Manipulation: Why we fall for fake news - and can still protect ourselves

by Dietmar Ringel

[This article posted on 7/26/2024 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.telepolis.de/features/Manipulation-Warum-wir-auf-Fake-News-hereinfallen-und-uns-doch-schuetzen-koennen-9815211.html.]

Media scientist Sabine Schiffer on fake news. How manipulative offers stir up discord. But who is behind the phenomenon? A Telepolis podcast.

When people talk about fake news in Germany, they are usually referring to news from Russian sources. Just recently, the news magazine Der Spiegel and the investigative portal The Insider published a detailed report according to which masses of manipulative websites are being produced in Russia without an imprint or indication of origin and distributed via social networks. The aim, according to the report, is to stir up fear and discord in the West and undermine support for Ukraine.

Dietmar Ringel took this as an opportunity to talk to Sabine Schiffer on the Telepolis podcast. She is a professor of journalism and corporate communication and head of the Institute for Media Responsibility in Berlin.

▶ When I hear about websites without an imprint and indication of origin, it sounds like badly made fake news to me at first, because you can recognize something like that relatively quickly. Or can such sites still have an impact?

Sabine Schiffer: Yes, they can have an impact because we are all a little bit wired to quickly share and pass on things that suit us, that we expect, that meet our own expectations. That is certainly the aim.

Otherwise, it's true that checking sources is at the top of the list when it comes to recognizing fake news. And in this respect, it should be relatively easy. But we also had these clones where media outlets were imitated, which was not so easy to recognize. So all kinds of methods are being used, and certainly not just by the Russians.

▶ The specific report states that hackers critical of the Kremlin have gained insight into Russian secret service documents. Is this credible if the secret services are involved? And presumably on both sides - in producing fake news on the one hand and uncovering it on the other?

Sabine Schiffer:: Intelligence services have always been involved in fake news. It's not a new phenomenon, even if the term suggests that it's now all an internet phenomenon and mainly has something to do with AI and fakes and things like that.

In fact, this is old soft power strategy. And intelligence services have always been at the forefront, even when it comes to developing tricks and tools and techniques to get manipulative messages into the media, which is the main target group of all kinds of fake producers. After all, what gets into the media is considered to be journalistically verified and then refines an advertising message, so to speak.

Y

▶ You have already indicated that it is not only the Russians who are using such means. However, if you follow the German media, you can get the impression that the Russians are world champions in producing fake news. Is that also your impression?

Sabine Schiffer: What you say is currently on everyone's lips. It is also being strongly promoted by the so-called East StratCom Task Force. This is a strategic communications office of the EU and NATO, which also issues information to journalists - especially about Russian disinformation.

I'm introducing this second term because it often gets mixed up here. I don't want to deny that all these things exist and that they are of course problematic from all sides. But there are also two distractions involved. Firstly, it suggests that this is primarily an internet problem. As if something like the “Hitler diaries” or terrible conspiracy theories didn't exist before the internet.

And the other is that this is primarily a phenomenon of authoritarian states. And now I'm going to say something quite provocative: manipulation and propaganda techniques are mainly needed in democracies. In autocracies, I can simply give orders. But in democracies, I have to persuade. And the techniques are much more subtle and sophisticated. People should not only be persuaded to do what you want. They should also believe that they want it themselves.

Media and lobbying

▶ What techniques do you have in mind?

Sabine Schiffer: This is a huge field. There is a term for it that was introduced by Thomas Leif and Rudolf Speth, namely “fifth estate”. It starts at a low level with lobbying for think tanks, large associations or companies with corresponding market power, and of course also for politicians.

NGOs are even founded that look like grassroots movements. This is called astroturfing, staged grassroots movements that act in the interests of those who pay them.

There is also the possibility of using guerrilla techniques, i.e. using surprises, perhaps even shocks, to promote and initiate certain discourses. There is a very broad field here. Basically, it includes everything that PR, public relations, has to offer.

Edward Bernays, one of the great minds in this field, once explained in an interview that the terms PR and propaganda are basically synonyms. They just had to be renamed after the Second World War.

Advertising with suffragettes

You can find interesting things in Bernay's work, such as the march of the suffragettes in New York. These were fighters for women's rights who appeared at the beginning of the 20th century. They were given cigarettes when they marched.

Although women were not banned from smoking at the time, it was considered indecent. So the women were given cigarettes and at the same time the media were briefed that great pictures would be taken and that they could capture something great. And it worked.

Suddenly you saw progressive women smoking. This significantly boosted cigarette consumption and thus benefited the tobacco industry. These and similar things are common in the business world.

The Bertelsmann Foundation

Incidentally, the largest German think tank is the Bertelsmann Foundation, and it is very successful. Politically, it's very similar. They talk about soft power. There is some research on this, but it has to be compiled first.

We don't have a chair for propaganda research in Germany. And I don't think we will have one in the future either. Unless it's about researching propaganda outside Germany.

As long as people believe that we don't have the same problems here as elsewhere in the world, the need to research this more systematically and debate it in public has not yet been recognized.

▶ Let me get straight to the point. You are working intensively on this topic, there are books about it. But many people have hardly any knowledge about it. Do you find support from colleagues in the field to raise awareness?

Sabine Schiffer: That very much depends. In the critical communication studies network, this is of course a widespread topic. There are also corresponding formats for obtaining expert opinions. There is also a lot to be found in academic publications. Springer Verlag, for example, once published an essay on propaganda research in a handbook on media education.

A little hidden, but still. A classic by Jacques Ellul on the subtle methods of propaganda has also been republished. The work of communication scientist Jörg Becker, who has done a lot of research on war propaganda, among other things, and regularly publishes on the subject, has been around for a long time.

What makes it into the general public is another matter. I have the impression that online lectures are more likely to reach people, such as those by Professor Mausfeld and perhaps myself. Or now Jonas Tögel, who is taking a closer look at NATO's soft power and publishing on the subject.

These are rather surprising publications because people believe that fake news only exists in authoritarian states and that NATO is a defense alliance. You ask yourself: why is this also about soft power and propaganda and why is it being talked about openly? - By the way, this has been going on for 20 years, so it's actually nothing new.

Of course, everyone says it's all about defense purposes. A few years ago, the Belgian historian Anne Morelli brought the teachings of Lord Arthur Ponsonby back into the public debate.

In 1928, between the two world wars, he published the basic rules of propaganda: it's always the others' fault, they're the bad guys, we're the good guys, we're just defending ourselves, and so on. - everything that promotes the logic of war and does not lead out of the logic of war.

So there is a wide field to draw from. Occasionally this also appears in the media. In preparation for our discussion, I found a few publications on the subject on Deutsche Welle, Deutschlandfunk and other media outlets, which primarily dealt with autocracies, but also with propaganda in democracies.

The historian Adrian Hänni has done some work on this. However, I have the impression that such informative programs or background contributions tend not to affect the daily news flow.

▶ Let me come back to the outcome of our conversation, i.e. the Russian fake news. Entire companies are said to be engaged in producing fake news and then spreading it on social media.

Do you make a distinction between what I call black and white numbers, where the truth is completely turned on its head, and methods of subtle influence such as you have just described? Or is it all equally reprehensible and to be criticized?

Sabine Schiffer: It is all equally reprehensible and should be criticized. But it would actually be important to differentiate between these things. For example, the terms fake news and disinformation are sometimes used interchangeably.

Disinformation not only includes false information, but also the intention to spread it. For example, fake news or ducks, as it used to be called, also contain things that are misrepresented or shortened when they are passed on.

But you can also lie with facts by selecting them according to certain stereotypes. The Middle East war is a good example of how distorted perceptions and even fake news can be created simply by selecting news items that are far too stereotypical.

It is certainly debatable what the right terms are. But I wanted to problematize it in principle. And I would look at this on different levels, just as I did in my textbook “Media Analysis”.

On the one hand, there is the full intention of manipulation via soft power and other techniques. If you have a lot of money, you can make a lot of propaganda in this way. They simply get professional PR advice. However, I would like to add that there are also ethical rules that many PR professionals adhere to. I don't want an entire professional group to be discredited here.

On the other hand, there are other so-called filters at various levels. This is what Herman and Chomsky set out in their propaganda model. This is no longer quite up to date because we have different media technologies and possibilities today.

But basically, the principle is correctly recognized that through poor working conditions, poor pay for freelance journalists, through briefings from educational bodies on disinformation, which on closer inspection are themselves propaganda bodies such as the “East StratCom Task Force” or all kinds of educational campaigns that currently exist against fake news.

You have to take a closer look. Politicians are very often prominently involved in such campaigns. Yet they are not actually the ones who inform us about fake news, but the ones who should be controlled by the media.

▶ This brings us to the next issue, which is also a major topic in the European Union: the big tech companies should be held responsible for the content that is published on their platforms. The Digital Services Act has been in place for several years to regulate this. There are also plans for a media freedom law that will protect the freedom of speech, but also set limits to it. How do you assess this?

Sabine Schiffer First of all, the signal words protection and freedom. I always advise people to research very carefully what is really behind them. In my view, these are euphemisms that sound good. For the most part, the terms are used strategically. And yes, what you have just described and what is currently going on at EU level actually shows the whole dilemma.

