Connect with us

Europe

What is the AfD to do about the EU and NATO?

Published

on

Last month, the draft manifesto of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) for the 2014 European Parliament (EP) elections was leaked to the press, unveiling one of its most prominent stances – advocating a ‘controlled disintegration of the EU’. Despite labeling the EU as ‘deeply undemocratic’ and raising doubts about the legitimacy of the EP, the AfD is actively preparing for the 2024 elections with a robust ‘eurosceptic’ list.

During the first part of the AfD congress last weekend, however, party leaders Tino Chrupalla and Alice Weidel referred to the term ‘controlled disintegration’ in the manifesto as an ‘editorial oversight’ and stated that it would be removed in the second part of the congress this weekend.

These statements created a commotion within the party. Björn Höcke, the party’s Thuringia chief and alleged member of the ‘radical’ faction, insists on retaining the statement and has even threatened a ‘revolt’ if he is not given the opportunity to speak. On the other hand, Christine Anderson, ranked fourth on the EP list and allegedly part of the ‘moderate’ wing of the party, continues to advocate for Germany’s immediate departure from the EU.

A federation of nation-states instead of the EU

“We demand a restructuring of Europe in order to use the potential of nation-states and rebuild the bridge to the east,” Chrupalla said last month.

Arguing that the European Union ‘usurps national competences without replacing the nation-state’ and that the European Commission is ‘not democratic enough’ because it ‘lacks legitimacy’, Chrupalla also cited EU sanctions against Russia as a prime example of the EU’s ‘illegitimacy’, saying they ‘do not benefit citizens’ and lead to rising inflation and stagnation.

Instead of the EU, the AfD proposes ‘a new European economic and interest-based community, a league of European nations’, the co-chairman said.

AfD’s quest for ‘Staatsvolk’

In its manifesto, the AfD explicitly rejects the idea of a ‘federal Europe’. “Such an entity has neither a Staatsvolk, which are necessary prerequisites for successful states, nor the necessary minimum cultural identity,” the AfD’s draft reads.

The emphasis on Staatsvolk is ours. In literal translation, the concept of ‘people of the state’ encompasses both all national origins of a sovereign state and another, more ‘ethnonationalist’ meaning, which emphasizes the dominant national element in a sovereign state to the exclusion of other minorities. The first meaning refers to all citizens living on the territory of a country, regardless of their ethnic origin; the second refers to an exclusionary ethnonationalism.

It is important to remember that the meaning of many words in Germany was transformed with the National Socialist government. ‘Volk’ is one of them. This word, which we can easily translate into Turkish as ‘people’, for example came to refer to the German nation bound by blood and soil in the Nazi dictionary.

There are clearly people within the AfD who can defend both meanings of Staatsvolk. The AfD’s arguments in the manifesto strongly revolve around the concepts of ‘nation’, ‘sovereignty’ and ‘identity’. The terms ‘nation’ and ‘national’ alone appear 145 times in the election program.

Is the AfD changing instead of the EU?

The AfD argues that decisions should not be made in Brussels but at the center of the nation-state. The program’s introduction talks about ‘globalist elites’ taking over the EU.

The debate around the controlled disintegration of the EU could become even more heated now that the AfD has accepted the application to join the right-wing group Identity and Democracy (ID) in the EP. The current main ID parties, the French National Union (Marine Le Pen) and the Italian Lega (Matteo Salvini), seem to have softened their positions on a federal Europe.

Marine Le Pen, for example, has abandoned her previous advocacy of dissolving the EU and is instead pushing for a ‘fundamental reform’ of the bloc. Similarly, the Lega is now gradually abandoning its ‘eurosceptic’ ideas and is trying to build a broad alliance with center-right forces for the upcoming elections.

In an interview with Deutschlandfunk at the end of last month, Harald Weye, the AfD parliamentary group’s spokesman for European policy, argued that the phrase ‘controlled disintegration of the EU’ was literally ‘one person’s grammatical carelessness’. In the elections of 2017, 2019 and 2021, the AfD openly advocated a ‘Dexit’ – Germany’s exit from the EU – as a ‘must’. The program for the 2021 Bundestag elections stated: “The transformation of the European Union into a planned economic superstate in recent years has led us to the realization that our fundamental reform approaches cannot be implemented in the EU. We consider it necessary for Germany to leave the European Union and establish a new European economic and interest community,” it said.

