A year ago, on December 8, 2021, Angela Merkel's chancellorship ended. For a long time she was considered a prudent crisis chancellor. 72 percent of Germans say that she is one of the most important chancellors in German history. The historian Jan C. Behrends disagrees: "I see few chancellors in the history of the Federal Republic whose major decisions turned out to be wrong so soon after leaving office."
ntv.de: One occasionally hears the assumption that Putin would not have attacked Ukraine if Merkel had still been chancellor. Do you think that is plausible?
Jan C. Behrends: This assumption is based on false assumptions, because Putin attacked Ukraine while she was chancellor, namely in 2014. Angela Merkel tried to contain this attack in the Minsk negotiations at the time. Actually, you have to talk about what she did for the attacked Ukraine.
What did Angela Merkel do for the attacked Ukraine?
Not enough to prepare Ukraine for the massive attack that followed after her chancellorship, in February 2022. Prerequisites for this attack were created during her tenure. The two Nord Stream pipelines made it possible to decouple the Russian gas infrastructure from the Ukrainian one. She defended this German-Russian and at the same time anti-Ukrainian project to the end. When the Nord Stream tubes were finished, the next level of escalation took place through the Kremlin. Since 2014, Merkel had suggested to Putin that Germany would definitely stick with Russian gas. Those were the wrong signals.
Merkel is still of the opinion that Putin would not have accepted Ukraine's hasty NATO accession in 2008, the "Stern" recently reported. Is she right about that?
I find the way Angela Merkel is dealing with her time in office a bit arrogant. She simply brushes off the really substantive criticism of her Russia policy, as well as of other policies. She continues to take the line she took as chancellor: she says there was no alternative to this or that decision. But that's just not right. If we look at Eastern Europe today, we see that only the NATO members live in peace and freedom. Other countries like Moldova, Georgia or Ukraine have Russian troops on their soil. In Bucharest in 2008, Merkel de facto accepted a Russian sphere of influence. Another false signal to the Kremlin.
Regarding NATO membership, Merkel said in the summer that she would not apologize. That sounded as if it actually applied to their entire policy. What do you think Merkel should apologize for?
Sorry is a big word. That would mean that she had knowingly loaded herself with guilt. That's not what it is about. However, I would like to see criticism dealt with productively and to accept counter-arguments. I think it would be good if she entered into a dialogue where you act out what could have been done differently. There were many voices calling for Russia to be contained, for a break in this special German relationship with Russia and with Putin, which she has always nurtured. She always resisted that. In hindsight, you can see that there is a need for justification. She recently claimed that she knew how aggressive Putin is...
"I knew how Putin thinks," she said in the summer.
... and yet it has not invested in the Bundeswehr. That would have been the minimal consequence of this knowledge. Where was the big Bundestag speech after 2014, in which she stated that there is a threat to peace in Europe that we must respond to? With the Minsk Agreements, it tried to accommodate the Kremlin and largely ignored Ukraine's interests. It is this kind of policy - to appease not only Putin but also the German public - that is now falling on its feet. It's their whole political style, the inability to conflict, not just concrete decisions.
Merkel was quite popular throughout her tenure, with 72 percent of Germans now saying that she is one of the most important chancellors in German history. With so much approval, is it fair to give her so much responsibility for the war in Ukraine?
Merkel has met a German need to stage politics as administration and to keep political disputes out of the public eye. Decisions should be made in backrooms if possible and then presented as a fait accompli. But democracy thrives on conflict. Angela Merkel always wanted, as she always put it, "to stay ahead of the situation." In the end, she fell hopelessly behind history. Politics is more than polls, popularity and the current situation. It's about getting a long-term perspective and thinking through the consequences of one's own policies.
Merkel is currently writing a book to be published in 2024. What do you expect from it?
I can only judge that based on the few public appearances she has made since the end of her chancellorship. That rather narrowed the horizon of expectations. If she deals with the criticism of her chancellorship in this book in the same way as before, then it shouldn't be a particularly interesting read. The book probably reads like the portrait in "Spiegel", which had strong hagiographic features. Others will have to deal with Germany's Russia policy.
Wolfgang Schäuble recently said that it might be too early to make a definitive assessment of "whether Mrs. Merkel can be classified as one of the great chancellors." In other words: As of now, she doesn't belong in this series. How do you think historians and political scientists will answer this question in a few years or decades?
I'm completely with Wolfgang Schäuble. I see few chancellors in the history of the Federal Republic whose major decisions were proven wrong so soon after leaving office. It remains to be seen whether, looking back, 2015 and how you dealt with the refugee crisis will outshine other consequences of your chancellorship. As far as peace and security in Europe is concerned, a central concern of German politics since Adenauer, the balance sheet is devastating.
Merkel believes that Germany shouldn't be the first nation to send state-of-the-art tanks because "you can still make a good atmosphere with Germany" in Russia. Is that a legitimate reason?
Ms. Merkel should accept that it is no longer a question of the mood in Russia, but that a free country, Ukraine, which she paid little attention to during her chancellorship, is fighting for its survival. The existence of Ukraine and the defense of freedom should be more important to her than the mood in Russia.
Hubertus Volmer spoke to Jan C. Behrends
