INTERVIEW
I would not have resigned without the media campaign, Germany’s former navy chief says
In January 2022, Admiral Kay-Achim Schönbach, the former Commander of the German Navy, found himself at the centre of a substantial media campaign after stating that Russian President Vladimir Putin deserves some respect.
Admiral Kay-Achim Schönbach’s statements, as they reverberated through the global media at that juncture, were as follows: “What he (Putin) really wants is respect, and my God, giving someone respect is low cost, even no cost… It is easy to give him the respect he really demands – and probably also deserves.”
About a month before Russia launched a special military operation against Ukraine, Admiral Schönbach was compelled to step down from his position. He elucidated the circumstances surrounding his speech and the sequence of events that culminated in his resignation during a confidential gathering in India.
Admiral Schönbach responded to the questions of Tunç Akkoç, the Editor-in-Chief of Harici, at his residence near Hamburg.
Mr. Kay-Achim, could you start by introducing yourself and discussing your latest position in the Navy?
My name is Kay-Achim Schönbach. I am 58 years old and retired from the Federal German Navy. My last role held the title of inspector at the Rostock garrison, a position that can be equated with the leadership of the German Navy, akin to the rank of Vice Admiral. I am presently not engaged in active duty.
Behind the Scenes of Resignation
You were asked to resign from your position as head of the German Navy in January 2023. Could you explain how this happened and the media’s role in it?
In January 2022, during a trip with the Bavarian frigate to the Far East, my first in 20 years, I visited India. Following the official program, I attended events hosted by two think tanks. I was under the impression that these were internal gatherings. The initial part of the event was, indeed, internal. However, during the latter part, someone secretly recorded my speech with a cell phone camera and later publicized my remarks. I must clarify that I would have made the same comments even if I had known about the recording. In that case, I would have provided the audience with more context, which might have lessened the perceived sensationalism of my statements.
In the media, they highlighted two of my key statements, one being that Crimea was irretrievably lost to Russia. I pointed out that it was unlikely that Russia would willingly return Crimea, a conclusion not difficult to grasp. The second statement addressed a question about Ukraine’s defence, to which I responded that mutual respect and listening could be key to resolution. This approach, taught to me by my late superior, Minister Peter Struck, emphasized respect for everyone, regardless of their opinions. I meant that acknowledging different perspectives is essential, and showing respect should be straightforward. However, my comments were sensationalized as a ‘scandal’ by the media. Upon my return, the Media called for my resignation. Reports stated that the Minister and the Chief Inspector believed I could no longer serve in my position due to the so-called scandal and that it was necessary to protect the institution and then-Minister Lambrecht. Consequently, I was expected to resign, which I did.
Could we suggest that if the media hadn’t covered the story, the situation might not have escalated to the point of resignation?
My superior made it clear that I had much to explain to the Minister, and of course, metaphorically, I had to accept a ‘slap.’ I understood this. In such situations, acceptance becomes inevitable. However, the idea of resigning had not been discussed until then. I remember returning home that afternoon, initially angry but later shocked by the turn of events, leading to my eventual resignation.
‘Media Exaggerated Ukraine’s Success’
I would like to discuss the ongoing situation regarding the conflict in Ukraine. What is your perspective on the current developments in the war?
So, this relates back to what I mentioned earlier; there was no war at that time. Back then, I had expressed my belief that a potential war would be confined to just reclaiming the remaining part of Donbas. Remember, militias had not fully captured the Donbas region. I predicted more developments, which indeed occurred. The Russian Federation, in my view, grossly underestimated Ukraine’s defensive capabilities and readiness to counter the enemy.
From my observations and insights from experts in ground operations, I believe the logistical and tactical strategies were fundamentally flawed. They underestimated the challenge, expecting an easy victory. However, Ukraine’s robust counteroffensive, especially in early autumn, and the substantial international support it received, have shown that Ukraine’s progress wasn’t as significant as believed.
The Russian defence is formidable, a fact proven in World War II. Both the Ukrainian and Russian armies have suffered significant losses, yet the impacts differ greatly. Furthermore, I’d like to address the general public and media consumers: the news coverage has been somewhat misleading. It portrayed the Ukrainian army as highly successful, implying they were nearing Moscow. However, the reality was the recapture of a relatively small area, about 350 to 360 square kilometres. This outcome is disappointing, considering the perceived success. Additionally, the Ukrainian army’s losses, though less discussed, are substantial.
‘Negotiations Are Necessary’
Is it possible for peace negotiations to gather momentum this year, and what, in your opinion, are the essential requirements for this to occur?
During that period, as I mentioned in India, I considered it a necessary step. However, I’m not the sole or most crucial advocate for this. Abandoning diplomatic efforts would be a grave error. Self-defence in war is a right and not up for debate. Nevertheless, diplomacy hasn’t accelerated or made a significant impact yet.
When it becomes apparent that the situation is at a stalemate, with no real progress or only minor fluctuations, it’s crucial to reassess the objectives. We must question whether to continue a war marked by extensive bloodshed, rape, murder, manslaughter, and destruction, leaving behind devastated infrastructure, or to create an opportunity for both parties to withdraw with dignity. This outcome seems inevitable, and I understand Ukraine’s insistence on regaining its entire territory and sovereignty. Today, I reiterate, with nothing to lose, that we must also consider the Russian perspective. It’s not about accepting their demands, which may need rejection, but about listening. This approach lays the groundwork for negotiation. The world has skilled diplomats capable of finding a settlement through prudent, incremental steps for both sides.
The Nord Stream II Attack
Continuing with Germany, it’s notable from an outside perspective that the country is among those most economically impacted by the war. A key question arises: Were the energy supply issues and the halt in natural gas flow inevitable?
You bring up an important point. The Nord Stream 2 explosion, regardless of the perpetrator, was an illegal attack on German infrastructure and has undoubtedly complicated the situation. Presently, there’s a debate, both internally and externally, about who’s to blame for the disruption in gas supply. The decision to stop receiving natural gas and other resources from the Russian Federation was political. Regarding the continuation of natural gas supply, it’s evident that these resources could have still been sourced from Russia. It’s an open secret that such supplies are being redirected to the European Union and Germany through other channels and third countries.
As I have previously stated, even during the most challenging times of the Cold War, there was a connection, a form of bridge. Despite the Soviet Union’s heavy-handed approach to Eastern European states, a basic level of economic cooperation existed. That was possible even then. The critical understanding, now recognized in Berlin’s political spheres, is that sanctions should harm the targeted parties, not the imposers. This does not mean inaction is the answer. We must respond politically and economically to demonstrate our disapproval of the events occurring there and the need to penalize the violation of international law regarding Ukraine. However, sanctions or any measures taken should be designed to impact the Russian Federation as well. From what I’ve observed and believe, it appears these sanctions are currently causing us more harm than the other side.
Sanctions Against Russia
My next question concerned your perspective on the effectiveness of sanctions, although you have already touched on this to some extent.
Admittedly, my expertise in the economic sector is limited. I rely on newspapers and use logic and analytical skills to assess situations. Currently, the consensus, regardless of the source, is that the sanctions have not been effective. Therefore, a re-evaluation and application of different sanctions are necessary. Importantly, any measures taken should minimize adverse effects on our country. This consideration is crucial in our current economic struggles, including issues related to infrastructure, natural gas, and electricity. Politicians must critically assess these strategies to determine if they are on the right path.
‘Trump’s Return Could Bring Change’
A current global debate centres on the situation in Ukraine. Can the Western alliance sustain or increase its military and financial aid to Ukraine as it has thus far? Recent opinions from various countries have varied.
In essence, such support is feasible. For instance, the Federal Republic of Germany recently announced plans to double its financial commitments for 2024 from 4 billion to 8 billion euros. This demonstrates the technical and financial feasibility of increased support.
This potential for increased aid applies to other countries as well. However, it’s crucial to monitor evolving scenarios, especially in the United States, currently Ukraine’s largest supporter, with Germany following closely. The question arises: would a change in the U.S. presidency, possibly to a former president like Donald Trump, alter this support? In my view, Trump’s return could lead to significant changes.
The situation in Hungary illustrates varying national perspectives. Viktor Orban’s stance starkly contrasts with ours and this diversity of viewpoints extends to other European Union countries. The Federal Republic of Germany remains resolute, seeing no fault in its approach. Yet, how sustainable is this commitment? We must evaluate the effectiveness of our efforts: Are they yielding the intended results? Although it may sound harsh, this assessment is necessary. It could prompt intense debates in Germany, potentially leading to reduced commitments or an eventual withdrawal of support.
‘The West Has Never Faced Such Challenges’
Shifting to global issues, we find ourselves in an era of rapid movement toward multipolarity, exemplified by the growth of organizations like BRICS. Does this shift pose challenges for the West? And what might these challenges be?
A cliché yet apt thought comes to mind: The world, like nature, is always in flux and not a static museum. The West is confronting challenges of unprecedented intensity and variety. BRICS is a prime example. Previously, the group’s scope seemed limited, with China holding a distinct position.
Now, if the situation is as it appears, BRICS is indeed expanding, notably to include wealthy, resource-rich Arab states, posing extraordinary challenges. It’s too early to determine whether these states possess any form of currency control or a robust financial tool.
However, should these states unite, the West will undoubtedly face significant pressure. Although the United States aligns with us, it has its interests and is increasingly focusing on China and the Pacific. As Europeans, including Ukraine, we are under pressure, regardless of our future state. Interest in concepts like freedom, economic prosperity, and human rights is waning. Bluntness aside, this reality necessitates a hard stance. This is my personal view and doesn’t require justification from the French or the British. As Germans, we should align our policies more closely with our interests, striving to impose them. We must recognize that maintaining our prosperity as a nation and society may require cooperation with countries that do not fully share our interpretation of human rights and the Constitution. The West is under considerable pressure. BRICS is just the first step, with China already a major player. There is much more ahead for us.
‘Nations Have Interests, Not Friends’
From your statement, I gather that U.S. interests might not always align with Germany’s. Is this correct?
Let me reiterate a well-known fact: Nations have interests, not friends. The term ‘alliance’, often used in discussions, accurately describes this concept. This dynamic is evident in NATO, the European Union, and among our European partners. Indeed, the U.S. sometimes pursues interests divergent from ours, as history has shown. Even as friends and allies, it’s not imperative for us to always echo each other’s sentiments. We share fundamental common goals, despite having different areas of interest.
Consider, for instance, France’s role in North Africa, or the longstanding partnerships we’ve had with Britain and the U.S. in Africa. These relationships exemplify my point. Look at China’s expansion in Africa, where it has become the largest landowner outside the continent and wields significant influence. Unlike our approach, China does not prioritize human rights, state independence, good governance, women’s rights, or climate concerns in its collaborations. I believe our approach is both right and beneficial. However, we must recognize that China and other nations have different approaches, often willing to lend money and gain influence in regions inaccessible to us.
‘We Can Cooperate Where Our Interests Align’
Are you suggesting that a foreign policy founded on values is not sensible?
Precisely, and I believe I’ve made that quite clear. Implementing a value-based foreign policy, including in security matters, is crucial. Yet, major nations, particularly concerning security policy, must operate on a global scale, and this is self-evident.
At times, such action is necessary, as evidenced by the collaborations of the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and the U.S. with various states worldwide to protect their respective interests. When it becomes necessary to safeguard interests, the European Union, and particularly Germany, should be prepared to act independently. If needed, we should be willing to cooperate and engage with nations or unions of states, even if our fundamental values do not completely align with theirs.
‘Turkey Should Remain in NATO’
How do you view Turkey’s recent foreign policy stance?
My view is not influenced by you being my guest today; I’ve always considered myself a true friend of Turkey. I hope you’ll permit me to express this, despite not agreeing with everything. Turkey is a significant country. Recently, it has strengthened and preserved its historical ties with the East, particularly with Turkic states, more than ever before. Turkey can assert its perspective in the region. I’ve long noted and been intrigued by the impact of statements from Ankara or Istanbul. Currently, amid this resurgence, Turkey is playing a pivotal role in the Middle East conflict.
Turkey should remain in NATO. I firmly believe there is no genuine intention or commitment towards leaving. I anticipate that Turkey will once again draw closer to the European Union, either as a committed state or in some other capacity. Turkey must not turn away from the West. However, I understand its unique importance due to historical ties dating back to the Ottoman Empire. I’ve been conversing with a Turkish history professor in Istanbul for a long time. He said, “We are trying to exert our influence on these countries, almost as if reviving the Bab-ı Ali (Central government of the Ottoman Empire in Istanbul – Sublime Porte).” This is significant, particularly in light of Turkish policies aimed at peace and reconciliation. Ankara’s involvement is crucial.
A final question from afar: Do you think the South China Sea could become a future crisis region?
Frankly, it already is. Our geographical distance, speaking from the perspective of Germany or the European Union, somewhat sidelines us. For the regional states, the U.S., and countries with territorial claims there, like France and Britain, it’s a pressing issue. We act as honest mediators, valuable partners, and effective intermediaries. This ties back to my initial statement on why I left my position. I’ve been to Japan, Singapore, South Korea several times. Our role as mediators is necessary and valued there.
The undeniable factor in this region is the rise of the People’s Republic of China. The ‘nine-dash line’ claim over territorial waters in the South China Sea, based on maps dating back two to three thousand years, is particularly contentious. The states in that region require support. That’s why we dispatched the Bavarian frigate there two years ago and are sending two ships this year. This is imperative as the region is set to become the foremost crisis area in the future. China is rapidly expanding its reach there, violating international law by trying to transform the South China Sea into a Chinese-dominated sea, which contravenes international norms.
In Venezuela, as well as in much of Latin America that was colonized by the Spanish empire more than five centuries ago, the month of October represents a date to remember and take pride in the indigenous roots of the American continent, called by the ancestral peoples “Abya Yala”. However, even today, 500 years after the arrival of Christopher Columbus, Spain continues without recognizing the genocide of the native peoples and their cultures, nor does it recognize the plundering of the riches of these lands. Currently, the empire is represented by another hegemonic power, the United States, and by another type of colonialism, the culture of the “American Dream” that seems more like a nightmare, but the threat to indigenous peoples, as well as Afro-descendant peoples that makes up Venezuela, continues to be the same. And in the face of this imperial and colonialist threat, Venezuela and other countries of the Abya Yala are struggling, resisting and winning the battle.
Within the framework of the Day of Indigenous Resistance in Venezuela, which since 2002 has been commemorated every October 12, we interviewed Clara Vidal, Minister of Indigenous Peoples of Venezuela. Vidal is originally from the Kariña indigenous people, based in the state of Sucre, eastern Venezuela, and has been Minister for Indigenous Peoples since 2022.
Why does Venezuela commemorate the Day of Indigenous Resistance?
Today we reflect on the importance of that tragic date, while today Spain commemorates a national holiday, they call it “Hispanic Day”, with joy, with airplanes, etc. That is, Spain celebrates the death of 90 million indigenous people, they are celebrating the greatest genocide in the history of humanity.
But we from Venezuela commemorate the 532 years of the beginning of the resistance of the indigenous peoples who to this day are in battle for a horizon and a victorious future that awaits us.
So today’s reflection is that nothing and no one, not the Spanish monarchy, nor the decadent U.S. empire will be able to defeat us, because 200 years ago we expelled them from these lands, because we do not want more colonialism or imperialism, we want to be sovereign, free and independent.
What are the references of the indigenous peoples in Venezuela today? And what is its importance?
Well, let me say that we are today in the land of Commander Hugo Chávez, of the Liberator Simón Bolívar, of the Great Chief of Chiefs Cacique Guaicaipuro, the leader of the resistance of the indigenous peoples, because 532 years ago took place the invasion of our lands, and practically 90 million indigenous brothers were exterminated by an European Empire.
Precisely, according to what we have experienced and what our ancestors experienced, we can say that we are a free, sovereign and independent country, that throughout our history we are not going to allow any empire to controls us, dominates us, and that is why we have among our main historical references, which we must always remember:
- The fight of the indigenous Cacique Guaicaipuro, our older brother.
- Then the fight for our emancipation from the Liberator Simón Bolívar, and
- More recently, the rescue of our freedom through our eternal Commander, Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías, who after that “For now” of February 4, 1992, and assuming our presidency in 1999, has rescued our freedom, our sovereignty, our independence for the present and for our national future.
The Bolivarian Revolution, what role has it given to the indigenous peoples?
Well, the Bolivarian Revolution gave us the main thing, which is the guarantee of the rights of indigenous peoples. The arrival of the Revolution fought and ensured that each of our indigenous peoples had a special chapter within the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela of 1999. That is where the great appreciation of our revolutionary process towards the recognition and respect of rights begins. of indigenous peoples. In addition to that, the thousands of tools that it has given us as public policies: the Guaicaipuro Mission, the Ministry of Popular Power for Indigenous Peoples, which at an international level is a unique experience. Venezuela is a pioneer in having an institution especially for indigenous peoples, other countries now have ministries, like Brazil, for example, but we paved the way.
In addition to that, we have legislators, in the municipal councils, councilors, we have national deputies, who are indigenous. We have our voice represented before the national, regional and municipal Legislative Power.
The presence of the United States in Latin America
The presence of agencies of imperialism such as the CIA, DEA, or NATO, among other interventionist institutions in Latin America, must be considered according to the excess of their functions. The United States acts not as a country but as an interfering organization in the internal policies of each of the nations.
The United States intervenes in the policies of each of the nations, that is, violating the sovereignty of the people. And the most important thing is that they do not respect the culture and idiosyncrasies of each of the peoples.
Precisely, when we refer to colonialism, unlike imperialism, it is about dominating and controlling and imposing their culture, belittling the cultures of the native peoples. Now, when we talk about imperialism, this is total control, from every point of view: political, social, cultural, military of each of the peoples and nations.
From there the United States and Europe then fall into fascism, neo-fascism and similar expressions. From Venezuela, the indigenous peoples: Say no to the imperial presence in our lands and nations!
Imperialism in neo-fascist governments in Latin America attacks indigenous peoples
The indigenous peoples are brave peoples, in those countries with extreme right-wing, neo-fascist governments, the indigenous peoples have been totally criminalized or have been totally forgotten, denied to exercise their own culture in their own territories. Today we can tell you, from Venezuela, that the indigenous peoples are not alone, and we also encourage them to continue the fight for their rights. The right-wing and neo-fascist governments will never, ever love indigenous peoples, because they want to erase our history.
Those governments will never protect any rights of indigenous peoples. The Venezuelan left, Bolivarian socialism, has been a fundamental part of the demands of all these sectors, mainly indigenous peoples and communities, as well as Afro-descendants, because we are the same people, the oppressed peoples. So to the indigenous peoples of Abya Yala we say that the fight must continue until we get the victory. Venezuela is proof that it is possible to recover our identity, our rights and our indigenous culture.
Imperialism and genocidal colonialism in the world: Genocide in Gaza
We call on the world, the international community, and national and international public opinion to reflect on what is happening in Gaza. Just as today there is genocide in Gaza, against the people of Palestine, we also remember what we experienced more than 500 years ago. Just as it happens today with the Palestinian people, so it happened with our ancestors, just as yesterday our ancestors had victory, because we are alive today. Today we declare our solidarity and tell the people of Palestine that they will also win, because in the face of hatred, in the face of imperialism, in the face of colonialism, love and justice will always win. So today’s reflections are that we continue fighting, because victory belongs to the people who fight for their emancipation.
We are going to remember this date as the beginning of the greatest genocide in the history of humanity so that there can never again be any empire that can raise its arm and its hatred against the people, to impose the slavery of man by man, but rather there is peace, hope as we are proposing from the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela with our constitutional president, Nicolás Maduro.
What is the message that Venezuela gives to other indigenous peoples?
To the brother peoples of the South, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, and also of great Brazil, because in Brazil there are also indigenous peoples, indigenous brothers and sister who were also invaded by Portugal like us; Today we tell all of you that this is the time of the people, we are going to unite, we are going to create a network of networks. The historical block necessary so that this decadent empire, or any other that may emerge, can never again defeat us.
They have tried today with the Internet, with artificial intelligence, to oppress us, but here we say that with the ancestral human intelligence of indigenous peoples they will not be able to win. Here we are fighting. Let no one make a mistake, because there is a homeland here, as Commander Chávez said. So all our ancestors today are together, united to say enough of imperialism and colonialism. Victory will be of the people! Long live the people! Long live the indigenous peoples! Long live peace and long live freedom!
Finally, what is the importance of the union of indigenous peoples and Afro-descendant peoples in Venezuela
On this important day, Venezuela shows the rest of the indigenous peoples of Latin America its struggle and its resistance. Today, 532 years after the great genocide in Abya Yala, here we are, the indigenous peoples present alongside the Afro-descendant people, the indigenous people in general, the Venezuelan people of men and women who continue to resist. Today we can say with a firm voice, with a voice of love and with a voice of joy, that we continue in resistance.
We continue in a tireless fight for the vindication of our indigenous peoples. And that today in Venezuela we have more than 54 indigenous peoples, that means that we have resisted and that we will continue to resist and win.
Afro-descendant peoples have also fought a battle to survive and assert their rights. And here we are claiming the day of indigenous resistance, but we are also fighting for that ancestral history of the Afro-descendant peoples who were the object of imperial ambition, and which forcibly brought them here, but which today has precisely led us to walk the hand making revolution.
We are now writing a new history, because we were here before the Spanish empire arrived, because the indigenous peoples were on this land, because the men and women who arrived enslaved now have a new horizon, precisely, which is not to forget history, our origins, but that we also know that our destiny is to definitively free ourselves from the yoke of imperialism, to emancipate ourselves from our minds and move forward towards the new generations with the vision of knowing that we are a people that resisted and that continues to resist because Nobody discovered us. We already existed.
Pakistan airstrikes in Afghanistan kill 46 people, Taliban warns retaliation
Houthi threats target U.S. amid Israel and Saudi coalition’s military actions
HTS Foreign Minister warns Iran in first official statement
A passenger plane travelling from Baku to Grozny crashes in Kazakhstan
German Mittelstand warns of rising protectionism
-
EUROPE2 weeks agoSweden blames Germany’s nuclear phase-out for energy crisis
-
MIDDLE EAST2 days agoSaudi-UAE-backed attack on Houthis targeted by the U.S. and Israel
-
OPINION2 weeks agoImplications of the EU–Mercosur free trade agreement from a Latin American perspective
-
ASIA2 weeks agoChinese academy discusses Syria
-
MIDDLE EAST2 weeks agoSyria after Assad; A look at the future and possible scenarios
-
MIDDLE EAST2 weeks agoHandover in management, and executions in Syria
-
ASIA2 weeks agoChina’s largest naval deployment around Taiwan in decades
-
ASIA6 days agoXi Jinping champions economic diversification during Macau visit
