Speeches

Madam President, From the outset, the European Parliament has reiterated and rightly condemned Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine in violation of international law. However, it has not yet condemned the US war against Iran, which is also contrary to international law. The US war against Iraq in 2003, with more than 500,000 civilian deaths, has not yet been condemned. This is obvious and proven: Parliament applies double standards to violations of international law. Ladies and gentlemen, the credibility of the EU as a moral force that it wants to be depends crucially on its willingness to apply legal standards universally and without the prestige of the actors involved. Double standards, on the other hand, weaken us. They will prove to be a key obstacle to any credible engagement in international humanitarian law.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen! The European Union loves crises. After all, crises are a wonderful means of enforcing extraordinary policy measures. Typical features of crisis rhetoric are, first, the existential threat: Climate death, corona death, Russian death. Second, the time pressure: We must act immediately! Thirdly, the alleged lack of alternatives. Fourthly, the nature of the measures themselves: stronger state intervention, new laws, joint debt programs and, above all, the centralization of political power. The EU has therefore used all the crises since 2008 to promote the Union’s becoming a state: the financial and banking crisis, the euro debt crisis, the refugee crisis, the climate apocalypse and the coronavirus crisis. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was an opportune opportunity to proclaim the next crisis: the security crisis and the defence emergency. Under the banner of European security, the next major integration step is being prepared: a single market for arms, joint procurement, ever closer military integration. This is sold to us as a pragmatic efficiency measure, as a technical necessity, as a rational step. In fact, it is something completely different: of a political project. As soon as defence industries, procurement structures and military planning are deeply intertwined in Europe, dependencies arise that can hardly be reversed. Then integration will no longer be decided politically, it will be enforced structurally. In other words: An alleged threat situation is used to bind Member States more closely and irreversibly together. Ladies and gentlemen, the alternative for Germany explicitly supports the goal of Europe's strategic autonomy. Obtaining the necessary military capabilities, however, is a fundamental decision, not a crisis project. The ESN ‑ Group therefore does not support the planned measures for the establishment of an internal market defence.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! Mr Pozņaks' drone report is characterised by excellent expertise, but it completely ignores the actual danger situation in which we find ourselves. We must bear in mind that Europe today faces a heap of security policy shards. For decades, it had been believed that geopolitical influence could be exerted solely as an economic power. But only those who have their own military strength can act effectively in terms of security policy. In this respect, the project to create its own European defence technological and industrial base is right and is supported at the core of the AfD and ESN. However, a qualified assessment of the situation must be made at the beginning of any security policy reassessment. As you know, it is common in security policy to distinguish between risks and threats. A threat is when the aggressor has both the intention and the ability to harm the other. Is Europe, are the European NATO members currently under military threat? The answer can only be: No, they're not. Not even by Russia, no matter how many times this nonsense is repeated. Russia has neither the intention nor the ability to successfully attack and capture a NATO member. The Russian armed forces have not been able to fully capture even the Donbass for four years, even though it is the declared goal of the Russian leadership. The Russian in front of Berlin, the Russian in Paris – do you really believe that, Ms Strack-Zimmermann? And why at all? Does Russia need more territory? Does Russia need European rare earths? Ladies and gentlemen, it is obviously an absurd scenario designed to intimidate and subdue the populations of our countries. However, it is equally unrealistic to believe that the Russian armed forces can be pushed back to the 1991 borders. Mr Reuten’s unfortunate words, which Parliament approved yesterday – his claim that Russia’s defeat in Ukraine was the most effective and cost-effective investment in European security – are a complete misprojection of security policy. The AfD and the ESN Group stand for a security policy geared to the realities. According to Carl von Clausewitz in his great work ‘Vom Kriege’, the political and moral forces are decisive for success in the struggle, especially the will of the fighting society. This will does not come from statements of self-righteous politicians. It only comes about when people know who to defend and what to defend. A Europe that denies its borders, a Europe that allows mass illegal immigration, a Europe that does nothing to prevent Islamisation, a Europe whose elites threaten freedom of expression, a Europe that conveys rainbow propaganda to the youth instead of love of home, a Europe that is devoured by loss of meaning and inner fatigue – such a Europe cannot produce a population that will fight for its self-preservation. In a recent survey in Germany, only 38 percent of respondents said they would be willing to support the Bundeswehr in the event of an emergency. 59% responded negatively. Vice-President Vance made it clear at the Munich Security Conference last year: The biggest threat to Europe is not Russia or China, but the withdrawal of fundamental values within Europe itself. Colleagues, as long as Europe’s political elites – including this Parliament – are engaged in cultural conscientious objection, they should not complain when young people are no longer willing to fight for Europe. Only when we know again what to fight for will we be able to build up the military capabilities that Mr Pozņaks so impressively demonstrated in his report.

Mr President! Ladies and Gentlemen! In terms of security policy, Europe is facing a heap of shards, in all directions: Overstretched to the east and entangled in a hopeless war, open and defenseless to the south, to the west in conflict with our own leading power and to the north to the Arctic, we are heading towards an iceberg. And it could get worse. A withdrawal of the US from Europe would leave a divided and incapable continent of action in terms of security policy. And what answer does Mr Reuten's report give to that? I quote: “Russia’s defeat in Ukraine is the most effective and cost-effective investment in European security”. Colleagues, instead of free fantasizing, we need a realistic strategy of self-assertion. Withdrawal from the east, consistent border protection to the south, balance with the leading power in the west and diplomacy instead of escalation in the north.

Madam President, I refer to Rule 10(4) of the Rules of Procedure, according to which insulting remarks must not be made in parliamentary debates. In December, during the debate on cases of pro-Russian espionage, Mr Kelleher of the Renew Group described members of the right and left as useful idiots. This expression characterizes people as manipulable and stupid. It degrades other Members and damages parliamentary dignity. Colleagues, if we allow ourselves to call each other idiots here, the decline of parliamentary debate culture is opening the door. I would therefore ask you, Madam President, to sanction Mr Kelleher's behaviour, as described above, retrospectively.

Madam President, Colleagues! The US National Security Strategy shows that international relations are being reorganized. The goal of the United States is now to reach a strategic balance with other major powers. As a result, Europe will have to take more responsibility for its own security in the future. It is therefore not in the European interest to make Ukraine the total frontline state, the steel porcupine on Russia's border. Let's not forget: The Russian military has a 20-year development lead in critical weapons systems. Colleagues, the head of NATO's intelligence service said earlier this year that he had not received a single indication that Russia wanted to attack an EU member state after the war in Ukraine. Stop intimidating people in Europe with ever-new threat narratives! Let's finally start a serious and constructive dialogue, including with the Russian Federation!

Mr Sieper, it is wrong to assume that it would be in Russia’s interest to dominate and control Ukraine as a whole. Because then you wouldn't have gone into invasion with such a small army. The goal of Russia is: no NATO membership of Ukraine and the return to Ukraine's neutrality status, as was the case until 2014. That was and would be the best thing for this country, and that is why we should support it.

Mr Sieper, thank you very much for the question. Due to its temporal interpretation, the EDIP project will no longer be able to benefit Ukraine in any way. What it will do, however, is to provide a strong incentive for Russia to move the western border with Ukraine, the line of contact, as far west as possible. This is not in Ukraine's interest.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen! It is perfectly true that the European states themselves want to master the technological and industrial foundations of their defence capabilities. However, it is completely wrong to include Ukraine as an equal and even privileged partner in this project. Because the country is in a war that it threatens to lose and is paralyzed by notorious corruption. Supporting the Ukrainian Armaments Industry? Definitely not! Secondly, it is true that strategic autonomy can only be achieved by a small group of leading states. However, it is wrong to place the major strategic projects in the hands of the Council of the European Union alone, without the involvement of the national parliaments concerned. The EDIP Regulation lays the foundations for a supranational defence union. The ESN Group will therefore not vote in favour of this Regulation.

Mr Colleague, the mistake you are making is that Russia would ever pay reparations. Russia simply won't do that. How are you going to force Russia to make such reparations payments? You can't do it. The result is: Either the central bank reserves must actually be expropriated, or the EU will remain seated on its gifts to Ukraine.

Madam President, The planned seizure of Russian assets is not an expression of the rule of law. It's their hollowing out. State immunity is a cornerstone of the international order. Does the EU want to bring down this order? A reparation loan sounds harmless, but here is nothing more than the legally camouflaged expropriation. In doing so, the EU opens a Pandora's box. If we confiscate foreign central bank reserves today, who will trust the euro tomorrow? The warnings come not from us alone, but from the ECB, the IMF and Euroclear itself. They all speak of a risk to financial stability, capital flight and loss of confidence. Colleagues, it seems that the EU states no longer have the means to counter the Russian advance. Her latest project is therefore an expression of sheer despair. Wars create new realities. You, too, are finally coming to reality!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. If you want to make the EU a central state, you should say so to EU citizens. Those who lay their hands on the unanimity principle – and this is exactly what this report does – lay their hands on the sovereignty of the Member States. They claim that Article 49 allows for a transition to qualified majority voting without amending the Treaties. Here we are apparently to be duped, because Passerelle is in Article 48(7) and does not apply to the provisions on membership and accession under Article 49 TEU. They propose to abolish unanimity in proceedings for the protection of EU values and to make the Court of Justice the arbitrator of infringements – the Court of Justice, the champion of EU power par excellence. Such demands are not intended to promote democracy, but to make punishing states easy. Colleagues, the EU is already overstretched and suffers from the debilitating consequences of this overstretching. Stop making accession negotiations a pretext for undermining state sovereignty. Master your expansion drive and return to the original idea of a purpose community in which no member can be overruled against their basic interests.

Here I can refer – I reply in German – to what Mrs Boßdorf has already said. These are issues to be decided by the peoples in their national legislation and not at the level of the European Union, as Slovakia has done. If a people decides to criminalize abortion, that is a decision that that people are allowed to make.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Equal rights for women are fully realized in European societies. And that's a good thing. If you want to talk about equality, you should not consult the left-green education emergency, but the evolutionary psychology. A man with 100 women can have a hundred times more children than a man with only one. A woman who has 100 men, on the other hand, cannot have a single child more than a woman with only one man. Anyone who believes that this fundamental inequality has passed the psyche of men and women without a trace has not even begun to understand the human condition. Colleagues, in the principles of the Commission's proposal, the word 'woman' can be replaced by 'man' everywhere, without any change in the correctness. For dignity applies to all – men as well as women, boys as well as girls. So let's close the chapter and put the paper where it belongs: Forgetting.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. The most dangerous drones do not circle in the sky above Poland, Frankfurt or Copenhagen, but in our heads. The call of the black-green religious warriors presented here for a common reaction, for a holy struggle against Russia, is the most frightening example of this. What you expect us to do is a hodgepodge of unproven claims and wild speculation. The drones shot down over Poland were of unknown origin. Russia offered consultations, Belarus the exchange of radar data – Poland ignored both. There seems to be no interest in enlightenment here – and that would be the imperative of the moment. Colleagues, the French Air Force took an average of six drones a day from the sky in the Paris area at last year's Olympic Games. Why not bring down the drones in Frankfurt and Munich? Are you afraid of the results of the investigation? Is it really a question of frightening the populations of the EU countries? Is it a question of overcoming the notorious disunity of the EU states through a carefully cultivated image of the enemy? Is it a question of organising approval for the EU's massive rearmament plans, Mr Kubilius? Ladies and gentlemen, there are established international standards and procedures for airspace violations. Of course, drones of unknown origin must be shot down via critical infrastructure. Above all, however, the drones in the minds of the insane EU elites must be shot down. At the end of the day, we must be grateful that this Parliament cannot give operational orders, otherwise we would have been in World War III long ago.

Madam President, The only effective security guarantee for Ukraine would be its return to neutrality. The EU claims to be seeking a ceasefire. But by requiring EU and NATO states to monitor it, it only gives Russia the incentive to occupy even more Ukrainian territory. Why this nonsensical action? Firstly: Any compromise with Russia is considered a geopolitical loss of face – morality beats realism. Secondly: The EU commanders want to stage themselves as designers, even though they are actually driven. Thirdly: They are all stuck in the psychology of escalating self-commitment. Too much invested to quit. Colleagues, Madam President, wake up before you have lost everything!

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. The European Parliament likes to present itself as a moral institution, as a judge of good and evil in politics. For months, Parliament has been outraged that Georgians did not elect the government that the EU had planned in October 2024. For months, committees and bodies have been pondering how Georgians should be punished for doing so. The Georgian government also had the insolence to suspend the accession negotiations to the EU on its own initiative until 2028, which they would have liked to have done themselves. The EPP report on Georgia should now consider it harmless. He presents himself as a single catalogue of sins and, in doing so, he becomes embroiled in demands that clearly contradict EU law itself. Personal sanctions without trial or collective punishment are just two examples. Not a word of acknowledgment that the Georgian government has kept its country out of the conflict between the power blocs, into which it would have liked to be driven as much as Ukraine. This report exceeds the EU's institutional mandate and disregards the principle of sovereign equality. The ESN Group will therefore reject the report in its entirety.

Madam President, The EU is about to become a victim of its own propaganda. It is propaganda when it is spread that Russia wants to attack an EU and NATO state after Ukraine. The truth is, Russia has neither the human resources nor a reason to take such a step. According to its own intelligence chief, NATO has no evidence that the Russian leadership has such intentions. The EU's common security policy was established in 1993 by the Maastricht Treaty. Nevertheless, the EU today is not a security actor that would be taken seriously by the major powers. The belief that this can only be compensated by hectic activity is illusory. It is not foreseeable that the EU will be self-sufficient in security policy until further notice. We are therefore well advised to secure NATO structures, even if the US withdraws from them. Europe is now reinventing itself as an armament-industrial phantasialand, rather than addressing real-world threats: migration pressure, demographic change, the energy crisis and Islamist terror. It's not strategic, it's irresponsible. What is needed is a realistic threat scenario and a return to diplomacy. Then, and only then, will Europe be able to contribute to the balance of forces and ensure peace in international relations.

Madam President, colleagues, Donald Trump is a prudent statesman: he upholds the time-honoured principle of audiatur et altera pars – let the other side be heard as well. Trump speaks with Putin. The European Union, by contrast, wants to end the bloodshed in Ukraine and bring the war to a close, but in doing so, it listens only to itself and to the Ukrainian side. No one has seriously attempted to consider the Russian perspective. No effort has been made to understand why Russian leaders perceive NATO's eastward expansion – reaching as far as the Donbas – as an existential threat. The deliberate ignorance, I predict, is precisely why the EU is doomed to fail in the matter. Trump is a realist; the EU acts blindly. George F. Kennan, the architect of the containment strategy, once called NATO's expansion to Russia's border a fateful error. Yet we continue to repeat it. History will judge us with utter harshness.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, In accordance with Rule 206(4) of the Rules of Procedure, I request that the vote on this item on the agenda be postponed. Let me just say a few words: Solidarity with third countries must not become Europe's self-sacrifice. Our companies, from industrial SMEs to agriculture and large industrial employers, are feeling the consequences of a trade policy that is unilaterally oriented towards Ukraine. Dumping imports do not only endanger individual sectors such as steel tube manufacturers. They cover the entire European value chain, from the raw materials industries to the processing sectors and suppliers. This policy threatens jobs and livelihoods across Europe, including in agriculture, including manufacturing. Those who vote today for the further suspension of the protective measures decide not only against fair conditions of competition, but also against people in our regions who support prosperity and prosperity.