Connect with us

Europe

Historical revisionism surfaces in Germany over post-war borders

Published

on

History is being rewritten in Germany, and the issue of post-World War II territorial arrangements and the displacement of German settlers (“East Germans”) is being brought back into the mainstream media.

The German Federal Parliament has banned all representatives of Russia and Belarus, successor states to the Soviet Union which liberated a large part of Germany including Berlin, from the commemoration ceremony for the 80th anniversary of the Nazis’ surrender.

On Sunday, Russia’s Ambassador to Germany was prevented from attending commemoration ceremonies held at the Sachsenhausen and Ravensbrück concentration camps. Both concentration camps were liberated by the Red Army at the end of April 1945.

Nazi Germany had massacred 27 million citizens of the Soviet Union and approximately a quarter of the population of the Belarusian Soviet Republic. Representatives of the successor states to these countries are no longer invited to German commemoration ceremonies.

The reason given for this is that Russia is waging an “aggressive war” against Ukraine. Ambassadors from several countries that have invaded foreign countries in recent years are expected to attend the commemoration in the Federal Parliament today, which decided to launch an aggressive war against Yugoslavia in 1999.

Threat of expulsion for Belarusian and Russian representatives

The non-invitation of the Russian and Belarusian ambassadors and other official representatives to the ceremonies marking the 80th anniversary of the victory caused a stir in early April.

At that time, a document classified as “strictly confidential,” sent from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to federal states, districts, and municipalities, was leaked.

The document stated that “invitations should not be sent to representatives of Russia and Belarus for commemoration ceremonies organized by the federal government, states, and municipalities.”

The German Ministry of Foreign Affairs justified this decision with a warning against “propaganda, disinformation, and historical revisionism,” but a government spokesperson could not provide any examples of representatives from the accused countries engaging in such provocations at commemoration ceremonies.

The note from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that if representatives of the two countries “appear unannounced,” the organizers of the respective commemoration ceremonies “can exercise their local rights.”

Thus, the ministry granted Germany the freedom to expel representatives of countries that suffered an unprecedented number of deaths as a result of the war.

“Holes” in Baerbock’s directive

In practice, the directive prepared by former Green Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock was only partially implemented.

Russian Ambassador Sergey Nechayev was able to attend the official commemoration ceremony for the Battle of the Seelow Heights on April 16. This battle was the beginning of the Red Army’s final major offensive to liberate Berlin, and more than 33,000 Soviet soldiers lost their lives.

Nechayev also attended the commemoration ceremonies in Torgau on April 25, 1945, where Soviet and US soldiers shook hands for the first time during the liberation of Germany, but CDU State Premier of Saxony Michael Kretschmer accused Russia of committing war crimes in the Ukraine war.

Nechayev and his Belarusian counterpart were not allowed to attend the official commemoration ceremonies held at the Sachsenhausen and Ravensbrück concentration camps on May 4. The concentration camps had been liberated by the Red Army.

Axel Drecoll, Director of the Brandenburg Memorials Foundation, said that the Russian ambassador’s invitation had been explicitly cancelled; if the ambassador still came, he threatened that they would “enforce our local rules in close cooperation with security forces.”

War club in full attendance at the Bundestag

The Russian and Belarusian ambassadors were also not allowed to attend the commemoration ceremony held today in the German Federal Parliament (Bundestag).

On the other hand, ambassadors from all other countries represented in Berlin were invited. These included representatives of the other victorious powers of World War II. The participation of the US ambassador is not prevented by the US having launched an invasion of Iraq in 2003. The ambassadors of France and Britain are not prevented by their countries having launched an aggressive war against Libya in 2011.

Furthermore, it is known that the German Federal Parliament, the organizer of the commemoration ceremony, approved the aggressive war against Yugoslavia in 1999, in violation of international law.

Only objection from former CDU parliamentary speaker

Criticism of Russia’s exclusion was voiced only by former Federal Parliament Speaker and current head of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Norbert Lammert (CDU).

