"For reasons of conscience": fighting conscription then, and again

On November 1, 2024, my father Anton Fertl passed away on his farm in Australia aged 74. Retired, living alone among the trees, plants (not least his beloved orchids), animals, and insects, few locals knew of his youthful adventures, traveling overland from Bavaria to Australia (and back again, and then to Australia again!). These tales take quite the telling, but are for another time. Yet another achievement that he proudly carried with him throughout his years was his refusal to allow himself to be conscripted into West Germany's Bundeswehr at age 19, and the battle he fought to win this small victory for peace and reason. This is a tale worth telling - not least because of the rapid and reckless militarisation taking hold of Europe once more - but also, because in sorting through his paperwork, I've come across the key documents again, and so it seems opportune. First, however, some quick background.

In the Shadow of the War 

The Second World War ended in Europe with the unconditional surrender of the Nazi Wehrmacht on May 8, 1945. In November 1945, conscription in Germany was abolished, and the Wehrmacht itself was disbanded in August 1946. Influenced by the anti-war, anti-militarist sentiment that formally drove the development of the post-war German state, the 1949 Grundgesetz (constitution) of the new Federal Republic of Germany explicitly mentioned the possibility of Kriegsdienstverweigerung (conscientious objection), but made no such reference to Wehrpflicht (conscription).  

When the current German army - the Bundeswehr - was formed in 1955, it was promoted as a "parliamentary army" made up of "citizens in uniform", and with a revised definition of military obedience, all of which was meant to prevent future Nazi-style excesses. This new army was, however, tainted from the outset: in the late 1950s, the Bundeswehr hired 300 officers from the Waffen-SS to fill its ranks, and more than 12,000 Wehrmacht officers were soon serving in the Bundeswehr - including over 40 Nazi-era generals. 

Unfortunately, this was only one aspect of a widespread rehabilitation of Nazis in the new West Germany. At local, institutional, and civic levels, former members and collaborators were welcomed back into the fold. Military barracks were named after "good Nazis", even as the story of German collective responsibility for the Nazi horror was expounded, providing a smokescreen for the generals, the industrialists, the politicians, and others, all themselves guilty as sin of helping the fascists take - and keep - power. This has also allowed those most responsible to shift blame onto a collective "national failing", rather than face justice for their role in constructing and supporting a fascist dictatorship, of which the first victims were the West German left and the representatives of the working class. Meanwhile many elements of the antifascist and communist left were vilified, hounded, and even banned outright. 

My father's generation had few illusions in the greatness and goodness of their rulers and betters - they knew exactly who their parents, uncles, grandparents, and neighbours were - and inspired by social movements and student protests elsewhere they dreamed of a better, fairer society than the patronising, smug, suffocating capitalist one into which they had been born and raised, under the shadow of the Cold War and nuclear sabre-rattling. Simultaneously, the war in Vietnam provided a stark reminder that actual, blood-soaked, war hadn't ended with the fall of Hitler, and that imperialist violence and mass murder continued to reap a grim harvest among the world's population beyond the borders of Europe.

Cold War and Social Discontent

In the 1950s, the Cold War was in full swing, and as part of the associated military build-up across Europe, West Germany underwent a rapid Wiederbewaffnung (rearming). With the entry into force, in April 1957, of the Military Promotion Act, all West German men born after June 30, 1937, were once again subject to military service. A decade later, in 1968, this requirement was modified to allow for the option of substitute service due to "reasons of conscience", reflected in the following text enshrined in the West German Constitution:

Art. 12a [obligation of service]

(1) Men may be obliged to serve in the armed forces, the Federal Border Guard or a Civil Protection Association from the age of eighteen.

(2) Anyone who refuses military service with weapons for reasons of conscience may be obliged to provide a substitute service. The duration of the replacement service must not exceed the duration of military service.

1968 was also the peak of several years of protests and strikes across France and West Germany. In West Germany, these were led by a student movement deeply disillusioned with a political establishment heavily populated by former Nazis, worried that it was becoming increasingly authoritarian. In 1962, several journalists had been briefly arrested for "treason" for writing about the weakness of the Bundeswehr in the magazine Der Spiegel. In the fallout of the affair, the suddenly-unpopular ruling Christian Democratic Union was force to form a first "grand coalition" with the Social Democratic Party in 1966. However, the appointment of Kurt Georg Kiesinger - a former Nazi with close links to Joseph Goebbels - as Chancellor did nothing to quell fears of a quiet Nazi restoration.

In June 1967, first-time student protester Benno Ohnesorg was shot in the back of the head by a police officer at a protest in West Berlin against a visit by the Shah of Iran - a murder that further spurred the growth of the student movement and radicalised it. Then, on 11 April, 1968, German student leader Rudi Dutschke was also shot in Berlin in an attempted assassination attempt by a Josef Bachmann, a petty criminal with links to neo-Nazis, inspired by the murder of Martin Luther King Jr. only days earlier. The right-wing Springer Press was accused of complicity for its vilification of Dutschke and the student movement, and demonstrators tried to storm the Springer house in Berlin and set fire to Bild delivery vans. In Munich, a demonstrator and a policeman were killed when students ransacked the Bild editorial offices. Over a thousand people were arrested. 

Federal Chancellor Kurt Kiesinger claimed the protests had a "revolutionary character", and on May 30, 1968, the Notstandsgesetze (Emergency Acts) were passed (by a government controlling 95 percent of the Bundestag and led by an ex-Nazi). They inserted emergency clauses into the West German Constitution allowing the government to restrict civil rights (such as privacy and freedom of movement) during crises such as natural disasters, uprisings, or war. Critics drew parallels to the emergency decrees power of the Weimar Republic, which Adolf Hitler had used to establish a totalitarian dictatorship by "legal" means.

Indeed, by 1968, such was the scale of the protests, which had spread - especially in France - to the trade unions and other sectors of society - that there was discussion in both countries about deploying the army against protesters, and in West Germany there was also talk of using widespread preventive detention. In West Germany, ultimately only the police were deployed, but the fact that the police were - then, as now - deeply infiltrated by Nazis and the far-right only intensified the fear that right-wing authoritarianism was once again being imposed on West Germany's fragile democracy.

And so, in this broader context, on January 14, 1969, my 19 year old Bavarian father was called in for muster and a physical examination for conscription into the Bundeswehr, with a special Wehrpaß (military passport) quickly issued to him, dated March 14, 1969. Already on February 28, however, he had indicated his intention to register as a conscientious objector - taking advantage of the renewed recognition of that right - and he was given until April 21 to submit his justifications and grounds for refusing to serve. Submit them he did indeed, as we shall see. 

No to War and all its Trappings

Perhaps ten years ago, my father took me through his most prized papers and documents. These included various stamp-filled passports, photos from his journeys through Iran, India and South-East Asia, papers for the purchase of the farm in Australia, the charge sheet for an arrest in Munich 1970 for possessing hashish, and his official renunciation of the Catholic Church in 1973. (This letter only formalised a mundane reality that had already taken hold when he was 8, and had decided he would rather go fishing with his friends, or play table tennis in the priest's garage, while the rest of the village suffered through mass). But pride of place in these documents were his letter justifying his conscientious objection, and another (which we shall come to below) that accompanied it.

The full text of my father's letter is as follows:

Betrifft: Begründung meines Antrags

Sehr geehrte Herren!

Aus Gewissensgründen habe ich mich gegen den Dienst mit der Waffe entschieden. Krieg oder Kriegsdrohung oder schon allein die Existenz von riesigen Armeen als politisches Machtmittel erkenne ich nicht an. Denn der Krieg ist für mich das schrecklichste und folgenreichste Verbrechen, das es je unter den Menschen gab.

Krieg ist nicht nur sinnlos, sondern auch menschenunwürdig, grausam und verbrecherisch. Er ist die Summe alles Bösen schlecht-hin. Darüber erübrigt sich jegliche Diskussion.

So will ich nicht nur selbst passiv und zugleich aktiv meinen Beitrag zum Frieden leisten, indem ich mich dem Waffendienst verweigere, sondern ich versuche auch, andere von der Verabscheuungswürdigkeit des Krieges und seiner Vorbereitung in der Bundeswehr wie in allen Armeen zu überzeugen.

Die Summen, die die Kriegsmaschinerien in aller Welt jährlich verschlingen, müßten nach meiner Überzeugung besser und nutzbringender für Bildung und Entwicklungshilfe aufgewandt werden. Auf diese Weise wären sie ein Beitrag für dauerhaften Fortschritt und langfristige Entspannung zwischen der jetzigen Dritten Welt und den hochindustrialisierten Ländern.

Hauptgrund für die Verweigerung ist meine Überzeugung als katholischer Christ, daß es ein immer und überall geltendes Gesetz sein muß, fremdes Menschenleben zu achten. “Du sollst nicht töten!" gilt für mich ohne Ausnahme. (Extreme Fälle ziviler Notwehr sind Ausnahmen) Nächstenliebe und Gewaltlosigkeit sind aber nicht nur christliche, sondern auch ethische Prinzipien, die das friedliche Zusammenleben der Menschen besser garantieren als waffenstarrende und Jederzeit für das kollektive Morden einsatzbereite Armeen. Diese sind für die Zerstörung ausgebildet, nicht für den Frieden.

