{"id":5571,"date":"2026-08-26T16:19:54","date_gmt":"2026-08-26T14:19:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/michael-von-der-schulenburg.com\/former-top-diplomat-von-schulenburg-slams-the-eu-it-borders-on-murder-negotiate-with-putin\/"},"modified":"2026-08-28T12:27:42","modified_gmt":"2026-08-28T10:27:42","slug":"former-top-diplomat-von-schulenburg-slams-the-eu-it-borders-on-murder-negotiate-with-putin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/michael-von-der-schulenburg.com\/en\/former-top-diplomat-von-schulenburg-slams-the-eu-it-borders-on-murder-negotiate-with-putin\/","title":{"rendered":"Former top diplomat von Schulenburg slams the EU: “It borders on murder!” \u2013 “Negotiate with PUTIN”"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Michael von der Schulenburg in an interview with CLASEN-TALK, the podcast from NOZ and SHZ (Neue Osnabr\u00fccker Zeitung and Schleswig-Holsteinischer Zeitungsverlag).<\/p>\n

The bitter reality of the Ukraine war: Why is the West blocking peace talks? In this in-depth conversation, former top UN diplomat Michael von der Schulenburg (Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance) explains why he considers the current policies of the European Parliament extremely dangerous. Drawing on over 30 years of experience in war zones and crisis areas, he urgently warns against policies that will drive Ukraine further toward collapse.<\/p>\n

Key topics in this interview:<\/p>\n

Why, according to the former top UN diplomat, the EU Parliament lacks a connection to the realities of war.<\/p>\n

The growing danger of nuclear escalation.<\/p>\n

Schulenburg’s unofficial peace plan and his talks in Moscow.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
<\/div>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

[<\/p>

Auto-transcribed and auto-translated transcript below. Not checked by author.<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

[music]<\/p>\n

Dear viewers, the Urkaine War has now been going on for longer than the First World War. Is there any end in sight to the bloodshed? And why is there no concrete peace plan from the EU? Today, I want to discuss this with a man who has acted as a top diplomat for the United Nations in many war-torn and crisis-hit regions and now represents the Alliance in the European Parliament Wagenknecht from Saarach. A very warm welcome, dear Michael von der Schulenburg.<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: Thank you very much. Thank you for having me.<\/p>\n

Before we turn our attention to Ukraine, I\u2019d like to briefly introduce you, Mr von der Schulenburg, so that the audience knows what a wealth of experience you\u2019ve already gained as a leading diplomat of the Federal Republic of Germany. How many war zones and crisis areas have you been to in your life?<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: I\u2019ve never actually counted, but I can have a go. Well, I\u2019ve been to Afghanistan several times, to Iran several times, to Iraq, to Syria, Somalia, Sierra Leone \u2013 there are a few other places as well, but where I\u2019ve been, well, I\u2019ve actually lived in those countries too, no, I was never just someone who travelled back and forth; I actually lived in these war zones for 30 years and since 1992 I\u2019ve always led the mission, except in Iraq, where I was second in command, but there I was the one in charge because the number 1 had been someone who didn\u2019t have that experience, so I led the negotiations there. Yes.<\/p>\n

How often did you yourself fear for your life? <\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: Never.<\/p>\n

But were there ever any situations where you actually came under fire?<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: Well, several times, of course. Yes, of course. Of course. I mean, in Afghanistan, for example. I was in\u2026 A cluster bomb exploded above us and I was hit too, though it wasn\u2019t life-threatening, so\u2026 we always say it\u2019s enough to make a career of it, but not enough to die or anything like that. So I\u2019ll just head off to the next job somewhere \u2013 it doesn\u2019t worry me. I\u2019ve, er, well, in Iraq for example… I ended up at Hannifa Mosque \u2013 that\u2019s the centre of the Sunni resistance \u2013 where no one else dared to go. So there they were, with 50 US soldiers, in various cars and all sorts of security measures. And and yet there was this roadside bomb \u2013 not the sort that goes off there \u2013 and it missed my car by half a metre, so between my car and the next one. Then the car bounced up a bit and there was a bit of dust, but then, yeah, then I drove home and the gaming table, and I can\u2019t do that everyone says. The thing is, the UN Parliament makes me much more nervous than all the wars. Somehow, that\u2019s just how I feel. I don\u2019t know why, really.<\/p>\n

And why does the European Parliament make you more nervous than a war?<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: Because there are 719 MEPs there, none of whom have any experience of war, and they are constantly passing resolutions, which, well, actually promote war. And then I think, for goodness\u2019 sake, these people who get up in the morning, have a coffee, take a hot shower, turn up in Parliament and then pass this resolution, but their sons and their daughters aren\u2019t in the war. And, er, having actually seen war and what it means for people, I find the atmosphere there really unpleasant, don\u2019t you? And they\u2019re not interested in talking to me at all. I\u2019m probably the one who knows the most about it, who also knows the most about international law, who, at , especially when it comes to war \u2013 I\u2019ve been dealing with that my whole life \u2013 the UN Charter, that sort of thing\u2026 er, well, of course, they know\u2026 they all know better, and there isn\u2019t really any proper discussion in Parliament, is there? <\/p>\n

There\u2019s no real dialogue where you can actually get to the. So, I actually found it easier to talk to the Iranians in Iran during the Iran-Iraq War than to the Europeans in the European Parliament. I\u2019m saying this without any ill will. It\u2019s simply astonishing to me, you see, and of course there\u2019s UN Charter. All countries have ratified the UN Charter, so it\u2019s enshrined in their laws, and we\u2019ve all committed ourselves to the UN Charter \u2013 all 193 countries and we as individuals too, because it all starts with the people, doesn\u2019t it? We, as human beings, must resolve our conflicts through negotiation. So, if you have this resolution, it runs to 18 pages. There, it says, \u2018So, the Taurus should finally be cleared, and we should finally do this and that.\u2019 Er, the worst thing that was ever decided was that, should Ukraine win, Russia would have to be destroyed as a country or partitioned, much like Yugoslavia. That\u2019s the sort of resolution we pass there. And then I think, well, what you\u2019re passing there is basically a provocation towards nuclear war. I mean, have you ever given that any thought? And these resolutions never contain, not even at the very end, a sentence like, \u2018Yes,\u2019 \u2018perhaps we should negotiate as well\u2019. <\/p>\n

