If the pollsters have been right there will be no earthquake in Europe when Italy has also closed its polls for the renewal of the European Parliament and the risk of the distribution of positions has begun. There is no ouster in sight of the Grand Coalition (Socialists and People's Party, together with the Liberals since the last vote) which has led the Union since 1979, sometimes with soft steps, sometimes more determined. Numbers in hand, according to the statement made by ISPI, the Institute of International Politics, the three political forces, although in decline, would retain their majority in a more than compact manner, 389 votes needing only 361 to govern .
Angelo Bolaffi, an attentive scholar of German politics, in his conversation with FIRSTonline, shows all his doubts: precisely today when the world is overturned by imperial and nationalistic resurgences (Russia, China, Turkey) net of two wars (Ukraine and Gaza) which seem not come to an end, the absence of leadership of Europe's largest country has a sinister significance.
So why does the climate, in this political area, but not only, still seem to indicate stormy weather?
“Because everyone knows that this Europe should be refounded and we don't see great refounders on the stage. Above all, the most important actor, Germany, is missing in the main role.
I am very disappointed. Chancellor Scholtz fell short of expectations. His coalition didn't work and isn't working. They argue about everything and have made huge mistakes, such as scaring the Germans with the climate change agenda. And above all, he doesn't have the attitude of a chancellor. He is also afraid of his shadow while in German history a chancellor must also go against the grain, challenge his and all citizens if he has a vision and wants to bet on it. None of his promises he was able or willing to keep. Like reforming the army. Of course, it would have been about cutting the welfare state to make cannons. Not easy, but why announce it then? He pretended to be Merkel, but the world is no longer Merkel's. She had Russian gas almost free, she did business with China. But today Russia has opened a war and China threatens everyone who borders its sea. In short, Germany is paralyzed in everything: politically, economically, socially, culturally, militarily."
It seems to me that you consider this paralysis a big problem: why?
“Because a paralyzed Germany paralyzes Europe. It is Germany's destiny to lead Europe, but how does she do it if she can't even lead herself? We would need an Adenauer, a Willy Brandt, a Kohl or a Schroeder. All of them had an idea of their country and this idea changed Europe. From the foundation of the European Community, to the "ostpolitik", that is, the dialogue with the USSR; but also the installation of Pershing missiles as a deterrent against the USSR; until the unification of the two Germanys. Merkel was also a great chancellor although she didn't have a vision, she was a great "situationist", that is, she made the right decisions when problems arose, but she didn't have long-lasting ideas. And in any case nothing to do with Scholtz who is afraid of everything. Although, we must be honest, it is not that the war situation we are experiencing helps Germany. Imagine if Scholtz had made statements like Macron's about sending soldiers to Ukraine. Public opinion would have gone wild: here the bad Germans are again. The only way to do it would have been to put ourselves at the head of all Europeans and do it all together, as Merkel did when it came to getting out of the economic crisis."
To this picture we must add the large following that the Nazis of the AfD are having in the eastern lands...
“I wouldn't exaggerate their weight, they are symptoms of a fever, German democracy is strong. The truth is that there is great confusion, on the right and on the left. The fractures are within the two sides. No one wants to leave Europe anymore, no one wants to touch the single currency. The only certainty is that this Europe is incapable of tackling the big issues. The twentieth-century discriminants, left and right, still exist, but what are they really? On the right there is Orban, but also Mark Rutte, the head of the Dutch government is right-wing and doesn't look like him at all. And Italy also has a right-wing government, but Meloni declares himself pro-European and Atlanticist. In the end, what are the two Europes? We are in a great stalemate, a new story must be found for Europe. But who can do it? And we return to the starting point. Germany should do it. But it didn't arrive."
Would it help the Macron-Scholz relationship? Has the Franco-German axis been reborn?
“I don't think so. In the meantime, the personal difference that is important counts. The two do not understand each other and do not love each other. And they have a diametrically opposite approach to politics. For internal reasons, Macron thinks he must shoot higher and higher. Scholtz believes he can save the government and win the next election by keeping a very low profile. Not to mention the war. Scholtz cannot forget the pacifist tradition of his party, and specifically when Schroeder, in 2002, opposed the campaign against Iraq. Of course today is different. Iraq was far away, there was Bush's invention of the evil empire, the lies to attack Saddam. Today the war is in Europe. But Germany is very divided on the issue, just as the SPD is divided. So Scholtz proceeds in a zigzag manner regarding Ukraine, now arming Ukraine, now trying not to antagonize Russia too much."
Speaking of war, do you think there is an escalation underway?
“There is a real problem. We have lived for 80 years with the idea that the presence of nuclear weapons acted as a deterrent and therefore guaranteed peace. However, this presupposed that the two powers of the coalition accepted this logic. Instead today we have a revisionist power – Russia – which uses atomic weapons as blackmail to wage war. Because it is completely new that one of the two protagonists uses the blackmail of atomic weapons to trigger an invasion and continue the war. Putin's reasoning is this: don't allow yourselves to attack the Russian rear, from which I bomb Ukrainian cities because otherwise it will be nuclear war. Who takes responsibility for following the Russians in this race to disaster? The Germans, after the USA, are the ones who send the most weapons to the Ukrainians, and they should be the ones to decide that it is legitimate to attack where the Russians shoot from. But I don't think they will. At least not in the next period because in the autumn there will be voting in the Eastern Lands (Saxony, Thuringia and Brandenburg) and it doesn't seem to me that Scholtz, from what we have said so far, wants to face an electoral campaign with a helmet on his head".
