Überraschung!

Or in case your German is a bit rusty: Surprise! We know we said we’re on summer vacation, and we are, but like the Rolling Stones we had to come back for one last Ehrenrunde (engl. lap of honor) before truly shutting the laptops. So, as an extra little goody for the Krautshell fans, we’re bringing you the Krautshell Summer Interview Special.

One interview, one Member of European Parliament, one hot topic: Ukraine. Last week we sat down with Michael Gahler, the EPP Group’s Spokesman on Foreign Affairs to discuss the ongoing war, Europe’s Russia policy, and future outlook for Ukraine.

We hope you enjoy these exclusive insights and we will return following the parliamentary summer break(s) to catch you up on everything you may have missed while Europe was lounging at the beach.

Anna                                Christian

with Michael Gahler, MEP

Krautshell:

Let’s start with the issue of arms shipments and the war in general. In your 29 June letter to Chancellor Scholz, you write that the stronger the support for Ukraine, the faster we can end the war. Given Russia’s current superiority on the battlefield, would more arms deliveries not prolong the conflict?

Gahler:

I am decidedly of the opinion that we must equip Ukraine so that it can push back. Putin’s war aim remains the breakup of Ukraine and we can see quite a direct result when the necessary weapons are supplied and Ukraine can destroy Russian weapon depots more effectively. On a strategic level, things are complicated by the fact that Putin just has not given up his main objective, and even a ceasefire now would basically just allow him more time to reinforce and relaunch military operations whenever it fits. It is in the interest of Ukraine and of the entire West that Russian troops are substantially pushed back from Ukrainian territory.

Krautshell:

EU institutions have so far provided about 2 billion euros while the United States has provided about 24 billion euros in military aid. Can Europe take a leading role in supporting its neighbor and accession candidate given this huge difference?

Gahler:

First of all, we’ve made a step ahead a few days ago. We’re at two and a half billion euros, that is the fifth tranche that has now been approved. Secondly, we are on the move in many ways. Take humanitarian aid, where we supply the country massively as EU and member states and macrofinancial support: We are providing aid to ensure the basic functioning of the Ukrainian state, for instance that salaries can be paid, among other things. Consider also the very high number of refugees that the European Union has taken in, that is also a relevant support and relief for the country and the EU can be proud of its efforts. But we must consider that the EU budget does not allow for a direct comparison with the United States. Insofar we would have to add all member state contributions.

Krautshell:

Over to the subject of sanctions. The Bavarian Industry Association estimates that a complete stop of Russian gas imports would endanger about 5.6 million jobs and could lead to a decline in Germany s GDP by 12 percent. Meanwhile, the ruble was named the “best performing currency in the world this year” by CBS News. How do you judge the success of Western sanctions against Russia?

Gahler:

First of all, it seems to me that the Bavarian economy in particular is one of those that tends to, how shall I say, look forward to the opportunity to return to “business as usual” with Russia, which is something I cannot support. Then there is a widespread impression that Russia supplies us with a hundred percent of our gas, though I believe it is only around 30 percent. That said, I am very much in favor of having a debate on how we prioritize to ensure that key industries are guaranteed supply security, because so much depends on it. What the Bavarian Industry Association is painting on the wall are worst-case scenarios that I don’t think are realistic. And therefore, we should not take this at face-value. I wish that the sanctions would work better, but they do unfold with gradual effect and, to use an example, if certain technological spare parts are no longer supplied, Russian planes will not be able to take off. Also consider shortages in equipment which will affect industry and the economy in general. At the same time, there are some people within the economy in different countries that wish to circumvent sanctions and transact with Russia. I can only warn against this. This will avenge itself, because this Russia is basically a fascist rogue state that cannot be trusted.

Krautshell:

As a follow-up: You call Russia a fascist state and Putin a fascist dictator. Do you support lifting the EU sanctions in the event of a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia, or does Putin have to go to create that foundation?

Gahler:

I am in favor of lifting the sanctions when the last Russian soldier has left Ukrainian territory, and this must mean all Ukrainian territory. If Crimea should still be occupied, then the sanctions that we already imposed because of Russia’s occupation of Crimea will of course continue. A dictated peace is not acceptable and is not in the interest of Ukraine. Lifting sanctions under these circumstances would amount to a “reward” for Putin, and this must not happen.

Krautshell:

In terms of labeling the Ukraine war, your party leader Mr. Merz spoke – just like the Chancellor and the Foreign Minister – of a war of extermination. Terms such as “genocide” have also been falling in this debate. Some historians see this as an indirect trivialization of National Socialist crimes. My question is: How does one speak correctly about this war?

Gahler:

I would call it a fascist war of extermination, not least because Putin’s motivations are also ideologically or historically founded. Look at what he wrote about a year ago in this essay about the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians, which is historical falsification. You can boil this ideology down to these words: Russians and Ukrainians is about one people, one empire, one language and one church. There are also contradictions in this: If Russian and Ukrainian are one language, then the Russian language cannot be discriminated against in Ukraine. Putin’s arguments are used as a justification for stealing Ukraine’s identity, and this is classic fascist behavior which justifies the classification as this war as a fascist war of extermination. The treatment of civilians and the killing of officials who do not collaborate are further aspects we know from dark times in the past [i.e. the German occupation of Ukraine during WWII]. It is in fact not directly comparable, because of course the whole aspect of the systematic extermination of the Jews is missing, but overall the comparison is fair.

I deliberately use these sharp words so that certain people finally wake up. There are those in the West who still think that we can return to business as usual with this gentleman. I believe the Russians must decide. Consider today’s date, the 20^th of July [anniversary of Stauffenberg’s assassination attempt against Hitler in 1944]: If something can change inside Russia, or there is an attempt to change the political system or remove Putin, it becomes possible when the Russian troops are pushed back on the Russian border, not when they are marching forward. Then there is a chance to negotiate about peace on an equal footing.

Krautshell:

I also wanted to speak about the issue of reconstruction. When the Ukraine Recovery Conference was held in Lugano in early July, you demanded that frozen Russian state funds should be used for the reconstruction of Ukraine, provided a proper legal framework. What kind of legal framework did you have in mind?

Gahler:

As far as I know, the EU Commission is currently examining the legal basis for this. We have in the past also had peace agreements involving reparations payments, so that is naturally possible. I just have my doubts that Russia would be willing to do that given the record of destruction Putin has inflicted. The Russian state is certainly liable for compensation. Also consider oligarchs’ fortunes, which are in many cases stolen state property or the result of fiscal fraud. At any rate, I hope that we can find a valid legal basis, because we cannot let these criminals simply get away.

Krautshell:

Finally, on to the subject of EU membership. Even before the war, Ukraine was far from fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria necessary for accession to the EU. How do you assess Ukraine’s short- and medium-term prospects of becoming a member?

Gahler:

Certainly not short-term, and it depends on how you define medium-term. But I want to say one thing in advance. Ukraine’s candidate status has a very clear political purpose, namely to determine where the country belongs. The country belongs to the free part of Europe and is on the path to the European Union. This political statement is fixed and non-negotiable, and Russia must know that. But this is also particularly important for those forces in Ukraine that want the decisive reforms. I could now name a long list of areas where progress has already been made, such as digitalization and public administration. This is a great challenge and a great opportunity, and I hope that in the future Ukraine will be able to emerge from this traumatic experience like a phoenix from the ashes. What I want to say is this country has a huge potential of very talented people and could, if supported by the right conditions, become an asset to our European family.

Krautshell:

That’s it for my questions for today, thank you very much for your time and insights, that was most interesting.