You know, during the Cold War, there was the Hammel Doctrine, the Hamel Doctrine. Hammel is the name of a Foreign Minister from Belgium, where NATO decided during the Cold War that deterrence and d\u00e9tente go hand in hand. In other words, on the one hand, we must arm ourselves sufficiently to prevent an attack. On the other hand, we must hold talks with the Russians to see whether this cannot also be achieved through diplomacy. That\u2019s how it was throughout the entire Cold War; otherwise we wouldn\u2019t have had any Ostpolitik at all. Er, otherwise we wouldn\u2019t have had any, any, any Helsinki Final Act. These are great, great achievements that stem from this dual strategy. We must protect ourselves against an attack \u2013 one could say the same today \u2013 but at the same time we need to talk, and we\u2019re completely leaving that discussion out of the equation. That\u2019s something I simply cannot understand incomprehensible policy \u2013 er, the one that\u2019s supported by all Northern Europeans, or more or less. There are, of course, exceptions, but above all from Germany, and I do think that, given our responsibility for two world wars, perhaps we should put a bit more emphasis on diplomacy at the same time. I\u2019m not saying at all that we shouldn\u2019t also support Ukraine militarily, but at the same time we have to see if there\u2019s another way out.<\/p>\n

And if we sit down with them today, we\u2019ll be talking to the Russians as the losing side. That\u2019s what we\u2019ve missed out on the whole time.<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: But a great many observers, including those in Brussels, still assume that Ukraine is on the road to victory. That Russia has fallen behind, that Putin\u2019s government, his regime, may possibly is faltering that the Russian army is in a weak position. None of that is true. You know in Germany they also told people during the Second World War, when the Red Army was advancing, that we could still win the war. I I mean, that\u2019s the sort of war machinery. That\u2019s something you can\u2026 I\u2019ve actually written an article about it; perhaps you could publish it sometime. I wrote that our illusion of victory will lead to Ukraine\u2019s collapse. The Russians are advancing; after all, this year they have more territory this year than in all previous times, haven\u2019t they? And we say, that\u2019s just a storm in a teacup, there\u2019s no real storm. The Ukrainian army is showing signs \u2013 and I\u2019m not saying this because I\u2019m on Russia\u2019s side or anything \u2013 but it\u2019s showing signs that they can no longer manage it. There are, after all, only two of these so-called fortress cities left in the Donbas. And today there are actually a great many, and I\u2019m relying mainly on Ukrainian sources \u2013 I can\u2019t really rely on Russian ones read. So, Ukrainian sources \u2013 I do get a lot sent to me from Ukraine, even by people who are actually pro-government. These aren\u2019t people who suddenly think they\u2019re Russian or something, or from America, of course. And this is, of course, data which shows that now these two towns, Kramorsk and\u2014it doesn\u2019t matter what the other town\u2019s called. So, the way the Russians do it, then\u2026 these encirclement battles \u2013 they\u2019ve done that to everyone now. The reason for the encirclement battles is that they take a very long time, but on the other hand, of course, the side doing the encirclement loses relatively few men, whilst the side trapped inside loses many. We\u2019re already familiar with this from Hannibal Ke \u2013 there they almost\u2026 entire Roman army. Well, they had encircled them. A battle of encirclement is, for someone who is inside the circle \u2013 let\u2019s think of Stalingrad, is extremely unfavourable. And that\u2019s something we should prevent. We should start talking, and we can only talk to the Russians if we understand, that their fundamental motive is not the conquest of territory. That that that the reason for Russia\u2019s behaviour is that it does not want a neighbouring state that is a member of NATO, that belongs to a hostile military alliance or could be armed to such an extent that it could threaten Russia at any time. And we must understand that \u2013 the Americans would do the same if Mexico were suddenly to form an alliance with China and, er, Russia. They wouldn\u2019t allow that either. That is just the way it is. And and then of course there are many agreements that we\u2019ve made in Europe. But I mean, this Charter of Paris is, after all, been breached. I mean, the Charter of Paris states that we shouldn\u2019t have military alliances against one another. That\u2019s what it says. The word NATO isn\u2019t mentioned even once in the 1990 Charter of Paris. the OSCE used to do a great job, didn\u2019t it? By the way, I was involved in that for four years too, but not for that reason. So there\u2019s this Charter of the European\u2026 Security from 1999, which still states, word for word, that nobody \u2013 that we all undertake not to form any security alliances that are deemed dangerous to our neighbours. Quite clearly, that\u2019s what everyone has signed up to; that\u2019s international law, because it has been deposited with the UN. These are\u2026 agreements; they are international law, and we really don\u2019t want to hear any more about them. So, I think this is going badly for us. I mean, I\u2019m European, I\u2019m German; I\u2019m looking at this from our perspective, I don\u2019t want to criticise Russia or anything like that, but I do think that the policy we\u2019re pursuing in are currently pursuing will, for the time being, be a disaster for Ukraine \u2013 or indeed already is \u2013 and is also dangerous for us.<\/p>\n

And now, because both sides are saying they only want to resolve this militarily \u2013 the Russians are saying the same thing \u2013 there is, of course, a escalation is taking place at the moment. A military escalation. There are no talks, and, er, and I mean, we mustn\u2019t forget it \u2013 if the war in Ukraine were really to escalate into a European war, that would happen if Russian ships were spotted in the systematically intercepted in the Baltic Sea, or if action were taken against Kaliningrad, or any of those sorts of scenarios, then, um, then we\u2019d have we\u2019d have a nuclear war. That would \u2013 it\u2019s quite clear \u2013 Russia simply couldn\u2019t react any other way, and, um, and we should prevent that. We should be sensible enough to avoid that. It\u2019s more dangerous than the Cuban\u2026 the Cuban crisis, the Cuban crisis back then, when we were all still very small. Even I was young [laughter] \u2013 I can do it well. I can\u2019t. I I mean, there were three men who acted against against the advice from their own military and security strategists. And that was the big one, that was Kennedy, and we must must not forget, that was Pope John XXIII.<\/p>\n

Yes, because without Pope John XXIII, the two of them wouldn\u2019t have spoken to each other at all. That was simply the Pope\u2019s achievement, and they spoke to one another and they both did something. Kennedy, it was, after all, the the attempt to take over Cuba in the Bay of Pigs had just failed the year before, and the American army wanted to drop flat bombs on Cuba \u2013 to give them a warning, so to speak, that \u2018you don\u2019t mess about with us like that\u2019 \u2013 and Kennedy then made a and we should still be grateful for that today.<\/p>\n

Yes, I think so, but unfortunately we don\u2019t have a Kennedy in Germany.<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: And no Kruschev either \u2013 or I reckon Putin would be more open to it than we are. We\u2019re so close but then again, I don\u2019t want to compare Kennedy with Trump right now. They\u2019re two different characters, but Trump is actually trying to find a peaceful solution to the war in Ukraine.<\/p>\n

So isn\u2019t that now completely at odds with both governments, because both governments have, after all, played a decisive role in the escalation of this war, er, or rather… supported it.<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: Er, well , I must say, you know, you can imagine that I\u2019m probably no friend of \u2014 so I\u2019m not exactly a fan of Trump, certainly not right now \u2014 but on the other hand, the meeting in Alaska that he had with Putin, that was back then, it was presidents of warring states who met. We mustn\u2019t forget that they\u2019d been at war with each other \u2013 a brutal war at that. I think that was still Now people are always grumbling about it because it\u2019s Trump, and even in America \u2013 if I\u2019d said something like that there, I wouldn\u2019t be in the public eye anymore. But I can see that as a big deal. And Trump, who said right at the start, \u2018Yes, this war wouldn\u2019t have happened if it were up to me,\u2019 I actually believe him. And and of course, that Russia has security interests \u2013 and that\u2019s what it\u2019s all about, isn\u2019t it? It\u2019s all about security interests that one has to understand. So, of course, he\u2019s got all his security advisers at home too \u2013 Rubio, as always, the , who are all in favour of war, perhaps with the exception of the Vice-President.<\/p>\n

Well, he\u2019s having a tough time at home too, isn\u2019t he? Did Graham just die? But he used to play golf with him \u2013 you can imagine what he must have been whispering in his ear, can\u2019t you?<\/p>\n

But why?<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: Well, Trump didn\u2019t stick to the line. Unfortunately, he didn\u2019t. But even so, he did manage back then to avert the danger of a nuclear war had been pushed back for the time being. That\u2019s for sure.<\/p>\n

But what sort of plan do the Europeans have? Well, they\u2019re distancing themselves from Trump, who is trying to bring about a peace in this war somehow.<\/p>\n

Yes, but the Europeans \u2013 what are they actually aiming for? What sort of strategy?<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: Well, let me make this clear first of all. The Europeans are now calling for a ceasefire, which Russia simply cannot accept. This has to do with the military dynamics \u2013 no arms embargo, no promises whatsoever about what comes next. Just a ceasefire. They want the Russians to withdraw from the entire territory, including Crimea. That\u2019s a precondition. They want Russia to pay reparations for what they\u2019ve destroyed there. We\u2019ve destroyed quite a lot ourselves, mind you, but that\u2019s another matter. We\u2019re doing it for a good reason. They want Russia to set up a special tribunal, don\u2019t they? And the Europeans \u2013 well, not all of them, mind you \u2013 are insisting that Ukraine\u2026 and the Germans were still doing that as recently as April\u2026 that Ukraine has prospects of joining NATO. And that is, of course, an absolute red rag to the Russians. That\u2019s why they\u2019re there; that\u2019s why they\u2019re waging the war. So as long as we refuse to understand that, as long as we refuse to understand that, we won\u2019t be able to negotiate with the Russians either. We won\u2019t be able to negotiate. They can\u2019t wage war for four and a half years. The War creates a new reality. In this case, one that\u2019s unfavourable to us. I don\u2019t want to go into that now defend that. It\u2019s just the way it is. But there\u2019s nowhere where you can sit down and pretend the war never happened. That simply doesn\u2019t exist. First of all, you have to accept that this is now a fact created by the war. You can then try to find a balance, to find a better solution, to make some concessions \u2013 that\u2019s what diplomacy is for, after all \u2013 but we\u2019re not doing that at all. All we have is a policy of maximisation.<\/p>\n

They\u2019re all about maximising, aren\u2019t they?<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: Yes, maximising. And I wonder whether, just like back then in Afghanistan, we\u2019ve completely lost our way, or rather\u2026 are clinging to the belief that Ukraine can actually win this war. I still remember how but no, it couldn\u2019t, it never could, because for Russia, if Russia sees that we\u2019ve passed an \u2018EU-revolution\u2019, that we want to destroy Russia as a state, a state that has the most nuclear weapons and the fastest missiles \u2013 so that we\u2019ll never, ever be blown up in the air. We have to do that, don\u2019t we? We simply have to accept the realities. It\u2019s got nothing to do with morality. It\u2019s about having to accept what the interests of the parties involved and what is militarily feasible. That\u2019s just the way it is. That\u2019s not going to change today. It wasn\u2019t any different in Roman times. It\u2019s still the same. So, well, all this moral posturing is all just a figment of the imagination anyway because basically, we always have this sort of  at the UN, we always say, when we deal with different parties, we always say that whoever talks about morality is the one who wants war. And whoever starts talking about interests is looking for a way out. Just think about it \u2013 that\u2019s actually true.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s right. Good. In Kabul, a few weeks before the city fell to the Taliban the then German Foreign Minister, Heiko Mars, stood in the Bundestag and said: \u201cEverything is fine, everything is under control.\u201d<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: Of course. A few weeks later we saw those horrific images of Afghans storming the international airport and then clambering onto the planes of the clinging to the American planes and then plunging to their deaths. Of course, of course. And if you look at the war now, we\u2019ve also deceived the Afghans with things like that. We\u2019ve deceived the people who supported us by always telling them it was winnable. Of course we can do the same with the Ukrainians. That\u2019s only natural; we aren\u2019t just listening to talks, and that\u2019s why I travelled to Moscow, because in a situation like this, you have to approach things differently. I know that from a certain amount of experience, and of course I was never responsible for such a major war, even one involving a nuclear power, but basically the considerations are how people talk to one another are very, very similar, and in that respect we can certainly speak of other experiences.<\/p>\n

But you were, um, twice now, I think, in Moscow during the war. Is that right?<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: Yes. Yes.<\/p>\n

And, er, what were your experiences there? Who did you get to speak to?<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: Yes, the first time we were there, of course, was for the 80th anniversary. You know, I come from a family that was involved in the \u2018Kuh\u2019 affair, and where people were also hanged by the\u2026 Nazis. So for us, this situation is\u2026 and then my father was actually born in St Petersburg. So\u2026 this barbaric war, and we just wanted to go there, and we travelled without any official authorisation. So we weren\u2019t invited; we just said we\u2019d pay for everything ourselves, but we were given an exceptionally warm welcome. I mean, all the bigwigs from parliament were there with chatted to us for hours and so on, and then we just said \u2013 I mean, I also said that, as a German, you go there and then say\u2026 I say, \u2018Well, yes, but you\u2019ll have to be careful \u2013 if Ukraine collapses, you\u2019ll have a failed state right next door to you. That could \u2013 well, it might…\u2019 surely not be your aim, nor anything like that. They understand that too, and they\u2019ll accept it and so on. Or Karaganov \u2013 if I meet him, I\u2019ll say, well, should one… talking to me about nuclear weapons, because I\u2019m a civilian and we need to talk about speeches \u2013 he immediately changed the subject; he\u2019s even written me a letter. Well, that\u2019s the thing \u2013 I\u2019m not used to that sort of thing, of course, and, er, how to talk about it without offending anyone and so on.<\/p>\n

