there is no military solution for the Ukraine side. If there’s a military solution, it’s on the Russian side to win the war. More on that in a second. That would lead a rational thinking person, even one that hated Russia with all of their spirit, to realize, okay, the only hope we’ve got here is to have a negotiated settlement on the best terms we can get. That’s logical.

But yet still no one is talking like that. Why not in Europe?

Michael von der Schulenburg: I don’t understand it. You know, I, I really don’t understand it. It is so bad for Ukraine. You know, we still say we help Ukraine by giving them additional weapons and some money and things like this one. Do we really help them or do we help ourselves by asking the Ukrainians to do the war for us because we don’t want to lose the war against Russia? Because in the end, you know, we always assume the leadership in Europe, especially the German leadership, I must say German leadership is in this one plays a very bad role in this whole thing.

They had hoped that with this war we would go shoulder-to-shoulder and the European Union would emerge as the United States of Europe. Maybe not that far but we would come all together and think like this one. So we would be the third power power with China and United States. We would be the third ones. Then you look now nobody mentions us anymore as a superpower. who they mention now is Russia as a third one.

Russia. This war has turned Russia into the third world power very clearly. Whether it’s not that I want it, you know, people always misunderstand it. They say you’re pro-Russia. No, no, it is an analysis I’m making. It’s an analysis and I tell you my estimate.

I’m even further and I’m pro- European. I’m a conservative person. I, you know, four children, I have five grandchildren and all the rest of it. I want this to prosper. But I tell you the European Union will not survive this this war as it is now. They will not survive.

Russia will survive it. And this is what these people don’t want to accept. And because if Germany in our country would now start to negotiate Russia, we would now negotiate as losers. We have to accept that we are the losers.

Daniel Davis: Yeah. Of course you should still negotiate,but we are the losers. I mean there’s no way around it anymore. And how how can you get there? I mean, because it it’s self-evident that you would have to be negotiating from the losing position. You could put whatever words you want on it, but that’s the only way.

But the alternative by continuing to not talk or negotiate is to lose as you suggested there. What would losing look like? What would it look like in the European Union if they continue on the current path of no talking and pretending there’s a military path?

Michael von der Schulenburg: First of all, we would have a failed state called Ukraine. The rest of Ukraine would become a failed state. This is something we really…those people who want to help, I think I want to help Ukraine because I said this is something we have to prevent. I mean that’s what I’ve done in the UN all the time. We have to prevent that the state the disillusionment of states that you know when you see I’ve seen this of course because I’ve been outside, you know for people to lose state authority is a terrible thing. Terrible, you know, go to Somalia and in Libya.

I mean, it’s a terrible thing for people. So, we have to preserve something. And even when I go to Russia and I say, you know, you have to end that this becomes a failed state, but we do it because we push for NATO membership in the European Union, not the Americans, but we do. And you know, I was very involved in the Istanbul peace talks at the time. They asked me to be an adviser there.

I’m not that I was so important but you know though I know a lot about these things.

Daniel Davis: Interesting.

Michael von der Schulenburg: Yeah. And yeah because of my knowledge in other wars and things like this one. I mean what happened there that the Russians accepted a proposal from the Ukrainians. These 10 points were tabled by the Ukrainian diplomacy and I think it was a high point of any diplomacy we had known since the second world war. No, I’m not kidding because in the UN we have all the peace agreements that two countries which went to war within a month could agree on the basic terms for a peace agreement not only in a ceasefire but for a peace agreement in one month that has never happened before and we killed it.

We killed it. The west killed it. We wanted to continue the war. We had a NATO had a special session in four days before 24th of February March in Brussels where even Biden came and where the formula come we would not support any negotiation with Russia. We want to see Russia withdraw and you know be defeated and so this this went to nowhere. AndI think we have also to to when we sort of talk negatively about Zelensky at the time that’s what he wanted to have, he even defended it in there as a press conference he had also with Russian journalists where he defended this thing the deal you know which was basically the basic idea of the whole thing was you know territory integrity you can keep all your territory. But you have to remain neutral. And I tell you this is going to come out of this one too.

