The SPD parliamentary group is holding a discussion on the anniversary of Scholz’s speech about turning the corner. What constitutes this turning point is not so clear. What is striking, on the other hand, is the sustained high level of dismay among some Social Democrats – at the injuries they have suffered since the outbreak of the war.
The organizers were overwhelmed by the great demand: Not only the Otto-Wels-Saal, which can hold the 206 members of the SPD parliamentary group, but also the adjoining room is well filled on Monday evening. In addition, on the first anniversary of Olaf Scholz’s speech on the turnaround, numerous interested parties will be following the discussion “One year on the turnaround” via live stream. The parliamentary group leader Rolf Mützenich gives the introductory speech and sets a focus that is surprising in view of the topic of the evening: In his ten-minute speaking time – minus the greetings – Rolf Mützenich speaks primarily about Rolf Mützenich and all other Social Democrats who have suffered injuries in the past twelve months experienced through criticism and contradiction.
As will become clear later, Ralf Stegner is one of the victims of Putin’s war of aggression, who until now has not been perceived as such. The left-wing party organized the discussion evening together with Joe Weingarten and Falko Droßmann, all three of whom belong to the subcommittee on disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation. It remains unclear why the wide range of opinions on the Ukraine war within the SPD parliamentary group is not represented by representatives of other positions, such as Michael Roth. Instead, the political scientist Carlo Masala gives a voice on behalf of those who, unlike Mützenich and Stegner, spoke out in favor of robust military support for Ukraine right from the start of the invasion. In this context, Masala was so annoyed by a letter from Mützenich to the SPD faction at the end of January that he threatened to stay away from events of this faction in the future.
The fact that we will see each other again so early is probably one of the main reasons behind the great interest in the event. Another is certainly the participation of Boris Pistorius, the still new defense minister who is already at the top of the popularity rankings. Mützenich, on the other hand, sees the popularity being based primarily on the fact that the population is interested in answers to the turning point that go beyond “monothematic discussions”. It is the first, but not the last, reference by Mützenich to what he believes to be a debate that is too narrowly focused on the military.
The panel discussion with Masala and Stegner, of all things, shows how difficult it is not only for the media to give equal weight to all aspects of the war. The panel guests who were also invited – Diana Henniges, activist for the rights of refugees, and Kristina Lunz, founder of a center for feminist foreign policy – are likely to feel more like onlookers in the debate. The questions from the audience revolve primarily around the course of the war and traditional foreign and security policy. On the other hand, no one has any questions about the situation of Ukrainians who have fled to Germany.
The great willingness to help of some Germans who have voluntarily taken in Ukrainians is one of the many non-military forms of support provided by German politicians to the Ukraine. On the other hand, he considers the self-critical retrospect to be exaggerated. “It has sometimes even become a fashionable statement which mistakes one has made,” says the parliamentary group leader. But mistakes were part of it, even among political decision-makers, “against the background of events that one could not have foreseen in this way, but which of course one has to check again and again in retrospect”.
He, too, has omissions and mistakes to admit, says Mützenich, without naming them. “And at the same time I would like to use the freedom to say that I am sometimes irritated by one or the other who tell the public that they actually already knew everything.” You don’t have to believe them.
“If you correct omissions and mistakes,” – which these are, Mützenich again leaves open – “then I, as a Social Democrat, would like to confess one thing here too: the policy of détente is not responsible for the attack by Russian armed forces on Ukraine. President Putin alone is responsible for this responsible and I hope that at some point he will also be held accountable.” To call Germany’s Russia policy before and after the annexation of Crimea in 2014, which was also influenced by selfish economic motives, a policy of détente would have been somewhat courageous even before February 24, 2022. Today, a year later, the choice of words is probably an expression of Mützenich’s deep hurt at the criticism of his SPD and their shared responsibility for the war.
However, Mützenich not only finds the self-incriminations of other politicians and media SPD scolding inappropriate, but also the way he treats himself. The man from Cologne recalls his speech in the Bundestag at the end of March, when he presented a map of the world to the plenary hall to emphasize that China and India, the two most populous countries, had not agreed to a UN resolution against Russia’s war of aggression. “Diplomacy must also try to find ways to these states,” said Mützenich in the Otto-Wels-Saal, explaining his intention at the time. This is “not to be confused with negotiations with Putin”. He is concerned with the fact that diplomacy must build bridges to the emerging world powers so that negotiations can take place one day. This is exactly what Chancellor Scholz is aiming for with his trips to China and India.
Masala’s mimic reactions to Mützenich’s speech remain hidden from the audience behind him because the political scientist is sitting in the front row. During the panel discussion, he does not address the SPD parliamentary group leader, nor does he address Ralf Stegner’s tips. “I’ve been one of those who has commented on this in a differentiated manner over the past few days,” says Stegner of China’s peace plan, which Russia has rejected. Other experts and politicians had been skeptical of Beijing’s announcement from the start. After Putin’s rebuff, Stegner sees his assessment confirmed that China is also interested in an end to the war.
Via cognitive detours, Stegner also accommodates a broadside against Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann. With her vehement calls for weapons for Ukraine within the government factions, the FDP politician forms the opposite pole to Stegner. He now says: “I’m afraid that Putin doesn’t even read interviews by the chairmen of the Defense Committee of the German Bundestag.” Stegner therefore also praises Scholz’s visit to China, which was viewed critically by the coalition partners Greens and FDP in the fall. “I wish it wouldn’t be laughed at. Some people only talk about the fact that it will be decided militarily,” says Stegner. The multiple opposition that he encountered because of his calls for more peace diplomacy has obviously also left its mark on Stegner.
The fact that in addition to the military all ways must be tried to end the war is “a rare, historical moment” in content agreement, says Masala and adds: That shouldn’t happen too often. “Don’t worry!” Stegner assures him. The unity is then quickly over: Masala has doubts about which border the Chinese government means when it talks about territorial integrity: the border before the annexation of Crimea in 2014 or after Russia’s annexation of four other regions in southeastern Ukraine in the fall 2022? Masala also contradicts the SPD politicians Stegner and Mutzenich when dealing with states that are not involved: It is not just about peace diplomacy. Aggressive wars with Russia are accelerating the “conflict over the future order of the international system,” which is why Germany has to woo the states that are still undecided.
However, Masala refrains from frontal criticism of the SPD, he has nothing to settle here. A question from the audience is aimed at the story that the USA has given massive support to anti-Russian forces in Ukraine in recent years and thus provoked Putin. “No matter what happened before February 24th, nothing justifies February 24th,” says Masala. And: “Nothing justifies attacking another state and trying to erase its identity.” Both sentences should also reassure leading Social Democrats that neither criticism of past policies nor contradiction to current positions means they are being placed in a corner with Putin.
Pistorius, who moved to Berlin from Lower Saxony with its long-time particularly Russia-friendly SPD regional association, plays much more freely that evening. This may also be due to the fact that he followed the nerve-wracking discussions within Germany during the first year of the war from Hanover. “I always say that everyone is equally smart – some before, others after,” jokes the defense minister about the past debate. Then Pistorius explains what the Ukraine and the Bundeswehr need now and in the future. It may even be true about being clever, but people are unequally vulnerable. A discussion evening in the SPD parliamentary group room, which was poor in other knowledge, showed how vulnerable.
