Connect with us

Opinion

The Christian liar

Avatar photo

Published

on

On the occasion of Konrad Adenauer’s 150th birthday, the prevailing foundational narrative of the Federal Republic is seldom called into question. Werner Rügemer‘s sketch, however, does precisely that. It portrays Adenauer not as the architect of a democratic new beginning, but as a consistent power politician in the service of capital—from the Empire to Weimar, from the Nazi state to the yoke of the United States. A necessary act of demystification.

German Chancellor and CDU Chairman Friedrich Merz has bowed to the world’s most powerful far-right figure, US President Donald Trump. This submission entails further militarization, accompanied by the impoverishment of the majority of the population and the peril of nuclear annihilation. This has a history, and that history began with the first Chancellor and CDU Chairman, Konrad Adenauer. His current successor, Friedrich Merz, has confirmed that Adenauer “set the decisive course for the Federal Republic.”

I. Catholic Ascent in a Protestant Empire

The rise of the Catholic Adenauer began within the Protestant German Empire.

Following the end of Napoleon’s brief dominion, the Kingdom of Prussia succeeded in annexing the Ruhr and the Rhineland, including its largest city, Cologne. Prussia and rising capitalism had discarded old feudal Catholicism as an ideology: Protestantism became the state religion. After the feudal lords with their Catholic blessings, it was now the turn of the new holders of private power—the capitalists—and their profits, blessed by Protestantism.

Protestant Prussians Complete the Catholic Cologne Cathedral

Consequently, the Prussians were extremely flexible in their use of religion: Since the Rhineland and Cologne were Catholic, replete with an Archbishopric and Romanesque churches, the Prussian Protestants promoted the Catholicism of their new subjects there as well.

Thus, the Prussian kings showed benevolence and, from 1842 onwards, financed the completion of the 157-meter-high cathedral towers. What the wealthy Catholic Archbishopric of Cologne had failed to achieve in 600 years, the Protestant Prussians accomplished in a few. And the Catholics were now obliged to be grateful to the Prussians.

Incidentally, the Prussians did not achieve this alone. The Jewish owners of the Sal. Oppenheim bank, rising in tandem with Prussia, also performed political groundwork; some converted to Catholicism, but mostly to Protestantism. They became the second-largest donors for the completion of the “Catholic” cathedral. This bank, ideologically highly flexible, would play a significant role in Adenauer’s ascent as Lord Mayor (Oberbürgermeister) of Cologne and subsequently as Chancellor of the Federal Republic.

Rise in a Catholic Milieu under Prussian Patronage

Konrad, the third son of a father who had risen from a craftsman via military service to a Prussian judicial officer, was permitted to attend the Gymnasium—specifically, the Royal Catholic Apostel Gymnasium. The school was financed by the Kingdom of Prussia and built directly adjacent to the Catholic Church of the Apostles. The aim here was to support aspiring individuals from the Catholic milieu to serve in the Prussian administration, corporations, and banks. Indeed, in 1894, former Chancellor Bismarck personally congratulated the high school graduate: The 18-year-old Konrad was now “one of us.”

After high school, Konrad remained within the Catholic milieu; during his law studies in Bonn, Munich, and Freiburg, he joined the relevant Catholic student fraternities. He later began working at Hermann Kausen’s law firm in Cologne; his boss was simultaneously a Royal Prussian Notary and the chairman of the Catholic Centre Party (Zentrum) in the City Council. Konrad joined the Centre Party to become a Council Member in 1906 and, as early as 1909, First Deputy Mayor. This rising star was elected with the approval of the Liberal Party—that is, the entrepreneurs, bankers, and, for instance, the bosses of the dominant media clan DuMont Schauberg, whose Kölnische Zeitung was distributed throughout Prussia. Thus, at the unusually young age of 33, this ascending man took charge of the city administration; the Catholic Lord Mayor Max Wallraf, also of the Centre Party, held the office only in an honorary capacity.

Under Prussia’s three-class franchise system, only wealthy men could vote in Cologne. Rich capitalists were in the Liberal Party; artisans and civil servants were in the Centre Party. The SPD [Social Democratic Party] could not be elected at the local level; it held only a seat in the Reichstag in Berlin.

Adenauer also ensured the proliferation of his own wealth. He joined the Pudelnaß Tennis Club—not because he could, or wanted to, play tennis. Rather: The youth of Catholic high society met there. It was there he met his first wife, Emma Weyer, the daughter of the director of the Cologne Reinsurance Company. Thus, the rising Adenauer, with a suitable loan, was soon able to purchase a large plot of land in the developing Catholic villa district of Cologne-Lindenthal and have a 14-room villa with a wine cellar constructed.

Administrative Chief of the Frontline City of Cologne in WWI

As administrative chief, Adenauer had fostered the rise of Cologne’s industry, financed by the Oppenheim, Levy, Seligmann, and J.H. Stein banks. These were also the financiers of industry and railways in the Ruhr area and neighboring cities like Wuppertal.

The Lord Mayor of Cologne was subordinate to the Prussian military governor and the Prussian-appointed district president of Cologne. With the outbreak of war in 1914, martial law was declared. Thus, in World War I, Cologne became the German Empire’s frontline city against the nearby enemy states of Belgium, France, and England.

Prior to the war, Adenauer had constructed the Butzweiler Hof airfield as well as another airfield for Zeppelins, and had brought Zeppelin production to Cologne. As soon as the war began, Zeppelins rained bombs on cities in Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland, Lithuania, and London—the first instance in human history of the aerial bombardment of enemy cities and civilians.

Stinnes and Krupp shifted munitions production to Cologne, while Bayer in Wuppertal produced poison gas: deadly weapons had to reach the front as quickly as possible. Cologne was also a transit station for soldiers, supplies, and prisoners of war moving to and from the front. Occupied Belgium was also administered from Cologne. Adenauer cultivated close friendships with leading industrialists and took over the war economy management of the frontline city; the municipal department tasked with this had 4,500 employees.

Cologne: Execution of Christian Sailors

It was no coincidence that Cologne was chosen for the execution of sailors Albin Köbis and Max Reichpietsch, who were sentenced to death for “mutiny” in 1917 for protesting the war. Both were Christians, but members of the New Apostolic Church: This church had been founded because Pope Leo XIII had openly embraced capitalism. The “mutineers” followed early Christianity; Adenauer, the capitalist Christian, had no objection to the execution of such Christians.

When the incumbent Lord Mayor of Cologne, Wallraf, was called to the stumbling imperial government in Berlin as a (penultimate) last resort, Adenauer became his successor; no one else was even considered. Precisely because a “politician of endurance” was needed for the frontline city of Cologne in a war that could no longer be won, Adenauer, upon his demand, immediately received the highest salary of any mayor in the Empire. He concluded his inaugural speech in October 1917 with an “oath of loyalty to the Kaiser and the Empire, with the call glowing with warm gratitude: His Majesty, our all-highest Kaiser and King, hurrah, hurrah, hurrah!”

“They Died for Germany”

Together with his corporate friends, Adenauer rejected peace negotiations in 1917. Millions of dead soldiers and civilians were, for the well-ensconced Christian civil servant-politician, merely collateral damage, ruthlessly factored in.

In the final year of the war, he declared in the city council that just as “the people of Cologne have endured these hardships to this day,” Germans must “endure all the hardships of war with patience and patriotism.” He justified the 41 deaths in a British air raid on Cologne in May 1918 by stating: “They too died for Germany.”

“Germany”; this would remain a core value for Adenauer: Dependent laborers are exploited and, for the sake of capitalists masquerading as “Germany” and their privileged accomplices, are expendable even in war.

End of War: Flattering and Destroying Revolutionaries

Fighting rising democratic resistance, saving capitalism: This was Adenauer’s mission at the end of the war.

