Outrage over Matthias Platzeck's trip to Moscow: This is hypocritical!
Almost no one considers that there are also discussions about Putin and his inner circle within the Russian elite. So we need dialogue. A guest article.
Aren't these ultimately the same people who demand that we continue to talk to the "Russians," and are simultaneously outraged when some actually do so? Or vice versa?
Is the legitimacy of "staying in dialogue" only given if the person remaining in the dialogue has an official mandate – or may existing and presumably long-standing relationships, which offer special access to the centers of power of despots or even the Russian administration, not also be used to maintain dialogue? After all, it is not the exchange of entrenched positions, but rather of considerations, assessments, and political developments that forms the basis for new ideas for a peace solution for Ukraine, and for any other war as well.
The outrage over Matthias Platzeck's trips to Moscow is hypocritical. Unlike Ralf Stegner, who accompanied Matthias Platzeck to a meeting with various Russians in Baku, Matthias Platzeck hasn't written any manifestos—and presumably for good reasons. (The aforementioned manifesto ultimately caused far less controversy than Markus Lanz and journalist Gordon Repinski would have liked.) The fact that Matthias Platzeck has taken a clear position on the Russian invasion of Ukraine is now completely ignored. It is clear and thus unambiguous, in contrast to so-called Russia-understanders or idiots, such as the many members of the AfD or the BSW.
Dialogue is neededNow there are calls for Platzeck to reveal who he met with regularly, or perhaps even just once. If these discussions have any value, it is because they are conducted confidentially. Such a framework is a prerequisite for an open exchange of ideas about possible scenarios for a peace solution, which we all desire. After all, the open thoughts of Russian interlocutors could have fatal consequences for these people in their homeland, Russia. Consider that even researching anti-Russian content or oppositional political positions has now been criminalized. The Russian state is increasingly escalating its repression, which in itself is confirmation that the Russian leadership is under more pressure than one might sometimes think.
Every door that can be kept open in such a situation, and every channel that remains unclamped, enables an open and at the same time critical dialogue. Because it is confidential. Platzeck has played a major role in the German-Russian dialogue through his decades of service in various prominent positions. That is a valuable asset. As far as we know, Platzeck has not derived any personal advantage from this – unlike Gerhard Schröder and presumably several others.
No outrage over diplomatic channels with the TalibanAlmost no one considers that even within the Russian elite there are discussions about Putin and his inner circle, about the question of whether the war, which violates international law, should be continued or whether a deal with Trump should perhaps be made. So, if parts of this elite engage in dialogue, it is important and courageous in times of increasing repression. The radical nature of Russian society is also reflected in the fact that many who chose to form a genuine opposition – and by this I certainly don't just mean the supporters of the martyr Navalny – have had to go abroad and can no longer participate in opinion-forming or debates of any kind in their own country. Even if Platzeck's interlocutors and former CDU politician Ronald Pofalla aren't sitting in Putin's anterooms or listening to him, this dialogue is of great importance. It's so easy to point the moral finger, especially when, unfortunately, one—as it seems to me, the majority of the writing profession—has so little knowledge of Russia. Because those who have an idea and share it publicly quickly expose themselves to this moral finger-pointing.
To return to the question posed at the beginning: Perhaps it's actually the other way around. The hypocrisy of this outrage is all the more obvious when one considers that Afghans against whom legally binding deportation decisions have been made are now actually being deported to Afghanistan. To do this, the Federal Ministry of the Interior must maintain contact with the Taliban – at whatever level and through whatever channels – even if there are no official diplomatic relations. Therefore, when it comes to deportations to a terrorist state, it's appropriate to speak to people who speak with the Taliban. One can't read anything about outrage about this these days.
Alexander van Dülmen has been working in the film industry since 1990. In 1997, he brought the film "Knockin' On Heaven's Door" with Til Schweiger to the Moscow Film Festival, among others. Since then, he has continuously distributed films in Russia, Ukraine, and all other CIS countries. From 2003 to 2015, he was CEO of A-Company Filmed Entertainment, which operates a large film distribution and rental network in Eastern Europe. Since 2006, the company has operated various subsidiaries in Russia. Today, van Dülmen is primarily a producer. His films include the ARD film "Die Treibenen," based on the non-fiction book by Robin Alexander, and the film "Ein nasser Hund." His latest film, "Die Untersuchung," was released a year ago and is based on the play of the same name by Peter Weiss about the 1963–1965 Auschwitz trial.
Do you have feedback? Write to us! [email protected]
Berliner-zeitung
