Document:Krah, Europe and a German point of view
Blog post by Götz Kubitschek dated 26 May 2024Subjects: Maximilian Krah, Marine Le Pen, Viktor Orbán, Identity and Democracy, Values Union, European Parliament, 2024 European Parliament elections
Source: Link
Translated from German. Article which comments on the exclusion of the AFD from the Identity and Democracy group in the European Parliament, at the behest of Marine Le Pen's National Rally and the political/geopolitical background of it.
★ Start a Discussion about this document
Krah, Europe and a German point of view
Anyone who reduces the Maximilian Krah case to intra-party rivalry and political clumsiness is wrong. The attacks against Krah distract from the real issue. The "society of spectacle" works like this, and unfortunately part of the AfD is part of this society.
What is the real reason behind this? It is the struggle for the geostrategic orientation of Europe, especially those parts of Europe which, due to history, economic conditions and geographical location, need to get well along with Russia and would do so - if they were allowed to.
The exclusion of the entire AfD delegation from the ID group in the EU Parliament was initiated by Marine Le Pen and is a decision for a transatlantic and against a Central European concept of Europe. Le Pen has been put under immense pressure in recent months and weeks - now she has decided: for a US offshoot, which could be constituted in the form of a large conservative faction after June 9 (the European elections) in Brussels.
This can be shown by the example of the CPAC conference, which took place this year, on 25 and 26 April, in Budapest at the invitation of Viktor Orbán. So anyone who talks about the Maximilian Krah case cannot remain silent about this conference, since France and Germany were not invited.
CPAC stands for Conservative Political Action Conference. It was founded in 1973, organized by the American Conservative Union, and was one of those typically conservative reactions to the left-wing student movement that had gained intellectual ground in all western countries and was about to determine the climate of opinion in the future.
CPAC has long since reached government level. Five times in a row, it has chosen Trump as the most important and popular politician, and it is also supported by powerful and financially strong US lobby organizations - the National Rifle Association is perhaps the most prominent among them.
The CPAC represents pro-American, anti-Russian, anti-Chinese positions. It represents the claim of the "only world power" and is working to integrate Europe and South America into a power bloc against those emerging blocs that not only strive for a multipolar world order, but will certainly bring it about: Russia and China.
The CPAC has therefore founded offshoots. In Europe, Viktor Orbán's Hungary is the hub from which conservative nationalist forces are to be prevented from reaching a position "between the blocs", prevented from achieving autonomy and independence.
It is striking and important to look at the list of politicians, publicists and project managers that Orbán gathered in Budapest. In addition to representatives of all small and large European states, speakers from the USA and Israel were invited, as were members of Congress from several US states, as well as the President of the American Conservative Union, Matt Schlapp, and Amichai Chikli, the Minister for Israeli Affairs in the Diaspora.
From Italy: high-ranking representatives of the Fratelli D'Italia and the Lega, from the Netherlands Geert Wilders and the influencer Eva Vlaardingerbroek, from Austria the FPÖ General Secretary Vilimsky, as well as representatives from Colombia, Brazil, Chile and Australia.
No one from France. No one of importance from Germany, only Hans-Georg Maaßen, in whose wake Dieter Stein, Junge Freiheit [right leaning publication], arrived to report.
You could say it this way: Orbán gathered in Budapest those conservative forces from Europe that could form a joint faction in the coming legislative period - a truly large, comprehensive, powerful faction. The right-wing conservative opposition from Germany, the AfD, would not be part of this faction. France's opposition, on the other hand, would be allowed to participate if it broke with the AfD first. That is what Le Pen has now done.
Why did she do that? In this way she can participate in an anti-German project, which could also expand into an anti-French project if these two leading European nations will not allow their historically excellent contacts with Russia to be completely severed.
Such considerations are not far-fetched. Anyone who considers the outflow of German companies, German know-how, German capital, German national wealth and a best-trained German workforce, especially to the USA, is looking at a national catastrophe. Anyone who still remembers that Germany had prepared leeway in it's energy policy through pipelines, leeway appropriate to Germany's central location and its needs, knows what it means geostrategically to now be completely dependent on the West for energy.
If one then realises that those who took the lead in inviting and meeting in Budapest, were the net beneficiaries for their national programme, which is being financed by those who were NOT invited, that person has to think about the German options again.
In extensive discussions with journalists and AfD representatives (including Maximilian Krah, of course), a catastrophic interpretation of the situation emerged, which opens up two courses of action. In brief:
+ Germany is not involved in the large right-wing conservative faction that is forming in Europe. The fig leaf of Mr Maaßen plays no role.
+ Marine Le Pen has decided against a Central European bloc that could have been powerful enough to prevent Europe from being decidedly cut off from Russia once again.
+ The small states strung between Germany and Russia are clearly benefiting from this new iron curtain. They are forming a US-supported wedge between Russia and Germany and are profiting as much as possible from Germany's political weakness and residual economic strength. They will never voluntarily give up this transfer from Germany and are thus outstripping it politically at Germany's expense.
+ This is obscured by the domestic political appeal that the model Orbán exerts on the German right. At the CPAC conference, Orbán once again described his concept as anti-global, traditional and conservative and received a lot of applause for this from the German right-wing conservative milieu. However, the German right must understand that this concept can be implemented in conjunction with a clear pro-American position and thus along a US-dominated European strategy. At the decisive moment, Orbán always decided against what would have been in the interests of Germany and a US-independent Europe.
+ For the AfD (and the German position it hopefully represents) are two possibilities:
- One could give in to the pressure, become the German representative of US interests, put German interests second, accept further decline and, so to speak, try to do the best possible for our country in the midst of decline.
- One could not give in to the pressure, reject the anti-German project, work on an alternative with a long-term perspective, above all on a German-French option, all tied to the hope that the global political situation could open up new options.
There are representatives of both options within the AfD. There are those who are prepared to sacrifice fundamental positions and decide against German interests to join the new, large, transatlantic faction in order to save what can be saved and not to lose touch with the large, nationally conscious, opposition parties in Europe.
But there are of course also those who do not want to give up on a fundamental German interests standpoint, even thinking in European dimensions and not wanting to give up on their conviction: there is a way to get along with Russia which takes into account the security needs of the small former Eastern Bloc states, as well as the European interest in profiting from the huge continental hinterland.
Above all, however, there could have been an agreement with Russia that would not have cost a European nation its life: from this perspective, the war in Ukraine is the price for the new Iron Curtain. The price and the curtain are a European catastrophe, not an American one.
What does all this have to do with Maximilian Krah, the Waffen-SS and a Chinese employee? Krah is one of the few AfD politicians who foresaw what is now being implemented under Orbán's leadership. He warned of this development years ago.
Getting rid of him bit by bit and playing it out in such a way that Le Pen would have a completely banal reason to say goodbye to the entire AfD group has been a project of the past few months.
It is not about Krah's political style or about historical-political questions. It is about the fact that a powerful conservative offshoot of the American right has formed in Europe, which wants and will shape right-wing conservative Europe - at the expense of Germany and with the participation of German conservatives through their irrelevance.
It looks as if the AfD had been in danger of sidelining the most important European politician it has, due to a superficial campaign. It now seems as if this danger has been averted - not quite, but almost. Presumably the conviction is gaining ground once again that it is the "task" of the Values Union to participate in projects that are ultimately directed against Germany. That is why Maaßen was in Budapest, not Weidel or Chrupalla, let alone Krah, Höcke or Bystron.
In any case, anyone who wants to do away with Krah in order to participate purified in the CPAC project should declare, that they no longer see any possibility for a fundamental German and European geostrategy that would end the brutal conflict with Russia.
(c) sezession.de