AfD’s plan for a ‘more German Europe’

An analysis of the Magdeburg party conference in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (faz) claims that the co-chairs have different views on the issue. According to faz, Alice Weidel sees withdrawal as absurd, but Tino Chrupalla is as sympathetic to a controlled break-up of the EU as he is to withdrawal from NATO.

According to a report in WELT, sources close to AfD leader Weidel say that the AfD is advocating a softer wording in order not to scare its partners in the ID, including its allies in the EP, the National Union and the Lega. Weidel recently told Stern, “I prefer to talk about breaking up the EU into parts, which makes sense in some parts, such as common security and defense policy. But that’s where it has failed so far,” he said.

A similar attitude can be seen in the attitude towards the eurozone. “Germany doesn’t need the euro,” the party’s 2013 Bundestag election campaign said. The following year, this position was softened and a ‘more flexible monetary order’ was proposed for the EU and ‘the stability-oriented euro countries should create a smaller monetary system among themselves on the basis of the Maastricht Treaty’.

Ten years later, the draft European Election Program for 2024 does not even mention leaving the Eurozone. It is now only about changing the Eurosystem. In fact, the AfD’s proposal to keep Germany in the eurozone and introduce a more ‘stability-oriented’ monetary system is criticized as making the EU ‘even more German than before’. The European economic area, which is very favorable for German capital, should remain with a common currency, but the costs of maintaining it should be reduced. Above all, there should be no ‘transfer payments’ to other countries at Germany’s expense.

It is important to note that the AfD is not alone. During the Greek crisis, the Free Democrats (FDP), and Frank Schäffler in particular, opposed the bailout package for Greece and financial aid for the Eurozone in general. There is no doubt that these ideas are also quite widespread within the CDU/CSU.

Germany’s withdrawal from NATO is being discussed

In addition to the EU, another topic of discussion is the US and NATO.

In the party’s European election manifesto, seven AfD state leaders, including Björn Höcke, call for ‘European states to finally take responsibility for their own security in their own hands’ and describe NATO as ‘the so-called protective umbrella of a distant hegemon’.

The Seven’s motion argues that the ‘Zeitenwende’ (turning point) that Chancellor Olaf Scholz proposed last year for the reform of the German army should mean that European states should ‘take responsibility for their own security into their own hands’ instead of seeking refuge under the ‘so-called protective umbrella of a distant and self-serving hegemon’.

The motion goes on to say that European countries have been ‘set back’ by the policies of the European Union and that “the policy of military alliance has exacerbated these developments. The EU’s Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP) has failed to establish an independent European collective security system in the face of the US-led NATO,” the motion says.

The motion seeks to amend the preamble of the Federal Program Commission’s draft motion. The proposal states that the eastward expansion of the EU and NATO has given the US ‘even deeper influence over the European order’. The seven believe that European countries are being drawn into conflicts that are not their own and are diametrically opposed to their ‘natural interests’, such as ‘fruitful trade relations in the Eurasian region’.

But Martin Vincentz, the leader of the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, does not want the motion to be perceived as a position against NATO. “As one of the signatories, I don’t see the motion as an exit from NATO, but as a strengthening of European defense policy in the interest of NATO,” Vincentz told WELT AM SONNTAG.

It is hard to say that there is a clear consensus within the party on relations with the US and NATO. For example, a joint motion by Kurt Kleinschmidt, president of Schleswig-Holstein, and state parliamentarians from North Rhine-Westphalia and Berlin states that ‘excellent political relations require that American foreign and security policy strategies do not contradict German and European strategies’.

The group also wants to include in the European election manifesto a sentence from the basic program adopted in 2016: “NATO membership is in Germany’s foreign and security policy interests insofar as NATO limits itself to its task as a defense alliance.”

Another motion for an amendment on NATO was submitted by some state parliamentarians from Hamburg and North Rhine-Westphalia. “In view of the emerging and possibly unstoppable bloc formation between the two rivals, the United States and China, we believe that it is best for Germany to remain in the current alliance and use all possibilities to prioritize its own national interests,” the motion reads.

This includes expanding NATO’s European footprint and thus Germany’s own economic, cultural and military capabilities “in order to have a stronger influence in the world and to avoid having to obey Washington’s every whim,” according to the motion. According to the AfD, “then there would also be no need for a permanent deployment of US troops in Europe.”

The AfD’s 2017 party program ‘Manifesto for Germany’ also states that “NATO membership is in Germany’s interests in terms of foreign and security policy as long as NATO’s role remains as a defense alliance. We are in favor of a significant strengthening of the European pillar of the North Atlantic Alliance.” However, the AfD favors the withdrawal of allied troops and nuclear weapons deployed on German soil.

Europe

EU and allies pull conference backing after US pressure over panel

Published

on

The Trump administration pressured several countries to withdraw their support for a leading European conference on disinformation.

Canada, Lithuania, and the European External Action Service (EEAS) subsequently complied.

Held on Wednesday and Thursday, the #Disinfo2026 conference serves as the annual gathering of Europe’s anti-disinformation community, bringing together hundreds of researchers, journalists, technology specialists, and policymakers at a hotel in Vilnius, Lithuania.

The conference is organised by EU DisinfoLab, an independent non-profit organisation based in Brussels.

A few days before the conference, the logos of its main sponsors: the Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the European External Action Service (EEAS), and Global Affairs Canada, were removed from the website.

Photographs of the event shared with The Guardian also show white stickers affixed over these organisations’ logos printed on official conference materials.

This appears to indicate that the logos were removed from the programme in haste.

Three people familiar with the matter, including European officials, confirmed that the US Department of State contacted several governments regarding their support for the conference.

Internal US Department of State documents obtained by The Guardian also reveal that US officials thanked Lithuania for “taking US concerns seriously”.

The document notes that Washington was “grateful” that Lithuania found the organisation of a panel describing the US as a foreign information threat “reprehensible and baffling”, and welcomed its decision to limit participation in the conference.

According to information obtained by The Guardian, France was also contacted.

The panel, titled “The US as a FIMI threat: adapt, accept, counter” (where the acronym FIMI stands for “foreign information manipulation and interference”), was held on Wednesday.

The panel addressed how Europe’s disinformation community could regain resilience without Washington, and appears to mark the first time the conference raised the idea that the US could be a disinformation actor in Europe.

According to sources and internal documents, the Department of State focused specifically on this panel, which featured three American speakers, including a former CIA officer.

According to a person briefed on the discussions, the source of other correspondence appeared to be the office of Sarah B. Rogers, Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs.

In their statements, Lithuania, Canada, and the EU noted that the conference programme did not align with their official views regarding the US role in disinformation.

Yet this programme had been drawn up months before they withdrew their support, dating back to June.

In a statement, the Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said: “Lithuania cancelled its participation in the ‘Disinfo 2026’ conference because parts of the conference programme diverged from the government’s official position.”

Samantha Lafleur, a spokesperson for Global Affairs Canada (GAC), said: “GAC carefully reviews participation in and sponsorship of external events on a case-by-case basis. Following changes to the framing of several panel discussions, GAC decided to review its participation in those sessions at the EU DisinfoLab 2026 conference,” adding that Canadian officials still attended the conference.

An EU spokesperson confirmed that the European External Action Service decided to withdraw its support for the conference because “the organisers chose to frame some discussions in a way that did not align with official EU positions.”

According to information obtained by The Guardian, EU officials disagreed with describing the US as a disinformation actor.

Despite withdrawing its name as an official backer, the EU continues to provide funding for the conference.

Continue Reading

Europe

MI6 investigates potential leaks after former BND chief is detained

Published

on

British intelligence agencies, led by MI6, are investigating whether their confidential data or spies were compromised in the biggest espionage scandal in modern German history.

August Hanning, the former head of Germany’s foreign intelligence service, the BND, along with a current senior official at the agency identified only as Manfred D, was detained on Tuesday on suspicion of espionage and treason.

Hanning faces allegations that he unlawfully amassed thousands of classified documents over a 16-year period through Manfred D and sold a portion of those secrets to a foreign power.

German security sources noted that some of the high-level information handled by the pair originated from partner intelligence agencies abroad, raising the prospect that British and American intelligence may have been leaked.

This development has brought accompanying concerns that US and British human sources operating in the field, such as active agents or informants, could have their identities exposed through the shared information.

Matthew Dunn, a former MI6 intelligence officer, said British intelligence services would meticulously review everything shared with the BND and assess the risks.

Dunn said:

“There is no doubt that there is a major internal security review going on inside MI6 right now, looking meticulously at the intelligence shared with a very trusted liaison partner and assessing whether any of that compromises MI6-related operations and people.”

Nevertheless, the former spy stated he would be “very surprised” if this situation affected the agency’s relationship with the BND, adding that he expected the two services would act cooperatively.

He explained that during intelligence sharing, the introduction of “automatic checks and balances” mechanisms, including the redaction of information relating to sources, is standard practice.

News of the scandal has shocked the Western intelligence community. Sources described the alleged breach as a major success for a foreign power, noting that it could cause serious damage to the Western intelligence-sharing alliance.

Alongside MI6 and GCHQ, multiple US agencies are also believed to be conducting a systematic internal review of all sensitive information shared with European allies during the period in question.

According to information obtained by The Telegraph, the primary focus of these agencies is understood to be protecting sources who may have been compromised due to the alleged leak.

Similar audits are likely to be conducted by all of Germany’s intelligence-sharing partners and allies.

While it remains unclear when German authorities notified their counterparts of the security breach, it is understood to have occurred prior to Tuesday’s arrests.

German media reported that the leaked information included details regarding Iran’s nuclear programme, the Russian military, and classified documents belonging to foreign partner agencies.

The statement noted that most of the documents in question contained “confidential information prepared by the federal intelligence service exclusively for internal purposes, particularly for intelligence briefings aimed at the executive branch.”

According to the prosecution, Hanning used this information in his private consulting activities.

“In one incident, Hanning used classified intelligence provided by Manfred D to prepare an analysis for an official of a foreign intelligence service,” the statement said.

Authorities have not yet determined whether this information reached its intended recipient. On Tuesday night, Der Spiegel reported that the analysis in question was prepared for the Azerbaijani intelligence service.

Azerbaijan maintains security and intelligence partnerships with Russia, Israel, Türkiye, and the US, as well as other countries.

Hanning had previously adopted a hawkish posture towards Moscow in German national security debates.

In a 2024 interview with The Telegraph, he stated that his country had been “naive” and needed to be “awakened” to the reality of a potential war:

“People don’t realise that there is a serious danger: there is sympathy for Russia, especially in East Germany and on the far left and within the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, parts of which are demanding an end to sanctions against Russia.”

According to The Insider, Hanning travelled to Russia at least seven times after leaving the BND.

The former intelligence chief made all of these trips between 2015 and 2019, frequently spending only a single day in Moscow.

Continue Reading

Europe

Bill to drop NATO membership goal submitted to Ukrainian parliament

Published

on

A bill proposing to enshrine neutral status in the constitution and abandon the goal of joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) has been submitted to the Ukrainian parliament.

According to a report by the Strana portal, the proposal was introduced to the parliamentary agenda by lawmaker Anna Skorokhod.

The drafted constitutional amendment stipulates that Ukraine must not participate in military alliances and must confirm that it harbours no aggressive intentions against any state.

The text notes that neutrality status should be registered through “guaranteeing non-participation in any military alliance and confirming the absence of intent to attack any country.”

While the bill submitted by Skorokhod aims to remove the NATO goal from the constitution, it envisages maintaining constitutional guarantees for the country’s course towards full European Union (EU) membership.

NATO goal in constitution took effect in 2019

The strategic goal of EU and NATO membership enshrined in Ukraine’s constitution was adopted in February 2019, during the tenure of then-president Petro Poroshenko.

The constitutional amendments in question obliged the government to implement this course and designated the president as the guarantor of the process.

Poroshenko, who assumed the leadership of the European Solidarity party in May of that year, has led the party ever since.

Advocating Euro-Atlantic integration, Poroshenko described EU and NATO membership in a 2026 assessment as one of the country’s long-term security guarantees.

Moscow insists on neutrality condition

The Moscow administration links a potential resolution to the war in Ukraine to a series of conditions that Kyiv must fulfil.

These conditions include the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions, as well as the international legal recognition of these territories, alongside Crimea and Sevastopol, as Russian soil.

Ukraine’s formal renunciation of NATO membership maintains its weight among Moscow’s primary demands.

Russian officials state that Ukraine’s neutral status must be explicitly included in future agreements.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey