Social Democrats
Historian’s fire letter on the Ukraine course shakes up the SPD
Criticizes the SPD leadership regarding its Ukraine policy: historian Heinrich August Winkler (archive photo). photo
© Wolfgang Kumm/dpa
So far, it has been primarily the Greens and the FDP who have opposed the Chancellor’s no to Taurus. Now differences in the SPD are becoming clear – through an interjection from the sidelines.
An incendiary letter from five social democratic historians on the government’s course in Ukraine policy shakes things up SPD up. In the letter to the party executive, the group led by Berlin professor Heinrich August Winkler accused Chancellor Olaf Scholz of lacking “unambiguous solidarity” with Ukraine. Historians even criticized parliamentary group leader Rolf Mützenich’s statement about “freezing” the war as “fatal.”
On Thursday, SPD foreign politician Andreas Schwarz countered the impression that there was a rift in his party. However, he admitted on Deutschlandfunk that the Ukraine course was being discussed in a “slightly contrary” way in the Bundestag faction. “A democracy, a party must also be able to tolerate the fact that there are different opinions on a really very complex question.”
Spotlight on differences in the SPD
The letter highlights the fact that the dispute in the traffic light coalition over the Ukraine course is not only between the SPD on the one hand and the Greens and FDP on the other, but also within the SPD. So far there has been little public opposition from prominent Social Democrats to the Chancellor’s red lines regarding the delivery of the Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine and the deployment of ground troops. The left wing of the party, which has long wanted more diplomatic initiative in addition to arms deliveries, felt strengthened. Party leader Rolf Mützenich (SPD) seemed to be euphoric about this and even brought up the possibility of “freezing” the conflict – i.e. a ceasefire to enable a negotiated solution.
That went way too far for some people. But few said it as clearly as Defense Minister Boris Pistorius (SPD), who distanced himself from Mützenich with the words: “It would only help Putin in the end.”
Harsh historian criticism: “Quite often factually wrong”
The historians took up this idea in their letter and also applied it to the Chancellor’s red lines: “If the Chancellor and the party leadership draw red lines not for Russia, but exclusively for German politics, they are permanently weakening German security policy and playing Russia into their hands,” they wrote. They also accuse the Chancellor, party and parliamentary group leaders of repeatedly arguing arbitrarily, erratically and often factually incorrectly in the debate about arms deliveries.
They also criticize the lack of an “honest examination of the mistakes in Russia policy of the last decades” within the SPD. Neither the entanglements of its own members with Russian interest representatives nor “the misguided energy policy that has led Germany to a fatal dependency on Moscow” have so far been seriously problematized.
No reaction from the Chancellor or party leadership yet
There has so far been no reaction from the Chancellor, party or parliamentary group leadership. A few days ago, SPD leader Lars Klingbeil published a video on Instagram in which he merely reiterated the line of political, financial and military support for Ukraine. “This will continue as long as Ukraine needs our support.” He did not directly address the debate about red lines in Ukraine policy.
The Chancellor would prefer to end the Taurus debate entirely. He recently criticized it as “not to be surpassed in terms of ridiculousness.” Scholz feels encouraged in his course because the poll numbers for him and his SPD have been rising since his no to Taurus – in time for the upcoming start of the European election campaign. When asked whether he would actively make Ukraine policy a campaign issue, he replied on Wednesday: “I am convinced that many citizens see it as precisely this question of security in Europe with the government I lead and is in good hands with me.”
Second warning signal to the Chancellor and party leadership within a short period of time
In the SPD we know from painful experience that their internal party disputes are more damaging. That’s why the few reactions to the letter that there have been so far are rather reassuring. The excitement in the SPD about the letter was “limited,” said foreign policy expert Nils Schmid to “Spiegel.” “But with Taurus, the SPD respects the Chancellor’s considerations.”
The letter is now the second warning signal to the Chancellor and party leadership that there is discontent within their own ranks. The first sign was the announcement at the beginning of the week by the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Michael Roth, that he would withdraw from political activity. Roth was one of the very few from the SPD who ever opposed the Chancellor’s course on Ukraine policy. In a “Stern” interview, he justified his withdrawal with alienation from politics as a whole, but also from his own parliamentary group: “When the door to the parliamentary group hall opened, I had the impression that I was climbing into a refrigerator.”