"It is always only a vanishing minority that wants war"

Oskar Lafontaine's pamphlet "Ami it's time to go!" has just been published. In the interview, Lafontaine explains why Germany and Europe should break away from the USA as a global power, that the aim must be to end the bloodshed in Ukraine and why "fascist thinking" has also taken hold among representatives of the German government.

You have just published a new book with the very provocative title "Ami it's time to go!". This of course harks back to the days of the 1970s, when this became a slogan during the Vietnam War. Aren't you afraid that this will now be taken to mean that Lafontaine is anti-American, which will put your thoughts to one side?

Oskar Lafontaine: Yes, that is the normal reflex, but we still have to keep trying to have a debate about sensible security policy in Germany. My core thesis is that a world power that wants to remain the only world power and therefore wages trade wars, covert wars, drone and bomb wars can never lead a defense alliance. That is why I say we need a NATO without the USA, an independent European defense. Where the USA is leading us is evident from the war in Ukraine, which is in reality a conflict between the USA and Russia, as everyone who has not yet been completely poisoned and misled by false narratives knows.

If we leave out the prehistory of the Ukraine war, many governments say that they now see the danger posed by Russia. Russia would also go further to expand its zones of influence. That is why the USA is now all the more important as a protective power to ward this off.

Oskar Lafontaine: This is a classic case of the truth being turned on its head. The US has pushed NATO to Russia's border against the advice of many US politicians. Now there are German and US troops on the Russian border. This could not have been imagined some time ago. In addition, there are missile bases near the Russian border and soon on the Russian border, whose missiles have a flight time of five minutes or less to Moscow. Missiles without warning times are the knife at the enemy's neck. Anyone who puts a knife to their opponent's neck is not pursuing a peace policy. I would like this to get around in Germany and for people to think about the mistakes that Germany is also making.

The German government has announced that Germany should also become a leading military power. Scholz's big bang is therefore also being used in armaments policy and attempts are being made to increase the size of the Bundeswehr. However, it is apparently not quite clear how far integration into NATO should go or whether a European defense alliance should be created. If I have understood correctly, you are arguing for a European defense alliance that breaks away from NATO.

Oskar Lafontaine: Better from the USA, because it is misleading to talk about NATO here. Many people believe that NATO guarantees our security. But you have to know that NATO is the USA or the USA is NATO. And if NATO wants to do anything, it needs the approval of the USA. The USA has the say and decides alone what happens, to the extent that it doesn't even ask the allies about important things. They even go so far as to blow up one of Europe's central supply lines without any consideration for their allies - keyword Nord Stream 2. That was the USA or they gave the order or at least said, do it, we agree. This shows what a disastrous state NATO is in.

You say that a peaceful solution is needed and that this war in Ukraine must be interrupted. How do you envisage this? Russia will certainly not stop the war at the moment. And with Ukraine, Zelensky has also got himself into a situation that he can't get out of. How should or could a peace solution work?

Oskar Lafontaine: Selensky may be a decisive piece on the chessboard in the opinion of many, but he is not. Ultimately, he has nothing to say, to put it bluntly. What happens in Ukraine is also decided by the USA, nobody else. That is why there can only be peace negotiated by the USA and Russia. The USA is largely financing the war in Ukraine. They have been supplying weapons for many years, they finance the system. If the USA says this is the direction it is going in, then the Ukrainians have to follow, whether they want to or not. Of course, there are also repeated attempts to escape, as we have now seen when a so-called defensive missile landed in Poland and some have even expressed the suspicion that the Ukrainians deliberately fired these missiles into Poland in order to draw NATO into the war. Such aspirations exist among Zelensky and his entourage, as the FAZ recently noted. But the decision lies with the USA, there is no question about that.

Istanbul has shown that efforts have been made to find peace. This is being discussed, also in the United States. But then Boris Johnson said on behalf of the USA, Selensky, you must not make peace because the US administration believes that the fighting must continue until Russia is on the ground and can no longer wage war. That's what the US Secretary of War, who is wrongly called the Secretary of Defense, said. Of course, there can be no peace with this attitude. But it is also incredibly cynical because it forgets that people are dying every day on the battlefields of Ukraine. Ukrainians are dying and Russians are dying. You have to see both. And if you want to save human lives, then you have to start tomorrow with the ceasefire.

"If you listen to some people now, it sounds like nuclear war is a video game"

You say it is a proxy war. Could it be that for the USA, which has long seen China as the big enemy, this war with Russia over Ukraine is an intermediate step towards the other conflict into which NATO is to be drawn? Would you agree with that?

Oskar Lafontaine: That is logical and has been said in many US papers. I recently found a quote from Kissinger in his book "Diplomacy" - "Die Vernunft der Nationen" is the German title. He wrote: "We must prevent the emergence of a power on the Eurasian continent, i.e. in Europe and Asia, that is a match for us. We must ensure that Europe is weaker and, of course, that Russia remains weak. And when we talk about Eurasia, we must of course also ensure that China remains weak. This has been the goal of US policy since the end of the Second World War.

