The Myth of the Peace Movement 🧵 Pacifism, as a fundamental rejection of the use of violence, is a respectable ethical standpoint. Why the tradition of abusing this fundamental position—through deception and manipulation—is becoming a threat to our security: 1/25
In a WDR radio interview, presenter and guest Sigmar Gabriel admitted to having participated in the large peace rally in Bonn's Hofgarten in 1983 as young people. However, this formative experience of the 1980s peace movement can be used for manipulation. 2/25
A key motivator for demanding peace under any conditions, then as now, was FEAR. "Before a devastating nuclear war breaks out, it's better to give in to an aggressor when in doubt." Fear isn't a good advisor—but it's an ideal target for manipulation. 3/25
In the enthusiasm over German reunification—which peace activists also considered a success—the evidence that emerged from 1990 onward that large parts of the West German peace movement had been infiltrated and controlled by the East German Stasi and the KGB were lost. 4/25
The purpose of the Stasi's elaborate "operational measures" in the Federal Republic of Germany: to protect the strategic advantage achieved with the unilateral deployment of Soviet medium-range missiles in the Eastern Bloc by preventing NATO from rearming at the same level. 5/25
The strategic importance of the USSR's dominance in medium-range missiles, and why the KGB and Stasi put so much effort into building and controlling a West German peace movement, I described last year in this thread: 6/25
What was often forgotten: The USSR had never abandoned its fundamental claim to expand its "communist" sphere of influence throughout Europe by force. This was clearly demonstrated in the military suppression of uprisings in East Germany, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia. 7/25
By infiltrating the organizing teams of the West German peace movement, Stasi agents created a bias that prevented them from criticizing the East, but instead kept their focus on the United States, NATO, and the German government. 8/25
Unfortunately, this Stasi influence had a broad impact; for example, few Green Party politicians criticized the Warsaw Pact. The repression of the peace movement in the GDR was also barely noticed, and solidarity with human rights groups in the Eastern Bloc remained low. 9/25
It's also true that the vast majority of people who were involved in the peace movement did so out of genuine concern for our security and a fundamental ethical conviction for peacefulness. Their commitment was shamelessly exploited – by opponents of democracy. 10/25
Let's be honest: The Soviet Union's power apparatus imploded in 1989-91 not because disarmament treaties or "change through trade" were successful, but because the USSR collapsed economically after excessive Soviet rearmament in competition with NATO. 11/25
We should also find consensus on another misconception held by some peace activists: Gorbachev was not a courageous peace politician. As recently as 1991, he had demonstrations in Lithuania violently suppressed with tanks. The result: 14 dead and 700 injured. 12/25
Disarmament was an offer from the West to the USSR to end the arms race. Why, then, was disarmament a death blow for the USSR? Because it lost the military clout needed to keep other countries within its sphere of influence. Afghanistan demonstrated this. 13/25
We all carry lies and errors with us. That's human. Myths of the peace movement can become a threat to freedom and democracy in Europe today: Because they are actively exploited by Russian propaganda for further manipulation and abuse. 14/25
Parallels to the 1980s: Proponents of "immediate negotiations to end the war" are not making demands on Putin, they are not demanding that Putin lay down his arms, but rather that Ukraine do so. They are assuming that the West and Ukraine are willing to compromise—but not Putin. 16/25
"Negotiation" is a form of discussion about controversial issues involving opposing interests—with the goal of reaching an agreement on a balance of interests. The key point: the pseudo-pacifists of the BSW and AfD know that you can't "negotiate" with Putin. 17/25
Anyone who demands "immediate negotiations with Putin" without preconditions must accept Putin's preconditions. And these are essentially a normalization of the land grabs of the past 10 years and ongoing violence in Russian-occupied territories. But that is not peace. 18/25
I acknowledge the good intentions of fellow citizens who, out of genuine fear of nuclear war and the naive belief that talking is better than fighting, now want "immediate negotiations." However, I urge them to reconsider their position. The counterarguments: 20/25
1. Putin is NOT acting in Russia's interest, but only to maintain the power of his own elite. He generates revenue from fossil fuel exports, and he doesn't need large segments of his own population to do so. @JKleinschmidtIR explains the dangers here: 21/25
Russia's fossil fuel dictatorship, which is recklessly sacrificing its own population in war, is certainly neither willing nor able to "balance interests" with the victim of its imperial aggression, Ukraine. The regime made this clear from the beginning. 22/25
2. Supporting Ukraine does not endanger us. The last two years have shown that, despite all of Putin's empty threats. 3. A Russian victory in Ukraine, however, would put us at risk of further wars because it would encourage further aggression. 23/25
4. Parties like the AfD and the BSW offer no solution for sustainable peace, only empty slogans. 5. Both parties spread misinformation from Russian foreign propaganda. 6. The AfD has been proven to be directly influenced by the Russian secret service. 24/25
The desire for peace unites us all. With adversaries like Putin, however, the path to peace is arduous. There was no easy shortcut to lasting freedom and security in Europe during World War II. Today, as in 1939/45, we must fight for peace. 25/25