Putin escalates: How should we react now?

by Harald Neuber

[This article posted on 0/22/2022 is translated from the German on the Internet, Putin eskaliert: Wie wir jetzt reagieren müssten.]

Topics of the day: why hardly anyone is discussing ways out of the war. How trust in politics is being lost. And what António Guterres thinks about excess profits.

Dear readers,

1. the escalation in Russia's war against Ukraine is taking place not only militarily, but also politically and in the media.

2. what is demanded of the population, those in power (and their sons) do not want to bear.

3. today at Telepolis: excess profits tax, semiconductors from China and Habeck's gas levy.

But one after the other.

Journalism at war

The partial mobilization in Russia continues to dominate the headlines - and Telepolis has also devoted several articles to this further escalation of the Russian war of aggression. The more critical the situation, the more critical and detached journalists should be: keeping a cool head, analyzing the situation, questioning the actions of the actors on all sides, intervening. Ideally, they should break through prevailing discourses and point out possible solutions.

There is no question that the Russian intervention in Ukraine violates international law. That Russian troops are at least accepting civilian casualties. That possible war crimes must be investigated and, if proven, punished.

Related Article:

Roland Bathon: How Russian "special operation" officially becomes war

Seth Harp: What the Ukrainian terrain gains really mean

Bernhard Gulka: Ukraine: Will the offensive last?

Each stage of escalation in the Russian war against Ukraine, which at its core is not a regional conflict but a geopolitical confrontation, but is accompanied by an increasing interplay between media and politics, which confirm and incite each other. This is dangerous because it creates alternative realities that are disconnected from what is really happening and makes it difficult to assess real risk.

"Panic" and "despair" reign in the Kremlin, "weakness" determines its actions, it was said yesterday on the part of political actors, and these keywords were gratefully taken up by many media.

Without bias, none of this can be gleaned from Putin's speech Tuesday morning. A fanatical determination, if you will, also a ruthlessness with which he is pushing this war to the outside world. But since Tuesday, it has been clear that this war will not end for the foreseeable future, but will intensify.

What is hardly discussed, however, is a perspective far from the war, which since Tuesday at the latest has been discussed by Moscow and Washington in a nuclear dimension. So when is a debate on a European solution to this conflict necessary, if not now? When will Europeans put aside the geopolitical interests of third parties and talk about their interest: a sustainable European peace?

Because a peace order has existed after every war so far. The question is how many victims will have to be mourned by then.

Article on the topic:

Harald. Neuber: Partial mobilization in Russia: This is what escalation dominance looks like

Editorial Telepolis: Atlantic Council: US President should threaten Russia with nuclear retaliation

Editorial Telepolis: In the wording: This is how Scholz justifies the sanctions - and Putin the partial mobilization

The alienation between politics and the population

What the war destroys in necessary debate, the system suffocates. Specifically: the party system. Telepolis editor Claudia Wangerin wrote about this with reference to a survey. According to the survey, more than 60 percent of Germans no longer trust any party to solve pressing problems. The question is when and how this silent mass will make its political presence felt.

The frustration is currently hitting the Social Democrats and the Greens particularly hard. A government led by them, of all parties, "falls short of its potential when it comes to combining ecology and justice," climate protection activist Luisa Neubauer and the chief executive of the German Paritätischer Wohlfahrtsverband, Ulrich Schneider, wrote in the news magazine Spiegel.

The dilemma for the governing parties, especially the once-ecological among them, is twofold: on the one hand, climate protection goals are being sacrificed for a possible victory against the Russian invaders in Ukraine; on the other hand, the population, especially the socially disadvantaged, are being asked to make the necessary sacrifices.

That these sacrifices are rather not made by those in power becomes obvious. This applies to every crisis, not only in Germany. Here, for example, for members of the Bundestag, who allowed themselves 300 euros more in July, while large parts of the population are doing without in anticipation of the coming energy bills for reserves. In Russia, it applies to the Kremlin spokesman's son, would-be soldier and would-be journalist Nikolay Peskov, who refused to answer a call from the army after the partial mobilization. Too bad for the 32-year-old that the call was a prank call.

Such developments are causing alienation between the people and the powerful everywhere. Above all, we should think about the developments here at home. About the role of the media, but also about the mechanisms of politics, which functions less and less controversially, as recently also the former SPD member of parliament Marco Bülow stated in an obituary for the late Green politician Hans-Christian Ströbele.

Article on the topic:

Claudia Wangerin: Lobbyocracy and party frustration: if elections would change anything ...

Peter Nowak: "Hot Autumn": Is Die Linke ready and able to help drive social movements?

Marco Bülow: We need more Ströbele spirit in politics!

UN, traffic lights and energy profits

The fossil fuel industry was the topic of discussion at the UN General Assembly on Wednesday, as Telepolis editor David Goeßmann reports. UN Secretary General António Guterres called for a tax on the enormous excess profits of the fossil fuel industry. Polluters would finally have to pay for the damage. The Portuguese thus picked up on a debate that has largely already been put to rest in Germany by the traffic light coalition. Guterres, at least, said:

These funds should be redirected in two ways - for countries suffering from the loss and damage caused by the climate crisis, and for people struggling with rising food and energy prices.

António Guterres

Perhaps food for thought for Berlin.

Semiconductors and globalization

Matthias Becker reports on a political phenomenon: When it comes to semiconductors, government officials become globalization critics, the Telepolis author writes today: "The U.S. government wants to isolate China politically and economically and build up its own manufacturing capacities." Some companies would benefit, while others would lose their previous business model:

The U.S. government wants to make the country independent of China. In no other area are the efforts to "decouple" (decoupling) as clear and unambiguous as in high technologies, especially in the (alleged) future fields of battery technology and high-performance chips.

Matthias Becker

Uniper and gas levy

The nationalization of the energy company Uniper is stirring up emotions, as is the possible gas levy associated with it - which in turn would be a socialization of the crisis costs. German Economics Minister Robert Habeck (Greens) is sticking to the controversial gas levy, writes Telepolis author Bernd Müller, "even if it has not yet been fully clarified whether it is also constitutional."

Starting in October, consumers are initially to pay an additional 2.4 cents per kilowatt hour of natural gas to save German gas importers from insolvency. Müller continued:

Habeck explained on Wednesday that the levy is intended to build a financial bridge for the Uniper energy group until the process of nationalization is completed. That would take at least three months, he said, and for that time the group's finances would have to be kept solid. After that, he said, it would have to be examined whether the levy could still be imposed in accordance with the constitution.