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.