Column
Perhaps I am wrong, because in war one can be mightily deceived. Facts lose themselves in the fog; all sides produce propaganda. And in Europe, it has become effectively impossible to speak and write freely about the Ukraine conflict because the EU—see the case of Baud and others—sanctions, punishes, and seeks to silence individuals who represent an opinion other than the one desired by Brussels.
This alone should drive the media and citizens to the barricades, yet many journalists are fellow travelers, ideological offenders, or are prevented from contradicting by their superiors. A new conformism from above is spreading. At the Munich Security Conference, participants were in agreement: the state must “protect the truth” against “fake news.” This is a call for censorship—in the name of freedom.
Not a single critical question was raised. On the contrary: many newspaper houses are participating in the crusade against diversity and against new media and internet portals that are cutting into their territory. Once again, a media-governmental complex is forming. The besieged elites are bunkering down. Many journalists are helping them.
No, freedom was never a matter of course. Today in Europe, it must once again be defended against the EU. When politicians set themselves up as guardians of the “truth,” when they speak as a matter of course about suppressing “disinformation” using the state’s monopoly on force, then civil disobedience and resistance are duties in liberal societies.
The good news is: bans and attacks on freedom of speech are the weapons of desperation. When even in Switzerland the public broadcaster SRG mobilizes against critics with the argument that a reduction in fees would deliver Switzerland to the supposedly nation-devouring monster Putin (or Elon Musk), the establishment is on the verge of a nervous breakdown.
Democracies die when people are no longer allowed to speak freely. Germany is seriously discussing banning the party with the strongest voter support and most important opposition according to polls. In Switzerland, Defense Minister Martin Pfister is tinkering with a new “fichenstaat” (surveillance state), a kind of Ministry of Truth against “disinformation,” as if it were a task of the state to control the public flow of information.
Fundamentally, this is pure socialism, the presumption of power and knowledge by the state, against which liberal classics warned in the face of earlier totalitarianisms. The new dictators also pose as benefactors, as dragon slayers and tamers of what they claim are existential dangers from which they must save humanity: climate, Corona, Vladimir Putin.
Of course, each of these topics can be framed as a threat. Climate change is happening and produces problems, though not exclusively. Corona was more than a harmless flu. And Putin’s attack on Ukraine—the big one attacking the small one—triggers moral outrage and raises serious security policy questions. All of that is undisputed.
But it becomes dangerous when dogmas, bans, and authoritarian tendencies take the place of free discussion. This was the case with the climate, and for a long time with the topic of migration. It intensified during Corona. And just when one thought this ghost was finally behind us, the Ukraine war escalated, and with it, state propaganda and paternalism here as well.
Fortunately, it is not as bad in Switzerland as elsewhere. This is due to our direct democracy. It makes opinion control from above more difficult. This is also why we must not submit to the rules and judges of Brussels; we must defend our sovereignty and popular rights. Only they ensure that Switzerland is not ruled by a detached caste of politicians, but, as it should be, by the people.
The Americans are a ray of hope. US President Donald Trump is the banner-bearer of a revolt for freedom. His slogan “America First” expresses the unease with political internationalism and with the large-scale institutions that could not fulfill their high-flying promises. The nation-state is returning as a reference point and framework for action because internationalism was abused and exaggerated.
For democracy, the rule of law, and freedom can still only exist within national borders. They limit territories, and thereby they also limit power. This does not mean that international structures have lost their value. They remain important. But what is needed is a new equilibrium, a new balance between the national and the international. Brussels evades these discussions.
Thanks to the USA, we have different opinions and different solutions again regarding the major questions. Trump calls green climate policy a scam. In massive immigration from foreign cultures, he sees an erasure of Western civilization. Economically, he relies on tariffs and deregulation. One does not have to agree with everything, but the new diversity is better than the previous simplicity.
The US government also assesses the Ukraine war quite differently than the EU. Brussels, Berlin, and Paris see Russia as the greatest threat to the West. Trump’s negotiator Steven Witkoff, on the other hand, explains that Russia—with Ukraine as a special case—is no danger to other states. Washington is negotiating, though warmongers lurk in the USA as well. Trump is keeping them in check. For now.
Regarding Russia, the President is right. Peace is needed with the resource-rich state in the East. Not Putin, but the self-promoter Zelenskyy, canonized by Brussels, is the greatest obstacle on the path there. Merz, Macron, von der Leyen, Kallas and Co. convince themselves that Putin is planning an attack on the EU. Great power fantasies are in circulation.
This policy from von der Leyen is a catastrophe for Europe.
R.K./TGP Weltwoche for LL-Press
