How did Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock fare in Kiev and Moscow? Your party colleague Jürgen Trittin recognizes diplomatic progress. However, one must also show Russia the limits.
They made the press wait: there was apparently a lot to talk about between Annalena Baerbock and Sergey Lavrov. The Green foreign minister brought a thick folder with her on her first visit to Moscow, which probably mainly contained information on the smoldering conflict on the Russian-Ukrainian border, where more than 100,000 Russian soldiers are said to be.
Lavrov, who has been Russia’s foreign minister since 2004, is known for his guests on such occasions also sometimes up to expose open stage. Baerbock was spared that. Jürgen Trittin, foreign policy spokesman for the Greens in the Bundestag, is of the opinion that her party colleague was taken seriously when she appeared. In an interview with t-online he talks about why Ukraine will probably not become a NATO member in the near future, why the federal government is right not to be too specific about possible sanctions against Moscow and why he sees no dissent in the foreign policy of the Greens and the SPD.
t-online: Mr. Trittin, the Foreign Minister stressed the importance of the so-called Normandy format both in Moscow and in Kiev and that one would like to resume it. Is that enough to consider the trip a success?
Juergen Trittin: Annalena Baerbock had a clear message in Kiev: Germany clearly stands for the territorial integrity of Ukraine. From my point of view, she also put on a very tough performance in Moscow. She made it clear what Germany expects from Russia and what it offers in return. But it also became clear where Russia is behaving incorrectly: for example by piling up troops on the Ukrainian border. She has also openly addressed how Russia is silencing opposition figures like Alexei Navalny. Baerbock has set something in motion: Russia is no longer so rigorously ruling out a new participation in the Normandy format, even if they are still making excuses.
Nevertheless, it seems as if the fronts have hardened further: Russia feels threatened by NATO. The West also emphasizes that it will not let Russia dictate who can and cannot join the alliance.
Russia’s security interests are legitimate. Just like that of Ukraine. However, NATO has made it clear that it will not question the contractual basis for security in Europe, which Russia has also agreed to. But you have to face the reality: Ukraine will not become a NATO member in the next few decades. The same applies to Georgia, because both countries do not meet the necessary requirements.
Is it perhaps also because NATO does not want to give Russia any reason to escalate further?
Giving no reason for escalation isn’t a bad thing. But neither does standing by one’s values. NATO can and must discuss all of these issues with Russia. That’s why the NATO-Russia Council was founded. I was therefore pleased that Jens Stoltenberg announced that we were ready for further meetings in this format.
However, should there be a further escalation from Moscow instead, Baerbock often speaks of a “high price” that Putin would pay. But she doesn’t say what exactly she means by that. How would this price look from your point of view?
It is clear why no one is more specific on this question. That would be an invitation to test on Putin how serious the threats are. I believe that the unity of the EU and NATO in Russia has definitely impressed. It is right to make it clear that Moscow will pay a high political and economic price for further violations of Ukraine’s sovereignty. Then we won’t be talking about individual sanctions, but about long-term massive restrictions on economic relations between Russia and Europe. Of course, this is primarily about the Russian export of fossil raw materials such as natural gas and oil. The decision whether to isolate oneself from Europe and the western world lies entirely with the Kremlin.
Jürgen Trittin: “Russia took Annalena Baerbock’s performance very seriously”. (Source: Metodi Popow/imago images)
Isn’t the Kremlin looking much more towards the USA than towards Europe? The most recent dialogue began last week in Geneva with the deputy foreign ministers of Russia and the USA – without any European participation.
Both countries have no interest in a military conflict. Should the situation continue to escalate, the conflict will be fought with economic and political means. Then it quickly becomes clear to Russia that Europe is the key player. However, it is true: the Kremlin is trying to bypass us. The White House, on the other hand, coordinated all steps with Europe before and after the talks. My impression is: In Russia, Annalena Baerbock’s performance was taken very seriously. The Kremlin has probably realized that there is no point in negotiating only with the USA over Europe, as in the past.
The SPD, as its largest government partner, has recently sent different signals in this conflict, such as Rolf Mützenich, Olaf Scholz and Michael Roth. Is the party currently blocking German foreign policy?
There is very close coordination between the Foreign Ministry and the Chancellery. When Stoltenberg and Scholz met and when Annalena Baerbock visited Moscow, a common line in the government was evident. The quality of this coalition proves itself in joint action, not in individual statements.
– .