Therefore, although the SPD was banned from standing for election under Prussian electoral law, from 1916 onwards he gave compliant SPD politicians positions in the administration and the city council. The SPD politician Wilhelm Sollmann became his special adjutant.

When a Workers’ and Soldiers’ Council was formed in Cologne as well, Adenauer allocated them rooms, telephones, and typewriters in the city hall. At the same time, he ensured that Sollmann became the chairman of this council and could denounce capitalism as a warmonger at large rallies.

The Christian liar Adenauer walked around with a revolutionary armband on his sleeve, but simultaneously established the “Welfare Committee”: Here, he gathered his banker friends and entrepreneurs; Sollmann was also present. In the final year of the war, the Kaiser awarded Adenauer the Order of the Red Eagle and membership in the Prussian House of Lords, the upper house of the Reichstag.

Saving the State and City from “Bolshevism”!

When Kaiser Wilhelm II fled abroad shortly before the war ended in November 1918, Adenauer remained true to his oath and sharply condemned the Kaiser’s “shameful, ominous flight.” Now, “the country could be dragged into the embrace of Bolshevism.”

But Adenauer’s Welfare Committee outmaneuvered the penniless activists of the Workers’ and Soldiers’ Council, who lacked political experience. Thus, Adenauer had averted the “Bolshevik danger” on behalf of the fled Kaiser. Later, he boasted of having tricked the Workers’ and Soldiers’ Council together with Sollmann, thereby “saving the city from revolution.”

It was here that he learned ruthless ideological opportunism and the merciless defense of capitalism. With this, he would continue to rise as a politician—and very soon, as a multimillionaire.

II. Continued Rise in the Hated Republic

Demagoguery regarding the “Bolshevik danger” remained Adenauer’s leitmotif. He carried as much of the monarchy as possible into the Weimar Republic: Relations with the peaks of private capital, and the continuation of the Free State of Prussia within the German Reich. In this way, he would contribute to the NSDAP [Nazi Party] coming to government by 1933.

Against the “Dictate of Versailles”

Adenauer railed against the “Dictate of Versailles”: He argued that this “intolerable slavery and bondage” destroyed “national and state existence,” ruined the German economy, caused “our children to wither,” and abandoned millions of Germans to “a slow death.” Adenauer said this as President of the German Catholics’ Day in Munich in 1922; yet he never mentioned the architect of the dictate, US President Wilson, who, by designating Germany as the sole guilty party, secured Wall Street’s war loans and the profits of US arms companies.

However, Adenauer tore into the spreading socialism that sought to “alienate the German people from Christianity.” He condemned the “lack of morality and authority” appearing in the “tortured people,” equating it with “materialism and Mammonism.”

What distinguished Adenauer from the far-right and the NSDAP was initially his concept of a solution: Catholic Christianity and the Catholic Centre Party. But since he shared the fundamental critique of the Versailles Dictate, his solution, polished with a Christian veneer, would step by step converge with the far-right solution. And as in the monarchy, he would bind himself not even to his own party, but to leading capitalists.

Thus, Adenauer expanded his personal and institutional relationships with leading capitalists to the entire German Reich and the USA.

In the Cologne Rotary Club

In 1928, Adenauer was a founding partner in the small men’s circle of the Cologne Rotary Club, established on the US model, alongside bankers Hagen (Bank Levy), the Oppenheims, Pferdmenges (Schaafhausen, later Oppenheim), and Baron von Schröder (J.H. Stein), industrialists Silverberg (Rheinbraun), Stollwerck (Chocolate), Clouth (Rubber), Tietz (Department Stores), and publisher Neven DuMont (Kölnische Zeitung). The president was Pferdmenges.

Pferdmenges’ influence had long since transcended the Rhine and Ruhr: In 1929, the Schaafhausen Bank Association merged with Deutsche Bank. During the nationalization of the bankrupt Dresdner Bank and Commerzbank in 1931, he advised the government of Chancellor Brüning (Centre Party) and in the process joined the Supervisory Board of Dresdner Bank and the Board of the Reichsbank [Central Bank].

A Favorite in the Circle of Ruhr Industrialists

The bosses of the four Cologne investment banks sat on dozens of supervisory boards of Ruhr conglomerates such as Flick, Klöckner, Thyssen, Stinnes, and IG Farben.

Consequently, Adenauer became a sought-after member of their lobbying associations:

  • League for the Renewal of the Empire: With slogans like “People without Space,” “Strengthening the Führer idea,” the necessity of a “Third Reich,” and “overcoming conflicts” through a uniform “healthily structured nation,” this league formed a programmatic cross-front with Hitler’s NSDAP.
  • Reich Economic Council: Coordinated industrialists and large landowners throughout the Reich with the Reich Association of German Industry (RDI).
  • Ruhrlade: This secret organization financed the “conservative” parties DVP, DNVP, and Adenauer’s Centre Party, and ultimately the NSDAP.

Adenauer became the politically desired candidate here. In 1925, steel baron August Thyssen wrote to him: “I hope the hour will soon come when you, with capable people, will stand at the head of the government and understand our needs.”

“Germany’s Right to Colonies”

The German Colonial Society (DKG) had been founded in 1885. However, at Versailles, Germany had been stripped of its colonies, which were given to US allies. The DKG subsequently fought for the return of the colonies. This was also in the NSDAP’s program. Only the KPD [Communist Party] and USPD explicitly rejected it.

In 1931, Adenauer became Vice President of the DKG. The President was Heinrich Schnee, the former Governor of German East Africa. In Cologne’s great banqueting hall, the Gürzenich, Adenauer criticized the “inconsistency of the colonial guilt lie” propagated by the victorious powers.

Separatism: Prussian State, Rhenish State

Within the Weimar Republic, the Free State of Prussia was preserved as a semi-monarchical extension with its own parliament (Landtag) and government. It covered two-thirds of the German Reich and was a counterweight to the newfangled democracy of the Weimar Constitution.

President of the Prussian State Council

The Prussian State Council existed as the upper house of the Prussian Landtag from 1920 onwards. Adenauer served as its President from 1921 to 1933, attending 222 sessions. In return, he received a free residence in Berlin. The expense allowance was 12,000 Reichsmark annually, plus daily allowances.

In Berlin, he met with ambassadors of other states, the Vatican representative and later Pope Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli, Reichsbank President Hjalmar Schacht, and members of the Deutsche Bank board, on whose supervisory board he sat. He also met with Wall Street banker Thomas McKittrick of the Lee Higginson investment bank, the leading lender to the German Reich.

From this perspective, too, the attitude cultivated by Adenauer and his spin doctors—that he was anti-Prussian and disliked the Prussian capital—is revealed as a lie.

Western Separatist State: Direct Capital

Adenauer and his friends felt their existing freedoms were violated not only by Versailles but also by the fashionable democracy of the Weimar Republic: Now all adults, regardless of wealth—even women!—could vote. The influence of trade unions, the SPD, and even more dangerous leftists was too great! A capital-friendly separatist state, in addition to the Prussian state, seemed like a solution to them.

The spokesman was the billionaire Ruhr baron Hugo Stinnes. Adenauer experimented with concepts named “Rhenish Republic,” “Rhenish State,” or “Rhenish-Westphalian Republic,” or sometimes “West German Republic”: In one variant, it would remain part of the German Reich; in another, it would not.

Such a separatist state was to include the predominantly German-speaking French region of Alsace, conquered by the German Empire in 1870 and forced back to France by the Treaty of Versailles. In 1923, bypassing the German Foreign Office, Stinnes took Adenauer to Paris to ask if the government there was interested in a Western European economic union. The French government and the Bank of England refused: That was the end of the project.

Secret Tax Advantages for Prestige Projects

Furthermore, after the war, the USA had established itself in Western Europe. They organized the Dawes Plan for the German Reich, named after Charles Dawes of the National City Bank in New York. US companies opened branches in Germany and opened the country to their products.

US Bonds and Ford to Cologne!

Adenauer utilized this more than any other mayor. Through Wall Street banks, he had Cologne municipal bonds sold to US investors with a 7.5 percent yield to finance his major projects: the Niehl industrial estate, the airport, the Nürburgring, the stadium, the Rhine bridge, the university, and the first section of autobahn in Germany.

Automotive giant Ford had opened its first branch in Berlin in 1926. In 1930, Adenauer brought the second Ford branch and the US company’s German headquarters to Cologne. To achieve this, he granted secret tax advantages, bypassing the city council.

Adenauer saw no harm in flattering Adolf Hitler’s most influential financier and the world’s leading antisemite. The German edition of his book “The International Jew” had reached its 26th printing by 1926.

The New Albertus Magnus University!

The University of Cologne had been founded in the 14th century but was closed by Napoleon in 1798 due to “bigotry”: The Malleus Maleficarum (“Hammer of Witches”), the theological justification for the torture and public burning of thousands of women (“witches”) until the 18th century, had originated here.

Adenauer had the university rebuilt, referring to its great past at the opening in 1919, but mentioning nothing of its diabolical aberrations. He named the university once again after its founder, the medieval theologian Albertus Magnus. Funding was provided by Adenauer’s capital friends with their Christian veneer: Bayer boss Carl Duisberg, for example, donated 200,000 RM. Banker Pferdmenges collected two million. He would remain the most important collector of legal and illegal donations for Adenauer after 1945 as well.

Courting Hitler’s Future Crown Jurist

In 1932, Adenauer secured the appointment of constitutional lawyer Carl Schmitt to the old-new university. Adenauer had been gravitating toward this intellectual father of the authoritarian “Führer State” since 1925.

Both admired Mussolini. To be close to Hitler, Schmitt was appointed to the University of Berlin as early as the summer semester of 1933, becoming the “Crown Jurist of Hitler.”

Multifaceted Self-Enrichment

Adenauer’s income and wealth were the highest of any politician in the German Reich.

Salary, Perks, Supervisory Board Memberships, Interest-Free Loans

The highest mayoral salary—twice that of the Reich President—was accompanied by the highest overt and covert perks. As of 1930: Annual salary 41,250 RM, plus pensionable housing allowance of 37,000, and 6,000 for electricity and heating. (For comparison: A worker’s annual wage: 1,680 RM; a civil servant: 2,520 RM).

Added to this were profits from stock transactions, interest-free loans from the city treasury and banker friends, and above all: income from 11 supervisory board memberships (Deutsche Bank, Lufthansa, RWE, Rheinische Braunkohle, etc.).

Millions in Loans for Stock Speculation: Never Repaid

In the spring of 1928, Glanzstoff AG, which had a branch in the Cologne industrial estate of Niehl, listed new shares of its newly founded US artificial silk subsidiary, American Glanzstoff Corporation, on the New York Stock Exchange.

Adenauer bought a package of shares with a loan of millions from Deutsche Bank. In 1928, the market value was 1.33 million Marks; by October 1929, due to the financial crisis in the US, it had fallen to just 110,000 Marks. Deutsche Bank demanded repayment of the loan.

Adenauer never repaid the loan; he did not want to, nor was he compelled to under any regime. Thus, in 1949, Adenauer would begin his duties as CDU Chairman and founding Chancellor of the Federal Republic as a speculator indebted to Deutsche Bank.

On the Road to Fascism

In 1929, Dictator Mussolini signed the Lateran Treaty with the Vatican: Catholicism became the state religion. Mussolini-admirer Adenauer sent congratulations: “The name Mussolini will be written in golden letters in the history of the Catholic Church!” Mussolini thanked “dottor h.c. adenauer primo borgomastro Koeln” on behalf of all Catholics and all Italians.

Cultural Institute with Mussolini

Thus, in 1931, the Lord Mayor of Cologne signed an agreement between Cologne and Italy with the leading ideologue of Italian fascism, Minister of Culture Giovanni Gentile (“The Foundations of Fascism”): The establishment of an Italian Cultural Institute, against the will of the Reich government and with a fascism-friendly administration.

Permission to Hoist Swastika Flags

Adenauer later successfully spread the lie that he had resisted the hoisting of swastika flags in the city in February 1933. The reality was this: The NSDAP had secretly hung flags on the Mülheim Bridge to advertise a Hitler event in the Cologne exhibition halls. Adenauer had the flags removed because the bridge was municipal property! However, the Mayor permitted the NSDAP to hang flags on the exhibition halls, which also belonged to the municipality: This is how Adenauer lied using partial truths.

NSDAP into the Prussian and Reich Government!

As early as August 1932, the Centre Party demanded that the National Socialists take “open and full responsibility” in both the Prussian government and the Reich government.

On the same day in Cologne, Adenauer visited his Rotary brother Baron von Schröder, who was mediating between the Centre Party and the NSDAP. In the banker’s neighboring villa in Cologne-Lindenthal, Adenauer gave a written guarantee on his host’s letterhead: The Centre Party would “judge Hitler without prejudice solely by his actions and tolerate him as Reich Chancellor.”

On behalf of the Prussian State Council, Adenauer declared in February 1933 that in Prussia, “the formation of a government between the NSDAP and the Centre Party under the Premiership of Hermann Göring is immediately possible.” Two months later, Göring became Prussian Prime Minister. Hitler was already Reich Chancellor.

III. During the Nazi Era: Luxury Living with a State Pension

During the Nazi regime, Adenauer was able to lead a luxurious, privileged, and free life, including trips abroad, thanks to a high state pension and his status as a multimillionaire. He observed the injustice with immense knowledge and mercilessness. Yet nothing in life is as far from innocence as allowing visible injustice to persist. He had helped the Nazis into government and offered no resistance despite—or rather, because of—his highly privileged position. He made himself permanently complicit.

Defeat of a Politically Bankrupt Man

Adenauer’s Centre Party fell from power in the local elections of March 1933 because its reputation had already been ruined by high municipal debts. However, the majority for the NSDAP candidate could only be achieved because the 10 seats of the Communists were declared invalid; Adenauer and the Centre Party did not protest this.

Refuge with Enthusiastic Nazi Christians: Maria Laach Abbey

Adenauer was expelled from Cologne by the Nazi regional administration. He quickly found accommodation with his friend Ildefons Herwegen, Abbot of the Benedictine Abbey of Maria Laach in the Eifel.

In the weeks that Herwegen hosted Adenauer, the Abbot was enthusiastically greeting the Hitler government: “People and state have become one again through the action of Führer Adolf Hitler.” At a memorial service for the NSDAP martyr Albert Leo Schlageter in the Cologne Gürzenich hall on May 26, 1933, the Abbot invoked God’s blessing upon the Führer.

The Centre Party supported the Concordat Hitler concluded with the Vatican. Pope Pius XI had praised Hitler as a “reliable pioneer against Bolshevism.” Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen, who had been in the Centre Party until shortly before, came to Maria Laach on July 21, 1933: The Concordat was celebrated. The rule now was: With the blessing of God and Hitler, one could be a member of the Catholic Church and the NSDAP simultaneously!

June 1933: “It Makes No Difference to Me, Hitler Will Do”

In June 1933, Adenauer wrote from the monastery to his friend, the banker’s wife Dora Pferdmenges: My party, the Centre Party, has failed because “in recent years it did not fill itself with a new spirit in time,” and: “In my conviction, our only salvation is a monarch, a Hohenzollern, or for all I care, Hitler will do; first Reich President for life, then comes the next stage. Thus the movement enters a calmer channel.”

Adenauer determined that the other bourgeois parties were also incapable of saving the existing “order” against the power of the labor movement and mass democracy. Thus, he approved of war and fascism as necessary collateral damage; incidentally, a significant side benefit emerged for Adenauer’s clientele, just as it did for Adenauer himself.

Pferdmenges: “We Follow the Will of the People’s Chancellor”

In 1933, right at the beginning of the Hitler government, Pferdmenges—Adenauer’s most important advisor and financier, who at that time sat on the supervisory boards of both Dresdner Bank and Bank Oppenheim—declared: “We follow the will of the People’s Chancellor to create work and bread for the unemployed.”

From 1932 onwards, Pferdmenges was a presbyter and treasurer on the board of the Protestant congregation in Cologne’s millionaire district of Marienburg: This congregation had adopted the newly founded Nazi church, the “German Christians.” Therefore, a new, much larger community center had to be built, with rooms for the Hitler Youth and the Nazi Women’s League.

Carved in stone at the entrance, immortalized in colossal size, was not only Martin Luther with a Christian cross, but also an SA soldier with a swastika and imperial eagle. In 1934, Pferdmenges inaugurated the community center. Thus, in Cologne, not only the Catholic but also the Protestant church entered into a demonstrative, public alliance with Hitler within the milieu of bankers and industrialists.

Free, Luxurious Mobility Under the Nazi Regime

Adenauer was not removed from office as Lord Mayor of Cologne in 1933, as he later lied; on the contrary, he was retired with a high pension.

High Pension, Compensation, Preservation of Wealth

Initially, he received an annual pension of 12,165 Reichsmark, then 15,000 RM permanently from 1937 onwards, plus compensation at market value for the villa in Cologne. His wealth remained completely intact. As part of the arrangement, Adenauer joined the NS-People’s Welfare, a Nazi organization, in 1936.

Villa Residence in Berlin

Thus, in 1934, after his stay in Maria Laach, Adenauer was able to rent the villa of an emigrated Jewish owner in the celebrity district of Griebnitzsee/Neubabelsberg in Berlin. He was able to bring his family to live with him and wanted to become a bank director.

On June 20, 1934, during Hitler’s murderous purge of the SA leadership (the Röhm Putsch), Adenauer was placed under house arrest, but this ended two days later. He was able to vacation comfortably with his wife in the Black Forest.

Land Purchase and New Villa Construction in Rhöndorf

With the compensation for his villa in Cologne, he was able to buy a large plot of 6,000 square meters in the spa and villa resort of Rhöndorf, south of Cologne. He had a residence built like his previous 14-room villa: four living levels, private and representative rooms, a wine cellar, a pantry built into the mountain, an air-raid shelter, several terraces and entrances, a farmyard for animals, and a large garden. Domestic staff were employed during the Nazi era as well. Later, as Chancellor of the Federal Republic, he would reside here.

In Intense Contact with the Organizers of the Nazi Regime

He continued to move within the wealthy milieu.

Visits to Ruhr Industrialists

In 1939, Adenauer and his wife were invited by steel industrialist and Hitler financier Peter Klöckner. A large gathering met at the Villa Hartenfels near Duisburg. The Pferdmenges couple was also present.

Long discussions were held with General Hans Günther Kluge on the comparison of German and US armament capacities; the General was knowledgeable: In 1941, he became Commander of Army Group South in the Wehrmacht’s war of annihilation against the Soviet Union.

The group stayed overnight in the spacious villa and spent the weekend together. For the return journey, Klöckner provided the Adenauers with a car and, as the host noted in a thank-you letter, sent a batch of “those exquisite wines you tasted with us” after them. In the same year, Adenauer also attended a family reception of another friend, Hitler financier Fritz Thyssen.

Baron Kurt von Schröder

The Cologne banker and Rotary brother had engineered Hitler’s chancellorship on January 4, 1933. He joined the SS and the NSDAP, and in May 1933 became President of the Cologne Chamber of Industry and Commerce. Adenauer sent him a “letter of heartfelt congratulations.” Far beyond Cologne, the banker became an ultimate actor in the Nazi system: organizer of the Circle of Friends of the Reichsführer SS (comprising 30 industrialists), spokesman for the Reich Group of Private Banks, member of the Administrative Council of the Reichsbank, and member of the Administrative Council of the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, led by Thomas McKittrick—whom Adenauer had met in Berlin before 1933.

Robert Pferdmenges

Adenauer’s fundraiser Pferdmenges was also a key banker in the Nazi financial system. Adenauer asked him, for instance, whether their mutual friend Friedrich Flick (“decent and honest as a man and businessman”) had sold his RWE shares and bought a new company. Bank Oppenheim, managed by Pferdmenges and renamed Bank Pferdmenges in 1938, was a “war-essential” bank until 1945.

Goebbels and Abs Protect Adenauer’s Speculation Losses

Hermann Josef Abs had started at the Bankhaus Delbrück in Cologne in 1923. During the Nazi era, he rose to the board of Deutsche Bank: Until 1945, he organized war loans, sat on the supervisory boards of three dozen systemically important banks and companies, and organized Aryanizations (the confiscation of Jewish property). As a devout Catholic, he welcomed the attack on the Soviet Union enthusiastically, for to him, it was “the greatest enemy of freedom and humanity.”

At shareholder meetings, a small shareholder repeatedly demanded: Adenauer must repay his million-mark loan, otherwise it is a loss for Deutsche Bank and its shareholders! But Abs imposed his will: The motion will not be processed! Nazi Propaganda Minister Goebbels instructed the media not to report on the matter.

Adenauer: Best Informed on War and Jewish Extermination

Franz-Rudolph von Weiss, who had worked at the Swiss Consulate General in Cologne since 1920 and became Consul in 1936, became Switzerland’s Consul General for the Rhineland in 1943. Weiss had been a close friend of Adenauer since his time as mayor and would become a key advisor for Adenauer’s Swiss relations after 1945.

During the Nazi era, the two met regularly and socially. Adenauer’s wife called Weiss “dear good uncle.” The good uncle sent his reports regularly to his boss, the Swiss Ambassador in Berlin, Hans Frölicher—an enthusiastic Nazi sympathizer who secured arms deliveries from Swiss companies and financial transactions of German companies via Switzerland. At the same time, Weiss held an internationally crucial position from the start of the war: He took over the consular representation of the USA and England, which had severed diplomatic relations with Germany upon their military entry into the war.

Von Weiss maintained a “fine network with politicians, bankers, economic leaders, and high representatives of the Catholic Church.” From 1941 onwards, he reported to his government on, for example, the Warsaw Ghetto, the deportation of Cologne’s Jews, the extermination of Jews in Eastern Europe, and forced laborers in Rhineland factories.

Hitler’s secret police, the Gestapo, documented that Weiss was “one of the best sources of news for foreign countries” due to his “excellent connections to various circles of society and the economy”: Adenauer sat at the source of one of the best intelligence networks in the Nazi state.

Good Relations with the USA

US companies equipped Hitler’s army; Ford Cologne was now producing war vehicles. Adenauer’s second wife came from a Wall Street banking family. He hosted US visitors in Rhöndorf. His son Max won a scholarship to the elite US university Georgetown in Washington in 1937/38.

Adenauer’s longest-standing friend since 1920 was the US entrepreneur Daniel Heineman. Since 1905, he had managed the electrical holding company SOFINA, with its European headquarters in Brussels. In Europe, and in Cologne while Adenauer was mayor, he had built tramways. Due to his Jewish origins, he managed SOFINA from New York following the German occupation of Belgium in 1940; collaboration with the Nazi occupation continued smoothly thereafter.

From 1933 to 1937 alone, Heineman gifted Adenauer a total of 20,000 RM in 1,000-mark notes; in today’s purchasing power, over 100,000 euros. This also provided Adenauer with foreign currency for Swiss vacations without running afoul of the Nazi state’s otherwise strict foreign exchange controls. Heineman would remain an important permanent advisor on US matters for the subsequent Federal Chancellor.

On Principle: No Resistance with Anyone!

Adenauer was able to receive countless visitors undisturbed. However, he rejected all attempts to win him over for any form of resistance. In 1934, Karl Mewis of the Cologne KPD tried via a Catholic industrialist. The industrialist returned with Adenauer’s answer: “Resistance, absolute nonsense!”

In 1936, the Christian trade unionist Jakob Kaiser returned from a three-hour conversation: “He cannot be counted on.” Adenauer likewise rejected contact with the conservative Mayor of Leipzig, Carl Goerdeler, who was building a resistance circle against Hitler with military officers.

In 1944, the Christian trade unionist Heinrich Körner tried. Adenauer refused again: “I want nothing to do with it.” He mocked any resistance with his visitor Franz Thedieck, a Senior War Administration Councillor in the military command in occupied Belgium.

Luxury Detention 1944

In 1944, on the occasion of the assassination attempt on Hitler by conservative officers, he was temporarily arrested. It was a luxury detention: In the exhibition camp of the city of Cologne, Russian prisoners of war had to clean a bathtub so he could bathe. A fellow prisoner had to iron his trousers.

His daughter and wife brought him socks, shirts, and better food, and were able to chat with him for hours. Unlike his fellow prisoners from the SPD, KPD, and Centre Party, he was not drafted into labor duties or sent to a concentration camp. With a doctor’s note, he was finally transferred to the hospital in Cologne-Lindenthal, as he wished: After the war, he told the lie, “I was in a concentration camp.” (The Adenauer Foundation, Wikipedia, etc., and artificial intelligence continue to propagate such lies today.)

Without Remorse and Repentance: Forever Guilty

After the Nazi regime, as an indebted millionaire, in the capacity of CDU Chairman and Federal Chancellor, he would continue his guilt in a new form.

He would help persecute people who had offered resistance to the unjust system, even having them imprisoned, while protecting his accomplices. He would present himself as the “antithesis of the Nazi system.” He would preach Christianity and the Christian West but never fulfill Christianity’s demand for remorse and repentance.

On the contrary: He would lie. He would lie to himself and to the people he governed and administered, exposing them to new injustices and even the danger of a new war.

IV. After Hitler and the World War: “Politics of Humility”

After the war, the Western military administrations led by the USA reorganized the separated West Germany. They helped Adenauer, who had been selected long beforehand, to the chairmanship of the CDU, sidelining competitors and anti-fascists. Many decisions were made in Switzerland, where the chosen one often went disguised as a tourist and also underwent expensive cell revitalization therapy at a private clinic on the shores of Lake Geneva.

In the separatist state of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), founded with Adenauer in 1949, occupation law remained in force. This authority initially lay with the leading US banker John McCloy as US High Commissioner: His apartment in Frankfurt/Main had more staff than the Adenauer government—which was initially not allowed to have its own foreign ministry—and the secret service remained a department of the CIA. Through the Marshall Plan and the NATO clamp, the Adenauer state became a forward US bastion and a “showcase” toward the “East.”

Kissinger: Adenauer’s “Politics of Humility”

Henry Kissinger, the most important advisor to US presidents in the 20th century, published his life’s balance sheet shortly before his death: “Leadership: Six Studies in World Strategy” (New York and Munich 2022). Kissinger had also advised Federal Chancellor Adenauer: The first chapter in the book was dedicated to him, under the title “The Politics of Humility.”

The meaning was this: German capitalists were allowed to keep their war profits and also the profits from the Aryanization of thousands of Jewish banks, companies, and shares; not only those in Germany but also those in occupied Austria, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Italy, Greece, Poland, Denmark, Norway, as well as the Soviet Union, Slovakia, Yugoslavia, and North Africa. 98 percent of their legal, media, and scientific accomplices also went unpunished; however, they now had to place their proven anti-communist, anti-Russian, economic, and technical potentials humbly at the service of a higher power—the USA.

Practices of Federal German Humility Before the Master

To mask this humility, this submission, with lies of “new self-confidence” and “we are somebody again”: This kind of humility was embodied and practiced at the highest level by the trained Christian liar and political actor Konrad Adenauer, and it remains decisive for his successors and the Federal Republic to this day; just as today Adenauer’s successor, Chancellor and CDU Chairman Merz, continues to stage the role—fulfilling all fundamental demands of the US government while feigning that he is increasing Europe’s sovereignty with lies.

  • The Basic Law, approved by the Western military administrations led by the USA, precisely does not contain the rights decided by the UN as a result of the World War: No reference to international law, e.g., the UN Charter; no reference to the labor and social rights of the UN or its sub-organization the ILO; instead, vague, non-binding verbiage about “human dignity,” which is concretely violated millions of times.
  • Parties selected, deemed suitable for government, and continuously financed by corporations and banks—primarily the CDU and CSU—were and are open to the far right, including internationally via party foundations.
  • No other European state “hosts” as many US military bases as the Federal Republic: Nuclear bombs are stored here, global drone murders are committed from here, supplies for wars in other states are routed from here without the participation of the German government, and military personnel are not subject to German law.
  • Adenauer approved: If the USA decides, nuclear war with Russia will be fought in Europe; this applies again now, should the exhausted US proxy warrior Ukraine be replaced by the arming European NATO states as a much larger US proxy warrior, by order of the current US President Trump.
  • From Adenauer to the present day, the following applies: The Federal Republic is not a sovereign state—neither militarily, economically, nor digitally—but a provisional entity subordinate to the USA, especially in foreign and geopolitical affairs; this also applies to the construct of the European Union.
  • The Western military administrations and then, from 1949, the US High Commissioner licensed the leading mainstream media (Spiegel, ZEIT, Süddeutsche, Springer, FAZ, as well as regional ones like Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger) with Nazi executive staff to this day; this includes decisive public opinion “research” (= opinion forming: The Allensbach Institute for Demoscopy, founded by Goebbels’ student Noelle-Neumann, which receives permanent commissions from federal governments to this day).
  • Labor Injustice: The Federal Republic is the only Western state where political strikes are effectively banned (already banned for civil servants and in church enterprises); while millions of mostly illegal migrant low-wage women work in prostitution (Germany: “The Brothel of Europe”), construction, home care, security, gastronomy, etc., civil servants since Adenauer have become increasingly numerous and highly privileged in the public service, ministries, outsourced agencies, the military, secret services, and diplomacy.
  • Since the old Nazi bankers and Nazi entrepreneurs were allowed to continue with their old privileges under Adenauer/McCloy, the “Economic Miracle” also turned out to be a lie: As early as 1967 there were 670,000 unemployed, over a million from 1975, over two million from 1983, three million in 1989; under Adenauer’s successor Helmut Kohl, East Germany was impoverished in favor of Western banks and entrepreneurs from 1990 onwards with US advisors in the Treuhand agency; then all of Germany became the “sick man of Europe” again, further deindustrialized from 2000 onwards with the help of US “locust” investors, especially in medium-sized businesses; and then came Adenauer’s successors Merkel and Merz and the very large US investors like BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, who are now leading shareholder groups in Germany’s most important companies, such as the DAX, and are reducing employment here with high profits while investing in the USA and China. And now the accomplice Merz, Adenauer’s successor, plays the role of the great economic savior for the “new sick man of Europe” with lies.

Fulfillment of the Adenauer Legacy: Humility Before Donald Trump!

To this day, the Federal Republic has no valid constitution, only a provisional and constantly amended “Basic Law”; and under US leadership, with the technocratically named “2+4 Treaty” of 1991, there is still no peace treaty in Europe, no reparation regulations: Thus, the further advance of NATO led by the USA against Russia remains valid: Germany remains a provisional entity.

This is how Adenauer’s legacy is fulfilled today: His current successor as CDU Chairman and Federal Chancellor fulfills all key demands of the most powerful and dangerous far-right figure of the “free world”—in humility before Donald Trump.

Therefore: The demolition of the Adenauer legends is also part of the construction of a democratic, peaceful, secure, prosperous Germany and Europe within the context of a multipolar world order, in which labor and social rights are also included in human rights.

Note by author Werner Rügemer:

In autumn 2026, the comprehensive Adenauer biography with numerous new sources, many from the USA, will be published by Papyrossa Verlag, Cologne.

First appearing on the NachDenkSeiten portal on January 5, 2026, this article was translated from German to English by the Harici team, following a request from Rügemer.

Opinion

A voice rising from New Delhi: BRICS’s manifesto for a new world order

Avatar photo

Published

on

The BRICS Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, held in the Indian capital of New Delhi on May 15, 2026, carries a significance that extends far beyond the confines of routine diplomacy. This gathering culminated in the signing of one of the most comprehensive political documents to date, outlining the vision of the world order that BRICS envisions for 2026. Reading between the lines, the document reveals not merely the proceedings of a ministerial summit, but the contours of a comprehensive alternative vision challenging the Western-centric international system. Indeed, this text must be read as a political manifesto of the shifting balances of power, the accelerating global struggle for influence, and the emerging new world order of recent years.

The overarching theme dominating the entire document is “The Rise of the Global South.” BRICS members contend that the current international order is unjust, insufficiently representative, and fails to reflect the interests of developing nations. Consequently, they emphasize the urgent need to restructure foundational institutions such as the UN, IMF, World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO). In doing so, BRICS now positions itself as the voice of the non-Western world. Today, the global arena is traversing an era in which the post-World War II international system has plunged into a profound crisis of legitimacy and representation. Developments such as the wars in Ukraine, Iran, and Lebanon, the Gaza crisis, global trade wars, the weaponization of sanctions, energy security challenges, and technological competition demonstrate that the current system struggles to mirror contemporary global realities. It is precisely from this premise that the BRICS nations operate, sending a clear message to the world through the New Delhi Outcome Document: “The status quo is no longer sustainable.”

One of the most striking aspects of the document is how clearly it demonstrates that BRICS no longer views itself as a mere platform for economic cooperation. Having long focused primarily on economic development, trade, and finance since its inception, BRICS has now reached a far more ambitious posture. In the New Delhi Outcome Document, issues of security, geopolitical crises, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, climate policies, energy transition, and international governance reforms occupy a place as central as economics. This indicates that BRICS’s ambition to become a foundational actor in global politics is steadily gaining traction. Reading between the lines, the strongest emphasis emerges on the concept of a “multipolar world.” The core approach of BRICS is animated by the premise that the Western-centric, largely US-led international order, which took shape over the decades following the end of the Cold War, is no longer the sole alternative. Throughout the declaration, the repeated use of phrases like “more just,” “more representative,” “more democratic,” and “more inclusive” international system constitutes a direct critique of the current distribution of global power.

The sections concerning the reform of the United Nations Security Council are particularly critical. Indeed, the call for UN reform stands out as one of the most pivotal political segments of the document. BRICS nations explicitly state that the current structure fails to reflect contemporary realities. They contend that Africa, Latin America, and emerging Asian powers are underrepresented in decision-making mechanisms. What is even more remarkable is that China and Russia have reaffirmed their support for India and Brazil to assume greater roles within the Security Council. This state of affairs reveals, first and foremost, the elevation of India and Brazil to global-power status. Secondly, it demonstrates an increasing political cohesion within BRICS. Finally, it illustrates a fundamental questioning of the post-WWII international order.

Another prominent element in the document is the sharp critique of the sanctions policies pursued by the United States and the West. The intensive use of economic sanctions as a foreign policy tool in recent years has engendered collective discomfort among BRICS nations. The text emphasizes that unilateral sanctions violate international law and severely hamper the economic development of developing nations. Although no countries are named directly, this formulation can be read as a potent critique targeted at measures such as US sanctions on Iran, Russia, and Venezuela, as well as the embargo on Cuba. This approach is a continuation of BRICS’s long-standing critique regarding the “weaponization of economics.” Indeed, one of the most strategic segments of the declaration emerges here. For BRICS is no longer merely criticizing the existing financial architecture; it is actively endeavoring to construct alternative mechanisms. Initiatives such as cross-border payment systems, trade in local currencies, financial integration, and the strengthening of the New Development Bank can be read as harbingers of a long-term quest to forge an alternative to the dollar-centric global economic structure. While it is premature to speak of a system capable of fully displacing the dollar, the steps taken by BRICS are beginning to demonstrate that the current financial order is not the only option.

Another major political segment of the New Delhi Document concerns the Gaza and Palestine issue. Here, we witness one of the strongest stances BRICS has ever taken on the matter. The document employs highly resolute language regarding Gaza and Palestine, with a notable emphasis on an independent Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. Furthermore, South Africa’s legal action against Israel and the rulings of the International Court of Justice are directly recalled in the text. In the face of recent offensives and the unfolding humanitarian crisis, BRICS nations have displayed one of their clearest collective stances to date. The call for an immediate ceasefire, the demand for unhindered humanitarian aid delivery, support for Palestinian statehood, and the emphasis on international law stand among the declaration’s most potent political messages. This can be interpreted as an indication of BRICS’s desire to become a more visible and effective political actor in global crises.

On the other hand, the text does not entirely gloss over the internal divergences within BRICS. It openly acknowledges that members hold differing views, particularly on Middle Eastern issues. This is significant because today’s BRICS is no longer a bloc comprised solely of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. With the integration of new members such as Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Indonesia, it has evolved into a far more complex geopolitical entity. Interestingly, the document explicitly notes that rather than a unified stance, differing perspectives exist on certain issues. Specifically, it is conceded that members hold divergent positions on matters concerning Iran, the Gulf states, and Yemen. Despite these differences, the bloc’s ability to establish common ground demonstrates an expansion of BRICS’s diplomatic capacity. Viewed from this perspective, the New Delhi process also represents a significant diplomatic triumph for India. While the recent wave of expansion—bringing in Iran, the UAE, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Indonesia—has enriched the platform’s geopolitical diversity, it has also rendered collective decision-making processes more intricate. Particularly at a juncture where the war in Iran continues, the deep-seated divergences between Iran and the Gulf states led many experts to predict that BRICS would struggle to find common political ground and that the summit would be fraught with severe diplomatic friction. However, despite all these differences, India succeeded in rallying members with diverging interests and priorities around the same platform, proving that BRICS retains its capacity to generate dialogue rather than fracture. In this context, the outcome in New Delhi is not limited merely to the content of the published joint text. The true, striking success lies in the preservation of a diplomatic arena that enabled members—who find themselves directly opposed on certain issues in an extremely sensitive and polarized crisis environment—to compromise on other matters and continue negotiating under the BRICS umbrella.

Furthermore, one of the document’s most critical messages emerges in the realm of technology. The extensive coverage of topics such as artificial intelligence, digital infrastructure, data security, and cybersecurity is no coincidence. Indeed, the global power struggle of the future will be shaped heavily through technological supremacy. BRICS nations clearly demonstrate their awareness of this reality and their intent to act in unison in the technological race. Particularly noteworthy is their quest to develop alternatives to Western-centric norms in artificial intelligence governance. A distinct approach is also observed in energy and climate policies. Instead of the rapid energy transition frequently championed by Western nations, the concept of a “just energy transition” is prioritized. At the heart of this approach lies the conviction that the economic growth needs of developing nations must not be disregarded. BRICS countries advocate for a balance between environmental responsibility and the right to development. This points to a major fault line that will become increasingly pronounced in global climate debates in the coming years.

When all these headings are evaluated together, the resulting picture is remarkably clear: BRICS is no longer merely a platform for safeguarding economic interests. It is a center of power beginning to articulate its own vision of how the international system ought to operate. At the core of this vision lies the objective of greater representation, sovereign equality, deeper multipolarity, and a stronger voice for developing nations in global decision-making processes.

The New Delhi Document, brought to the table at the BRICS Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, is far more than a mere communique; it is one of the landmark texts of the historic transformation unfolding in global politics. As the world rapidly moves away from a unipolar structure, BRICS is emerging as one of the most powerful political and economic vehicles of this transition. Today, many rules of the international system may still be written by the West. Yet, the message rising from New Delhi is clear: far more actors now demand a seat at the table to rewrite those very rules. BRICS is transitioning from an economic club into a political, diplomatic, financial, and technological powerhouse. Its claim to serve as the collective voice and compass of the Global South is strengthening. It pursues a dual strategy: offering an alternative to Western-centric institutions while simultaneously working to transform them. BRICS is not yet establishing institutions to directly replace the UN, IMF, World Bank, or WTO; rather, it is striving to change the rules and the distribution of power within them.

The 2026 New Delhi Document of the Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, hosted by India under its presidency, can be regarded as one of the most comprehensive strategic documents in the twenty-year history of BRICS. The text serves as a political manifesto for an era marked by the sunset of the US- and Western-led unipolar epoch, the demands of rising powers for greater agency, and the accelerating quest of the Global South to establish a permanent weight in the international system.

The essence of the document can be distilled into a single sentence: while BRICS remains a platform that adapts to the rules of the existing international order, it is simultaneously transforming into a global actor that seeks to rewrite them.

Umur Tugay Yücel – Political Scientist & Author of the book “The Decline of American Power and the Rising Powers” (China-Russia-India-Brazil).

X: @umur_tugay

Continue Reading

Opinion

NATO as the apparatus of aggression and occupation of US imperialism

Avatar photo

Published

on

Contrary to what is written in its founding charter and press releases, or what its proponents claim, NATO is no ordinary defense and security organization. It is far more than that. It is a multidimensional, multifaceted organization driven by distinct ideological, political-economic, and class-based preferences. Moreover, as an organization born in the early stages of the Cold War, while its primary objective was ostensibly defined as “opposing the USSR and communism,” its actual function went far beyond this: it served as a mechanism to keep alliance members aligned with and under the control of the United States. Through NATO, the US has established immense influence not only over the defense, security, and foreign policies of member states, but also over their domestic politics, economic policies, educational institutions, universities, academia, think tanks, trade unions, and cultural industries.

As the apparatus of aggression and occupation of US imperialism, NATO launched its first out-of-area military operation in the mid-1990s in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Balkans. This was followed by the intervention in Kosovo in 1999. In the Gulf War of 1990–1991, during the US assault on Iraq, NATO was not directly involved as an alliance or a corporate entity. Instead, there was a US-led coalition that included numerous NATO members. At the time, NATO provided air defense systems to Türkiye but did not launch a direct military attack on Iraq.

In those years, with less than a decade having passed since the end of the Cold War in 1991, liberals and neoliberals alike were busy extolling the virtues of a single-centered, monocentric world order (note: not a “unipolar” world order, as a “pole” logically requires at least two opposites; to call it unipolar is incorrect both linguistically and logically). A tempest of liberalism, capitalism, postmodernism, globalization, and the “New World Order” was sweeping the globe. The United States had triumphed. The USSR had dissolved. The Warsaw Pact had collapsed. The Eastern Bloc had been consigned to history. The Berlin Wall had fallen. Socialism and communism had been defeated.

Under those circumstances, since NATO’s raison d’être had ceased to exist, it should logically have been consigned to history as well. Its utility was being questioned; people were asking whom it would protect, and against whom. Consequently, there was an active search for an enemy—or enemies—for NATO. And indeed, they were found.

Weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass persuasion

NATO—which stood idly by, biding its time and waiting for the right conditions while Yugoslavia was being torn apart, its people massacred, and ethnic cleansing and mass rapes were being carried out—finally mobilized at the exact moment and under the specific conditions dictated by US imperialism, delivering a clear message to the world. It announced to the globe that its mandate now encompassed missions such as “peacebuilding, peacekeeping, and combating radical movements and terrorism.” This, of course, aligned seamlessly with the rhetoric of “human rights, freedom, democracy, and the civilized world” championed by the United States as NATO’s founding leader. For the United States cast itself as the guardian of these values and concepts; yet in their name, and hiding behind them, it attacked, bombed, and occupied other nations. It would go so far as to first instigate disputes and conflicts in target nations, lay the groundwork for ethnic, religious, and sectarian strife, actively encourage and provoke these clashes, and then proceed to occupy those countries under the pretext of resolving these very problems and restoring stability.

And there were millions of people across the world who believed these American lies. In particular, the US media, along with global outlets, academics, non-governmental organizations, and think tanks supported by Washington, operated virtually as weapons of mass persuasion, designed to convince and deceive the public.

The United States grew so arrogant in this policy that US Presidents began to declare this mission to be far more than a mere political duty—it was, they claimed, a religious, divine, and moral responsibility. The US peddled this falsehood in Iraq, as it did in Yugoslavia. As Yugoslavia was disintegrating—or being disintegrated—NATO sought to project an image and send a message that, as an alliance whose sole Muslim member was Türkiye, it was defending Muslim Bosniaks and Kosovars against Christian Serbs, thereby shielding the righteous and oppressed from the unjust and tyrannical.

The collapse of the Atlantic system

Years have passed. The global balance of power has shifted. The imperialist dominance and hegemonic capacity of the United States have eroded and continue to decay. Russia, particularly after Putin took power, staged a rapid recovery starting in the 2000s. It consolidated its influence, beginning with its near abroad. China, alongside its economic prowess, expanded its political, military, scientific, and technological power, emerging as the primary competitor and most worrisome adversary of the United States. Within the Atlantic system and the Western alliance—whose rules and institutions were established by the US itself—deep-seated divisions have emerged, running parallel to its fragmentation and loss of power. Under these conditions, the United States is both failing to manage its own deep internal fault lines and socio-class contradictions, and experiencing major friction with its allies. Its intent to reduce Canada to a mere province, its ambition to annex Danish-administered Greenland, its barbarism in Venezuela and Palestine, its joint aggression with Israel against Iran, and its threats directed at Cuba must all be interpreted through this lens.

In the past, an imperialist power would at least superficially fabricate lies to rationalize, justify, and legitimize its invasions, aggression, plunder, and barbarism. For instance, when the United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001, immediately following the September 11 attacks, it cited the presence of Osama bin Laden—the Saudi leader of the Al-Qaeda terrorist network—in Afghanistan as its justification for the invasion. Similarly, during its 2003 invasion of Iraq, the US propagated the lie that “Saddam Hussein possesses chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction.” When the German dictator Adolf Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, and the Italian dictator Mussolini invaded Abyssinia (Ethiopia) in 1935, they too presented historical, political, and geopolitical pretexts, however fabricated, to justify their actions.

Today, US imperialism does not even feel the need to construct such lies or manufacture pretexts. US President Trump openly talks of withdrawing from NATO, while scolding member states and insulting European leaders with arrogant remarks.

For this reason, NATO must be analyzed not by reading the words written in its founding treaty, but by grasping the shifting needs of US imperialism.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Chinese diplomacy ascendant under Xi: All roads lead to Beijing

Avatar photo

Published

on

Beginning in late 2025 and extending throughout 2026, one of the most striking developments in world politics has been the successive convergence of major powers upon Beijing. Direct, high-level engagement with China by actors at the very core of the global system—such as the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany—is widely interpreted as a potent signal of a shifting international order. These visits are indubitably far from routine diplomatic encounters. Rather, they represent symbolic and strategic maneuvers indicative of a fundamental realignment of the world’s power centers. In particular, the intensive engagement with China by four of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council within a brief window demonstrates that Beijing has evolved far beyond a mere economic powerhouse, establishing itself as a principal locus of global diplomacy.

For decades, the global order was predominantly US-centric. Following the end of the Cold War, the United States attained an unrivaled position militarily, economically, and diplomatically. China, conversely, was viewed as a rapidly growing economy defined primarily by its manufacturing capacity and cheap labor force. While Beijing possessed influence within the global system, the primary decision-making mechanisms of world politics remained firmly anchored in Washington. However, the transformation of the past two decades has elevated China from a mere economic giant to the epicenter of global strategic competition.

Today, China stands as one of the most pivotal actors in world trade. The vast majority of global supply chains are intricately linked to Chinese networks. Across a multitude of critical sectors—ranging from electric vehicles and battery technologies to artificial intelligence and solar energy—China has established itself as both a dominant producer and a global standard-setter. This immense economic capacity has naturally engendered commensurate political and diplomatic leverage. Global leaders now recognize that international challenges cannot be effectively managed by bypassing or ignoring China.

It is precisely here that the core significance of these recent visits to China becomes apparent. Donald Trump’s journey to Beijing to meet with Xi Jinping underscored that despite the intense rivalry between Washington and Beijing, direct engagement has become an absolute necessity. Similarly, while Vladimir Putin’s strategic alignment with China has long been established, Moscow’s deepened cooperation with Beijing in the wake of its profound crisis with the West has significantly bolstered China’s geopolitical weight across Eurasia. Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s visit was interpreted as a sign of Europe pivoting toward a more pragmatic trajectory in its policy toward China. The prior engagements of French President Emmanuel Macron had already demonstrated that Europe has no desire for a complete decoupling from China. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s discussions in Beijing were particularly noteworthy from an economic standpoint, as the Chinese market remains indispensable to German industry. Furthermore, the intensive diplomatic relations maintained by Serbian President Alexander Vučić with China demonstrate that Beijing’s influence on the European continent is by no means confined to major Western European states. Through infrastructure investments, transport projects, technology transfers, and defense cooperation in recent years, Serbia has emerged as one of China’s closest partners in Europe.

The common denominator among these visits was the pursuit of direct engagement with Xi Jinping. Xi is no longer viewed merely as the leader of China; for many nations, he has become a preeminent figure shaping the future of the global system. The transformation of China under Xi into a more centralized, visionary state structured around long-term strategic planning has magnified the personal significance of his leadership. Today, the international community is intensely focused on Xi Jinping’s decision-making. Consequently, pilgrimages to Beijing represent an effort to establish a direct, unmediated channel to Xi himself.

Symbolism is of paramount importance here; in international politics, the optics of “who travels to meet whom” are central to the perception of power. If global leaders continuously travel to Beijing while Xi travels sparingly—yet remains the figure everyone seeks to audience with—it naturally reinforces the message: Xi Jinping is no longer just the leader of China, but a chief architect of the global system. Remarkably, Xi’s reduced international travel has not diluted China’s influence. On the contrary, Beijing’s emergence as the primary destination of diplomatic pilgrimage projects an image of profound self-assurance. To many observers, this stands as one of the most visible symbols of a shifting world order. By rendering their respects in Beijing as much as in Washington, global leaders signal that the global equation is now being formulated here.

This shift is driven by tangible geopolitical realities. The contemporary world operates within a highly interdependent framework. While intense competition defines US-China relations, their economies remain deeply intertwined, rendering total decoupling virtually impossible. Across a vast spectrum of critical arenas—including trade, semiconductor technology, artificial intelligence, energy security, the Taiwan question, the Russia-Ukraine war, the Iranian crisis, and global supply chains—China has emerged as a decisive actor. Consequently, no major power, including Washington, can formulate a viable global strategy by sidelining China.

For Europe in particular, the China question has grown increasingly complex. The period between 2022 and 2024 saw Europe adopt a more hawkish and distant posture toward Beijing. However, slowing economic growth, energy crises, and trade frictions with the United States have compelled Europe to seek a more balanced approach. The pivot of European leaders toward Beijing reveals that complete economic decoupling from China would carry prohibitive costs for Europe. This dynamic also underscores the divergent internal priorities within the US-led Western bloc.

China’s rise should not be viewed solely through the prism of its relations with the West; the sphere of influence Beijing has cultivated across the Global South is of equal significance. In recent years, Chinese influence has expanded dramatically across Africa, Latin America, Central Asia, the Gulf States, and South Asia. Within this context, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s visit to China carries profound weight. The China-Pakistan relationship has long been characterized as an “ironclad friendship.” Through the Belt and Road Initiative, China has constructed ports, railways, energy facilities, and critical infrastructure in numerous countries, most notably Pakistan. Furthermore, unlike Western financial institutions, Beijing extends credit and investment with fewer political conditionalities. Consequently, many developing nations view China not only as a vital economic partner but also as a geopolitical counterweight to the West.

All of this inevitably raises the question: “Is China ascendant?” Based on the current landscape, the answer must be in the affirmative. For global leaders, Beijing has now emerged as a diplomatic hub as critical as Washington. Moreover, beyond its sheer economic scale, China is increasingly distinguished by its capacity for conflict resolution. Its pivotal role in facilitating the Iran-Saudi Arabia normalization, coupled with its close ties to Russia and its sweeping influence over the Global South, has significantly amplified Beijing’s diplomatic gravity.

The diplomatic traffic observed throughout 2026 highlights a fundamental truth: the world is no longer unipolar or monocivilizational. Opposite the United States stands a China capable of challenging it economically, technologically, culturally, and diplomatically. Consequently, this new era diverges sharply from the unipolar structure of the “American Century,” resembling instead a multipolar, multi-civilizational order where all actors cooperate and compete with one another simultaneously.

Xi Jinping’s position is central to this paradigm shift. For many leaders today, meeting with Xi in Beijing is not merely a matter of bilateral diplomacy, but a strategic imperative for positioning oneself within the global balance of power. This has immensely enhanced Xi’s personal prestige. Within the international system, there is a growing consensus that on most critical issues, “if Beijing is not at the table, no resolution can be complete.” The acceleration of visits to China since late 2025 is not merely a reflection of a crowded diplomatic calendar; it must be understood as a tangible indicator of a shifting world order. Beijing has transcended its status as an economic core to become one of the primary power centers of global politics. Consequently, Chinese President Xi Jinping is emerging as one of the most influential figures of this new, multipolar, and multi-civilizational world order.

Today, the diplomatic traffic directed toward Beijing is by no means limited to the United States, Russia, or the major European powers. The efforts of leaders from a vast geographical span—from Serbia and Pakistan to the Gulf States and African nations—to establish direct contact with China render Beijing’s central position in the global system increasingly conspicuous. Consequently, these recent visits are interpreted as signs that the power map of the new international order is being redrawn. For many capitals, the path to understanding global developments and formulating future strategies now runs through Beijing as much as it does through Washington. Thus, the adage “All roads lead to Beijing” is rapidly transforming from a rhetorical trope into a defining reality of contemporary international politics.

Umur Tugay Yücel – Political Scientist & Author of the book “The Decline of American Power and the Rising Powers” (China-Russia-India-Brazil).

X: @umur_tugay

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey