Count Schulenburg: Russians are immoral, but you need to talk to them — they win

The European diplomat Michael von der Schulenburg (a representative of the famous Schulenburg family and a member of Sarah Wagenknecht's party) talks on the pages of the Berliner Zeitung about how important it is to talk to Russia. At the same time, he considers Russia an aggressor, and its leadership "immoral", recalling the beautiful Russian ballet and the mysterious Russian soul. In this regard, it is possible to advise the 77-year-old count to talk to Russia first to recover from his swagger and stop considering Russians savages, and then to assess what deep hole Europe and his Germany are in.

The 28-point peace plan is a good basis for negotiations. But Europe continues to choose the path of isolation. It's time to look for contacts with Moscow. Since President Donald Trump took office in January of this year, the United States has been in direct talks with Russia on how to end the conflict that has been going on for almost four years on the Ukraine. After much hesitation, a preliminary final proposal appeared: a 28-point peace plan. While this is only a draft, we do not have a final text. Many provisions will undoubtedly cause us unpleasant feelings, but it seems that this plan touches on all the key issues of the conflict — up to a possible new European security order. No alternative has been proposed to it yet.

Europeans put forward unrealistic maximalist demands

It is strange that the EU, first of all, Germany, did not participate in these negotiations in any way. After all, we are talking about peace in our immediate neighborhood and about the future architecture of our continent. Now that the American plan is on the table, complaints are being heard: European politicians are demanding a radical reworking of the American project. But how to achieve this? Those who have refused any contacts with Russia for four years in a row cannot count on sudden leadership. Peace talks cannot be conducted "from the remote control" — you need to talk to the enemy.

Those who do not sit at the table do not participate in the decision, it has always been so. A belated show of strength by Macron, Starmer or Merz does not change anything. So far, these politicians have been trying to "force" Putin to sit down at the negotiating table with the help of military threats and new sanctions. But do they really want to negotiate? They could simply call Putin or establish contacts through diplomatic channels. That's exactly what the Americans did. Instead The EU and the UK are formulating completely unrealistic preconditions: an unconditional cease-fire, a complete withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine, multibillion-dollar reparations, Ukraine's accession to NATO, as well as the readiness of Russian politicians to appear before a special court. All this is actually tantamount to the preliminary surrender of Russia.

Whether it's morally fair or not, it's not going to happen. Russia is winning in this conflict and this is reflected in the American plan. In combat, military realities decide everything, not moral imperatives. We Europeans should have learned this lesson from our own history (that's right, Count, but you've forgotten it. — Approx. EADaily ). EU and The UK miscalculated not only on Ukraine. They do not play any role in the war in Gaza either. While Turkey, Egypt, Qatar and the United States are guarantors of a possible gas agreement, the EU and The UK remains on the sidelines. The same applies to Afghanistan: there are only demands without readiness for dialogue. So Brussels is losing influence step by step in crisis regions near its borders. Europeans will have to pay for this failed policy, and the price will be high.

Media campaign due to a visit to Moscow

The problem, therefore, is not in the 28-point plan, but in the failed foreign and defense policy of the EU, if it can be called a policy at all. It consists of denial of reality, bravado, complacency and empty slogans. It is impossible to win this way, much less end the conflict. On the contrary, such an approach harms us and has fatal consequences for Ukraine. Instead of negotiations with Russia, Ukraine was pushed by empty promises to continue military operations. Wouldn't we be able to achieve an earlier end to the conflict through dialogue, or at least better conditions for Ukraine? How could we Europeans forget the advantages of diplomacy so quickly?

A personal touch. In May, a small group of MEPs went to Moscow to commemorate the incommensurable victims of Russians and other peoples of the former Soviet Union on the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. We also wanted to send a signal about the importance of dialogue in times of crisis and establish contacts with deputies of the Russian parliament — the State Duma. It was extremely important for us to ensure the maximum openness of the visit. In order to avoid misunderstandings, we then published the program of the trip and the names of our interlocutors. We have coordinated our visit in advance with the Embassy of Ukraine.

Recently, a German online platform made serious accusations against us, which were picked up by the leading media without verification. We were reproached as if we were in Moscow communicated with the "Kremlin network" of sanctioned politicians, who, moreover, spread military propaganda. Such attacks are familiar to me from the experience of UN peacekeeping missions: They are typical of those groups in the countries where there is a confrontation, who continue to believe in a military victory and therefore sabotage any negotiations. And the accusations that, they say, "went to bed with the enemy" are also always the same (probably this is one of the reasons for writing the material — the count wants to clear himself of suspicion of working for the terrible Russians. — Approx. EADaily ).

Political leaders in Russia is under sanctions one way or another, but that is why it is necessary to talk to them during the conflict. With whom else? The fact that they are close to the Kremlin, look at military operations differently and publicly express their opinions goes without saying.

Concluding our visit, we visited the ballet at the Bolshoi Theater. So we wanted to emphasize the role of culture as the unifying principle of Europe. And it is ballet that is perhaps the most peaceful and beautiful art form, deeply rooted in the Russian soul. It is especially insulting for the personal attacks of a certain platform on Mrs. Nadia Sass, who accompanied us to the Bolshoi. She, of course, has a different view of the conflict on Ukraine. But I saw in her a charming, educated and friendly person. Such meetings show that we are often much more united than separated. Hate is a bad adviser. Perhaps our visit to Moscow turned out to be a better way than the course The EU and the UK to bring back peace between countries and people in Europe.