SHARE
COPY LINK
For members

RUSSIA

As a Brit, hearing Germans talk about Russia makes me want to bang my head off a wall

German caution on the international stage is all well and good. But sometimes the evidence seems so blindingly obvious that you wonder what it takes to convince them, writes Jörg Luyken.

As a Brit, hearing Germans talk about Russia makes me want to bang my head off a wall
Photo: DPA

This article is available to Members of The Local. Read more Membership Exclusives here.

On the way into the office on Friday, I peered over my neighbour’s shoulder on the U-Bahn to see him reading the latest issue of a mainstream German news magazine.

“After British scientists confirmed they were unable to pinpoint the source of the nerve agent in the Skripal attack, voices are growing in the SPD and CDU questioning the British version of events,” the magazine noted, before adding “there is however much evidence that points to Russian involvement.”

Not for the first time in recent weeks, I felt that sinking feeling in seeing how Germans discuss the poisoning of ex-spy Sergei Skripal in the UK in March.

“Much evidence” seemed like a rather kind way of describing the case against Moscow. But, given how the German media have reported the case up till now, I wasn't surprised.

Just as predictable was the fact that even members of the governing Christian Democrat (CDU) and Social Democrat (SPD) coalition had started to play to the crowd by claiming that the question of culpability was up in the air.

I am British and therefore (perhaps) biased, but it seems to me to be pretty obvious that Russia was behind this attack. They have previously assassinated at least one former Russian spy on British soil. They support Syria using chemical weapons against its own people. The poison used in the attack on Skripal has been confirmed by independent experts as being a Soviet nerve agent. I'm going to go out on a limb and say the British appraisal that Russian involvement is “highly likely” is a reasonable one.

But, if you are German, you seem to work according to a completely different rationale.

On German television on Thursday evening, a pundit put forward a different logic for the Skripal attack.

If Russia did order the attack then they broke a gentleman’s agreement on spy swapping, whereby you don’t hit a spy who you have handed over to the enemy, the pundit explained. In that case other states would stop swapping spies with them. And if other states stopped swapping spies, nobody would want to join Russian intelligence anymore. Thus, Putin would have been a fool to order the attack.

This unusual opinion was not to be found on Russia Today Deutsch – it was in fact aired on ZDF, one of Germany's two main public broadcasters. And the man behind the convoluted theory was Gregor Gysi, a high profile left-wing politician.

I wish I could say that Gysi is a lone wolf, but that simply wouldn't be true. Three of the parties in the German parliament have tried to claim that the West has jumped to conclusions on the Skripal affair and is deliberately escalating conflict with Russia.

The German media meanwhile, made headline news out of a statement by British scientists that they could not say definitely who made the nerve agent used against Skripal. But they were strangely quiet on Thursday when the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons confirmed that the agent was a Soviet-designed poison called novichok.

Many Germans unwittingly parrot Russian propaganda by pointing to the Iraq war as an example of a time Britain wrongly accused another state of having chemical weapons. Why should the British authorities be trusted this time, they ask. In other words, sections of the German public believe the British establishment routinely make up evidence in order to start wars – a nice way to view a democratic ally of the past 70 years.

Meanwhile the historical precedent from the previous decade which is actually relevant to the current case is almost completely ignored. 

How many Germans are aware that Russia killed an ex-spy on British soil in 2006? As every Brit knows, Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned with polonium in London and died a slow and painful death. A public enquiry in Britain came to the conclusion that he was killed by the Russian secret services, probably on orders from Putin. But perhaps, this was all just a British conspiracy, too.

Of course, to characterize all Germans as being hopelessly willing to swallow Russian propaganda is unfair.

On Friday, the new Foreign Minister Heiko Maas (SPD) made clear that he wanted the West to be tougher on Moscow in the wake of the Skripal affair and chemical weapons use in Syria.

“Russia is unfortunately acting ever more aggressively,” he said in an interview with Spiegel, before directly blaming Moscow for “the first chemical weapon attack on European soil since the end of the Second World War.”

But, as Spiegel noted, Maas stands out for seeking a tougher line on Russian after his SPD predecessor wanted to reduce sanctions over Moscow's illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014.

I get why Germans are hesitant to blame Russia. As a foreign police expert told The Local last week, Germans still carry a guilt about the Wehrmacht's ruthless occupation of eastern Europe during the Second World War.

It is also perfectly reasonable for Germans to call on Britain to release more intelligence on the Skripal attack to back up its accusation. But until then, it would be nice if Germans gave the British the benefit of the doubt. We may not be perfect, but if you are being compared to Vladimir Putin, you really don't have to be.

Member comments

  1. I really despair at the German attitude to Russia: it strikes me that they’re learning exactly the wrong lesson of the Second World War. Surely the lesson should be that you don’t appease aggressive, expansionist, authoritarian leaders. Instead, the lesson they’re drawing is ‘Don’t let’s be beastly to the Russians’. It’s completely wrong-headed.

  2. The article is not objective. I am really glad that German people are smart and as result they require evidences. What about “Presumption of innocence”?

  3. Presumption of innocence is fine, but there is already pretty reasonable doubt that the russian state is innocent. So, we are not operating in a vacuum here.

  4. As a Brit, I suggest that the author of this article does demonstrate quite a lot of naievity. First, the level of indignation, hypocrisy and sanctimony in Britain over the Skripal affair is breathtaking. Just imagine that Kim Philby, (the man allegedly responsible for the death of dozens of MI5 agents by blowing their cover to the Russians) had been assassinated in Moscow. Would Britons have been outraged? No, most would have felt that he got his just deserts. So why the fuss when Skripal is targetted? Spying is a dirty business.
    As for British trustworthiness, well yes, we did invade Iraq on the premise that they had WMDs. Yes, we destabilised Libya, and yes we destabilised Syria too.
    The Germans are extremely dependent on Russia for energy. Not much they can do about it. So they go easy on them. The British, meanwhile, cosy up to the USA and to Saudi Arabia.
    Message . . . dont bother banging your head against that wall. Just get real that politics is a dirty business.

Log in here to leave a comment.
Become a Member to leave a comment.
For members

ECONOMY

Schuldenbremse: What is Germany’s debt brake and how does it affect residents?

Nothing sums up Germany's cautious relationship with money quite as well as the debt brake - but this little clause in the constitution has recently caused no end of chaos. Here's what you need to know about the so-called 'Schuldenbremse'.

Schuldenbremse: What is Germany's debt brake and how does it affect residents?

What is the debt brake and why did Germany introduce it?

Known as the Schuldenbremse in German, the debt brake is a cap on government borrowing that’s enshrined in Germany’s constitution. It states that the federal government can only take on a certain amount of new debt in each fiscal year.

This is capped at 0.35 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – the amount of money the country produces each year in goods and services. Though GDP varies from year to year, this generally gives the government enough wiggle room to borrow around €9 billion annually.

When it comes to spending on a regional level – i.e. by state governments in Germany – the rules are even stricter. States aren’t allowed to borrow any money to fund their plans and must therefore create balanced budgets that finance spending exclusively through tax income and money from the central government.

But why exactly has Germany decided to tie itself to such strict rules on spending? Well, there are quite a few answers to that. 

Back in 2009, the Grand Coalition of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Social Democrats (SPD), led by Angela Merkel, decided to bring the debt brake into law. At the time, the global economy was struggling to deal with the fallout of the 2008 financial crisis, and Germany was racking up a huge deficit. 

The idea was to bring borrowing back under control as soon as possible and prevent leaving billions of euros in debt for future generations to pay off. It also paid homage to the main edicts of neo-liberalism, creating a streamlined state with little room for generous investments or high social welfare payments. 

Thanks to the ongoing effects of the financial crisis, the debt break only came into force seven years after it was put in the constitution. This means that since 2016, the federal governments have been tied to 0.35 percent cap on borrowing.

That said, there are a few exceptions to the Schuldenbremse: in periods of national emergency, such as natural disasters or pandemics, the government is allowed to put the debt brake to one side. That’s exactly what happened during the Covid pandemic in the years 2020 to 2022, and now it appears it will be put aside for the fourth year in a row. In other words, it has been sidelined for exactly half of the time it has been in place.

READ ALSO: Germany to seek debt rule suspension for 2023

Why has the debt brake been in the news recently?

The debt brake was put in the spotlight in early November when Germany’s Constitutional Court declared tens of billions of earmarked government spending to be ‘unconstitutional’.

The case related to €60 billion of borrowing that was originally intended for tackling the Covid crisis but had later been diverted towards a fund for fighting climate change known as the Climate and Transformation Fund.

In normal cases, moving unspent money around wouldn’t be a problem – but in this case, the specific rules around the debt brake came into play. Utilising the exceptions in the debt brake, the €60 billion was borrowed for the purpose of stabilising the economy during the pandemic – and as such it was only supposed to go towards tackling that emergency.

Wind turbines in Germany

Wind turbines in the northern German state of Schleswig-Holstein. Photo: picture alliance/dpa | Christian Charisius

Beyond this amount, which already represents a huge chunk of the national budget, the court decision also invalidated the Economic Stabilisation Fund (WSF). This fund was also originally set up during the Covid crisis and later repurposed as Olaf Scholz’s ‘Doppelwumms’: a €200 billion pot that paid for the energy price breaks and other relief measures in the wake of the Ukraine war. 

READ ALSO:

Finance Minister Christian Lindner (FDP) announced that the debt brake would be set aside for one more year to allow the government to meet its financial commitments for 2023. However, the budget for next year – and how the significant gaps in funding will be filled – still remain unclear.

The crisis has sparked a major debate among politicians about whether the debt brake is still fit for purpose. 

What do critics of the debt brake say? 

As you might expect, the tight controls on spending aren’t popular with everyone – especially those on the left on the political spectrum. 

Proponents of the debt brake say we should lower the deficit to avoid lumbering future generations with unmanageable debts, but critics of the mechanism make the opposite argument. They say that straightjacketing spending will actually put a strain on future generations as the government will be unable to invest in modern infrastructure and could therefore be hindering growth.

If borrowing is slashed too much and tax revenues don’t increase, projects like the green transformation, upgrading public transport and pushing ahead with digitalisation will inevitably be put on the backburner. The government will be forced to prioritise its urgent day to day spending in the present rather than trying to invest in the future – and it could also be forced to cut vital public services.

Deutsche Bahn train

Deutsche Bahn staff give the sign for an ICE high speed train to leave the main railway station in Stuttgart, southern Germany, on August 11, 2021. Photo by THOMAS KIENZLE / AFP

Other critics argue that the debt brake was appropriate at the time when it was introduced but that times have changed and governments require more flexibility. 

In the early to mid-2000s, Germany was riding high on a booming manufacturing and exports sector fuelled by cheap Russian gas, and had made little attempt to invest in renewable energy. Now, however, with Germany transitioning away from cheap Russian gas while trying to slash the country’s carbon emissions, Germany is faced with numerous expensive challenges at a time when the economy is especially weak – meaning borrowing more or raising more taxes feel like an inevitability. 

READ ALSO: ‘2024 a turning point’: When will Germany’s rail network run on time?

Could the debt brake be reformed in the future?

That’s certainly an idea that’s come from multiple camps – not least Economics Minister Robert Habeck of the Green Party. Speaking at the recent Green Party Conference, Habeck slammed the current rules on borrowing, stating: “With the debt brake as it is, we have voluntarily tied our hands behind our backs and are going into a boxing match.”

According to Habeck, the debt brake should be reformed according to the “green golden rule” to allow borrowing for investments rather than everyday spending. This is an idea that has also been put forward by economists.

Saskia Esken, the co-leader of the SPD, has also spoken out in favour of a reform of the debt brake to avoid putting a drag on growth in the future. 

However, the likelihood of this happening seems low at the moment, even if Greens and SPD politicians – and some members of the CDU – are in favour of it. 

That’s because it takes a two-thirds majority in the Bundestag to change any aspect of the Grundgesetz, or constitution – a much higher bar than the simple majority needed to change a law.

The FDP, who are in the coalition alongside the Greens and SPD, are also fiercely opposed to any reform of the debt brake and want to rein in government spending instead. 

Christian Lindner

German Finance Minister Christian Lindner (FDP) speaks in the Bundestag. Photo: picture alliance/dpa | Michael Kappeler

Messing with this fiscal rule could also prove unpopular: a recent poll found that 61 percent on Germans were opposed to any reform of the debt brake, as opposed to 35 percent who were in favour of it, and 4 percent who didn’t know. 

It means that in the medium term at least, the government may have to take a scalpel to its previous spending plans, cutting spending on investment projects, public services like healthcare and transport and social welfare such as child and unemployment benefits. Or it may find a way to raise some taxes without upsetting the FDP. 

READ ALSO: How Germany’s budget crisis could affect you

SHOW COMMENTS