Es gilt also, die Armeen in Ost und West abzuschaffen. Jeder muß dazu seinen Beitrag leisten. Natürlich können das nur aufgeklärte, denkende Menschen, die frei sind von dem Wussch, ihr mögliches Groskapital mit dem Einsatz fremder Menschenleben zu verteidigen. Natürlich hat ein Staat das Recht, sich selbst zu verteidigen, aber die beste Verteidigung ist die Überlegenheit seiner Kultur, und im Notfall (an den ich nicht glaube) passiver widerstand gegen eventuelle Unterdrücker, jedenfalls kein Blutvergießen um irgendwelcher propagandistischer Fiktionen willen wie “freiheitliche Ordnung", “Vaterland", "Heimat" etc.. "Freiheitliche Ordnung" ist deshalb als Fiktion zu sehen, weil sie selbst bei uns recht relativ ist und im Begriff ist, die Ordnung zu werden, die die Freiheit der Herrschenden garantieren soll. Hierbei ist a die Jüngste Entwicklung zu denken, vor allem a die Verabschiedung der Notstandsgesetze und die Pläne für die faschistische Vorbeugehaft. "Freiheitliche Ordnung " in Opposition zu kommunistisch-diktatorischer Unfreiheit im Osten ist ebenfalls fragwürdig, denn diese Gegenüberstellung ist zweifelsohne einseitig und dient nur propagandistischer Hetze, nach der unsere Nachbarn im Osten böse und äußerst angriffslustig sind. Gegen sie gelte es aufzumarschieren. In der Tat ist die Kommunistenhetze schon traditionell und die Höhe, die sie im Dritten Reich erreichte, wurde in der Ära des Kalten Kriegs fast wieder erreicht.

Aus all diesen Gründen leite ich ab, daß das bei uns existierende Recht auf Kriegsdienstverweigerung nicht nur erhalten, sondern voll ausgenützt und sogar zur moralischen Pflicht erhoben wird. Brat wenn dies erreicht sein wird, wird es einen "ersten deutschen Friedenstaat” geben. Ulbrichts Staat ist aus diesem Grund nicht dieser erste deutsche Friedensstaat.

Der nach den Notstandsgesetzen mögliche Einsatz der Bundeswehr im Inneren gegen demonstrierende Arbeiter und Studenten stellt für mich einen weiteren Gewissensgrund dar, diesen “Dienst" zu verweigern. Wer kann es noch als Dienst am deutschen Volk ansehen, auf demonstrierende und unbewaffnete Menschen, noch dazu möglicherweise auf Bekannte und sogar Verwandte zu schießen.

Besänftigende Worte können diese reale Möglichkeit nicht aus der Welt schaffen.

Anton Fertl 

In English:

Subject: Reasons for my application 

Dear Sirs! 

For reasons of conscience, I have decided against serving with a weapon. I do not recognise war, the threat of war, or even the mere existence of huge armies as a political means of power. For me, war is the most terrible and consequential crime that has ever existed among humans.

War is not only senseless but also inhuman, cruel, and criminal. It is the sum of all evil, plain and simple. Any further discussion is unnecessary.

Thus, I want not only to make my own passive and active contribution to peace by refusing military service, but I also endeavor to convince others of the abhorrence of war and its preparation in the Bundeswehr, as in all armies. 

It is my conviction that the sums that war machines around the world devour annually should be better and more usefully spent on education and development aid. In this way, they would contribute to lasting progress and long-term détente between the current Third World and the highly industrialised countries. 

The main reason for this refusal is my conviction as a Catholic Christian that respecting the life of others must be a law that applies always and everywhere. "Thou shalt not kill!" applies for me without exception. (Extreme cases of civilian self-defense are exceptions.) Love for one's fellow man and nonviolence are not only Christian but also ethical principles that better guarantee the peaceful coexistence of people than armies armed to the teeth and ready to commit collective murder at any time. These are trained for destruction, not for peace. 

Therefore, the goal must be to abolish the armies in East and West. Everyone must contribute to this. Of course, this can only be done by enlightened, thinking people who are free from the desire to defend the potential for big business by sacrificing the lives of others. Of course, a state has the right to defend itself, but the best defense is the superiority of its culture, and in an emergency (which I don't believe we are in), passive resistance against potential oppressors, certainly not bloodshed for the sake of any propagandistic fictions like "Free [Democratic] Order," "Fatherland," "Homeland," etc.. "Free Order" should be viewed as a fiction because, even here, it is quite relative and is in the process of becoming an order that is meant to guarantee the freedom of those in power. Recent developments are important to consider here, especially the passage of emergency laws and the plans for fascistic preventive detention. "Free Order" in opposition to communist-dictatorial oppression in the East is also questionable, because this juxtaposition is undoubtedly one-sided and only serves propagandistic agitation, according to which our neighbors in the East are evil and extremely aggressive, and it is necessary to march against them. Indeed, anti-communist agitation has a long tradition, and the heights it reached during the Third Reich were almost matched again during the Cold War era. 

For all these reasons, I conclude that the right to conscientious objection that exists in our country must not only be preserved but fully used - and even elevated to a moral duty. Only when that has been achieved will there be a “first German peace state.” For this reason, Ulbricht’s state is [also] not this first German peace state. 

The possibility, under the emergency laws, of internal deployment of the Bundeswehr against demonstrating workers and students represents, for me, yet another reason of conscience to refuse this "service." Who can still consider it a service to the German people to shoot at demonstrating and unarmed people, and possibly even shooting at acquaintances and relatives?

Soothing words cannot erase this real possibility from the world.

Anton Fertl 

A father's support

Together with this letter was a shorter one written by his father in support of his case. My father and grandfather were never that close. My uncle - 8 years the senior - was their father's heir (even sharing his name), and he was similarly distant to my father, being almost of a different generation. My father, on the other hand, was his mother's son, and more a product of the post-war era. He was quickly caught up in dreams of social change, and bewitched by vistas of far-off lands - a very different worldview to his village-dwelling blacksmith father. So, to receive such a letter of support from his own father meant the world to mine, still bringing tears to his eyes fifty years later. 

Erklärung 

Ich bin politisch nicht besonders interessiert, aber soviel an elementarenn Überzeugungen besitz ich, daß ich mit der Kriegsdienstverweigerung meines Sohnes Anton vollkommen übereinstimme. Er und mein weiterer Sihn Hans haben mich von der menschlichen Notwendigkeit dieser Verweigerung überzeugt.

Ich selbst war nicht an der Front, habe aber genug Elend miterlebt, un alles war eine Folge des Krieges, den von den aufgehetzt durch die Propaganda, aber heute soll das meined Söhned ersparts bleiben und ich halte ihre eigene, verantwortliche Entscheidung für mutig und richtig. 

Auf einzelne Äußerungen kann ich mich natürlich nicht entsinnen, das wäre zuviel verlangt. Ich hoffe, daß die Gewissensentscheidung meaines Sohns anerkannt wird.

Johann Fertl 

Again, in English:

Declaration 

I'm not particularly interested in politics, but I possess enough fundamental convictions to completely agree with my son Anton's conscientious objection to military service. He and my other son, Hans, convinced me of the human necessity of this refusal. 

I was not at the front myself, but I witnessed enough misery, and it was all a consequence of the war, incited by propaganda. But today, my sons should be spared that, and I consider their own responsible decision to be courageous and right. 

Of course, I can't recall individual statements; that would be asking too much. I hope that my son's decision of conscience will be recognised. 

Johann Fertl 

My grandfather's disavowal of politics here is not quite as disingenuous as my father's invocation of Catholic values earlier, which some readers may have picked up on. The burden of the War fell heavily on Johann Fertl, who had lost his four year old daughter to Scarlet Fever because the Wehrmacht had taken all the medicines, and was later provided a (very non-optional) "job" working at a chemical weapons factory near the Austrian border. The facility was a satellite camp of Dachau Concentration Camp, and used slave labour, while forcing more "free" Germans to work there as well (under strict supervision and controls). Already a political outsider in the village for his progressive politics, my grandfather's subsequent PTSD and alcoholism after the War served to further drive him, a somewhat broken man, away from politics.

Even so, he recognised the importance of making himself heard here - and not only for my father's benefit. The possibility of a civil alternative to military service, justified by "reasons of conscience", had only been introduced the year before, and my father claimed that he was one of the first (perhaps even the first) in Bavaria to avail of this avenue to avoid military service. When I asked him what he would have done had such an option not existed, he said "Go to prison, perhaps. Or leave Germany - but where would I have gone?".

So convinced was my father of the moral imperative to oppose war and militarism, he managed to convice two of his friends to make similar arguments and to refuse to serve, and he even convinced his elder brother - who had already carried out his own military service, and had continued in a non-commissioned role - to abruptly end his own association with the military (indeed, my grandfather's letter makes references to both his sons in this regard). 

War drums beat once more

This, one of my proudest memories of my father, is now a core motivating issue for me too, nearly 60 years later. As I write, the German government has breached its own austerity-mad, quasi-religious spending cap to enable enormous expenditure on weapons (ensuring megaprofits for the arms companies), remilitarising in a way not seen since the Third Reich. The German government is also threatening to reintroduce conscription if enough people "fail" to volunteer for the new, expanded army reserve. 

At the same time, Germany is defending - and has helped arm - an Israeli government hell-bent of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian people of Gaza. Germany's own dark history has now been twisted so far by those in power that - for "reasons of state" - the population is expected to support war crimes and genocide without question, while those who call for the defence of international law, and decry the deliberate murder of tens of thousands of children, are demonised as "anti-semitic" (ironically, disgustingly even, this includes Jews in Germany and elsewhere critical of the slaughter). Recent polls show that ordinary Germans overwhemingly oppose Israel's war crimes, but the media and political elites allow no such opinion to enjoy oxygen.

The European Union, too, is beating the drums of war loudly, with its ReArmEurope agenda - ostensibly driven by the need to defend the bloc from Russia since its ongoing aggression escalated into a full-blown invasion of Ukraine, but in reality part of a larger agenda, including a resurgent European imperialism, and expansionist NATO politics. Whether Russia, under Putin's fascistic leadership, poses a threat to Europe, or not, is entirely irrelevant to this militarisation of Europe - there have long been reckless warmongers on all sides. Indeed, the European Commission's Vice President and High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kaja Kallas, seems hell-bent on picking a fight with Russia anyway, calling for it to be broken up into smaller states.

The other side of my family has roots in Ireland, which - due to its centuries-long experience of colonial violence by Britain - has been militarily neutral for years (at least in the part not still occupied by Britain). But, here too, the media, government, and establishment are busily undermining the country's "triple lock", to enable the country to join in the military projects underway across the continent and further afield. The European Union - supposedly formed as a "peace project" for Europe, is rapidly being converted into a "war project", with military spending joining austerity in the hearts of Brussels' policy-makers. Even Denmark's traditionally "frugal" (that is, pro-austerity) government has recently distanced itself from its penny-pinching outlook in order to facilitate expanded military spending across Europe.

This last example is perhaps the most relevant today, for I - too - am a father, with a young daughter growing up with dreams and hopes in the relative safety of Denmark. I say "relative" with some bitterness: as of July 1 2025, Denmark's (admittedly limited) military conscription has been lengthened to 11 months and extended to include women - ostensibly in the name of "equality". While military experts, and even the Danish military union, opposed the move (many arguing against conscription entirely, for being expensive, ineffective, and damaging to education, careers, and even to democracy itself), the political class - including even the country's main radical left party - all supported the change. The dark reality, of course, has less to do with defence, and more to do with preparing the population for the idea of a coming war (when conscription would likely be extended much further, creating a generation of cannon fodder).

If Denmark's conscription law remains as it is now, and my daughter remains in Denmark, when she reaches 18 she will be entered into a lottery to serve in a military force that has joined in brutal illegal invasions and occupations, such as Afghanistan. Words cannot express my rage. Fortunately, the right to conscientious objection also exists in Denmark too - for now - and my father's words ring in my head: "the right to conscientious objection that exists in our country must not only be preserved but fully used - and even elevated to a moral duty". 

As the far-right rises in many countries once again, and the sabres rattle louder than ever, resisting normalisation of war, stopping the far-right, and putting an end to militarism and war entirely - redirecting the countless billions spent on bombs to be spent on books, beds, and a better future for all the world - must be a paramount struggle, alongside the fight to rescue a liveable climate on this small planet of ours. For my father, and my daughter, I can demand nothing less. 

“The government has been relying too much on the EU”

Duroyan Fertl interviews Tobias Drevland Lund, MP for Norwegian left party Rødt (“Red”)

The impact of the war in Ukraine in the Nordic countries has been largely viewed with reference to Finland and Sweden and their possible accession to NATO. But what have been the reactions of other Nordic countries to Russia's war of aggression, what are their most important demands, and what role are left parties playing in this response? Tobias Drevland Lund, an MP from the Norwegian left party Rødt, outlines the experience in Norway, and the prospects for a progressive and sustainable security infrastructure in Europe.

How has the Norwegian government reacted to the war in Ukraine? Is it supplying weapons to Ukraine or has it announced a supply? Are there any significant changes in position?

At first, the social democrat-led government and all other parties in parliament were united in our condemnation of Putin’s act of aggression with his illegal, imperialist attack on Ukraine. There was also a broad consensus among the parties about helping Ukraine with medical and humanitarian aid and welcoming the Ukrainian refugees.

The first big shift in position from the government was when they championed sending weapons to Ukraine. Initially, all the parties agreed on aiding the Ukrainians with helmets and protective vests, because Ukraine had specifically requested it. Just a short time after, however, it was decided that Norway also should contribute with military weapons.

This was in breach of a law dating back to 1959, saying that Norway should not export weapons to any country at war. At that time, Norway had a common border with the Soviet Union and Norway was afraid of being considered a co-combatant against the Soviets under international law.

The Norwegian government, and all parties in parliament except the Red Party, supported this new shift in position. The Red Party is of the opinion that Norway, bordering Russia, should still be wary of providing weapons to Ukraine, as it could make us a co-combatant. We should rather do whatever we can do to help the Ukrainians by other means.

What measures does the government intend to take to help establish peace in Ukraine? What is its position at the European level and vis-à-vis NATO?

The government has been relying too much on the EU in our opinion. Even though sanctions and restrictions have more effect if more countries are agreeing, The Red Party thinks the government has been slow in taking various actions in response to the crisis. For example, early on we proposed to implement a law that would launch an investigation and issue an international arrest warrant against Putin for violating the Rome Statute's ban on wars of aggression.

