Duitsland staat niet zozeer op gespannen voet met Nord Stream II of de Russische Federatie, maar met zichzelf

Mijn reactie op DW News bij een video over de aanleg van Nord Stream II:

‘Mayor Axel Vogt is a strange figure. Is he really that naive, or is he just hired to express an opinion like a stage actor is rehearsing a role? He believes that Alexei Navalny is winning the propaganda battle in Europe against the Kremlin, which has much more resources at its disposal. That must indicate that the Kremlin’s propaganda is unable to sell a bad product, namely its authoritarian regime. But Vogt’s perspective does not reach that far. His perspective turns out to be mired in Nord Stream II alone.

The tragedy of such a blinkered mayor is that he first looks at who his opponent is before forming an opinion about the case itself. That is the tragedy of party politics in its worst form, by the way. The mayor straightens out what’s wrong. Apparently he sees that as his job.

In any case, the attitude of German politics (except for the Greens, the Liberals and some CDU members) towards the Russian Federation is rather distorted and disturbed. This has to do with the Second World War and the suffering caused by the Nazis.

How that can go wrong, President Steinmeier showed when he recently consciously or naively confused the victimization of Balts, Poles, Belarusians and Ukrainians with the victimization of Russians. Professor Timothy Snyder has repeatedly demonstrated to a German audience, including parliamentarians, with figures that Poles, Belarusians and Ukrainians have suffered proportionally more from the German war machine than the Russians.

But those facts do not reach the very top of German politics. Although it is also possible that they do know what victims they have made, but consciously perpetuate the misunderstanding in order to reach a rapprochement with the Kremlin. A rapprochement that on closer inspection is not appropriate, not ethical and not permissible. But this rather disproportionately favors German business at the expense of Eastern and Western Europe. That misunderstanding has marked Germany’s Russia policy since Willy Brandt, with the SPD in the most malicious role of helping the Kremlin, and not Germany or the EU.

The conclusion of the Nord Stream II fuss is not that it is about Germany’s relationship with the Russian Federation, but essentially about Germany’s self-image. That is seriously distorted and clouded. Even 75 years after the war, German politics has not yet properly processed that war. Or as said, and what is even more false and poignant, it has processed that war, but deliberately misinterprets it for opportunistic reasons.

This not only alienates Germany even further from the real victims of World War II, such as Poland, Belarus and Ukraine, as well as France and the Netherlands, but with that false self-image it also does itself considerable damage because it knowingly deceives itself.’

Timothy Snyder wijst Duitse parlementariërs op blinde vlek in hun historisch geheugen over Oekraïne. En op verantwoordelijkheid

In het hol van de leeuw leest historicus en hoogleraar aan Yale Timothy Snyder het Duitse parlement de les. De registratie dateert van 20 juni 2017. Euromaidan geeft een transcriptie van zijn lezing. Zijn uiteenzetting van 30 minuten is rijk aan details en probeert de Duitse parlementariërs historisch besef bij te brengen over de Tweede Wereldoorlog en misverstanden recht te zetten over Oekraïne. Snyder suggereert dat hun schuldbesef dat ze nu jegens Rusland koesteren historisch onjuist is en feitelijk gericht moet zijn op Oekraïne.

Oekraïne (Soviet Ukraine) was het doel van Hitlers veroveringsoorlog naar het Oosten, heeft in die oorlog meer geleden dan elk ander land inclusief Duitsland, kende relatief en absoluut meer gesneuvelde militairen die in het Rode Leger tegen de Wehrmacht vochten (meer dan andere Sovjet-republieken of Frankrijk, Groot-Brittannië en de VS gecombineerd), en was niet nationalistischer of collaboreerde meer met het Derde Rijk dan andere landen. Minder dan Frankrijk zoals Snyder in een bij dit publiek slecht gelande kwinkslag opmerkt.

Oekraïne was het grootste slachtoffer van Duitse kolonisatie en slavernij. Dit besef -en wat kan worden opgevat als een terechtwijzing van de Duitse parlementariërs door Snyder- is van belang voor de huidige politieke opstelling van Duitsland, en in haar kielzog de EU. Het is niet in het laatst van belang voor de Duitse opstelling inzake de Minsk-onderhandelingen over de territoriale integriteit en soevereiniteit van Oekraïne. Snyder poetst historische en actuele Oekraïense fouten niet weg, maar probeert historische diepte te geven aan de Duitse verantwoordelijkheid en die te corrigeren op onjuistheden, gemakzucht en opportunisme. Of Snyder echt het op de Russische Federatie gerichte hedendaagse Duitse schuldbesef kan bijstellen is de vraag.

Snyder waarschuwt de Duitsers niet in de propaganda van het Kremlin te trappen. Essentieel is deze passage aan het einde van de lezing: ‘The danger here is that you enter into a kind of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of the mind, where Germans agree with Russians that the evils that came from Berlin and from Moscow to Ukraine are going to be blamed on Ukrainians. It’s so easy, it’s so comfortable, it’s so tempting to say: “Haven’t we Germans apologized enough? Aren’t we the model for everyone else? It’s such a tempting trap to fall into, but I can say this from experience as an American: if you get the history of colonization and slavery wrong, it can come back. And your history with Ukraine is precisely the history of colonization and slavery. If the remnants of German nationalism which are still with you on the left and on the right meet up with the dominance of Russian nationalism, if you find common ground there – that being “it’s all the fault of Ukraine; why should we apologize, why should you remember?” – this is a danger for Germany as a democracy precisely.’