“Maybrit Illner”: “Bit of a paradox”: Military expert Carlo Masala marvels at strange fear of the West

Military expert Carlo Masala criticizes Western fears of provoking Russia into war in Ukraine in “Maybrid Ilner”. Philosopher Julien Nida-Rummel’s critique of America has met with fierce opposition, while Linge capitalist Shirdewan wants to break away from the logic of war. Meanwhile, Green Party politician Marina Weissband offered questionable advice about French President Emmanuel Macron.

This review reflects the views of Thomas Fritz. How our teachers deal with ideas in texts.

As spring rages after trial of Russia Meanwhile the bloody war Ukraine. In the past few weeks, Moscow has focused primarily on the country’s energy infrastructure, much of which has been redone Suffered from power outages and disrupted heat supply There are

More important news

That’s the title of “Maybrid’s Homer.”

How hard would the first winter of the war be for the people? To what extent could it affect the outcome of the war? meaning at Maybrid was there: “War, Winter, Arms – Is the Time Ripe for Negotiation?”

They are guests

Alexander Graf Lambsdorff: In the view of the deputy chairman of the FDP parliamentary committee, Ukraine is “not ready for negotiations at the moment”. It can work only if gaining military territory is not possible. Above all, Russia must decide before the negotiations what kind of relationship it wants to have with Europe in the future. Liberals cannot imagine an understanding if the country continues to be characterized by “neo-imperialist” power politics. Until then, Lambsdorff was in favor of further arms deliveries. at Leopard tank But he “doesn’t want to go it alone nationally”.

Martin Shirdewan: To the Party Leader “Left“This War” is a powder cake. A small spark would be enough to make something happen.” Shirdevan wanted to break away from the logic of war, spoke out against arms sales and emphasized that both countries have security interests. Irony of the narrative: Leader of the Left Party, who always criticized the US, praised the US for it, a war party a few times during the war. They have vehemently denied the impression, for example after recent attacks on Russian military airfields.

See also  Embarrassing losses for Russia in the Ukraine war

Marina Weisspont: The Green Party politician with Ukrainian roots called the attacks on those airports an “important signal of hope” for the people of Ukraine. It is dangerous PutinAccording to Weißband, the war is coming now. French President Emmanuel Macron He called her “naive” for accepting the Russian story that the war was started because of NATO threats. No, according to Weißband, “from the Russian imperial point of view, Ukraine was a breakaway province.” His vague suggestion that Putin might have dirt or dirt on Macron seemed a bit suspicious.

Julian Nida-Rumelin: The philosopher argued for the creation of a “perspective after”. In other words, both sides must recognize that if they cannot achieve their military goals, they will have to make concessions. In his view, a real referendum on the Russian-occupied Crimean peninsula under the supervision of the United Nations is an option. It is “taking seriously the security interests of the other side” in order to create stability. Defense cannot be arranged against, but only through nuclear power.

Nicole Teitelhoff: The politics professor praised US President Joe Biden for showing Putin the way to negotiate if he is willing to withdraw his forces from Ukraine. However, she is skeptical about how close such negotiations are. The reason: Putin has so far made no concessions regarding the four provinces of Ukraine annexed by Russia. He has no strategy to enlarge the “negotiation cake”. Instead of German tank deliveries, Teitelhoff sees a need for more anti-aircraft weapons and transformers to absorb power outages.

Carlos Masala: The military expert insisted that Ukraine could have carried out attacks on Russian territory without help from Western allies and marveled at lax security measures at Russian military airports. Masala is also skeptical about the upcoming negotiations. By integrating the four regions into its state territory, Russia is creating realities that “make it practically impossible for Zelensky to engage in negotiations.” Because it means Ukraine is losing territory. Like Weisspont, he criticized French President Macron for accepting a false narrative from Russia. “That left me speechless.”

See also  Storms haunt Italy: storm surges drive bathers to flight

It was evening time

Carlo Masala surprised the West with a strange fear of provoking Russia. For example, by supporting Ukraine more with heavy weapons. “We all fear this conflict. But Russia is the only one that keeps escalating this conflict,” the expert said. “Russia has fired 400 rockets at Ukraine in the past few days, leveling this country, but we fear an escalation by the Russian Federation. It’s a bit ironic, because our fears are misplaced”. In his conclusion, one should fear for Ukraine.

That was the talk of the evening

As expected, Julien Nida-Rumelin found his theses America In the 20th century he frequently negotiated with politically questionable heads of state. “Ukraine is not a bargaining chip,” Marina Weisspont said. “It is a sovereign state.” Nida-Rümelin stuck to her Realpolitik approach. One should not act “as if striving for a stable world order that includes the most problematic actors is impossible for all time.” Of course, that means Vladimir Putin.

Carlo Masala immediately objected: “I find this historical analogy too complicated,” he said. Russia today is a revisionist power that wants to change the status quo. Unlike the Soviet Union. After all, it is a “status power”. Nida-Rumelin then listed some of America’s historical transgressions. “There are three revisionist superpowers in the world. One is closer to us than the other.” America of course. Masala and Lambstorf were now shaking their heads almost in unison. “It’s historic,” alleged Masala Nida-Rumelin, who denied it.

Ultimately, Masala and Nida-Rumelin agreed that the US had “shot itself in the foot” by invading Iraq and that the West was no longer “in charge” of the world.

That’s the bottom line

Talk or keep pumping arms into Ukraine? The show’s title (“War, Winter, Arms – Time for Negotiations?”) obscured the debate that had been going on since the beginning of the war, whether more arms to Kiev would actually end the war, or just. Prolong it, and contribute to more deaths and more suffering. This tactical and philosophical question was not answered in this broadcast either. There are good arguments for and against both scenarios.

See also  Canadian sniper in Ukraine: "The country is slipping into a real catastrophe" - Political Asland

Lambsdorff practiced purposeful optimism. The FDP politician does not believe Ukraine intends to use the drones it used to attack Russian airports against civilian targets, potentially escalating the war.

Marina Weisbandb looked beyond the Ukrainian horizon. Putin should not win anything in this war. Otherwise China will get Taiwan. He also fears that a false lull could come in the winter to slow Ukraine’s progress as Russia rearms. He wants real peace through real negotiations and forcing Putin to “keep his word.” How this can be achieved is not clear to a certain extent.

After all, Martin Shirdevan inspired confidence in Macron’s trip to China, even if the majority of the panel saw him as naïve when he announced that he was promoting a peace settlement there. After all, a head of state is making serious efforts to find a diplomatic solution. Relying solely on the flow of arms into Ukraine appears to be a one-dimensional approach. This realization has meanwhile arrived on the German discursive landscape.

Voices of a Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann (FDP) or Anton Hofreiter (Greens), who at times seemed – at least perceived – as if they personally wanted to transfer German weapons to Ukraine. Nine months after the start of the war, it didn’t have to be so bad.

Russia is expanding its military positions along the border with Ukraine. Is real fear behind the Ukrainian attacks or does the Kremlin want to stoke patriotic sentiments?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *