“The future of Ukraine lies in NATO,” it says Statement on the NATO summit in Vilnius. However, the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the country’s media were disappointed by this result, they had hoped for an invitation to the defense alliance.
Sandra Maischberger welcomed on her talk show on the subject the former Interior Minister Gerhart Baum (FDP) and Alexander Rodnyansky, adviser to the Ukrainian President. With the former Finance Minister Peer Steinbrück (SPD), the ARD presenter also looked at the Building Energy Act and the budgetary policy of his successor.
“Ukraine belongs to the free world,” stressed Baum. Their fate is to be equated with the “fate of the free world”. “If we give in here, we all lose.” This signal comes from the NATO summit, which means that what Putin “didn’t want” happened. It is still unclear whether Ukraine will join NATO, even though Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the “Prince of Peace” Henry Kissinger have already spoken out in favor of it. He couldn’t imagine that there would be peace without security guarantees from the West.
From the Ukrainian point of view, the NATO summit triggers mixed feelings, Rodnyansky said. Although the people are “still belligerent”, they do not want to “defend the European peace order alone forever”. In fact, Europe benefits from “the fact that we continue to deter the aggressor”. There was no clear signal to the Russian “dictator”. There is “enough evidence” for the collapse of the system. Had there been a clear signal from the Atlantic alliance, the “turbulence within Russia would have been further fueled”.
Baum: Putin’s signature is worth nothing
It is unmistakable that the “pressure in the system” is growing, confirmed Baum. Vladimir Putin does not fear NATO, but “a free, prosperous country on its borders”. There is only a future with a free Russian civil society and the rule of law – not with Prigozhin and his “gang of murderers”.
The FDP politician saw little point in negotiations with the Russian President. Putin has broken all treaties since the collapse of the Soviet Union. “He doesn’t care about the law,” Baum stated angrily, “His signature isn’t worth anything.”
“I don’t think you can negotiate with him,” Peer Steinbrück agreed. Putin was driven by an “almost imperial mission” to restore the sphere of influence of the former Soviet Union. Military, diplomatic and economic support must lead to a kind of exhaustion in Russia that leads to internal power shifts.
The SPD politician expressly praised the Chancellor for his Ukraine policy, in which he was “completely correct”. In general, he praised Olaf Scholz as “extremely competent” and “very hard-working”.
Habeck’s “burning ambition” led to mistakes
However, he was dissatisfied with the federal government. The quarreling traffic light parties would have needed a “clear preliminary agreement” on their objectives in order to be able to go public in unison. In the case of the much-discussed building energy law, Robert Habeck’s “burning ambition” led to communicative and technical errors that would have discredited the approach of the amendment. Despite the “outrage and the waves of excitement”, the approach and the objective of the heating law were “completely correct”, emphasized Steinbrück.
Steinbrück, the former finance minister, also believes that his successor Christian Lindner’s (FDP) stance on the debt brake is “right”. In parallel with the interest rate policy of the ECB, budgetary policy must strive to combat inflation, which in the long run promotes “considerable distribution conflicts”.
In the medium perspective, Germany would also face quite a few financial problems. He included defense spending, the “massive pressure from demographic developments on the social security funds”, the repayment of the “corona debt” and increased climate protection.
Steinbrück criticized the initiative of his party leader Lars Klingbeil to abolish the marriage splitting. “You can’t just launch a hot-air balloon without carefully considering the issues involved,” he said. This is linked to “very fundamental constitutional issues”. Even if you only concentrate on the burden of the new marriages, “touches a principle of equality and would also burden new marriages with considerable additional tax expenditure”.
Comments are closed.