But are there any ambitions on the Russian side to bring this war of aggression \u2013 which contravenes international law \u2013 to an end? Did you get that impression?<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: That there is a certain shift in thinking within the Kremlin, or rather that a great deal of injustice is taking place there. Hundreds of thousands people are dying. Kyiv and other cities are being bombed to pieces, children. Just a quick word on Russia\u2019s war, which is, er, contrary to international law. You know, I don\u2019t want to discuss the question of blame right now \u2013 I\u2019ve said that before \u2013 because after four years, that\u2019s never going to happen. That won\u2019t happen. And all I can say is that the question of blame \u2013 which historians will decide \u2013 will no longer be a matter for politicians. And I just fear that, in the long run, this war will be viewed very differently. It\u2019s not just the question: when did he start? Starting with the three \u2018offsences\u2019 against, against, against the Donbas despite the Minsk 2, or did he only start then? It doesn\u2019t make any sense at all, because why in such talks \u2013 peace talks and so on, or ceasefire talks \u2013 is this issue never addressed, nor is it ever addressed; \u2018Oh, you\u2019ve bombed a school or done something like that\u2019 \u2013 never, because then it would be impossible to negotiate. You have to… look ahead, and it\u2019s absolutely vital that we look ahead now. We have to find a way to prevent first of all, this war from escalating into a European war, and that we then have a solution. And we can only do that, by talking to Russia. That\u2019s possible.<\/p>\n

What sort of concessions are the Russians prepared to make? Are they even prepared to make concessions at all, or are they saying, \u2018We\u2019re now on the brink of Kavatosk\u2019 and we can, so to speak, conquer the region of eastern Ukraine militarily, so to speak<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: They\u2019ve almost done that already; that\u2019s my view \u2013 I believe that certain things that happen in war can\u2019t be undone. We  waged war against Yugoslavia \u2013 or rather, the former Yugoslavia \u2013 and Kosovo has become independent. That will never be reversed, even if that\u2026 was contrary to international law. So, um, Israel has appropriated certain territories, even though is contrary to international law, and ultimately they can no longer do that. You have to draw the line somewhere and say, well, I don\u2019t think that\u2019s going to happen. But what we should be interested in is whether we, with the Russians. in which Ukraine survives as a viable, sovereign, independent and probably neutral state. That is by no means clear. And I believe that is the most important thing. We must help the Ukrainians in this regard. The many Ukrainians who are there won\u2019t like what I\u2019m about to say, but I\u2019ll say it anyway: they\u2019ve lost the war. And the best thing is that every person who is now being sacrificed there, that is being sacrificed for absolutely nothing. I mean, in my view, no one should be sacrificed in war at all, but that doesn\u2019t matter now. Every general, I mean if he\u2019s in charge, says: \u2018Right, I can\u2019t win this now, so I\u2019ll raise the white flag; I don\u2019t need any more of my young men out there in the war to .\u2019 And that\u2019s not happening at the moment, nor is it happening because we Europeans, of course, the elite \u2013 or rather the political elite \u2013 who are currently in power always say, \u2018We\u2019ll help you out, we\u2019ll pay you some more, we\u2019ll do something\u2019 and so on. So, we would give Ukraine a great deal more if we did things differently. I\u2019ve, well, I don\u2019t know \u2013 they obviously haven\u2019t read my article. They should; I published it in the Berliner Zeitung.  I\u2019ve seen it; I strongly assume that all the information in there comes from Ukrainians. It\u2019s not Russian information. So if or if the Ukrainian Minister for Social Affairs says today that Ukraine\u2019s population is now down to just 22 million \u2013 at the time of independence it was 52. That would be like us in Germany saying, because we\u2019re in a conflict with Poland or whatever, that our population has fallen from 80 million to 35 million.<\/p>\n

Yes, in 2022 it was probably just under 40 million, but the point is that the official figure was 52.<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: Of course, a lot have left because of Ukraine \u2013 so these figures are all just estimates. How do you count the people in Crimea, for example?<\/p>\n

You\u2019re absolutely right \u2013 that\u2019s a massive tax burden, isn\u2019t it? And then he goes and says that half the population are on benefits, doesn\u2019t he?<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: So the important people are gone. Well, they\u2019re either on benefits because they\u2019re pensioners or because they\u2019re war invalids. They\u2019re the ones left and and he says that even though there\u2019s peace, even more men \u2013 the ones who\u2019ve been exempted from military service \u2013 will probably follow their wives, who\u2026 are working somewhere in Germany and Poland, or perhaps even Russia \u2013 I don\u2019t know \u2013 and have an income, rather than staying in Ukraine. In other words, we\u2019re facing the problem of a country depopulating to an extent that, I believe, we\u2019ve never seen before in history.<\/p>\n

So this is a fundamental issue, and we\u2019re still saying that Ukraine can win. How on earth is it supposed to win?<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: Yes, then there\u2019s the current Defence Minister \u2013 well, the former one \u2013 who gave a speech when he was a\u2026 he was sworn in in Parliament, where he spoke of 200,000 deserters. I mean, that\u2019s a whole army corps. Yes, that\u2019s no small figure. And that\u2019s interesting, isn\u2019t it, when you have deserters, and especially in such large numbers. So that basically means that the government has lost control of the country. Otherwise, they can\u2019t just go into hiding, can they? They\u2019ll just carry on working somewhere else and so on. I mean, they\u2019re generally shot, yes, or severely punished, but obviously that\u2019s not the case. I mean, the Ukrainian state is very much centred on Kyiv and all that. The rest they no longer control at all, or only to a very limited extent. The 200,000. Some say it\u2019s 300,000 or 400,000 \u2013 I don\u2019t know, maybe 2 million conscripts who aren\u2019t following her orders to\u2026 conscription order. Of course, there are many who are here in Germany and who knows what else, but these are, of course, figures that also show that, basically, the Ukrainians aren\u2019t the war at all. And, um, well, we should treat Ukraine more compassionately in this regard, I\u2019d say for a start. When I\u2019m in Parliament and we say we\u2019re helping the Ukrainians, I think, well, what on earth is that? He\u2019s killing everyone. Won\u2019t recapture a single square metre because of that. It\u2019s simply that \u2013 I mentioned this once in an interview with the Berliner Zeitung, that I I feel it\u2019s almost like murder. General Witmann wanted to jump up and run out straight away.<\/p>\n

[laughter]<\/p>\n

These are heroic deeds. My God, sending young people off to a war where there\u2019s no chance of them winning it is, to me, murder. I mean, wars are murder anyway, but I mean, it\u2019s appalling what we\u2019re doing there, and we don\u2019t bat an eyelid.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s really bitter, of course, is that now even the air defence forces have run out of Patriot missiles, and the Russians missiles are essentially raining down on Kyiv unchecked.<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: Yes, I mean they\u2019ve got pretty much free rein militarily, haven\u2019t they? That\u2019s the thing,<\/p>\n

It\u2019s not the \u2018yes\u2019, but why \u2013 how, but why is the spiral of escalation continuing then? We\u2019re making threats, we\u2019re attacking the Russian Amazon on Russian territory; we then destroy the refineries there, which does make sense, if you\u2019re thinking in military terms of attacking the enemy in their rear. I mean, of course they also have the right to fire back at Russia. So the Russians too, so don\u2019t complain. But the problem with this, of course, is that first of all, what the Russians are doing with in response to the escalation of the war, and is in fact considerably greater than what the Ukrainians are capable of firing. We are only providing these Ukrainian missiles with as much attention because, of course, we want to prove that Ukraine is still at war, that it\u2019s worth pouring these billions into it and and and so on and so forth. Now they also have a Ukraine that appears to be internally unstable. I mean, there are now calls for elections, so the Feurf and and also the letters from the former Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian armed forces \u2013 interesting letters, by the way, I must say. So, I believe this is what he writes someone else, but there are some interesting things \u2013 er, er, er, Zaluzhny, er, and so on. So there\u2019s a lot going on at the moment, going on in Ukraine that isn\u2019t really being reported on here at all. And, um, well, I\u2019d just say, we should show them mercy. We shouldn\u2019t send them off to war any further for the sake of our own interests. Because these are, in fact, our interests.<\/p>\n

And how is all this being discussed in the European Parliament?<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: Isn\u2019t there a movement somewhere that\u2019s actually putting forward a vision for peace, demanding that they actually say: \u2018We\u2019ve had four years of war here now, the outlook is bleak. Yes, particularly for Ukraine. At the moment, there is still the option of further escalation, but there\u2019s no light at the end of the tunnel. At some point, we really have to say: we need to negotiate with Moscow now.<\/p>\n

Right, but not Kostas\u2019s, I mean the one\u2026<\/p>\n

What is he, er, er, the one who chairs the council, Kostas, I mean, actually the one..highest-ranking official in the EU, has had a few phone calls with Moscow. How was he put in his place?<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: By Macron and Merz? They don\u2019t want these talks because they still feel that if we hold out, unfortunately it\u2019s the Ukrainians who have to hold out, not them. If we hold out, if we carry on like this, the Ukrainians, we have the strongest economy \u2013 although that might not be entirely true any more \u2013 then, in the long term Russia must cave in, but I don\u2019t see that happening at all. I can see that Russia isn\u2019t caving in, and, we\u2019ve made this misjudgement with mine as well. It\u2019s got nothing to do with whether we like a country or not. It\u2019s simply a military matter; you have to realise, folks, that you have to do the maths. You don\u2019t go to war that you can\u2019t win, and you don\u2019t carry it on if you can\u2019t win it. But this, this whole… simple basic rules don\u2019t apply in Europe. I mean, there\u2019s absolutely no discussion of this in the European Parliament.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve tried \u2013 I mean, I did have a certain status, having been Assistant Secretary General at the UN \u2013 I\u2019d seen a lot more, after all than other people, so I tried to set up a working group for peace. That\u2019s when I was first told by the administration that this was the first… in eight years. So there\u2019s no working group for peace in the European Union. Then I was told that, well, because I don\u2019t actually belong to any party and am, well, non-partisan \u2013 whatever that means, I don\u2019t know what it means, something or other. So the other parties that exist \u2013 the party leaders, that is \u2013 rejected the idea that I had this group. That\u2019s why I had to call it \u2018informal\u2019. Yes, an informal group \u2013 I could do that. But that means you don\u2019t get any money for it, and it didn\u2019t last.<\/p>\n

People didn\u2019t turn up.<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: No, not that either, not the Five Star Movement or whatever \u2013 and certainly not the left-wingers. And, um, where I said, Come on, there\u2019s just one thing we need to talk about: how we get out of these wars. Whether you\u2019re on the right or the left is completely irrelevant for now. We have to get out of these wars. And I don\u2019t have any ideological barriers. Of course I\u2019ll talk to anyone, just like on the radio. Why shouldn\u2019t I talk to the AfD? I mean, that doesn\u2019t mean that I, that I like them. I\u2019m more on the left myself, but the thing is, there\u2019s no debate in the European Parliament. There\u2019s just a rubber-stamping of resolutions that are drafted somewhere by the major parties and then they generally get a majority, don\u2019t they? And we\u2019re constantly well, it\u2019s always still holding out that hope that the EU will become a major power by standing united against Russia. So, we\u2019re creating something that\u2019s already very close to the United States of Europe.There are constantly people are constantly being invited from, er, all sorts of countries who say they\u2019d like to be part of it and everyone stands up and applauds. So, you think of a European Union stretching from the Black Sea to the Atlantic and from the Mediterranean to the North Pole. Well, they think, they think aren\u2019t as open strategically as Trump is \u2013 he wants that is island too, in the North, I mean, in my view, those are all the sort of things that I find incredibly distasteful, incredibly distasteful, and where I actually also in a certain way, as a German and a European, that we have sunk to such a primitive level in a parliament, as we are doing now. And I mean, when I speak, there are usually a lot of Zimmermann sits at the front and others less so, and then they shout out that I should be ashamed of myself. Yet I\u2019m saying exactly what people always say in the run. I mean, they\u2019re from the side; I don\u2019t come from anywhere else at all, and yes, my family should be ashamed of me and things like that, but well, I have thick skin for that sort of thing, but of course it says something about the standard in this Parliament, but Strack-Zimmermann Strack-Zimmermann, she was, after all, chair of the Defence Committee and had previously raised the idea of an EU force.<\/p>\n

Er, she also supports Ukraine joining NATO and, er, the EU. Er, how significant do you think that is?<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: That this war will escalate even further and that Germany and Europe will in fact be drawn even more actively into this war? I consider it to be relatively high; I don\u2019t want to put a figure on it, but I do consider it to be very high. We are now at a stage where it will determine who wins and who loses. And the more one side wins and the other loses, the more dangerous the situation becomes \u2013 and vice versa. If Russia were to see that now the war and is retreating, then of course they would also start to think of something sinister. But that is precisely why, in times like these \u2013 exactly in times like these \u2013 I would always say, I\u2019ve made this suggestion, and I\u2019m often told, \u2018Yes, but the offensive is on right now, so we can\u2019t talk about it yet.\u2019 I say, \u2018No, no, it\u2019s precisely then that we must work together. We have to talk then, because right now it\u2019s really about whether this war can be contained for the time being, without it spreading, and then, of course, about then resolve it. So first of all, we must prevent it from turning into a European war, and I believe that is a very serious matter.<\/p>\n

Mr Klasse, I\u2019d say we\u2019ve never been in such a dangerous situation before \u2013 not even during the Cold War, and certainly not like today. There is no arms control agreements. There are no confidence-building measures. They\u2019ve all been terminated. Yes we basically no longer recognise the UN Charter at all. Nor do the Germans, for that matter. Naturally, this also means international law. Suddenly we\u2019re talking, like the Canadian Prime Minister, about the law of the strongest. The only problem is that in both wars \u2013 including the war with Iran \u2013 we are not the stronger party in the latter case. So, we should think all this through a bit more carefully. And then, of course, in my view, one of the very great dangers is that wherever we look, and even in America yes, we have second-rate politicians, who determine our fates \u2013 I mean, if you look at the current leader, I don\u2019t know what the next one will be like, Macron and Merz, if you look at them, they all have incredibly low poll ratings and yet they\u2019ll be deciding our fate. Hmm.<\/p>\n

How far would Putin actually go? Because the domestic political pressure on him is naturally mounting too, if the Russian Amazon goes up in flames, if the… petrol stations run out of fuel, and the cost of the war soars. How How serious do you think the risk is that the hardliners in Moscow will then take command and say, \u2018Now we must escalate the situation on our side. We have tactical nuclear weapons, we have many other other weapons. We are now stepping up the attacks, and there may well be a decision to attack Kyiv after all.<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: So my assessment here is that Putin is still pretty firmly in the saddle, isn\u2019t he? Of course he\u2019s under pressure from hardliners \u2013 well, not exactly hardliners, but, you know, the West really needs to acknowledge that we\u2019re a nuclear power too and be a bit more cautious. You can\u2019t just attack us everywhere, and above all, it\u2019s you who are making the threats. Those are yours, I mean, in basically, the line between whether you support someone or take part in the war has long since been so blurred. And that\u2019s obviously a dangerous thing. Where\u2019s the red line at which the Russians will say, \u2018Right, we\u2019ve had enough now\u2019? I think \u2013 and this is just my assessment, which doesn\u2019t mean I\u2019m trying to praise anyone here \u2013 that in Putin we still have  someone who is relatively rational. There have been very strong calls for certain parts of Germany to be attacked with a missile. We can\u2019t possibly go along with that. We\u2019re always talking about it. That hasn\u2019t happened, but the war in Ukraine has intensified and I think it\u2019s now quite clear \u2013 they\u2019re also talking about Nova Russia, in the meantime, if Ukraine does not become a neutral country \u2013 and that\u2019s what the Europeans, then the war will continue until Ukraine is as dysfunctional as dysfunctional state. I don\u2019t think Putin will take Kyiv. That\u2019s simply not possible, because he has the BRICS states behind him and all that sort of thing; he\u2019d lose a lot of support there, but the fact that they\u2019ve taken this Ukraine, that Odessa\u2026 Odessa is incredibly important. Now they\u2019ve bombed the whole lot to smithereens. Ukraine has effectively already become a landlocked country. When you think about it, 70 per cent of its foreign trade used to go via Odessa. And 90 per cent of the country\u2019s agricultural history. So that\u2019s all over now, and now these railways are being bombed. Yes, the big problem is that is that, as we\u2019ve already seen in the Second World War, the Russians \u2013 and the Ukrainians too, for that matter \u2013 have a different gauge for their railway lines, that the locomotives can\u2019t even run on them, and so on. So in their case, it\u2019s also a matter of being cut off from the railway is actually relatively straightforward. Everything I don\u2019t want. I mean, not that you think I\u2019m somehow, that I\u2019m is being interpreted. Often, an analysis is interpreted in German. AD is for them, that\u2019s why he sees it that way. No, that\u2019s not how it is. I mean, but I think we just need to be more realistic, because if we aren\u2019t realistic, then we\u2019ll make the wrong decisions, and I think that\u2019s exactly what we\u2019re doing right now. We need to take a step back. We need to take a step back, and that\u2019s where discussions are needed \u2013 which is why I went to Moscow. If anyone\u2019s interested, I can say a bit more about it.<\/p>\n

Was the last time you were there in June?<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: Well, the second time. I\u2019ve always gone there; I don\u2019t go to the invitations and so on. You see, it\u2019s like this: I went there on my own initiative with two others \u2013 Bismarck von Bismarck and Ruth Firmenich. We drove there and asked if we could come. We originally asked Gromiko, and he then gave us the visa. But when we got there and I laid out a proposal \u2013 one I haven\u2019t published yet \u2013 a proposal on how to actually get talks in a situation that has become so deadlocked, hasn\u2019t it? So what I\u2019m suggesting here is that we should first hold talks between military and political figures who no longer hold any official position. I call it the \u2018Une Grabeards\u2019 \u2013 though you can\u2019t really say that anymore, because there are women there too. [laughter] OK, let\u2019s tone it down a bit on \u2018Entdecker\u2019, but still\u2026 the \u2018Eltesten Rat\u2019 \u2013 that is, older people who aren\u2019t really directly involved anymore, well, I don\u2019t want to name names, but you can imagine who I\u2019m referring to; these are people who some of whom go back to the Kohl era, don\u2019t they? That perhaps we can talk to the Russians here after all, them and there and then just very specific things that we want to do differently from, say, Baku \u2013 er, we\u2019ll organise this very transparently. To start with, we\u2019ll just topics where we believe we have common ground. And the first topic I suggested in Russia was that it would be good for us that we should all agree that a Russian should never again fight against a German, and a German should never again fight against a Russian. Surely that\u2019s something we have in common. I believe that should also be a Merzwould have to agree with. Perhaps Mr Pestorius, I\u2019m not entirely sure, but it\u2019s obvious. And that is, of course, and that is, of course, these are, of course, these earliest council proceedings \u2013 they\u2019re not actually hearings, they\u2019re discussions. So no decision is made, but there is a\u2026 we always wanted to state who\u2019s taking part and what it\u2019s about. We also wanted to show videos of these discussions, and not all of them of course, but sort of as an introduction \u2013 once the position has been established \u2013 so that people can follow along. Transparency is absolutely vital, and then we wanted we wanted to issue a public statement at the end of each round of talks, jointly if possible, perhaps also not, perhaps certain matters jointly, others not, and so on, and that, of course, is then passed on to the government and simply that The breakdown, this silence that we\u2019ve basically had since 2014, this silence \u2013 we simply aren\u2019t talking to one another and and we\u2019ve missed out on so much because of that. We could have asked about it much earlier too, but now we\u2019re in this situation, We have to accept the situation as it is. And that\u2019s when I suggested this to him. There are loads of other things involved in how to do something like that. Of course, that sounds quite simple at first. It\u2019s not that simple at all. Well, that\u2019s partly down to the experience I\u2019ve had with other wars. And interestingly, when I suggested this, I thought, well, perhaps Gromyko institute or something. Blimey, suddenly I was passed on. I accepted the invitation too. We accepted it. We wanted to have our say, after all. Our position is, well, our position, which we had proposed, not theirs. And they expressed a keen interest. I hadn\u2019t expected that, because I\u2019d thought, we\u2019d have to go to Moscow first, because the Russians had announced that they no longer wanted to talk to the Europeans, that they were now taking a military approach, that they\u2019re going to take these territories by force and so on. So, of course, something like what I\u2019m suggesting is a bit of a nuisance, isn\u2019t it? It\u2019s disruptive, but they\u2019re interested, and I\u2019ve just \u2013 I don\u2019t want to name names right now, but, well, from the very highest levels there the very top, that they\u2019re interested in it. Now the question is whether we\u2019re a German nation. For a start, we can\u2019t invite them; we can\u2019t meet face to face and so on. But I\u2019m working on it. I do hope I might even publish an article on the subject. The problem is that most of my work isn\u2019t getting published, and perhaps you could help with that too. You see, conversations like this wouldn\u2019t be, they aren\u2019t really meant to be about complaining about Mr Merz or complaining about Putin. That sort of thing \u2013 those conversations work differently. There it\u2019s simply a matter of bringing together people on both sides who have a great deal of experience with such matters sides to come up with suggestions: what can we do to prevent this war from escalating, what measures can we take, and how might that happen? And that\u2019s the are positive; this is a positive story. It\u2019s not directed against anyone. It\u2019s simply designed to show that we need to break this cycle, because I think at the moment the German government is not in a position to sit down with Russia. That has something to do with the demonisation. If you call someone Hitler, it\u2019s hard to talk to them, and and that\u2019s obviously partly because we in Germany and Russia don\u2019t agree on what the war is actually about in the first place, and therefore can\u2019t agree on what is actually being negotiated. And of course we can help with that \u2013 gently, not harshly, gently. And all I can say to them is, I\u2019ve done this sort of thing a lot in my life, because I\u2019ve been involved in this sort of work my whole life, and I think it\u2019s possible. I mean, we have a great many things in common with Russia, and these must, of course, be emphasised. It\u2019s obviously annoying now, when people have been saying all along that we have to kill the Russians or whatever. It\u2019s obviously annoying, but I mean, there are no other way. There\u2019s no other way. I can say this, even against a nuclear war. The only thing you can do against a nuclear war is speak out.<\/p>\n

What, what, and what is the reaction in Kyiv?<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: They haven\u2019t even made contact yet, and I don\u2019t think they\u2019re in a position to do so at the moment. The idea here is that we\u2019re in contact with the Russians for the time being, but they\u2019re also in contact with the Ukrainians.<\/p>\n

Yes. Yes, but I did want to go there; they didn\u2019t do that.<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: It\u2019ll happen at some point. Hang on, my paper seems to have caused quite a stir there. Although, if you do read it,  there\u2019s no a bad word about the Oker in there. I tend to see them more as victims and so on. But that\u2019s for the is, of course, even much harder. But I think one thing is that we need to talk to the Russians. They\u2019re waging the war; they can back down. They The Ukrainians, after all, don\u2019t really have that option.<\/p>\n

But do you really believe that Putin is prepared to trust the Germans again? I mean, 50 km from Moscow, there are about Wehrmacht troops were halted by the Red Army. Millions \u2013 er \u2013 Red Army soldiers lost their lives.<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: There\u2019s a museum there. Yes. And there are now \u2013 there are now items captured in Ukraine tanks, and there are also vehicles there \u2013 German tanks, by the way. Yes. German tanks. Yes. From the Bundeswehr. For the Russians, these aren\u2019t Ukrainian tanks. For the Russians, they\u2019re primarily German tanks again, because, of course, that past is coming back. And but they\u2019re talking to me, they\u2019re talking to me. I want to\u2026 I feel\u2026 any hatred towards Germans when I talk to them. They\u2019re very calm conversations. I\u2019m not the sort of person who, who just acts all friendly, coming here as a friend or something like that. I don\u2019t do any of that. I\u2019m far too professional for that sort of thing, and they don\u2019t want to hear any of it anyway. But and I say, of course, that I represent European interests, our interests, but in my view our interests lie in restoring peace in Europe continent \u2013 and we don\u2019t need any of that blah blah blah.<\/p>\n

How often are you actually called a traitor because of this, or has that not happened at all yet?<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: Interestingly, on our last trip we also issued a very detailed press release which also states that we want to work together or I can\u2019t quite remember what, but that sort of thing wasn\u2019t actually in it anyway, and some German media outlets even printed it this time. That was, hasn\u2019t it? And, um, you know, I could do a lot more if I were allowed to, if I were allowed, if I were allowed, yes, to speak. You see, I come, of course, from the UN, and the UN\u2026 stands for \u2018never again war\u2019, and the reason for \u2018never again war\u2019 is that we all commit to resolving our conflicts peacefully, that is, through dialogue; that we say today, \u2018yes, the UN is a joke\u2019, that you don\u2019t deploy the military \u2013 that\u2019s complete rubbish. That only comes up afterwards. The first step is to talk to one another, precisely so that we don\u2019t resort to military action \u2013 otherwise there\u2019d be no . You can\u2019t just say we\u2019re no longer allowed to use BTM. How else are we supposed to resolve conflicts? We have to say how we\u2019re going to resolve them, and that\u2019s, of course, just like your five children \u2013 when they\u2019re arguing, \u2018Step back for a moment, have a chat, go and buy some ice cream or something like that.\u2019 So, I mean, you know what I mean there are those three words in diplomacy \u2013 or at least in the diplomacy I\u2019m familiar with. The UN is, of course, different from bilateral relations; there\u2019s always that\u2026 three things, and that\u2019s absolutely crucial when you\u2019re acting as a mediator. Three very important things \u2013 very simple words that apply just as much within a family as between countries. Respect, listening, understanding. It sounds so simple. But if you\u2019ve got a problem with your wife, the first thing to go [laughter] is probably respect and listening<\/p>\n

They don\u2019t want to anymore either. I know what I\u2019m saying, and what do you say to your children once you\u2019ve made up again? Then you say, \u2018Daddy, Mummy, we get on again. They don\u2019t say, \u2018We agree on everything.\u2019 They say, \u2018We\u2019re getting on again.\u2019 And that\u2019s what makes peace. That understanding. And unfortunately, in Germany the word \u2018understand\u2019 has such a bad reputation, hasn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: So, \u2018Putin versteher\u2019, \u2018Russland versteher\u2019 \u2013 even though the word \u2018verstehen\u2019 comes from \u2018Verstand\u2019 (understanding), as we Germans, even if someone\u2019s read Kant, aren\u2019t really allowed to say things like that, but we say it anyway. We\u2019ve also got plenty of people in Parliament who\u2019ll say, \u2018You\u2019re a Putin sympathiser\u2019 or something like that, and I say, well, it would be great if I understood all that. You have to understand it, after all. You also have to understand your opponent; otherwise, you can\u2019t negotiate with them at all. But that\u2019s of course a bit of a thing, you know, I\u2019m someone who \u2013 I sometimes regret this a bit, because actually I\u2019m totally conservative sort of person. probably seen as more on the left because of Runo, of course, because that always has a lot to do with social justice and human rights. All of that is extremely important to me, and I\u2019m deeply committed to the UN and the UN Charter. So, if they\u2019re involved in a war like that, if they don\u2019t have that at the back of their minds, then they don\u2019t know what to say. They need some sort of guideline, and that\u2019s what they need, yet we treat it as if it doesn\u2019t exist.<\/p>\n

Yes, mocked as \u2018Putin\u2019. I see. Of course, they could take an even tougher line. The EU has, amongst other things, imposed sanctions on Europeans as well. Among them is a former Swiss intelligence officer, Jack Baud.<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: Yes, I know him well. Yes. Yes, he\u2019s in Brussels. Yes.<\/p>\n

Erm, but that\u2019s totally strange, isn\u2019t it? That there are sanctions.<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: Yes, you know, it\u2019s just that, there\u2019s, you know, international law as we know it today, well, that\u2019s based on the UN Charter \u2013 though it may have started, of course, with the League of Nations \u2013 is, after all, a Western invention, an invention  of our forefathers. That has something to do with Kant, that has something to do with the Bible. It\u2019s very strongly influenced by that. That\u2019s our We said, er, no, it mustn\u2019t be the law of the strongest. Internationally, too, we must do what we do at national level. We So we need rules governing how we behave towards one another. That\u2019s basically it. And now we\u2019re destroying that \u2013 that\u2019s perhaps the greatest achievement that the West \u2013 and above all America; without America, we wouldn\u2019t have had any of this at all  have done for humanity. And now we\u2019re destroying it. We\u2019re destroying what is actually our greatest contribution to humanity \u2013 namely the Charter, namely human rights, namely the fact that we we have international law, and we are destroying it, we are destroying it. Today, the BRICS countries are in favour of it; China is discussing whether they really mean it or not. They won\u2019t find a single African country that says, \u2018I don\u2019t want the UN there.\u2019 No, just NATO here, because we\u2019re offended that we no longer lead the world. [laughter] I I know, it\u2019s dreadful. I\u2019m dreadful.<\/p>\n

Now they\u2019ve spent their whole lives dealing with war and crises. Er, When you look out to sea from Hallegen, do you ever think, \u2018Well, every now and then, people do eventually become wiser\u2019, will they ever stop wanting to massacre one another, will they actually ever see sense, or did you already mention Immanuel Kant, Er, he seems to be in favour of perpetual peace.<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: We mustn\u2019t forget what the Germans contributed to the  UN Charter, for example, The Peace of Westphalia \u2013 that is, the principle of equal sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs of other states \u2013 that was an invention of the Peace of Westphalia and is now enshrined in the UN Charter. So we should actually be quite proud. We should still be proud. We should say: \u2018We\u2019ve been through two world wars. Now we stand for the UN Charter.\u2019 But even in the context of peace-building, hardly anyone cares about the UN Charter. I mean, so few people do; it\u2019s not a major issue. Yet it is the major issue.<\/p>\n

Mr Klasen, we do, after all, live in a world today \u2013 whether people are religious or not \u2013 where life on this earth is, yes, a huge, huge exception. We know of no other place here where anything similar happens. Here we can live. Human life has come into being. Whether that is creation… by a God or whether it is a creation of matter by chance, I don\u2019t know \u2013 it\u2019s all pretty much the same anyway. I don\u2019t really want to to emphasise, but we didn\u2019t influence that. It was given to us. And now we\u2019ve invented weapon systems by an hour. That\u2019s how many nuclear bombs we have now. We could destroy ourselves all. So that\u2019s the sad thing: life has been given to us. Death, however, we can bring about for everyone. And I think that\u2019s why the UN Charter, which is headed by the rubric \u2018No more war\u2019. Much more important today than it was in \u201945.<\/p>\n

Dear Mr von der Schulenburg, that was a very fine closing remark.<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: I\u2019ll take that on board, and give it some more thought. I believe that\u2019s also a very important appeal, because it\u2019s actually also in . We\u2019ve seen almost nothing of the peace movement in recent times. Which also surprises me a bit.<\/p>\n

But let\u2019s defend that for a moment. In Germany, we have a stronger peace movement, including support from the military than, for example, in France, the UK and so on. Perhaps that\u2019s because of gas, as they have a lot of people from that region, but there\u2019s a positive side to it here as well. We can\u2019t just see it all in a negative light.<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: I think, if I were Foreign Secretary, then I would \u2013 or at least I hope \u2013 that they might perhaps talk to us, give us a chance, because it costs him nothing. It costs them nothing. They wouldn\u2019t be inconvenienced by it. Just to take us out there \u2013 is it possible to have a chat? And we\u2019d handle it very professionally; we\u2019d do so without making any accusations. That\u2019s what we all want \u2013 we want to build bridges, not widen the rifts. So that\u2019s of course exactly what I\u2019ve always done at the UN.<\/p>\n

Yes, well, it\u2019s a bit of a shame that we can\u2019t do that. We won\u2019t be able to get visas for Russians to come here. Yet it would be so important. Next time, perhaps go to Kaliningrad or somewhere like that.<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: So, if things don\u2019t work out between Russia and Germany, then it basically doesn\u2019t matter what happens with Ukraine \u2013 we have absolutely no influence over that. And I\u2019m saying, if you\u2019re interested, I could send you these documents. So far, I\u2019ve been writing about these commonalities \u2013 ultimately, if we take these discussing common ground on various issues; the greatest common ground between Russians and Ukrainians is, after all, to help Ukraine become a viable state. It\u2019s better to work on this together rather than against one another. Surely that should be possible. It isn\u2019t possible.<\/p>\n

Hold on, I know. But do you believe that by 2027 there will be peace, or will the war continue unabated?<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: Well, I think that militarily speaking, it might be decided in the near future, but a military decision is, of course, not the same as peace. We mustn\u2019t forget that. And that\u2019s why the Russians realise this too. I mean, ultimately they\u2019ll have to talk to us somehow. They can settle this militarily in their favour now, I think. And yes, but but we do need peace, don\u2019t we? We don\u2019t want victory, do we? We want peace. Not victory. So peace must prevail, not the military. Yes, that\u2019ll be tricky.<\/p>\n

Yes, thank you very much indeed, Mr von Schulenburg. That was very interesting. And to you too, dear viewers, thank you very much for your time and for trusting that you\u2019ve joined us again. For those watching us on YouTube, don\u2019t forget to subscribe to the channel if you haven\u2019t already. It\u2019s free, by the way. So you might as well [laughter] go ahead and do it.<\/p>\n

Right, okay.<\/p>\n

Michael von der Schulenburg: Thank you very, very much. All the best. Many thanks to you too. Thank you.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n


<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Michael von der Schulenburg in an interview with CLASEN-TALK, the podcast from NOZ and SHZ (Neue Osnabr\u00fccker Zeitung and Schleswig-Holsteinischer Zeitungsverlag). The bitter reality of the Ukraine war: Why is the West blocking peace talks? In this in-depth conversation, former top UN diplomat Michael von der Schulenburg (Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance) explains why he considers the…<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":5570,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[98,69,71],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5571","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-freedom-in-europe","category-general","category-war-in-ukraine"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/michael-von-der-schulenburg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5571","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/michael-von-der-schulenburg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/michael-von-der-schulenburg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michael-von-der-schulenburg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michael-von-der-schulenburg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5571"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/michael-von-der-schulenburg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5571\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5581,"href":"https:\/\/michael-von-der-schulenburg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5571\/revisions\/5581"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michael-von-der-schulenburg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5570"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/michael-von-der-schulenburg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5571"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michael-von-der-schulenburg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5571"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michael-von-der-schulenburg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5571"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}