Pistorius: Miosga Accuses Defense Minister of Anti-Americanism

First up was the Federal Minister of Defense. Pistorius was on briefly and was in a resolute mood, even laughing briefly cynically when he was asked at the beginning whether he was relieved that Trump didn’t want to take over Greenland after all. “Good question,” he said, implying: Where have we actually gotten to that we should be happy about it. A little later he spoke about the American administration with Fontane’s title of “Trials and Confusions”. One sensed that this honorable politician was slowly losing patience with this dishonorable president. “I don’t know if I can trust him anymore,” said Pistorius, only half-heartedly trying to hide his indignation at Trump’s behavior.

A behavior that recently even outrageously degraded the sacrifices made by NATO soldiers in Afghanistan, with Trump insinuating that they had not really dared to go to the front line. A disgusting insult from a man who has never even come close to military sacrifice. Pistorius calls this insult “simply indecent and disrespectful.” He, who knows that Germany has also paid a high price in blood in Afghanistan, that 59 soldiers and 3 police officers died there and that around 500 soldiers were injured, some seriously, is reluctant to speak diplomatically. His undertone says, “It’s enough.” And when Miosga asks, he even allows himself to be tempted to demand an apology from Trump: “Yes, that would be a sign of decency and respect and also of insight.”

German anti-Americanism is back – but under new circumstances. Now it’s not about a war that America is waging somewhere in the world, but about a business bully as president who willfully splits alliances and enters into coalitions with war criminals. “Respect has to be mutual,” shouts Pistorius and promises to respond decisively to Trump’s insults the next time he meets his US counterpart Pete Hegseth. At the end, the German Defense Minister adds, almost defiantly: “We are on an excellent path towards making this country capable of war,” says Pistorius, probably not only reassuring but also frightening some people. And yet it is a confident tone that Pistorius strikes here, with a firm eye on the realities, and at the same time he shows with every expression: enough is enough.

This gesture is then adopted by the discussion group that follows the interview. One thing everyone agrees on is that it was good how the Europeans united in expressing their opposition to the Greenland issue. That we are dependent on America for security policy, but we shouldn’t just put up with everything. That the situation is serious, but not hopeless. There is also a sense of satisfaction that a combined effort has diverted Trump from the path of escalation.

The political scientist Daniela Schwarzer justifies the “playing with distributed roles” of the Europeans, who act with different degrees of toughness towards Trump and thus cleverly open up different decision-making spaces using game theory. And yet, as Norbert Röttgen (CDU), who always seems extremely trustworthy, differentiates, Trump made his Greenland decision primarily because of the poor surveys and the collapsing markets. And a little bit because of the resistance from the Europeans and the lack of support in Congress. The CDU foreign policy expert reports that 85 percent of congressmen support NATO and wants to send reassuring signals to the fearful audience at home.

Military historian Sönke Neitzel is not quite as optimistic about the situation. He, who warned last March that Germany might see its last summer of peace, now says the decisive, bitter sentence: “Trump will not fight for Europe.” Translated: NATO may remain as an organization, but the spirit with which this organization was filled has finally disappeared as a result of the Greenland escalation. There is now a lack of confidence that America would be prepared to defend Lithuania in the event of an attack. The brave Ukrainian President Zelensky alluded to this recently in his speech in Davos and warned the Europeans: Stop relying on the USA as a protective power.

The military historian sees no signs that Putin wants to end his war against Ukraine; On the contrary, he believes that Putin is convinced that Ukraine can be defeated through a sustained war of attrition. The political scientist and the CDU foreign expert also agree with this. Röttgen even argues that Putin is no longer in a position to end the war because it is keeping him alive domestically in the face of an economically catastrophic situation.

And yet, the political scientist wants to see a small glimmer of hope in the fact that Ukrainians and Russians are sitting together at the negotiating table in Abu Dhabi for the first time. In the many “moments of truth” that we have just experienced, says Schwarzer, this is perhaps one that shows that a lot of progress is being made due to the disruptions on all sides.

However, as a military historian, Neitzel only knows one truth: power. And this is still secured by the possession of strategic nuclear weapons. Through deterrence and protective shield. And since Europe is left blank in this regard, it must continue to serve the USA. Or it speculates that China will become the third nuclear power “in ten years” and then slips under the protective blanket there. But would that really be a more reassuring prospect? Then it’s better to stick with the “ride on the razor’s edge”, as Neitzel says with his usual intelligent bluntness and by that means: continue playing the vabanque game between ingratiation and turning away. On the one hand, be aware that the American intelligence services could stop supplying their German colleagues overnight on Trump’s instructions – but on the other hand, you should also recognize a boycott of the upcoming World Cup in America as your own instrument of power. “If the Europeans don’t send their teams, then Trump can forget about his World Cup,” says Neitzel, summing it up again succinctly in the sentence: “You can’t do everything with Europe!”

Is this the right time for a debate about a possible German boycott of the World Cup? In any case, the group agrees that this could be a possible tool from the “toolbox” to harm Trump. But fortunately we are now back on the path to de-escalation, the political scientist states, thus postponing the decision.

What becomes clear on this talk show evening: we now know the description of the epochal situation. But we know little about what the really sensible and future-proof conclusions would be. That Europe could have used strategic nuclear weapons – yes. We have already heard that more “charismatic European leaders” are needed to end the tussles between the member states. The fact that a crisis always offers opportunities – as a calendar saying is convincing, but what kind of action comes from it now?

In this context, Röttgen also slightly criticizes the Canadian Prime Minister’s much-praised Davos speech: Mark Carney provided a rhetorically strong description of the situation, but presented few of his own creative ideas. However, Röttgen himself only has harmless speech bubbles to offer: “We have to back up European self-confidence with skill,” he says – and smiles sheepishly. It is this embarrassed, at best cynical smile that dominates Europe’s spirit at the moment. It’s a smile that’s not at all contagious. A smile that knows your own weakness. A smile that hints at one or two ulterior motives, but doesn’t dare to say anything.

It is a reserved expression that is turning Europe into a bad game. Plagued by self-doubt and concessions, full of longing for the old days, full of fear of what new things could come, the only way out seems to be role play. It is the smile of a righteous idealist who longs for honest righteousness but is forced to seek shelter in the opportunistic shadows. This is not a good place to be in the long term, it is not a healthy attitude. You go into the night with the nightmare images of the next execution of an American by ICE – who knows what reasons beyond Greenland could soon speak for a boycott of the World Cup.