The government and the majority in parliament have rejected this proposal. The Red Party also proposed heavy sanctions on the Russian oligarchs, and we demanded the exclusion of all Russian oligarchs from our oil and gas industry. The latter has indeed taken place – not because of our government, but because of actions taken by the British.

We have also asked the government to be more active in actually transporting the Ukrainian refugees to Norway and to give shelter to activists, artists and Russian deserters who refuses to fight in Putin’s war.

Read the full article at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.

„Die Regierung hat sich unserer Meinung nach zu sehr auf die EU verlassen“

Interview mit Tobias Drevland Lund, Abgeordneter der norwegischen Linkspartei Rødt („Rot“)

Die Auswirkungen des Krieges in der Ukraine wurden in den nordischen Ländern vor allem mit Blick auf Finnland und Schweden und deren möglichen Beitritt zur NATO betrachtet. Doch wie haben andere nordische Länder auf den russischen Angriffskrieg reagiert, was sind ihre wichtigsten Forderungen, und welche Rolle spielen linke Parteien bei dieser Reaktion? Tobias Drevland Lund, Abgeordneter der norwegischen Linkspartei Rødt, erläutert die Erfahrungen in Norwegen und die Aussichten für eine progressive und nachhaltige Sicherheitsinfrastruktur in Europa.

Wie hat die norwegische Regierung auf den Krieg in der Ukraine reagiert? Liefert das Land Waffen an die Ukraine oder hat es eine Lieferung angekündigt? Gab es irgendwelche wesentlichen Änderungen in der Regierungshaltung?

Zunächst waren sich die sozialdemokratisch geführte Regierung und alle anderen Parteien im Parlament einig, dass wir Putins Aggression mit seinem illegalen, imperialistischen Angriff auf die Ukraine verurteilten. Unter den Parteien bestand auch ein breiter Konsens darüber, der Ukraine mit medizinischer und humanitärer Hilfe zu helfen und die ukrainischen Flüchtlinge aufzunehmen.

Der erste große Haltungswechsel der Regierung war, als sie sich dafür aussprach, Waffen in die Ukraine zu schicken. Zunächst einigten sich alle Parteien darauf, den Ukrainern mit Helmen und Schutzwesten zu helfen, weil die Ukraine dies ausdrücklich gefordert hatte. Wenig später wurde aber beschlossen, dass Norwegen auch mit militärischen Waffen einen Beitrag leisten sollte.

Damit wurde ein Gesetz aus dem Jahr 1959 verletzt, wonach Norwegen keine Waffen in ein Kriegsland exportieren darf. Damals hatte Norwegen eine gemeinsame Grenze zur Sowjetunion und das Land hatte Angst, nach internationalem Recht als Mitkämpfer gegen die Sowjets angesehen zu werden.

Die norwegische Regierung und alle Parteien im Parlament mit Ausnahme der Roten Partei unterstützten diesen neuen Haltungswechsel. Die Rote Partei ist der Meinung, dass das an Russland angrenzende Norwegen immer noch vorsichtig sein sollte, der Ukraine Waffen zu liefern, da es uns zu einem Mitkämpfer machen könnte. Wir sollten lieber alles tun, was wir können, um den Ukrainern mit anderen Mitteln zu helfen.

Welche Maßnahmen plant die Regierung, um dazu beizutragen, den Frieden in der Ukraine herzustellen? Wie ist ihre Position auf EU-Ebene und gegenüber der NATO?

Die Regierung hat sich unserer Meinung nach zu sehr auf die EU verlassen. Obwohl Sanktionen und Beschränkungen mehr Wirkung haben, wenn sich mehr Länder einigen, glaubt die Rote Partei, dass die Regierung nur zögerlich mit verschiedenen Maßnahmen auf die Krise reagiert hat. So haben wir beispielsweise schon früh die Umsetzung eines Gesetzes vorgeschlagen, das eine Untersuchung einleiten und einen internationalen Haftbefehl gegen Putin wegen Verstoßes gegen das Verbot von Angriffskriegen gemäß dem Römischen Statut erlassen würde.

Die Regierung und die Mehrheit im Parlament haben diesen Vorschlag abgelehnt. Die Rote Partei schlug auch harte Sanktionen gegen die russischen Oligarchen vor und wir forderten den Ausschluss aller russischen Oligarchen aus unserer Öl- und Gasindustrie. Letzteres hat tatsächlich stattgefunden – nicht aufgrund unserer Regierung, sondern aufgrund von Maßnahmen der Briten.

Wir haben die Regierung auch aufgefordert, aktiver die ukrainischen Flüchtlinge nach Norwegen zu transportieren und Aktivisten, Künstlern und russischen Deserteuren, die sich weigern, in Putins Krieg zu kämpfen, Unterschlupf zu gewähren.

Lesen Sie den vollständigen Artikel auf der Website der Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung - Büro Brüssel.

„Die dänische Regierung hat die Angst vor Russlands brutalem Krieg genutzt, um im Eiltempo große politische Veränderungen durchzusetzen“

Russlands völkerrechtswidriger Angriffskrieg auf die Ukraine wirft eine Reihe fundamentaler Fragen auf. Ist es in einem Klima zunehmender Spannungen und Militarisierung möglich, sich Putins Aggression zu widersetzen und gleichzeitig eine Perspektive des Friedens und der Abrüstung aufrechtzuerhalten?

Die dänische Regierung nutzt die Krise in der Ukraine auch, um die militärischen Beziehungen zu den USA weiter zu vertiefen und die Ausnahme des Landes von der Teilnahme an EU-Sicherheits- und Verteidigungsoperationen abzuschaffen.

Die Linkspartei Dänemarks, die Rot-Grüne Einheitsliste, hielt kürzlich ihre Jahreskonferenz ab, auf der ihre Ansichten über NATO und EU heftig diskutiert wurden. Dennoch, so betont Christine Lundgaard, hielt die Rot-Grüne Einheitsliste an ihrem Engagement für Frieden, Abrüstung und ein Ende aller imperialistischen Kriege fest.

Duroyan Fertl interviewte sie über die dänische Haltung zum Krieg, den Vorstoß für eine stärkere Militarisierung und die zu erwartenden Folgen.

Wie hat die dänische Regierung auf den Krieg in der Ukraine reagiert?

Die dänische Regierung hat den brutalen Krieg Russlands und die von ihm ausgelöste Angst als eine Art „Schockdoktrin“ benutzt und versucht, unter dem Deckmantel einer gewaltigen Krise überstürzt große politische Veränderungen durchzudrücken, die sonst in der politischen Debatte nur schwer zu vertreten wären. Dies gilt sowohl für Aufrüstung und Militarisierung auf nationaler und EU-Ebene als auch in der NATO. Es geht darum, Dänemark sicherheitspolitisch noch enger mit den USA zusammenzuschweißen. Und es geht um eine sich immer weiter zuspitzende Konzentration auf das Militär als Gegenreaktion zu Bedrohungen unserer Sicherheit.

Das klingt nach einem deutlichen Positionswechsel.

Inmitten der Ukraine-Krise kündigte Premierministerin Mette Frederiksen am 10. Februar an, die Regierung befinde sich in konkreten Verhandlungen mit den USA über eine neue Verteidigungskooperation, die auch amerikanische Truppen auf dänischem Boden einschließen würde. Ihr zufolge habe die Initiative nicht direkt mit dem Krieg in der Ukraine zu tun, aber niemand bezweifelt, dass der Krieg als Entschuldigung für einen politischen Schritt benutzt wird, der in Dänemark höchst umstritten ist.

Es handelt sich um eine Änderung der dänischen Sicherheitspolitik der letzten 70 Jahre, in der wir ausländischen Mächten die Stationierung von Truppen und militärischer Ausrüstung – insbesondere von Atomwaffen – auf dänischem Boden nicht gestattet haben.

Wir sollten jedoch den Teil unserer Geschichte nicht vergessen, dass dänische Regierungen geheime Vereinbarungen mit der US-Regierung getroffen haben, Dänemark entgegen der offiziellen dänischen Politik nicht über die mögliche Stationierung von Atomwaffen in Grönland zu informieren. Die Erfahrung zeigt also, dass Vereinbarungen mit den USA über Stationierungen auch für Atomwaffen gelten können, ohne dass die Bevölkerung darüber informiert wird.

Lesen Sie den vollständigen Artikel auf der Website der Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung - Büro Brüssel.

“The Danish government has used fear of Russia's brutal war to rush through major policy changes”

Russia's invasion of Ukraine is an unacceptable violation of international law, posing serious questions about how best to respond. In a climate of increasing tension and militarisation, is it possible to oppose Putin’s aggression while maintaining a perspective of peace and disarmament?

The Danish government is also using the crisis in Ukraine to further deepen military with the US and to remove the country’s exemption from participation in EU security and defence operations.

Denmark’s left-wing party, the Red-Green Alliance, recently held its annual conference, where its perspectives on NATO and the EU were fiercely debated. Nonetheless, Christine Lundgaard insists, the Red-Green Alliance maintains its commitment to peace, disarmament and an end to all imperialist wars.

Duroyan Fertl interviewed her about Denmark’s position on the war, the push for greater militarisation and the expected consequences.

How has the Danish government responded to the war in Ukraine?

The Danish government has used Russia's brutal war and the fear it has created as a kind of “shock doctrine”, to rush through major policy changes – otherwise difficult to argue for in the political debate – under cover of a huge crisis. This applies to armaments and militarisation at both a national and EU level, and in NATO. It is about welding Denmark even closer together with the United States in security policy. And it applies to a narrowing focus on the military as a counter to threats to our security.