Speaking on ZDF television, he said he was “not sure” whether government directives, such as the note from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, were appropriate.

According to him, in any case, the victims of the war must be commemorated, “regardless of current developments, no matter how painful, oppressive, and cruel they may be.”

Historical revisionism in German media

The exclusion of Russia and Belarus from Berlin’s commemoration ceremonies for the end of World War II goes hand in hand with efforts to reinterpret the actions of the Soviet Union during the war and after Germany’s liberation from Nazi rule.

In recent days, leading media outlets have begun to view May 8th not as the end of the war, but as the beginning of events related to the “resettlement of the German-speaking population,” especially in Eastern Europe, particularly in Poland and Czechoslovakia.

These publications, of course, do not only speak of the “brutality of the Red Army.” For example, NDR had to admit the positive role of the Red Army by saying, “even if it ultimately played a decisive role in liberating Germany from Nazi terror.”

FAZ examined territorial arrangements in Eastern Europe

Regarding resettlement, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung wrote last week that the “power politics” plans of the Soviet Union within the “long tradition of Great Russian imperialism” were of great importance.

The newspaper argued that “sufficient compensation” for “Poland’s loss of eastern territories” as a result of the state restructuring of Eastern Europe would have been “East Prussia or Upper Silesia.”

According to FAZ, the reason for the transfer of territories further east of the German Reich to Poland was “only that Stalin achieved this through cunning and deception.”

Historian Manfred Kittel, a lecturer at the University of Regensburg, claims that the “expulsion of millions of people to a shrunken Germany” gave the “Kremlin the opportunity to create an overpopulated crisis region in the heart of Central Europe.”

According to Russian plans, the “expellees from the east were to be a source of unrest and social decay.” According to the historian, the “Russian imperial context” was “at the center of concrete diplomatic preparations and the subsequent practical implementation of the expulsions.”

Kittel adds that “Great Russian imperialism existed long before Hitler” and “continues to exist today, even without Hitler,” citing the ongoing “war of annihilation” against Ukraine as an example.

During the Cold War, West Germany did not recognize the 1950 Zgorzelec Treaty signed between the German Democratic Republic and socialist Poland, claiming to be the sole legal representative of Germany.

Moreover, especially CDU politicians had objected to the shifting of German borders “westward” after the war and the expulsion of German settlers placed in Poland and the Baltics during the Third Reich period, keeping this issue constantly on the agenda.

Forever enemy: Russia

In Kittel’s perspective of “Russian-Soviet imperialism,” cooperation with Russia is only possible during periods when Russia is relatively weak.

In the 1990s and 2000s, the Federal Republic of Germany gained access to Russia’s enormous natural gas reserves through a certain degree of cooperation with Moscow, but when Russia regained its strength, conflict with it became inevitable.

This aligns with what the new German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said about the war in Ukraine during a phone call with two Russian satirists in early February.

In this conversation, Wadephul had said, “No matter how the war with Russia ends, Russia will remain an enemy for us forever.”

Europe

China’s critical mineral restrictions challenge EU defence expansion plans

Published

on

The European Union’s plans to expand its defence capabilities are being hindered by China’s export controls and sales restrictions on critical raw materials.

In response, EU leaders are urging member states to accelerate efforts to diversify supply chains.

According to Nikkei Asia, the European Commission announced last week that it would propose new legislation requiring companies across the bloc to broaden their supplier base in an effort to address economic imbalances, although it did not explicitly name China.

The war in Ukraine and growing uncertainty over Washington’s security guarantees have pushed European governments to increase military spending and defence production.

At the same time, according to a report published in May by Joris Teer, a policy analyst at the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), China accounts for at least 70% of global mining or refining activity in 17 of the 34 materials classified as critical by the EU. Eight of those 34 materials are currently subject to Chinese export controls.

“China is undermining Europe’s rearmament efforts,” Teer wrote. “Simply by activating this tool, China has already increased its leverage and demonstrated both the capability and willingness to restrict supply whenever it chooses.”

The Aerospace, Security and Defence Industries Association of Europe also warned that geopolitical developments and intensifying global competition for critical raw materials are further underscoring the need to strengthen European supply chains.

The organisation represents more than 4,000 companies, including Britain’s BAE Systems, France’s Thales and Germany’s Rheinmetall.

European defence manufacturers are pursuing a range of strategies, including vertical integration, recycling, diversification and stockpiling.

Rheinmetall told Nikkei Asia that it has “no dependencies” and is “well prepared” regarding critical minerals.

A company spokesperson said: “Rheinmetall has stockpiled key raw materials sufficient for several years. We have also implemented IT systems that allow us to centrally monitor and precisely manage raw material consumption across the entire group.”

Analysts, however, caution that stockpiling alone will not be sufficient. Maria Shagina, a researcher at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said: “Stockpiling serves as an important buffer against sudden disruptions, but on its own it is unlikely to mitigate structural damage over the long term.”

Shagina added that replacing the volume and diversity of critical minerals controlled by Beijing with alternative sources would take years.

In 2024, the EU enacted the European Critical Raw Materials Act, aimed at rebuilding domestic supply chains for such minerals.

The legislation sets 2030 targets for domestic extraction, processing and recycling while limiting dependence on any single third-country supplier to 65%.

A €3 billion ($3.5 billion) fund was established last year to accelerate strategic projects.

Nevertheless, the European Court of Auditors has noted that the 2030 targets are not legally binding and that the EU remains far from achieving them.

Industry groups argue that policy inconsistencies could further slow progress.

The Cobalt Institute, which represents a sector vital to jet engines, advanced batteries and defence alloys, warned that proposed EU chemicals regulations risk undermining the industry.

“Europe has one foot in and one foot out,” said Michael Blakeney, head of government and public affairs at the London-based institute. “It says the right things, but its actions are inconsistent.”

Europe’s efforts are unfolding alongside a more aggressive US strategy to secure critical mineral supply chains.

Shagina said:

“The US is investing more capital to secure and expand capacity, taking greater financial risks and, in some cases, acquiring equity stakes. Europe, by contrast, is generally more cautious, which places it at a relative disadvantage in the competition for critical minerals.”

In April, the EU signed an agreement with the United States to coordinate supplies of critical minerals. Although some member states initially resisted over concerns that the deal could weaken the bloc’s strategic autonomy, they authorised the Commission in early June to join the US-led “Pax Silica” initiative, which coordinates investment and export-control policies.

Teer urged Europe to use ongoing US-EU-Japan negotiations as the nucleus of a broader coalition aimed at making critical mineral production outside China financially viable through state support, minimum-price mechanisms and supply rules.

“Particularly important are countries that either produce raw materials or possess significant mineral deposits, such as Malaysia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Brazil and Indonesia, as well as countries like India with large pools of skilled labour,” he said.

Teer also argued that the EU should activate its Anti-Coercion Instrument, which allows the bloc to impose tariffs and restrictions in response to economic pressure on countries outside the union, in order to deter China from introducing further restrictions.

A European Commission spokesperson said the bloc had “long been aware of the risks associated with the EU’s dependence on critical raw materials.”

“The objective is clear: to anticipate disruptions early and reduce the EU’s vulnerabilities while strengthening our industrial and defence capacities,” the spokesperson said.

Continue Reading

Europe

Four European countries move to make citizenship harder to obtain

Published

on

European countries are increasingly tightening their citizenship rules. Most recently, the Norwegian government has drafted legislation that would raise the minimum residency requirement for citizenship from three years to seven.

The proposed amendments to the citizenship law were presented by the Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion.

Under the draft legislation, stateless individuals born in Norway, as well as those who arrived in the country as children, would be required to reside in Norway for at least five years before becoming eligible for citizenship.

The government also plans to increase residency requirements for foreign nationals who are married to or cohabiting with Norwegian citizens.

Language requirements are set to become more demanding as well. The proposal would raise the required level of spoken Norwegian proficiency from A2 to B1. The new rules would apply to applicants aged between 18 and 67.