On the one hand, we now have these huge tech giants whose terms and conditions basically dictate what freedom on the internet means. That can't be right.

Certainly, a certain amount of regulation is needed to control the market power of Amazon, Google and Meta. If only to ensure that communication is not controlled for economic reasons or that Internet discourse is not completely distorted by targeted advertising, which would damage democracy.

This can be seen excellently in the film “The Cleaners”, which is about content moderators and the consequences of economically programmed internet software. So on the one hand, there is a need for regulation, but on the other hand, this is a huge gateway for control and censorship opportunities.

We have seen this in the fight against child pornography. That is a noble cause. But at the same time, attempts are being made to introduce certain surveillance options. And it is precisely at this interface that we find ourselves when we look at the EU plans.

Eric Bonse researched this in Brussels and took a look at the potential of the Media Freedom Act and the Digital Services Act. For example, there is always talk of chat control and all sorts of things. Bonse asks, and I think this is an important question, whether this should be left in the hands of politicians at all.

Today, the tech giants are the actual gatekeepers, and journalism is no longer the gatekeeper. Powerful players are needed to deal with these tech giants. And politics probably has a role to play here.

On the other hand, politics is the actor that should be controlled by the media. That is why there is self-regulation, why there is the Press Council and why there is no state control of the media, which is anti-democratic. However, we are actually navigating the waters of anti-democratic media policy at EU level.

▶ What you have just described sounds like a kind of vicious circle. Do you see a way out of it?

Sabine Schiffer: It is indeed not easy to solve. But if you are serious about it, you will find a way out. All kinds of commissions, committees and other things are being set up.

Why don't we think about filling them with a wide variety of players, including academics and the media themselves? Or even politicians, if you like.

Such a body could bring the wishes or recognized needs to the attention of politicians.

At EU level, some of the political players have dubious democratic legitimacy. The Commission, for example, is not elected in the same way as the governments of individual countries. And when I think of all the recent cases of corruption ...

I don't think we can leave it at this level; independent bodies must be involved in any case. And I hope that this can be achieved through public debate and the involvement of the media.

As the fourth estate, it would be their job to be aware of this responsibility and not to repeat things. However, especially now in times of war, we often see things being parroted in the media and not independently researched and questioned.

▶ You mentioned the Gaza war earlier as an example of fake news and attempts at manipulation. Can you give some examples?

Sabine Schiffer: First of all, no independent media are allowed in there at all, although this is repeatedly demanded. Incidentally, it was very similar in eastern Ukraine even before the Russian attack began. Certain journalists were not allowed in there either.

Now there are people on the ground documenting events there. The media often work with stringers or fixers on the ground - in other words, with locals who know their way around, who have contacts and who sometimes even do journalistic work themselves when no other journalists can enter the country.

However, there is a suspicion that their reports are biased. With regard to Gaza, it is said that nothing comes from there that is not controlled by Hamas. Conversely, we know that there is official censorship in Israel, that military censorship intervenes in all sensitive issues.

Recently a newspaper, I think “Haaretz”, published a whole page with such redactions to give a sense of what this means in everyday journalistic life. The aim was to make it clear to readers that there are many things they cannot find out, even if the media know some of them.

Now the German media apparently consider Israeli communication to be more credible than Palestinian communication, instead of saying that it cannot be independently verified. That also happens, yes. But I have the impression that there is a distorted perception. This could be investigated in more detail empirically, but unfortunately science often comes too late.

In any case, many observers perceive it as I have described it. There is also “cherry picking”, where you always choose the examples that confirm your own thesis. If you think you have identified such a trend, I always encourage you to look for and research the opposite. And you will always find examples of this. What ultimately prevails and who believes what is another question.

I have to be honest, I haven't turned to foreign media as much as I am at the moment for a long time. If I want to get even a rudimentary picture or recognize connections, then I look at Democracy Now, Amy Goodman, English newspapers and other foreign media, for example. German reporting and commentary seems very, very narrow-minded to me.

▶ It takes a lot of expertise to keep track of the many complicated issues and find your bearings. And that brings us to media literacy, which has long been a topic of discussion. For example, there are calls for a corresponding subject to be taught in schools. Your Institute for Media Responsibility in Berlin has also been looking at this for some time. Do you see any movement, are people getting smarter?

Sabine Schiffer: Let's put it this way: young people keep surprising me by noticing where things are going wrong. And that with the constant bombardment they are exposed to! With Tiktok, for example, you can hardly see who the sender of anything is.

As far as the initiative for media education as a school subject, which we are also campaigning for, is concerned, you have to be very careful. The IT industry has succeeded in reducing this very much to digital issues. Part of the problem is that people believe that fake news only exists on the internet. Of course, that is far, far too little.

Media education is very comprehensive and actually starts with the choice of the first picture book. And we need to start much earlier, including with parents. That has been neglected. I've always wondered why, in a democracy that relies on reflection on opinion-forming processes, we don't have a systematic school subject on media education or at least have it anchored in individual subjects.

We more or less leave it up to the school or the teachers to decide what materials they use. This has not been evaluated. Much of what is promoted under digital skills is partly advertising copy from Microsoft. There needs to be a separate curriculum, a curriculum commission.

There is a need for evaluated didactic material, studies and ongoing training, and more knowledge about media professions. How does the news get into our media? What do we learn and what don't we learn? Developing a little more distance to the representations is lifelong learning.

This should start at school, methodically well-founded and secured, so that it doesn't just stop at checking what the source is, but perhaps also, if you notice something on the media surface, how you can check it out. And it cannot be left to individual committed people or institutions. We need this as a school subject, and not just reduced to IT issues.

In the Telepolis podcast, Dietmar Ringel spoke with Sabine Schiffer, Professor of Journalism and Corporate Communications and Director of the Institute for Media Responsibility in Berlin.

___________________________________________________________________________

After the Ukraine conflict: How a third world war can still be avoided

by Klaus Moegling

[This article posted on 7/21/2024 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.telepolis.de/features/Nach-dem-Ukraine-Konflikt-Wie-ein-dritter-Weltkrieg-noch-vermieden-werden-kann-9808344.html.]

A global conflict is increasingly looming. But it depends on decisions made now. Why an end to the war in Ukraine would be good for everyone. (Part 1)

Current opponents of the resumption of negotiations are convinced: “Putin is not negotiating.” Nevertheless, it should be noted that, at least for a time, there were successful negotiations on the exchange of prisoners, the mutual transfer of fallen soldiers and the transportation of grain. Pope Francis, UN Secretary-General Guterres and the Turkish government acted as mediators.

Although Ukrainian President Zelenskyi also officially rejects negotiations before the Russian troops have left Ukraine, he is nevertheless allowing negotiations to take place with regard to the partial problems mentioned.

Johannes Varwick (2022) thereforecalls for negotiations between Ukraine and the Russian Federation to “freeze” the war. Although this does not yet represent a solution, it could be the start of further negotiations. This would be better than hundreds of thousands more dead and seriously injured and a dangerous escalation of the war.

Read also

Ukraine war: Russian superiority in the Donbass

Telepolis

Orbán's scandalous appearance in Romania: Frontal attack on EU leadership and US government

Telepolis

Scandal between Poland and Hungary: Warsaw recommends Orbán's withdrawal from the EU and Nato

Telepolis

From turning point to confrontation: How the US and Europe are preparing for a major war

Telepolis

US and Nato concerned: Hong Kong as a hub for Russian weapons technology?

Telepolis

SPD parliamentary group leader Rolf Mützenich also supports the call for a freeze on the conflict, although this is in contrast to the mainstream media and the policy of the Green Foreign Minister.

Michael von der Schulenburg (2024) also doubts that the current mutual military escalation in the Ukraine war can be legitimized by international law and the UN Charter:

Can the UN Charter also be used to justify waging a war over several years that could end in the destruction of the attacked state? And does this also justify extending the war to Russia with the risk of starting a nuclear world war? And all this without even attempting to resolve the conflict that led to this war peacefully? Hardly! After all, the purpose of the UN Charter is to preserve peace for mankind and not to justify wars.

Michael von der Schulenburg

However, if we wait too long to start negotiations in this sense, the starting point for negotiations could become worse and worse if the military situation in Ukraine deteriorates.

The nuclear threat is getting closer

In the first half of 2024, the Russian military intensified its attacks on Kharkiv, Ukraine's second-largest city, and bombed civilian infrastructure. NATO is now in favor of the use of Western weapons from Ukraine on certain military targets in Russian territory, which it considers legitimate under international law, in order to prevent the attacks on Kharkiv, among other things.

French President Emmanuel Macron is in favor of the deployment of Western military forces in Ukraine. Ukraine destroys part of the nuclear early warning system there. Putin counters again with the extremely serious threat to use tactical nuclear weapons not only against Ukraine, but also against the West.

Read also

Ukraine war: Russian superiority in the Donbass

Telepolis

Scandal between Poland and Hungary: Warsaw recommends Orbán leave the EU and Nato

Telepolis

From turning point to confrontation: How the US and Europe are preparing for a major war

Telepolis

Ukraine war: Kiev averts national bankruptcy - deal on foreign debt

Telepolis

Ukraine war: Russian army advances in the Donbass

Telepolis

Former Russian President and Prime Minister Medvedev are threatening a Russian missile attack on Western capitals and a third world war.

Accordingly, the Russian Federation carried out a nuclear weapons maneuver to test the use of tactical nuclear weapons. At the NATO anniversary in New York in July 2024, NATO and Germany announce, among other things, the deployment of new nuclear-tipped Tomahawk medium-range missiles in Germany.

NATO medium-range weapons back in Germany

This is the first time that missiles have been stationed on German soil since the withdrawal of nuclear medium-range missiles in 1991 as part of the INF treaty. IPPNW, the international medical organization for the prevention of nuclear war, istherefore calling for"risk reduction as a first step: the three Western nuclear powers - the USA, Great Britain and France - should join forces with China to approach Russia and declare a doctrine of no first use of nuclear weapons.”

Nuclear-capable hypersonic missiles are also to be stationed on German territory by 2026 and will then face the Russian hypersonic missiles already in Kaliningrad. Russia is also already attacking Ukraine with hypersonic missiles.

Read also

Is there a way out of the world of crises, conflicts and wars?

Telepolis

What the NATO summit in Washington means for our future

Telepolis

The prolongation of the Ukraine war is a flirtation with nuclear catastrophe

Telepolis

Global armament: Deterrence is not life insurance

Telepolis

The arms race of the 21st century has begun - also nuclear

Telepolis

The appeal by critical political scientists and politicians in favor of negotiations on Change.org, which calls for resistance against hypersonic missiles in the East and West, which can reach the capitals of the participating states with their conventional or nuclear warheads in a matter of minutes, is extremely topical.

The danger of nuclear war is as close as it was during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, but personalities and political scientists who do not want to rule out a nuclear response are being publicly stigmatized in the Western media as people who are falling for Putin's threats.

Threats of nuclear missile attacks are downgraded as scaremongering and attempts at intimidation. Nevertheless, given their responsibility to the people they represent, shouldn't leading Western politicians ask themselves whether a Russian nuclear response can really be ruled out? Wouldn't it make more sense to finally start a decisive negotiation offensive now, before it is too late?

Günter Verheugen and Petra Erler (2024:14) warn accordingly in their book “The Long Road to War” - despite their criticism of Russia's attack, which violates international law:

A destructive will directed at Russia also destroys us. It inevitably leads to nuclear catastrophe, because that is the only case in which Russia's nuclear doctrine applies: if the country's existence is at stake, the use of nuclear weapons is permitted. What in the world would it be worth trying to find out whether this is just an empty threat?

Herfried Münkler's position, on the other hand, that there must be an EU nuclear bomb, does little to promote a diplomatic offensive and de-escalation - according to Münkler (2023):

The British may have nuclear submarines, France the bomb, but will they really use them to protect Lithuania or Poland? From the Kremlin's point of view, that is doubtful. We need a common suitcase with a red button that can be moved between large EU countries.

In this context, Münkler advocates a massive armament of European states and the EU in order to deter Russia. The European SPD leadership candidate Katharina Barley takes up these ideas and also calls for consideration of a European nuclear bomb - especially in view of the expected future unreliability of the USA (Wangerin 2024).

Such a massive build-up of conventional and nuclear weapons on the part of the Russian Federation and the West, combined with an escalating threat and military escalation in Ukraine, is counterproductive and extremely dangerous. There is a danger of a 'point of no return' and an unstoppable escalation dynamic, as Jürgen Habermas (2023) put it in the Süddeutsche Zeitung. At some point, a tipping point may be reached that causes events to collapse on the world in an uncontrolled and chaotic manner. How far away are we from this tipping point?

The dual strategy needed to end the war

As early as June 2023, political scientist Hajo Funke called for the resumption of negotiations in his pamphlet “Negotiation is the only way to peace” in view of the human suffering caused by the war:

Is it legitimate - once again, this applies to all sides - to continue to accept suffering and destruction for people and societies without doing everything - but also everything - within the power of our peoples' governments to interrupt this destructive escalation in war? Shouldn't we now (...) at the latest be asking the question of whether 'carrying on like this' with more weapons and more escalation can still be justified to the societies affected and the people at risk?” In my opinion, two necessary strategies should be developed in parallel as a dual strategy (“expansion of defense capability and negotiation offensive”) in this context:

First: Coordinated expansion of the military defense capability of the EU, NATO and Ukraine with a sense of proportion in order to prevent further military advances by the Russian Federation - possibly even beyond Ukraine;

Secondly: Parallel to this, accelerated negotiation offers in the war in Ukraine via an effective negotiating commission with representatives of influential states under the leadership of the UN General Secretariat with the governments of the Russian Federation and Ukraine.

More on this in the second part of this text, which will be published tomorrow, Monday, on Telepolis.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Prof. Johannes Varwick: “The political culture in the USA is broken”

July 19, 2024 Dietmar Ringel

[This article posted on 7/19/2024 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.telepolis.de/features/Prof-Johannes-Varwick-Die-politische-Kultur-in-den-USA-ist-kaputt-9807814.html.]

Europe between the fronts: Nato, Orbán's peace mission and our role in the Ukraine conflict. A Telepolis podcast about global unrest.

Russia has been waging war against Ukraine for almost two and a half years. NATO is deciding on billions more in aid for Kiev and is prescribing a massive rearmament program for itself, while Hungary's head of government Orban, who is also EU Council President, is on a peace mission to Kiev, Moscow and Beijing. At the same time, several dramas are unfolding in the leading Western power, the USA.

The aged President Biden, who wants to be re-elected in November, causes horror among his supporters with a disastrous TV appearance, while his challenger Trump is assassinated shortly afterwards. All of this happens within the space of a few days. And you ask yourself: what is going on in the world right now? And what impact will this have on Germany?

Dietmar Ringel spoke about this in the Telepolis podcast with political scientist Professor Johannes Varwick, Head of the Chair of International Relations and European Politics at Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg.

▶ Which of the events just listed is the most important in your view?

Johannes Varwick: It's the mixture you described. Instability on many levels. Uncertainty on many levels, the usual categories of thought are eroding before our eyes, so to speak. For our interests, the Ukraine war, i.e. Russia's attack on Ukraine, is of course the most important and most threatening event, but the instability in the USA can certainly also cause us to worry. And in this respect, the current mix is one that can and must cause us a great deal of concern.

The assassination attempt on Donald Trump

▶ Let's start with the most recent event, the failed assassination attempt on the Republican US presidential candidate Trump. What impact can this have? Will it possibly cause some reflection and thought in the USA? Or will the situation there come to a head?

Johannes Varwick: The next few days and weeks will show that. There was, I think, a very sensible reaction from Joe Biden, the current president, who said that we have to lower the political temperature, that we must not continue to get into a political climate in which differences of opinion create enmity.

I think that's the right tone. And from what we're hearing, Donald Trump isn't adding fuel to the fire at the moment either. But he is, of course, a guy who thrives on riots.

And in this respect, I expect the situation to escalate further. We should also not forget that Donald Trump is not only a convicted felon, he also did not recognize the last election and, to put it bluntly, sent his mob to storm the US parliament.

In doing so, he has made a significant contribution to the political climate being ruined. In this respect, the USA is now in a really unstable situation. A colleague of mine from the USA put it like this: Nobody in the world admires the US political system anymore. These are really serious events. The political culture in the USA is broken and I hope that it can be repaired. But I am skeptical that it really can.

Preparing for Trump's presidency

▶ Many people now expect the USA to be even more preoccupied with itself than with Nato, for example, or Ukraine, should Trump become president again. But is it perhaps already the case now, after this event, that everything there revolves more or less around domestic politics?

Johannes Varwick: That has always been the case in the USA. All administrations are always driven by domestic politics. Nevertheless, they naturally have interests in the world. And I don't think that will change. But the question is how these interests are perceived. And there is a clear difference between Biden and Trump. In my view, America's Ukraine policy under Biden is an absolute disaster.

And we can only hope that things will improve if Trump is elected. I also believe that it would actually get better, because it can't get much worse. However, on other issues, such as dealing with China, Trump is even more aggressive than Biden. In this respect, it's a bit of a choice between plague and cholera.

Europeans will have to wait for November

As Europeans, we have no influence on this anyway. You have to take it as it comes. But the USA will become even more unpredictable after the next presidential election. And for Europe, this means that it will have to think through its strategy and decide whether it really should continue to lean so closely on this unpredictable partner, the USA, or whether it should try to go its own way to some extent.

And I would advocate the latter. But the Europeans themselves are divided, and that is also a problem that we need to look at. In this respect, some things are being shaken up. And that also gives room for debates, which we should definitely have.

▶ I would like to pick up two balls that you have just passed to me. Firstly, you described the American Ukraine policy under Joe Biden as a disaster. Why is that?

Johannes Varwick: We now have two and a half years of war in Ukraine, which is Russia's fault. There's no question that neither the Americans nor the Europeans are to blame. But of course we, the Americans and the Europeans, also bear some responsibility for it. I make a distinction here between blame and responsibility.

The blame lies on the Russian side, but we also bear responsibility. We have deliberately crossed Russian red lines with the offer and the decision by NATO for Ukraine to become a NATO member. This decision dates back to 2008, but was reinforced under Joe Biden.

Reminder of Trump's Ukraine policy in 2021

When he took office in 2021, a US-Ukrainian security agreement was concluded in which this goal was reaffirmed. In addition, the armament of Ukraine was intensified with money and weapons from America. This accelerated the conflict situation. And then Russia attacked Ukraine.

Once again, this was not the fault of the West, but of Russia alone. But since then, the Americans and the West have refused to even think about a reconciliation of interests with Russia. And I don't think that's the right reaction. There have been no attempts whatsoever to solve this problem politically. And that's why I think America's Ukraine policy is a disaster.

▶ Let's move on to the second point. You said that the Europeans have to take it as it comes. Is that true? At the NATO summit in Washington in particular, there was an attempt to make NATO, as they say, Trump-proof and to enable Europe to take on more responsibility of its own. For example, through the new center in Wiesbaden, which is to organize and coordinate military support for Ukraine. Is this a sign that Europe is gradually taking the lead?

Johannes Varwick: No, I don't see it that way. I think it's a form of political plumbing that tries to influence major political movements with technical things. But that will not succeed. If the Americans under Trump do a 180-degree turnaround on the Ukraine issue, for example by pushing for a political deal with Moscow and saying that we will no longer pay the billions that we have paid in the past, then the Europeans will have to adapt.

And then you can't change things with the command in Wiesbaden, where 700 NATO soldiers are working, but then you have to face up to the new realities. In this respect, the pace of the Ukraine issue is set in Washington and not in Paris, Berlin or Warsaw.

I think that's wrong. The Europeans should launch a political initiative that could perhaps also convince the USA. And in the best case scenario, this would be done together with the USA. But I don't believe that Europeans can fundamentally oppose this when the wind is changing in the USA. It's hopeless.

Viktor Orbán's peace initiative

▶ I would like to pick up on the keyword peace initiative or peace mission. The Hungarian head of government and current EU Council President Viktor Orbán has launched such a mission, starting in Kiev, then via Moscow and Beijing to Washington. Now, however, the Europeans are particularly displeased about this. It is said that Orban has no EU mandate for this. It is either being played down or massively criticized. How do you assess it?

Johannes Varwick: Of course, Viktor Orbán is a political figure who can be viewed with skepticism and who I personally also view with skepticism. However, we should differentiate between what is happening domestically in Hungary and what Orban is trying to do in international politics. You can continue to criticize Orban. But he has at least made an attempt to talk to the key players again. And he was only able to do so because others are not.

And I find it a bit strange that people are now criticizing him in this way and not making any alternative political offer. In other words, I think what Viktor Orbán is doing is sensible. In principle, he doesn't have any agenda attached to it, but is only holding talks that others don't want to hold - which I think is fundamentally wrong.

The adoption of Ukrainian maximum positions

The Western approach is completely apolitical. It adopts Ukrainian maximum positions, which everyone knows will not come out in the end. And it refuses any political imagination to think ahead. Viktor Orbán is now stepping into this gap and is being massively criticized for it. I don't think that goes together. We should launch our own political initiatives or support the initiatives of others.

For example, the Brazilian-Chinese initiative of May 2023, which would offer relatively good starting points for a political solution. The West is not taking any of this on board, but is instead making stalling slogans, so to speak, saying that negotiations can only take place when Russia completely withdraws its soldiers from Ukraine. I think that's wishful thinking, and I would wish for that, no question about it. But there is no indication that this will happen. We need more politics, more diplomacy and fewer slogans.

▶ Germany is the largest, the strongest, many say the most important country in the European Union. With regard to Ukraine, we have been hearing the same statements here for a long time: Kiev should get everything it needs. And Ukraine must not lose this war. Do you still see movement in the German position?

Johannes Varwick: I don't see any movement, at least in the statements made publicly. I am not able to assess what is happening behind the scenes. Chancellor Scholz is basically defaming all diplomatic efforts by saying that this is all a dictated peace at the behest of Moscow. If you approach the matter in this way, I don't think you have any political maneuvering power to move anything behind the scenes.

Nevertheless, I would like to see something happen behind the scenes. From the conversations I've had, I gather that many people realize how much this war of attrition is costing, that it could escalate further at any time and that we could lose a lot more as a result. In my opinion, the search for political solutions is in the air to a certain extent, but I don't see anything like that coming from Germany.

Diplomatic self-sabotage

And once again: if you make such a clear commitment in public, then it is probably also difficult to make progress behind the scenes. I think the mood has to change. We have to recognize that there are no good options left in this war and that this ongoing war of attrition, which is being fuelled by more and more Western arms supplies, will not lead to Ukraine coming out of this war in a better position.

Instead, the only chance of achieving something sensible for Ukraine is the will to find a political solution. And this cannot consist of always making maximum demands, which are justified under international law and also morally, but of trying to resolve this conflict on the basis of a balance of interests. In my opinion, on the best possible terms for Ukraine.

So it's not about giving Russia a present or even being close to Russia or pro-Russia. That is definitely not the case for me. And I don't actually see anyone saying that Russia is acting sensibly. Not even those who are always accused of doing so. We must now try to get out of this war. And for that we need political initiatives.

▶ If we look at the document from the NATO summit in Washington, it talks about significantly more military support. Another 40 billion dollars for Ukraine are noted there. And the assumption seems to be that this war can be won militarily.

But the way you describe it sounds completely different. It has often been said during the war that Ukraine needs new weapons systems. First Leopard tanks, then longer-range missiles. Now there is talk of F-16 fighter planes. Are there such game changers that Ukraine can still win the war with?

Johannes Varwick: Not from my point of view, but I don't have a crystal ball at my disposal, and I note that the official position in NATO is exactly as you have just described. They obviously believe that they can achieve their military goals with more and more support.

But it is a balancing act. The Americans, like the Germans, repeatedly emphasize that they want to support Ukraine as much as possible, but do not want to enter into a war with Russia. I don't believe that we can carry on as before. At the NATO summit, not only was military support for Ukraine reaffirmed, but a conceivable political way out is also increasingly being blocked, namely a neutral status for Ukraine, however spelled out.

NATO's Ukraine summit declaration

The NATO summit declaration speaks of an irreversible path for Ukraine into the alliance; a kind of Ukrainian NATO mission is being set up to prepare for this. The train is heading in a clear direction. I believe that this will obstruct political lines of compromise and also achieve nothing militarily.

In other words, we are basically moving down a massive dead end. And the end of this impasse is foreseeable, it could lead to war with Russia. I am one of those who are warning against this, who are really appealing to Western politicians not to go any further.

Of course you can also appeal to Russia to stop this brutal war. I would like to add that, no question about it. But for the time being, we have no influence on that. However, I hope we can influence the mood in our own country and in our own alliance. However, the warning voices are still very quiet at the moment. I think we need to become louder. Otherwise it won't work. We're going in the wrong direction.

▶ Let's look a little further east. In the Washington summit declaration, NATO names China as one of its main opponents - alongside Russia, Iran and international terror. Nato speaks of a systemic challenge to Euro-Atlantic security from China. How do you see it - does China threaten the security of Europe and the United States?

Johannes Varwick: It was made very clear at the summit that China has sided with Russia. And it was also stated that China was supplying technology without which Russia could not wage war. China denies this. There have also been very sharp reactions from the Chinese side denying this.

I think it has long been fair to say that China has become a close ally of Moscow in the Ukraine war. In my view, however, that's all the more reason to say that we can't continue the war like this and we can't win, because Russia's ability to hold out is also enormous thanks to Chinese support.

And I don't see that changing. The West had hoped that China would not side so clearly with Russia, but now we can see that this was wishful thinking. At the same time, I am also in favor of not escalating further with regard to China, without being naive, of course. I'm not one of those people who assume everything good about China.

But I am also not one of those who unconditionally accuse China of everything bad. I have the impression that a balance of interests would be possible with China, also with regard to Ukraine. Because China has and can have no interest in moving borders by military force. That was never in China's interest.

And China also presented a peace plan relatively early on, a twelve-point plan, which stated first and foremost that the territorial integrity of states must be respected. I believe that more could have been done with China. But now we are more in a confrontational situation.

Incidentally, Nato is merely repeating what has long been said and thought in Washington, namely that China is the main future threat and so on. I don't think Nato should go along with this. If you take a close look at the Washington communiqué, the language is open to interpretation. On the one hand, it says that they remain open to a constructive relationship.

And on the other hand, they want to raise their awareness, i.e. be careful in their dealings with China. In any case, I don't think that the Europeans should go along with the hard American line, in which China is portrayed as a core threat, but we also need a debate with China about a balance of interests.

And I also think that we should not exaggerate the contrast between democracy and authoritarian systems in international politics, because that simply leads to an unproductive confrontation. We need diplomacy, a balance of interests and respect for different political approaches.

At present, however, international politics is moving in a different direction. And anyone who calls for this is immediately labeled naive. I don't think that's naive. I think sobriety and realpolitik should play a role when considering whether to engage unconditionally with such important states as China. In my view, however, too little attention is being paid to this in the public debate at the moment.

Dietmar Ringel spoke to Prof. Johannes Varwick in the Telepolis podcast. He heads the Chair of International Relations and European Politics at Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg.