State elections in eastern Germany show a major increase in the strength of the conservative AfD and a strong support for the BSW, a new leftist party lead by Sahra Wagenknecht. The commonality for both parties is they oppose economic sanctions and military aid to support the war in Ukraine.
At the same time, support for the ruling collation collapsed. The Greens did not meet the requirements for representation in the state legislature.
The response the Scholz government been to label AfD as “right-wing extremists” and increase efforts to ban the party and prevent its participation in the governments. Ironically the strongest party who opposes German tanks in Russia and Ukraine for the first time since WW2 is labeled as dangerous far-right extremists akin to the National Socialists. Both the BSW and the AfD are accused of being “too cozy with the Kremlin”.
After voting closed on Sunday, the AfD was projected to become the strongest party in the eastern state of Thuringia, with 32.8% of the vote, and to come a close second in Saxony, with 30.6% of the vote.
In another worrying development for Germany’s mainstream, the fledgling Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) – a far-left party that has questioned the country’s support for Ukraine and shares some of the AfD’s anti-immigration streak – came third in both states, despite only being founded earlier this year . . .
Scholz described the results as “bitter” and, calling on the European principle of the “cordon sanitaire,” urged mainstream parties in Thuringia and Saxony to exclude the AfD from any state governing coalitions.
“All democratic parties are now called upon to form stable governments without right-wing extremists,” Scholz said in a statement. “Our country cannot and must not get used to this. The AfD is damaging Germany. It is weakening the economy, dividing society and ruining our country’s reputation.” https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/02/europe/afd-germany-election-thuringia-saxony-intl/index.html
Is the likely outcome more censorship and attempts to ban opposition political parties in Europe?
Or will election results force the ruling elites be forced to accept that the current policies are not sustainable?
Yes, RFK Jr. is correct when he says these never ending wars the democrat and swamp reps perpetuate is all about money for them and their donors. Like when you join NATO you have to buy arms that are compatible with the rest of NATO. Thus guaranteed sales for corporations like Lockheed Martin etc…
Voting democrat causes death and destruction in small countries so their donors will have a better bottom line.
The US has long history of meddling in elections in Europe, but it appears that has gone into overdrive since the end of the Cold War.
“Starting in 2002 . . . we have used all of our influence and power including covert operations to influence elections Europe . . .”–Laurence Wilkerson, aid to Secretary of State Colin Powell during Bush Administration (See video starting at 41:45) https://youtu.be/UnPl1ETy_C8?t=2479
EU mainstream media and political leaders are best viewed as nothing more than puppets of the same people who run Washington. The idea that dissidents are winning elections in Germany is creating a freak-out in DC, and the response appears to be growing oppression.
Thirty years ago you’d be accused of being delusional if you stated that the time would come when being anti-war would bring accusations of being far right.
I find it ironic that Ronald Reagan was vilified as a war monger when his opponents were pushing unilateral disarmament, but now he would be called a “Kremlin pawn” since he was willing to negotiate arms limitations and security arrangements with Moscow.
I am very doubtful about the extremist nature of AFD just because the news clips I saw about it kept referring to it being labeled as far right extremist but gave no specific policies that would justify the claim. That, and the tendency of the left in the US to label normal views as fascist or extremist leads me to doubt very much the claims.
But then, not being German, I am content to leave all that to them.
Yes, Reagan and Bush negotiated security agreements that included the infamous pledge that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward” in order to allow a peaceful end to the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union. Those agreements were then ignored a few years later once the Soviet Union was history.
Wait, aren’t you the anti military industrial complex guy? Do you know anything about Reagan’s defense spending bills? But you were fine with his war in Nicaragua? And Afghanistan? Angola? Lebanon mission? Bombing Libya? Bombing Iran? Supporting Philippines in their insurgency? Moscow is the one that’s walked away from the arms limitations treaties this past decade or more.
Bush never made any such guarantee, he could do no such thing. The NATO charter guarantees any nation in Europe can apply and the alliance can accept them. This whole made up story about “promises” that did not get written into agreements is stupid. Does anyone believe if Russia wanted it in the agreements, they would not have insisted it was written in? It’s made-up stories to support the Russian narrative about NATO expansion being the cause of the war in Ukraine. NATO had nothing to do with it. If anything, Ukraine being in NATO makes Russia safer. The war in Ukraine is about trillions of dollars in mineral wealth that Putin wants to steal.
The “not one inch eastward” promise and similar statements appeared in multiple public and private communications with the Soviet leaders during the Bush administration.
This policy explicitly appears as a ban on nuclear weapons and foreign military units in the territory of former East Germany in the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany. See article 5: https://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/2plusfour8994e.htm
NATO membership is not open to all European nations. Putin and Yeltsin expressed interest in joining NATO 20+ years ago, but the US refused to consider Russia as member. The NATO charter requires unanimous consent to add a new member, but US arm-twisting can force existing members to follow American orders for new members. That is how the Finland and Sweden became members over the objections of Turkey and Hungary.
The US has withdrawn from virtually all arms-control treaties and security arrangements that Reagan negotiated. US philosophy since the end of the Cold War is that treaties with Russia are made to be broken.
That is false. Russia demanded that it be allowed to not follow the procedures and was told they could follow the same procedures as everyone else or pound sand.
That’s funny. Russia has never honored a single treaty, ever, with anyone.
Are you auditioning for the Babylon Bee? The US effectively runs NATO, and no NATO expansion is possible without US approval.
(3) Following the completion of the withdrawal of the Soviet armed forces from the territory of the present German Democratic Republic and of Berlin, units of German armed forces assigned to military alliance structures in the same way as those in the rest of German territory may also be stationed in that part of Germany, but without nuclear weapon carriers. This does not apply to conventional weapon systems which may have other capabilities in addition to conventional ones but which in that part of Germany are equipped for a conventional role and designated only for such. Foreign armed forces and nuclear weapons or their carriers will not be stationed in that part of Germany or deployed there.
The treaty was ratified by the four occupying powers from WW2 (US, USSR, UK, and France) along with the two governments of Germany.
At the time, the US made it clear that there would be no NATO expansion eastward, which agrees with the terms of the treaty:
We understand that not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.
–Secretary of State James Baker, February 9, 1990, page 5 of transcript of conversation with Gorbachev Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow. (Excerpts) | National Security Archive
If you actually develop an interest the truth, the earlier link summarizes many other examples of the US and NATO leaders expressing the similar assurances.
Or are you happy to parrot the propaganda from Biden and Blinken?
