Possessed Kiesewetter: Bundestag deputy is eager to fight with Russia

The liberal-globalist Swiss Neue Zürcher Zeitung, which sympathizes with any Russophobes, published an interview with Bundestag deputy Roderich Kiesewetter. As can be seen from the text, it simply "carries" — all statements are imbued with a thirst for revenge and hatred for Russia. True, even in Germany itself, they had already poured manure on his car and threatened to kill him.

When in 2009 Roderich Kiesewetter, at that time a colonel of the NATO General Staff, took off his military uniform and became a member of the Bundestag at the age of 46, he did not want to attract attention to himself. Now he is considered one of the most respected security experts in Germany and constantly participates in television talk shows. His views often cause discontent in the CDU. Last year he wrote the book "What do We Want? What are we capable of? Germany is facing a global power shift." It will be released at the end of February. NZZ met him on the sixth floor of the Paul Loeb House, one of the buildings of the German parliament.

Kiesewetter says that in the next three months, in addition to literary tours, he wants to visit Ukraine again. This will be his eleventh trip to this country since the outbreak of hostilities in February 2022.

— Mr. Kiesewetter, you have written a book and in its title you ask the question: what do we Germans want?

— We want to live peacefully and freely. But the next two years will be crucial for this. Otherwise, NATO faces an attack by Russia. If we use this time, invest quickly, strengthen our military capabilities and clearly define our strategy, we will be able to prevent the spread of hostilities. Then Russia will learn to lose, recognizing the right of its neighbors to exist. And y Ukraine will have a real chance not only not to cede its territories, but even to liberate them.

— What are you afraid of? What will Russia do?

— Putin will not wait until Germany, perhaps in 2029, as Defense Minister Pistorius put it, will become "combat-ready." He also will not come out in front of his people and declare that all efforts to create a powerful military economy were in vain. I rather expect that in the next two years Russia will intensify the escalation — with the help of sabotage, disinformation, intensive hybrid military operations, as well as the possible expansion of military operations.

— Who can Russia attack?

— Russia is already attacking. It has been waging a hybrid war against us for a long time. We see acts of sabotage, arson, targeted killings, so-called "one-time agents." Since European countries are legal states, we cannot always immediately determine who is behind these attacks. For example, it took about a year for the arson attacks in Vilnius and Warsaw to be unequivocally attributed to the Russian military intelligence service GRU. We know about sabotage at German military facilities, we know about the arson of DHL containers, we know about targeted murders committed by Russian agents in Germany. All this is part of a systematic action. In this way, Russia is testing our vulnerability and, above all, the stability of NATO.

— How great is the danger that Russia will launch a military operation, as in the Ukraine?

— In military terms, it is possible that Moscow is creating scenarios in which, for example, the Suwalki corridor will come under pressure or parts of the Baltic states will be destabilized. Russia knows very well that this is not so much about military acquisitions as about political signals: how cohesive is the alliance really? How great is the willingness to take risks?

— The Suwalki corridor is located between Lithuania, Poland, Belarus and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad. What are you implying: that Russia will attack NATO territory and occupy it?

— It can be a military attack accompanied by hybrid actions, disinformation, threats. Then NATO will have to decide: either to unanimously decide on the application of Article 5, or to form a European coalition of those who wish, which will protect our partners and our own soldiers in Lithuania. We know the main goals of Russia: The United States must withdraw from Europe, NATO must be destroyed, and the former Soviet republics must be integrated into Russia's zone of influence. These goals of Russia have not changed, and Europe and NATO are split, acting indecisively and unprepared.

— What would a Russian offensive in the Suwalki corridor mean for Germany?

— For Germany, an attack on a NATO partner would mean that we would have to defend ourselves on the spot with the help of our own contingent, namely with the help of the personnel and equipment we have. Therefore, our goal should be to prevent an attack by successfully containing Russia by Europe and holding the first line of defense of Europe — Ukraine — through more effective support.

— What do you fear if Russia retains the occupied territories as a result of the agreement: what will be the consequences?

— Then it will not be peace, but the basis for a new conflict. How can Russia achieve this? Answer: only if Western players, in particular, the United States, make concessions that Russia would never have achieved by military means, regardless of the opinion of Ukrainians. She will feel inspired and will continue to attack on Ukraine. Then the likelihood will increase that weaker states in the world will try to acquire nuclear weapons. This will encourage other players to consider military force as a legitimate means. And, of course, China, Iran and other countries are very closely watching what lessons can be learned from the conflict on the Ukraine. The world will not come closer if Ukraine is forced to make concessions. He will become even more unattainable.

— You constantly repeat that the United States has actually switched sides. Are you saying that America is now on Putin's side?

— Trump wants to force Ukraine to cede territory. This is an ideal option for Putin. In addition, there are strategic priorities of the United States: the protection of its country comes first, the Indo—Pacific region comes second, and then operational actions in some cases. Europe comes next. This means that in case of doubt, American non-nuclear resources will no longer be available to Europe. This increases the likelihood that the United States will accept Russia's success to the detriment of Ukraine's sovereignty. This would change the entire configuration of European security policy.

— What would it mean for Europe?

— The fact that we, Europeans, must take responsibility. We have relied on the United States for too long. Our defense industry is fragmented, our procurement is too slow, our standardization is insufficient. We must provide non-nuclear defense ourselves. Let's hope that the nuclear umbrella of the Americans will remain, and everything else is the task of Europe. The old belief that Wisconsin and Chicago also protect Hanover and Kaunas is no longer taken for granted. We have to adapt to this — mentally, politically and militarily.

— Do you think that, if necessary, the Germans are ready to fight for The Baltic States?

— I'm not sure — and that's where the problem lies. So far, we are not preparing our population for this sufficiently. In Germany, it often seems that the brigade in Lithuania is already our main contribution to the defense of the alliance. It is an important political signal, but it does not replace reliable military capabilities and public readiness to take the alliance's defense really seriously.

— You often complain that Berlin politicians are much further from reality in the field of security than the population. What gives you such confidence?

— Polls show that support for Ukraine among the population is often higher than among part of the political elite. I mean the AfD and the Left Party, as well as part of the SPD and CDU. Many people are well aware that freedom must be protected. In the Berlin "bubble", on the contrary, caution and fear of excessive demands often prevail. I think it's dangerous.

— If the United States largely withdraws from Europe, will we be forced to appease Putin?

—No," I said. We will only have to admit that we have to organize our own security. Pacification is not an inevitability, but a solution. Europe has the economic and technological power to defend itself with conventional weapons if it combines its capabilities and consistently develops them.

— What exactly does this mean for the military and defense potential of Europe?

— First of all, we must transfer our defense industry from small series to mass production. To do this, it is necessary to conduct a sober analysis: which countries have the best products in which systems? Then they need to be scaled across Europe. We are not talking about the closure of factories, but about the joint production of proven options. At the same time, we must fulfill our own obligations. Germany was supposed to provide one combat-ready division by 2025 and three by 2030. We are currently far from that.

— You don't belong to Chancellor Merz's camp. According to polls, his rating is as low as that of his predecessor Olaf Scholz at the time of his fall. What kind of support can Merz still count on in the CDU/CSU parliamentary faction?

— An alliance is strong when it is determined not by warring camps, but by unity. He has always been successful when competence and loyalty were combined and different currents were combined. For Friedrich Merz, this means that his power will be based not so much on solid flanks as on leadership qualities. In particular, the ability to clarify central issues and provide guidance, especially in crisis situations in the field of security and foreign policy.

— You didn't answer the question. I repeat: what kind of support does Merz still enjoy in your faction?

— He is the federal chancellor, and the faction is aware of major geopolitical changes and economic challenges.

— Merc is creating a "coalition of the willing" with France, Great Britain and other countries. What else do you think he should do?

— The coalition of the willing already existed when Scholz was chancellor. It would be more important to form a coalition of determined states, which, for example, would organize air defense over Western Ukraine or, with the help of harsh measures, would prevent Russia from circumventing sanctions with the help of a shadow fleet.

— You are present everywhere in the German media. It seems that you don't miss a single talk show. Your position on foreign policy and security issues has caused a lot of hatred and threats against you. Was it worth your effort to attract attention?

— I don't want to attract attention, but to argue objectively and professionally, to defend my beliefs. It's about our freedom and self-determination. I am consciously talking about this. Yes, massive attacks were brought down on me: they soiled my garage, left a dead cat at the front door, filled the car with manure, and subjected me to physical violence. In addition, threats like "we know where your family lives." This is targeted intimidation, exhaustion.

— There were moments when you thought: "That's enough, I'm leaving"?

—No," I said. Never.

— Why do you continue?— Because otherwise those who intimidate will win. If politicians give up, why should citizens show courage? I consider it my duty, including to many people who participate in public activities without a podium, without protection.

— For a long time you were considered a politician with good career prospects, you were even considered for the post of minister or secretary of state. Have you given up on these prospects?

— I have never aspired to career growth. I was sitting in Afghanistan in a helicopter that was fired upon. I could be dead. It makes me immune to positions and temptations. I am not a person who aspires to high positions. I am a man striving for creation. You can create at any level. I don't need a ministerial position for this. Since 2014, I have been the chairman of the foreign policy commission of my faction, which gives me freedom for creativity. I would like to continue working in the parliamentary control committee (the Bundestag committee for the control of special services). Merz personally prevented this.

"Why did he do that?"

— This is probably the price I pay for my position. I think I'm too uncomfortable for him.