Now after 5 years of war maybe or whatever after a million people dead. You know this is our responsibility. Our responsibility. And you know if I say in the parliament only that we have to help Ukraine with negotiation because they are losing. I mean I’m being treated as a traitor. As a traitor.

And you know I’m somebody who knows quite a lot about wars. I mean, it’s just what it is. It’s an awful place. And I tell you, Daniel, I can’t believe it. But I think these politicians really believe that they’re still winning the war.

Daniel Davis: Wow. And I was going to ask you ask you that question. Among all the members of parliament in the European Parliament, how many of them see things the way you do, rationally?

Michael von der Schulenburg: Very few.

Daniel Davis: That’s disturbing.

Michael von der Schulenburg: But you know, you know, there is an interesting thing. It’s so pro war this whole thing that in for instance in 2024 there was a resolution adopted by a majority in parliament which says that we have to help Ukraine to win and afterwards we have to break up Russia. I mean can you imagine that’s a European Parliament like a law, I mean it’s a resolution they call it resolutions this is what we do in this parliament. I mean what we have said there basically we have invited the Russians for a nuclear war. I mean, what nuclear state would give up would and be dismantled if they have 6,000 nuclear bombs in the background. You know, it is so unrealistic what we’re doing in the European Union. And this is what I wanted to say in the beginning. You know, I’ve always worked abroad and I come back here to Europe and you know, you know, the biggest war I’ve ever been was Iran-Iraq war.

But the language here in the parliament and the inability to discuss it is much worse what I have experienced in Iran. In Iran, one could always talk to people. I mean you wouldn’t do it in a press or something like this one, but here you can’t. People would turn around in the elevator and not say hello to you. You know, it’s just, I don’t understand and all I want is that we find a solution there which was everybody can live with. That’s what the UN does.

I’m doing basically what what I’ve always done in the UN but here it’s treason and New York you know it’s…you know just small things but I want not to go into detail you know the thing is all states who are at war don’t want to talk to each other. That’s a normal thing, they they don’t want to talk to each other even during the negotiations they would often sit in separate rooms and you have to go forward and backward the usual thing the UN does in this thing. UN it means all of us because UN means all the states and I mean because this goes to the Security Council not the secretary general you know when I work outside I get a mandate not from the secretary general but I got assistant secretary I got it from the Security Council, that’s a very important thing people often don’t know and you know the thing is that you negotiate a mediator so these people don’t talk to each other but there’s somebody in that talks the talk for you. We don’t have a mediator in this whole thing. The United States is not a mediator. The United States is party of the war. I mean they conduct the war and so we don’t have a mediator and there’s other ways of coming over and that’s what I suggested recently to the Russians and we try to do something is of course what we call the grey beard approach. I mean now we can’t say grey beard anymore because women will sort of kill us before we do anything [laughter]. We call it the older people.

Use old people who are not anymore in government to talk to each other on both sides. You know, it’s a it’s a lot used and I think we can do it here too.

Daniel Davis: We have and you know it it just seems even more perverse to me that the hated Russian side still is willing to even now to engage in diplomacy.

Michael von der Schulenburg: So I you know I have I go on my own to Russia. I don’t go on invitations because I have to keep the European interest. No and our interest is of course to have peace with Russia.  I mean we must have. How can we continue a war on the European continent. It doesn’t make sense. And we have to find a solution for Ukraine of course.

And no when we went there I went with two others and you know we were immediately received very high up. I mean very high up and they accepted it immediately my proposal and they know me of course because I was eight years reporting to the UN Security Council, you know they keep they have a very professional foreign service. I mean I mean I think the United States would dream of it would dream of it [laughter] they keep track on people. In the end it’s people and so they knew, and something also because of my name you know we had people who were killed by Hitler and you know this for them it’s of course you know Schulenburg is a name for them. No. And I went with my is a is a this a relative of von Bismarck you know this type of thing, and you know we immediately the problem we have in Germany the problem we have in Germany but we have to do this we have to have the courage to break the silence you have to talk. What I said in the beginning to end wars there’s only one thing to do you have to get people to talk, you have to get people talk. That’s all the UN does. It’s a talk shop.

You know, that’s what they say. But I mean, it’s maybe some for good reasons. You know, that’s what we have to do. And we have somehow to break it. I mean, it’s not possible that we this demonization, this uh the stories that Russia wants to occupy all of Europe or whatever. I mean, it’s so hilarious that is the only way is that we have to find a way to talk.

And so we work on this one. We have a little experience on this and and that’s all I can do because you know of course the shows are here and we see a lot of analysis about what the war does, what it’s like this one, but you know Daniel in the end it’swhether these two people sit across the table. You know there’s nothing else, no analysis anymore sits across the table. What do you want? Where can we make a compromise? And that’s what we have to do.

There is no other solution even among nuclear powers. Think about the Cuba crisis when when Pope John the 12th arranged that Kruschev talks to to Kennedy, you know, they started to talk and they over-rode their own military interests and they found a peace agreement which would be implemented and worked also. So it’s words in the end. It’s words and it’s words and certain principles of course you have from the UN charter. Are you still there?

Daniel Davis: Yes. Pardon me. Yes. I guess again I pushed the wrong button. So did you hear me?

Michael von der Schulenburg: I did. Yes. No, I heard everything.

Daniel Davis: Sorry, I just had the wrong button for my microphone. Uh here’s the question though. You’re talking logic. You’re talking rational. This is what should happen. This is historically what has happened.

Even in intractable wars with enemies that hate each other, they still in history periodically can work their way out with deployment. We must of course, they always you say well you say we must but we aren’t. And so what has to happen for all these people you’re talking about where you’re an outlier even in your own parliament. What is going to have to happen before them to finally start doing what must be done?

Michael von der Schulenburg: You know, I wanted to write my next article actually about how difficult is for the NATO Europeans or the EU to talk to Russia. It’s very difficult, you know, when you go outside, you know, on missions and I brief the Europeans. I have very often 20 plus ambassadors sitting there, you know, 21 plus. There’s a European ambassador who shares a meeting. Usually he’s the least informed and there’s all the others. You know, when I go to the United States, I deal with one ambassador.

When I go to the Chinese, I deal with one ambassador. If I go to the Russians, I have one ambassador. The European Union, as we are structured, is unable to formulate negotiation positions. We are even unable among the 27 to nominate anybody who could negotiate on our behalf. We couldn’t find anybody. There is nobody.

And even if you take the E3 only, if they take the lead, you know, Great Britain, Germany and France, I don’t think it will work because the interest of these three countries are so diverse when it comes to peace. UK will always have a view on the transatlantic. The UK was always in the wars before be against anything which is links the rest of Europe, continental Europe to Asia over Russia. This is for them a danger because they are not part of this one. They want us to be on the other side. So they would not agree, Germany and London.

On the other side, although Germany has now a very harsh position, the biggest beneficiary of such a talk is of course Germany or would be Germany. It’s would be Germany. You know our economy was driven by this relationship with Russia. Cheap energy resources, investments over there, you know access to central Asia to India over the Russian territory or whatever you have even to China. We didn’t have to go all the way around over the Atlantic. You know Germany would be a beneficiary.

So the British and the Germans they will never say that officially but they would not agree. Now there is a French the French being outside this would see any thing which would strengthen German position in Europe with great doubts and they would of course try to boycott it. So they must almost because Germany is too pompous how we how we act. Look at this military strategy we just issued a stupid document. I mean Germans could think something stupid. So I think these three will not be able to agree on anything.

There is and I say therefore maybe we have to start to develop a dialogue below the government level among people who are elder people who have had big jobs in military or politics before but not anymore. And we have to find a way out. We have to find a way out. The Russians have to understand that we are unable to negotiate with them even if we wanted to.

Daniel Davis: Well, here’s a big danger with that if that continues to prevail if we don’t deal with the rational thing that you are very articulately laying out is that at some point the Russian side will think there is now no more point in talking. The only thing left to us is the battlefield and we’re going to stop talking. Here is an interview with Demetri Medvedev that was released earlier today where on the first hand he was saying hey all this claim that we’re going to attack Europe has no truth to that we don’t have a plan for large mobilization etc. Who wants Europe? But listen to what he says at the end.

[Recorded clip — Dmitry Medvedev]: As for Lithuania what you said is not a rumor. It is essentially their statement that it would be good as I understand it to amend their constitution which spoke of the non-nuclear status of that large Baltic state and thereby open the door to the possible deployment of any weapons including nuclear weapons. Yes. So they are doing this in vain. They the fools do not understand that if God forbid something like that happens and we have to respond to their actions including in Lithuania itself no-one will stand up for them even if it becomes a scorched wasteland. No other countries will fight for them and the famous article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty or the NATO founding treaty will not be implemented.

Daniel Davis: Michael, that’s how large continental wars start. When one side believes your Article Five don’t actually mean anything. Do you think he’s right?

Michael von der Schulenburg: Yeah, I think NATO’s finished, if it’s finished because the Article 5 doesn’t mean a thing anymore. I mean, we have to be very very frank. I mean, the Americans call it also a different policy. Forgotten what it is. But but I don’t think so. I mean, why should the United States defend Lithuania?

I mean, they, if they dream of it, they’re wrong. I mean, look what happened in the Gulf States. Have they defended Saudi Arabia?

Daniel Davis: One of them, right? That’s a really good point.

Michael von der Schulenburg: But we have to understand also it has also something to do with the change of military hardware that you can have these pinpointed extremely precise rockets and drones. You know, you can block the – when I was there, there was always talk about blocking the Hormuz Strait, but that meant that you had to be actually there, put mines there or whatever or shoot one of these big tankers that nobody can go through. I mean, now you can be from very far. You just have a drone and you shoot down a ship. No, it has changed and and you know, the United States could not defend a single Arab state. And this will, this is of course the same thing for the Baltic states.

And you know the Germans put their um I think a battalion there but they have only half the numbers because nobody wants to go there.

Daniel Davis: Half the numbers.

Michael von der Schulenburg: I mean if the United, if the if Russia decides that they want to attack Germany because we are so much involved in the war. I mean they need five minutes to finish all these German battalions. I mean, we have to realize putting a battalion in the front there makes them far more vulnerable than would be at home. I mean, it’s a silly thing we do. I mean, the same silly thing is to do that we do this drone war. You know, you don’t do, you don’t accelerate a war against a country where you know that they can accelerate even more.

I mean, what do you think would come here?

Daniel Davis: Okay. So then why in God’s name would Lithuania even publicly toy with this idea of changing their nuclear doctrine? What is the even rational gain? What do they think?

Michael von der Schulenburg: They’re crazy. I mean they also I think they also recognize Taiwan.

Daniel Davis: I, it’s it’s just hard for me to understand.

Michael von der Schulenburg: It’s so, you know very interesting is Finland. Finland went into NATO and I think they regrett it deeply now. Stubb was always a hardliner. I mean really the I mean you know almost like a Baltic hardliner. What is he talking now? He said oh we have not only to speak we have to negotiate with Russia.

He says it and he says also we should stop saying that Russia will attack us. They will not attack us. That’s what he says.

Daniel Davis: A harder you know the economy.

Michael von der Schulenburg: You know let me maybe it’s all speculation what I’m doing now but I would say that Europe needs peace with Russia more than Russia needs peace with us, and we are still in the mind that we are such a big, that everybody loves us that we tell every state what they have to do, what they do with their women and not, you know with their whatever, we have always comments. We are not, we are not, you know if Russia takes Odessa and that would happen the moment the army collapses – the Ukrainian – if they take Odessa you know and then we have to deal with the failed state Ukraine. We, they will all come to us as refugees. We have to pay for that one already. Now the annual budget is something like 40 billion. I think they need only to pay their salaries and their little corruption. Of course they have little things in the top of it.

But whatever I don’t want to attack Ukraine because I feel sorry for them. But people have a failed state and and this is a burden for us. I meanhow what do we do there? I mean this is a huge territory it’s still a huge country. So yeah, and we also we forget why Russia has started a territorial war. The territorial war only started after we rejected Istanbul because the things on when they moved to Kiev that was not to take Kiev not with these few soldiers.

No, they wanted to have these negotiations going and they have withdrawn their army just before they signed the things because they said, you know, it would help. And then they were of course betrayed. The Russians were betrayed with this whole thing. No. And so see the only way they could prevent that they have a neighboring state called Ukraine which is NATO and where foreign soldiers there and rockets being planted there and all the rest of it against them that they lose all access, because they would lose the access to sea, basically the Black Sea. I mean to prevent this they have only one option is to put so much military pressure on Ukraine that they can’t do it anymore.

You know this is what they do now and this is something we have to respond to. You know each war each war has a reaction from the other side and we all pretend that what we’re doing has no reaction on the other side. It’s only what they do but it’s always vice versa. And if you do and if you want to move from supporting that, you do a war there to peace, you have to fundamentally change your language. And I don’t think they’re able to do this. Yeah.

I mean so far we haven’t I think is you know what I think is if the Russians have Odessa they would probably leave it at this. I don’t think they take they can’t do it because of the big countries because of many other things.

Daniel Davis: Well, if they take some of these others, they may not need to militarily because in No, we’re just about to to run out of time here. There’s one other thing I really really want to get your view on. You’ve talked about a lot of what these leaders and and right now whether it’s in Europe or EU specifically are not willing to talk anything now and maybe some point they’re going to be pushed into that point other than maybe the battlefield situation. What about the risk and the possibilities that the domestic voters will impose themselves and impose change from the bottom up? And I want to play this uh from your home country here in Germany. Um the AfD here uh seems to have a different view on what the German government should do..

Daniel Davis: So that’s obviously very very uh uh problematic for many in Europe especially in Germany. But is she right?

Michael von der Schulenburg: Let me say I’m not in the AfD and it’s not my party and things like this one or you know many things they do I don’t think like but on this one on this one she’s absolutely right and that’s also why this party has so much success. Because they talk about these things and they say that it’s like this one and and you know they are very powerful that makes them so strong because there’s so much against them in the press and you know they get the smallest meeting rooms and they never nominated as a vice president although all this rights they have otherwise and they always threatened it by being being forbidden as whatever. No I think that’s why they win the elections and I think there will be much more will be in France by the way also and yeah I think there will be, I mean the question is whether we have a transition which is stable or it’s a transition in these various European countries which have a tendency to disintegrate. We should not forget this. The other side will not take it lying down that such a party wins.

Daniel Davis: And what do they do in France? You know, what do we do there?

Michael von der Schulenburg: I mean, I wouldn’t even be surprised if we have some very undemocratic moves. You know, Europe is in big trouble. That’s what I said to you in the beginning. Yeah. When the Americans look to Europe, they have still this feeling. I mean, we recently had somebody in the parliament.

I don’t want to mention names now. And I thought, you know, how do you see us? I mean, he thinks we sort of, the Trump is to them the nasty guy . In Europe is somehow the still the nice culture. No nothing of the sort. Nothing of the sort. And I say this with pain because I’m a European and I believe in these type of things.

So that’s where we are and Europe is not the savior of the world. I think we go through enormous problems.

Daniel Davis: Well, one can only hope that whether it’s pressure from economics, pressure from voters or or pressure from Russian military on the Ukraine side that somehow people can wake up from this malaise and and start talking because I am wholeheartedly endorsing your advice and and your your direction.

Michael von der Schulenburg: So simple. No, you got to talk if you’re going to do anything. And you need three things for this one. Respect for the other. That’s what we know from the UN. You have to listen to the other, not only to yourself, and you have to try to understand why the other does what he does.

That doesn’t mean that you agree with it but you have to understand it. This is very simple and you know it’s the same thing when you have a fight with your wife. It’s actually the same thing for everyone. It’s very difficult. That’s why you need so often somebody from the outside and that’s why this collective security system of the UN it’s actually such a pity that we now dismantle this whole thing because it’s very useful and I worked so long for it.

Daniel Davis: Yeah well we definitely want to have you back and talk for more of those hours because I’m, I wish we had time to keep going here now but we’re so delighted for having you come on today and share this. Thank you very much and I see you then in Istanbul . Look forward to seeing you in Istanbul in just a couple of weeks. Thank you very much and we will see you all on the next episode of the Daniel Davis Deep Dive.