“Friedrich Merz is now playing at the forefront in Europe”

Mister IschingerWhat surprised you this week?
That the Federal Government did not go on when deciding on conscription. And that disappointed me. Because after everything that has happened in the past few weeks, it is also very important in Alaska and Washington, that it is important in Moscow: We Europeans have heard the shot. We have not only decided to ensure European security, but we also do something. But that was not the only surprise.

What else?
This is also rather worrying: if France comes back from vacation, i.e. in early September, Prime Minister Bayrou will ask the question of trust in the National Assembly. And at a time when very important topics are at European level, also at a Franco-German level, including joint aircraft and tank projects. That is why I stop the air until then, hoping that the government will somehow survive the question of trust.

Macron Has been counted for a long time. Can one say that with the European trip to Washington Friedrich Merz, the leadership took over the leadership of Europe?
Merz has developed an outstanding position in the field of foreign policy in these few months. He not only plays at the front in the European concert, he has also developed a relationship of trust with Donald Trump. Germany is now taking on the role that it should also play in terms of foreign policy from the perspective of our partners and neighbors. Radek Sikorski, the Polish Foreign Minister, said a few years ago: “I fear German power today less than German inactivity.” This shows the expectations of our neighbors, and Friedrich Merz corresponds to these expectations.

Two weeks after the great excitement around Alaska And Washington Ask yourself these days: Was there what? Are you similar?
I’m afraid that the conclusion is: Yes, worse things have been prevented. Ukraine has not been forced to concessions. But unfortunately it has not been achieved on the way from the war to peace in Ukraine. A lot of noise for very little, and I regret that.

A task force around US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is now to work out the security guarantees. Do you hear what’s on the table?
It is gratifying that there is now such a task force. For a year and a half I have been calling for a common list of options to work out in the event that a ceasefire agreement comes on the table. You have to deal with security guarantees, with the control of the ceasefire, with damages and many other complex topics. I was involved in the negotiations in Dayton to end the Bosnia War 30 years ago. And I remember how the American side brought thousands of finished typewriter sides. For example, these were prefabricated designs for the Bosnian constitution. We also brought our suggestions. Such negotiations cannot be prepared intensely enough. A completely different question is: How do we get a ceasefire first? And it seems to me that the Russian delegation from Alaska drove back with the impression: we won. The sanction package is off the table, there are no other thumb screws. They say: We can continue to play for time.

At least the Russians have not succeeded in preventing the United States’ sanctions against India, which buys a large part of Russian oil. These have just entered into force.
Russia certainly did not achieve 100 percent of the targets sought in Alaska. They also wanted to talk about economic issues.

And why does the United States actually issue secondary sanctions against India, but not against China, which buys a lot more raw materials from Russia?
In the White House, one believes that they can also reach a deal with Beijing. There are two schools in Washington: one is a rather military strategic, represented by people like Elbridge Colby, who is concerned with relocating everything the United States has militarily in the Asian-Pacific space because China is the main opponent. The other school of thought, and it seems to be common in the White House, says: We get a kind of deal. It is doubtful whether this would contribute to safety and stability in the street of Taiwan.

Next week, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin will go to the military parade in China. Does the rapprochement of the Russians and Americans affect relationships between Russia and China?
If there was really a thaw between the United States and Russia, the worries in Beijing would trigger, that’s right – but I don’t see that. In the next week there will be a demonstration of the alliance of those who prevent peace in Ukraine. North Korea’s leader Kim will be there – he has delivered massive troops to Russia. The Iranian president is there who supports Russia with drones. And we recently heard what the Chinese Prime Minister said: It could not be accepted that Russia loses this war. This shows that this is by no means just about Ukraine, but about the historical argument between China and the USA. And the Chinese need Russia. I don’t see that this logic could be broken through by Trump. We like to remember Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon, who managed to solve China from the Soviet Union over 50 years ago and to build trusting relationships. But today we are miles away.

And where, Mr. Ischinger, remains the positive this week?
Right has just tied to Helmut Kohl’s times. And I am very pleased that after years of discussions, I have managed to take the National Security Council out of baptism. That goes down a bit in the newsaumel. Every medium -sized company now has a risk assessment department, and the only major institution that has never had anyone who is responsible for risk assessment was the Federal Government.