This sounds like a substantial shift in position.

In the midst of the heated Ukraine crisis, on February 10, the Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen announced that the government was in concrete negotiations with the United States on a new defence cooperation, involving American troops on Danish soil. According to her, the initiative was not directly related to the crisis in Ukraine, but no one doubts that the crisis is being used as an excuse for a political move which in Denmark is deeply controversial.

It is a change to Danish security policy of the last 70 years, where we have not allowed foreign powers to deploy troops and military equipment, and in particular not nuclear weapons, on Danish soil.

We should not forget though that it is part of history that Danish governments have had secret agreements with the US government not to inform Denmark about the possible placement of nuclear weapons in Greenland, against this official Danish policy. So the experience is that agreements with the United States on deployments can also apply to nuclear weapons without the people being told.

Read the full article at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.

„Die wichtigste Folge in Finnland ist die Frage der NATO-Mitgliedschaft“

Russlands völkerrechtswidriger Angriffskrieg gegen die Ukraine führt zu neuen Diskussionen über den Umgang mit Russland. So sind Finnland und Schweden näher denn je an einem NATO-Beitritt. Würde Finnland der NATO beitreten, würde sich die Landgrenze des westlichen Militärbündnisses zu Russland verdoppeln.

Die wichtigste Konsequenz aus dem Russland-Ukraine-Krieg sei in Finnland die Frage der NATO-Mitgliedschaft, sagt Pinja Vuorinen, Vorsitzende der Linksjugend Finnlands.

Duroyan Fertl befragte sie zu Finnlands Haltung zum Krieg und den zu erwarteten Folgen für Finnland.

Wie reagiert die finnische Regierung auf den Krieg in der Ukraine? Hat er einen wesentlichen Einfluss auf die Haltung? Welche Maßnahmen plant die Regierung, um den Frieden in der Ukraine herzustellen?

Die finnische Regierung hat auf den Krieg in der Ukraine gemeinschaftlich reagiert, alle Parteien in der Mitte-Links-Koalitionsregierung verurteilen den Angriff Russlands auf die Ukraine. Die ersten und wichtigsten von der Regierung eingeleiteten Schritte in Bezug auf die Situation waren Sanktionen gegen Russland, sowohl auf nationaler als auch auf EU-Ebene. Die generelle Einstellung war die Mitverfolgung der Situation, da die Schwere der Angriffe weiterhin schwankt.

Alles in allem war der Angriff für Finnland sowie für ganz Europa ein ziemlicher Schock, wobei die Reaktionen von der Forderung nach überlegten Erwiderungen bis hin zu heftigen Forderungen nach Militäraktionen reichten. Es ist klar, dass als Nachbar Russlands die Sorge über mögliche Sicherheitsrisiken, denen Finnland ausgesetzt sein könnte, zunimmt.

Bis jetzt bestand die Position der Regierung darin, die Ukraine sowie ihre Bevölkerung materiell zu unterstützen, indem sie den Menschen wie andere EU-Länder vorübergehende Zuflucht gewährt. Sie hat auch zu Friedensverhandlungen aufgerufen, und der Präsident Finnlands hat sowohl mit US-Präsidenten Biden als auch mit dem russischen Präsidenten Putin Kontakt aufgenommen.

Lesen Sie den vollständigen Artikel auf der Website der Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung - Büro Brüssel.

“The most significant consequence in Finland has been the question of NATO membership”

Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine grossly violates international law and thus leads to new discussions on how to deal with Russia. As a result, Finland and Sweden are closer than ever to join NATO. If Finland were to join NATO, the Western military alliance's land border with Russia would double.

The most significant consequence in Finland regarding the Russia-Ukraine war has been the question of NATO membership, says Pinja Vuorinen, Chair of the Left Youth of Finland.

Duroyan Fertl interviewed her about Finland’s position on the war and the expected consequences for Finland.

What is the Finnish government’s reaction to the war in Ukraine? Are there any significant changes in position? What measures does the government intend to take to establish peace in Ukraine?

The Finnish government has reacted to the war in Ukraine in a unified manner, with all the parties in the centre-left coalition government condemning the Russian attack on Ukraine. The most important step the government has taken in response to the situation has been to push for sanctions on Russia at both the national and EU levels. Generally, the attitude has been to take stock of the situation as the severity of the attack continues to fluctuate.

All in all, the attack has been quite a shock to Finland as it has been to Europe as a whole, with some calling for cool-headed reactions and others making much more heated demands for military action. Being a neighbour of Russia, it is understandable that Finland is particularly worried about the possible security risks the country might face.

So far, the government’s response has been to support Ukraine materially and to provide humanitarian support by offering temporary refuge to its people, as other EU countries have done. It has also called for peace negotiations, and the president of Finland has been in touch with both the US president Biden as well as the Russian president Putin.

Read the full article at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.