Commenting on the changes, Minister of Labour and Social Inclusion Kjersti Stenseng said: “Obtaining and holding Norwegian citizenship should be a privilege.”

The government argues that simplifying administrative procedures while simultaneously tightening eligibility criteria will help reduce the country’s large backlog of pending applications and shorten processing times.

Norway is the latest European country to announce revisions to its citizenship rules.

In Finland, the minimum residency requirement for citizenship was increased from five years to eight years on October 1, 2024.

The country also plans to introduce a mandatory citizenship test for applicants aged between 18 and 64 from the beginning of 2027.

Finnish Interior Minister Mari Rantanen said: “The introduction of a citizenship test is the final component of a comprehensive reform aimed at making citizenship requirements more stringent.”

Sweden has also approved a similar reform. Beginning in June 2026, the standard residency requirement for citizenship will increase from five years to eight years. Authorities are also introducing a financial self-sufficiency requirement for applicants and expanding the scope of security screenings.

Explaining the rationale behind the changes, Migration Minister Johan Forssell said: “It was possible to become a citizen after living in the country for five years without knowing a single word of Swedish, learning anything about Swedish society, or even having one’s own source of income.”

The most far-reaching changes have been implemented in Portugal. Portuguese President Antonio Jose Seguro has signed legislation raising the minimum residency requirement for citizenship from five years to 10 years.

For citizens of the European Union and the Community of Portuguese Language Countries, the requirement has been set at seven years.

The residency period will now be calculated from the date a residence permit is granted rather than from the date a citizenship application is submitted. The new rules will also affect the children of immigrants.

Previously, children could obtain citizenship one year after birth if their parents held residence permits. Under the new rules, at least one parent must have legally resided in the country for a minimum of five years.

The law also introduces a mandatory examination covering Portuguese history, culture, values and social structures.

Migration policies are tightening across the European Union as well. On June 17, the European Parliament approved legislation allowing irregular migrants whose asylum applications have been rejected but who cannot be returned to their countries of origin to be deported to third countries.

The new EU rules permit the establishment of migrant detention centres outside the bloc’s borders. African countries are reportedly among the options being discussed for such facilities.

Continue Reading

Europe

SpaceX warns EU satellite spectrum plan could disrupt connectivity in Ukraine

Published

on

SpaceX has sharply criticised a European Union plan to restrict access to satellite spectrum, arguing that the proposal risks degrading connectivity in Ukraine and disrupting emergency communications services.

In a document shared with European officials and reviewed by the Financial Times, SpaceX warned:

“This proposal significantly increases the likelihood that Europeans will be deprived of direct-to-device satellite services, or that new European operations will create global interference issues, including for emergency services such as those operating in Ukraine.”

In a proposal unveiled in May, the EU recommended reserving part of the spectrum band used for direct satellite-to-smartphone connectivity for European operators, thereby limiting the frequencies available to US and Chinese providers.

The 2 GHz frequency band in question is currently used by two US companies, Viasat and EchoStar.

SpaceX argued that the EU plan prioritises “an operator’s country of establishment over economic, technical and regulatory realities.”

When the proposal was announced, EU technology chief Henna Virkkunen defended the move, saying the bloc wanted to “increase European capacity in this sector.” She added that other parts of the frequency band would remain open to international operators, arguing that prioritising European providers was justified.

Other participants involved in discussions over the proposal said some EU officials were specifically seeking to limit Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite network.

Europe’s initiative follows a warning from Washington. In March, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) cautioned that it could take retaliatory measures if the EU chose to favour European satellite operators over alternatives such as Starlink.

At the time, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr told the Financial Times: “Some of the discussions in Europe regarding satellite sovereignty concern us. If Europe decides to move down that path, then, as you know, we will have to consider reciprocal measures.”

The European Commission’s proposal has not yet entered formal negotiations with EU member states or the European Parliament.

A source close to SpaceX said the company remained hopeful of influencing the outcome of the process, given concerns raised by both businesses and several European governments.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey