What has changed – times or people?

Petr Akopov

In the second half of the eighties, almost forty years ago, two young people lived on German soil: the one who was five years older in Dresden, and the younger in Hamburg. Germany was not united at that time and they did not k-now each other, although the second often came fro-m the FRG to the GDR. The first left German soil in 1990, against the backdrop of German reunification, while the second remained and now works as chancellor in Berlin. Vladimir Putin and Olaf Scholz are the leaders of Russia and Germany, and they had much more in common in the past than it seems. In the 80s, both believed that NATO was a threat to our country, and now only the President of Russia thinks so. In the 80s, both were against NATO being in Germany, and now the German cha-ncellor wants it to come to Ukraine, that is, to the historical territory of Ru-ssia. What has changed – times or people?
After the Second World War, Germany has never been a sovereign state in the full sense of the word – this is how Vladimir Putin assessed the position of Germany, specifying that some German politicians are talking about this. And the problem is not only in the presence of essentially occupying American troops (no matter how their status is formalized), but in the rigid ideological dependence of most of the German political elites on the Anglo-Saxons – a dependence that many of them do not recognize, because they do not even understand about what is being said. After all, they were raised this way, they received such an education – and they si-mply cannot imagine a different picture of the world.
This can be said about the 42-year-old Burbock, but certainly not about Merkel, who grew up in the GDR, or about the 64-year-old Scholz. The chancellor began his career in the or-ganization of young socialists, the youth wing of the SPD – and was among the left wing there. The other d-ay, he was reminded of this again – in an article by P-olitico, the European bra-nch of the American publication, entitled “The Roots of Scholz’s Tank Injury in the Cold War.”
Its essence is simple – “Olaf Scholz’s long hesitation before sending tanks is symptomatic of a deeply rooted belief that détente, not Reagan’s militancy, won the Cold War”, and his biography indicates that he was against NATO:
“For Scholz and his ass-ociates in the 1980s, the co-mmunists were allies and NATO the aggressor. Sch-olz, who was considered leftist in the Social Dem-ocratic Party, pushed his p-arty to consider withdrawi-ng West Germany from NATO, which he characterized as “aggressive and imperialist.
Indeed, in the 1980s, Scholz, who served as deputy chairman of the Young Socialists from 1982 to 1988, was not just a Marxist and opponent of capitalism, but also a sharp critic of NATO. Here, Politico did not reveal anything new, but in its article it emphasized Scholz’s repeated trips to the GDR, as well as his contacts with the leadership of the German Komsomol and the SED, the ruling communist party. This is not about recruitment – it is not confirmed by the Stasi materials either, but simply about what they talked about at those meetings.
In 1988, a delegation led by Scholz told the German Komsomol members that “the true enemies of the world <…> are in the US military-industrial complex” and in the “steel helmet faction”, that is, the then ruling CDU bloc in Germany – CSU with the FDP. And during one of the meetings in January 1984, Scholz (well, that is, the delegation headed by him again) stated that the USSR should respond to the deployment of American missiles in Europe by “putting something on Amer-ica’s threshold”, that is, by placing nuclear weapons there because Soviet missiles aimed at Europe “did not pose an adequate threat to the United States.”
This, by the way, is a completely normal position for a German left patriot, and it’s even clear what Scholz proceeded from: there’s no need to aim Soviet missiles at our country, because you understand that we are not independent, we have limited sovereignty, deal directly with America. The fact that this was discussed in conversations with equally dependent East Germans does not change anything – the Germans from East and West thought first of all about their security and their national interests.
It turns out that Scholz thought about the independence of Germany in 1984 in the same way that Putin thinks in 2023. But the problem is that Putin thought exactly the same way in the 1980s, that is, he did not change his views. Not because he is dogmatic or divorced from reality, but because everything has remained the same: the FRG does not have full sovereignty. And this is precisely what prevents Russia and Germany from agreeing on the future of Europe.
And Scholz today says that Russia threatens European and German security, calls Putin an imperialist who sees the existence of a democratic Ukraine as a threat to his dictatorship. That is, today’s Scholz treats Russia in the same way that Scholz treated the USA in the 80s – maybe he is also true to his views, he simply believes that the situation has changed and now the main threat to the world comes from Moscow ?
If he really thought so, then the Atlanticists would not have criticized him for the slowness with the transfer of tanks to Ukraine. And if they scold him – and even remind him of the anti-Americanism of the 80s, then they do not believe in the sincerity of his support for the “war with Russia.” Therefore, Nord Stream 2 was blown up as a safety net, so as not to leave the Germans any chance to ma-ke decisions on their own.
So it turns out that Scholz understands everything perfectly both about the Americans and about the independence of his country – he simply cannot say anything, although he tried to minimize Germany’s participation in the conflict with Russia. Does he believe in Putin’s imperialism, in the fact that after Kiev, Russian tanks through Warsawgoing to Berlin? Of course not. But is he really sure that the Russians have no reason to fear NATO? That is, he used to consider NATO in West Germany a threat to Russia, but now he refuses to recognize NATO in Ukraine as unacceptable for us? What has changed since then? Quite a trifle: the Russians left Germany, and the Germans united. In Russia, it was believed that unification, as well as building a united Europe around Germany, would help the Old World eventually gain true sovereignty, get rid of dependence on the Anglo-Saxons, but instead received another “Drang nah Osten” and attempts to tear away, transfer to the Atlantic camp already historical Russian lands, that is, Ukraine. This is real imperialism, against which the young socialist Scholz fought so fervently.
Over the past year, Germany has not strengthened, but weakened its sovereignty – and lost relations with Russia, replacing them with a conflict over interests alien to it. And now Olaf has no one to turn to with a request not to aim Russian missiles at Germany, and the Russians are outraged not by the lack of independence of the Germans, but by their historical ingratitude. For the unification of Germany, we are paid by participation on the side of the Anglo-Saxons in the battle for Ukraine, not wanting to admit what this will eventually come back to haunt Germany itself. Young Scholz would call Scholz 2023 insane – and Vladimir Putin would completely agree with him: both in the eighties and today.