The dangerous thing for the USA's protégés, i.e. the Europeans, is that they are being dragged into these wars. You can see that in Germany. Just take the drone war being waged over Ramstein. It is a war that violates international law and in which innocent people are killed almost every day. In this respect, Germany is a party to the war, whether we like it or not. And we have to get out of it. We cannot support such a policy, especially as it always carries the risk of a nuclear conflict, i.e. madness that goes beyond people's imagination.

If you listen to some people in Russia or in the West, primarily in the USA, but also in Germany, it sounds as if nuclear war is a video game. This is a terrible development. The awareness that existed in the peace movement of the 1980s, that nuclear war is an unimaginable madness, no longer exists. Mrs. Merkel said something about this in the last Spiegel that also plays a role. She said that the memory of the horror is disappearing along with the witnesses, which means that the spirit of reconciliation is also disappearing. She saw something right there. If you listen to the discussions now, it's hard to bear.

There is some hope that the Pentagon will say this cannot go on, we cannot advise further escalation, we must come to a ceasefire and a negotiated peace. That's what Chief of Staff Mark Milley said publicly. It is an interesting phenomenon that the military in the US are calling for reason, while the entourage around Biden, i.e. Secretary of State Blinken and above all that unspeakable Nuland, who is already responsible for the coup in Ukraine, keep pushing for escalation. One can only hope that the US military will prevail.

We always talk about the USA or now the Biden administration, but who is behind this long-term policy of containing Russia? Is it the politicians, is it the parties, is it a certain industry or the interests of a certain group. It's not the USA as such.

Oskar Lafontaine: Of course, it's mainly the people who make a living from it. The fact is that people don't want war. That's always been the case. It's always just a tiny minority that wants war. That's why you have to stir people up through the media. In the USA, it's the military-industrial complex. Dwight D. Eisenhower, one of the US presidents, said many years ago in his farewell address that the military-industrial complex should not be given too much power or too much leeway because it is highly dangerous. Today, the arms industry dominates Congress because practically all elected officials there are more or less financed by it. This is why the United States has such an insane armaments budget, or rather war budget, which is off the scale at over 800 billion US dollars. The military-industrial complex is complemented by the financial industry and other forces that determine US policy.

You are now talking about a "plea for Europe's self-assertion". And you suggest that Germany and France can become the core of a Europe that breaks away from the USA. But if we look at Europe, the ties between the eastern states, i.e. the Baltic states, Poland, Romania, etc., and the USA are much stronger than in western Europe. Do you see any chance at all of keeping the EU together if we were to strive for something like this?

Oskar Lafontaine: What you say in your question is correctly observed. That is why I also say that France and Germany must take matters into their own hands. Due to their special history and situation, the Baltic states, for example, are at the forefront when it comes to reinforcing the enemy image and inciting war. I have to say that so clearly. Because of their history, the Poles are also always ready to see Russia as the enemy. But that leads nowhere. We have one successful experiment. That was Willy Brandt's policy of détente. There was no war in Europe during this period. When we stopped, there was the war in Yugoslavia and now the war in Ukraine. Now we don't have a policy of détente, we have a policy of tension. The focus is on escalation.

"We are now living in a madhouse as far as the debate is concerned"

You probably also know that a demonstration organized by right-wing circles took place in Leipzig at the weekend, with Compact in the background, at which your slogan "Ami go home" was used. Compact talks about the USA being Germany's "main enemy" and an "occupying regime". Would you welcome the proximity to these right-wing nationalist circles? Sahra Wagenknecht is also becoming a figurehead for the new Chancellor there. So they are trying to connect with your positions. How do you see that?

Oskar Lafontaine: I can only remind you of Enzensberger, who has just died, who once said: "The fear of applause from the wrong side is a characteristic of totalitarian thinking." In other words, you can't make yourself dependent on what some right-wing groups or magazines write. And in this respect, we must also be able to think about the role of the United States without taking into account articles in right-wing magazines. The slogan "Yanks go home" comes from the movement against the Vietnam War, and that wasn't a right-wing movement. There is an idiotic logic in the media. If the AfD says we need good relations with Russia, then whoever says that is on the right. According to this logic, which has unfortunately also spread into politics, Willy Brandt would be a right-winger today. We are now living in a madhouse as far as the debate is concerned.

How can you tell the difference for yourself? Just carry on or take a stand?

Oskar Lafontaine: No, the right should not be made the judge of what is right or wrong. Then you would have to try to distance yourself in some way every day. I think the eager journalists and politicians who are always talking about AfD proximity are the AfD's best propagandists. By constantly talking about the AfD's proximity to the party, they are enhancing it, whether they want to or not. In other words, they are involuntary helpers of the AfD. No, you have to defend your own thoughts. And here I would like to quote Enzensberger once again: you must not fall into totalitarian thinking by shying away from applause from the wrong side.

I still don't quite understand how you would try to separate Germany and France politically from the USA. Could you be more specific about this?

Oskar Lafontaine: We have a tradition of Gaullism in France. De Gaulle repeatedly said that a country must decide for itself on war and peace. That is why he would not have tolerated the Ramstein airbase on French soil, for example, because as a general he knew that it would involve him in every US operation. He did not want that. And a man like Macron also stands in this tradition. He has repeatedly tried to initiate an independent policy. He also said that NATO was brain-dead and has repeatedly demanded that Europeans strengthen their own defense. Unfortunately, he has no contact person in Germany.

It's really bad at the moment. If the press reports are correct, there is disagreement between Germany and France on a whole range of issues. From what I can read or take note of, the fault lies with the Germans, because they are playing the Americans' poodle too much instead of coordinating with France and developing a common policy.

If we do not succeed in organizing a joint effort with Germany and France, as Gerhard Schröder, for example - and I say this quite deliberately - tried to do when he opposed the war in Iraq and acted together with Chirac, if we do not succeed in developing this axis, then I see no way out of the fatal dependence on the USA.

At that time, there was already a split between the "new" and the "old" Europe. The new Europe saw itself on the rise and joined the Iraq war. The Iraq war marked the beginning of a division, which was of course desired by the USA, but which would deepen if France and Germany joined forces.

Oskar Lafontaine: Sure, but you can't use that as a guide. We cannot find security in Europe without a sensible relationship with Russia. Russia is a nuclear power, we must never forget that. But many people forget that. When I listen to the speeches, I get the impression that they don't know what a nuclear power is, what its capabilities are. Of course, this leads to completely wrong conclusions, even among the Eastern European states. When you see how they keep setting things on fire and are ready to escalate, they rely on the fact that nothing will happen.

However, we have known since the discussions of the 1980s that relying on nothing happening is a game whose outcome nobody can know. We have often come close to nuclear war. I cited the well-known examples in my pamphlet, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, where a Soviet officer prevented a torpedo from being fired from a submarine cruising near Cuba. Or in Okinawa, where a US officer disobeyed an order to fire nuclear torpedoes because it could not be true, as targets in China were also listed. The most famous case is Colonel Petrov, who saw intercontinental missiles approaching in 1984 but did not press the red button because he thought it was a computer error.

"How can we overcome the thinking that is expressed in the sentence: 'We have to keep supplying weapons because weapons save lives'?"

Of course, that can always happen. Some people say that the mood for war that prevails in certain circles, among the Greens, on the government side as a whole, but also in the USA, is based on the belief that this is finally a just, good war against an absolutely evil opponent. You can put all other wars behind you and even forget about Nazi Germany, because you are finally going into a new, just and good war. Do you also see that as a background?

Oskar Lafontaine: You can see it that way, but of course I wonder what happened there, because for me that is fascist thinking. When Ms. Baerbock, for example, says that Russia must be ruined, that is fascist thinking. This thinking is characterized by the fact that people are excluded. We are seeing this in the current debate in Germany. The people who are dying every day are very rarely mentioned in the sense that a ceasefire must be achieved now. No, they talk about a victorious peace. Crimea must be recaptured and we must supply more and more weapons.

The German Foreign Minister has even gone so far as to claim - probably unaware that she has adopted the slogan of the US gun nuts - that weapons save lives. How guns save lives in the USA can be seen again and again. This is an aberration that I call fascist. That is why all those who want peace must come together and say: when we talk about a community of values, we must not talk about terms that hardly anyone can imagine, but we must simply acknowledge that we see people as our sisters and brothers and that we will do everything we can to ensure that they do not lose their lives. That is the priority, not to recapture Crimea or to keep the Russians down.

Where does this fascist mood, as you call it, come from?

Oskar Lafontaine: That is difficult to say. As I said, Ms. Merkel interestingly mentioned one reason in Der Spiegel: Awareness of the horrors of war is disappearing along with the witnesses of the time and with it the willingness for reconciliation. This may be because people no longer really know what happened back then or because they no longer develop the feelings necessary to say: we want to do everything we can to ensure that something like this never happens again.

I think there is another reason, and that is the disappearance of religion. This may sound strange coming from me, but Dostoyevsky already wrote: When God is dead, everything is permitted. Other writers have also commented on this. Malraux, for example, once said: "This century will be religious or it won't be. By this he did not mean that everyone must adhere to a faith, but that the values conveyed by religions, such as charity in the Christian West, i.e. compassion for others, are the basis of a peaceful world. If this is gone, and you can see that in the intention to ruin Russia, then the willingness or the basis for peace is no longer there.

But that can't mean that we absolutely have to build new churches now.

Oskar Lafontaine: No, the question is, how can we overcome the thinking that is expressed in the sentence: "We have to keep supplying weapons because weapons save lives" or in the sentence "We have to ruin Russia"? This can only be overcome through humanism, if you want to use that term. It is based on seeing one's fellow human being as a sister or brother. Cultural exchange, for example, can bring people together and awaken a love for each other's culture. That is why it is so fatal that Russian artists are now being disinvited. That is a step towards barbarism.