Question:

Minister, Russia is stepping up its provocations against NATO, also against Germany. After the recent drone incidents, many people are more worried than ever. Are you, as well?

Johann Wadephul:

We’d be careless not to be worried. We can’t afford to not pay attention. But that does not mean that we should be overcome by worry. We must remain attentive and enhance our ability to respond. It’s a process. We have, however, been perfectly clear about our analysis of Russia’s behaviour.

Question:

And what’s that analysis?

Johann Wadephul:

Russia is testing us and would like to know what sorts of things we will put up with. These are infringements on our sovereignty. Therefore, we must be able to respond. So especially as regards air defence, we’re going to build up additional capabilities.

Question:

Responses so far do not seem to have impressed Vladimir Putin. He just keeps pressing on. Should we merely defend, or must we also deter?

Johann Wadephul:

I think our reaction has been very appropriate. Overreacting now would be a mistake. We’re already seeing in the public debate how Russia is attempting to turn the tables on us; that would be all the more the case if we were to respond militarily. After all, creating disturbance is precisely what Putin aims to do. The best response to this is to remain calm. At the same time, we must not assume that Putin will simply back down. Effective deterrence requires, for one thing, that we be technically equipped to respond. Domestically, we must also create the legal basis on which we could, for example, shoot down drones. The Federal Ministry of the Interior is working on this now, by drafting the necessary bills.

Question:

Should the Bundeswehr be given greater authority to shoot down drones?

Johann Wadephul:

It doesn’t necessarily have to be the Bundeswehr. When drones fly above critical infrastructure in Germany then this is part of the security and safety tasks that can be performed by the police. We still need to determine whether it should be the Land or the Federal Police that will respond, on what legal basis they would do so, and what technical means should be used. We need to know what we can and are allowed to do when such things happen.

Question:

Do the current threats have implications for the new military service? Should compulsory military service be enacted more swiftly and in a more binding way?

Johann Wadephul:

I have already said this many times, and it remains my position: I am in favour of an immediate introduction of the military draft! However, this is something we must discuss in the coalition. The Government has made proposals. Now, the parliamentary groups must negotiate and decide on what the law should look like. And the general circumstances must of course be taken into account.

Question:

Ukrainian President Zelensky has warned that Putin is planning an attack on another European country even during the war in Ukraine. Is this exaggerated?

Johann Wadephul:

It is our assumption that, at the end of this decade, there is the possibility of a further Russian attack. So we need to step up our defence efforts in terms of materiel and personnel – but there is no reason to panic. Our intelligence services enable us to monitor Russia’s military behaviour at all times.

Question:

Your US colleague Rubio met with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov in New York. Has the time not come for you, too, to speak with Lavrov?

Johann Wadephul:

At this point, I do not think that would make sense. The United States and Russia are permanent members of the UN Security Council. For that reason already, the two countries have direct ties. Judging by what we heard Mr Lavrov say in New York, we should not expect to have a serious or fruitful conversation with him. Lavrov’s address to the UN General Assembly was a ruthless attempt to rewrite history. That’s quite an accomplishment: first, start a war, and then accuse those who support the other side of being aggressive. Yet that is Putin’s Russia. Only when there is a credible new approach will it make sense to engage in conversation.

Question:

US President Trump is giving the impression that he thinks differently now about the war in Ukraine. He believes that Ukraine can win back significant territory, and he believes Russia to be weak. Is this change of course real?

Johann Wadephul:

For Ukraine, it is a sign of hope. President Trump, and with him the US Administration, have come to the realisation that Russia is continuing to wage this war – despite the considerable efforts Trump has made, by hosting the Alaska summit meeting, with a view to ending the war. Trump will not be fooled. It is my assumption that the US will be imposing sanctions on Russia. They have already prepared various packages and proposals that are on the table. Independently of this, Europe is getting ready to further tighten its sanctions.

Question:

Can Ukraine win against Russia, or are we ultimately talking about a negotiated solution?

Johann Wadephul:

Nearly every war ends in a negotiated solution. The question is: what will the conditions be? Ukraine has already shown that it can win back Russian-occupied territory. I think that, from today’s perspective, it would be purely speculative to say whether and in what way Ukraine could win back all of its territory. This is not about drawing out the war for years on end, but rather about ensuring that weapons are silenced, and that the dying stops as soon as possible.

Question:

Germany wants to assume more responsibility in the world, this is what you announced at the UN General Assembly. What does this mean for us? Will this require more money, will it be more dangerous?

Johann Wadephul:

There is a price attached to protecting our interests in the world. Yet the price of not doing so is much higher. The United Nations are feeling the consequences of others withdrawing, in particular the United States. Germany, the second largest donor, must not follow suit. We won’t be able to take the place of the US. But we should look at where it makes sense for us to step up our contributions. From Germany’s perspective, money spent on the rules‑based order is a good investment.

Question:

Will there be implications for the next Federal budget?

Johann Wadephul:

This is indeed something we need to work on – it’s on the agenda of our budget discussions. We need to examine whether we can invest more in our global interests. Humanitarianism and Germany’s interests are two sides of the same coin. The same applies to safety and security measures and the prevention of more refugee flows. We can link up all of these things by expressing our interest in comprehensive cooperation. Also, great opportunities are presenting themselves for Germany, precisely because others are scaling back their engagement. We must seize these opportunities, for example by cooperating on security policy and economically, and with a view to supplying our corporations with raw materials, for example with rare earths. Or by gaining new trade partners and gaining access to new sales markets.

Question:

What have reactions been like to your ambition to take on greater responsibility?

Johann Wadephul:

I have noted a great openness of others with regard to our country. Many countries expect us to assume a leading role. They want us to get engaged, and to play a mediating role, as well, in conflicts. We will not be able to meet all expectations. I am, however, trying to take a pragmatic approach, one that defines our and European interests and one that links these interests to the concerns and ambitions of other countries.

Question:

In New York, when Germany rejected the idea of recognition of Palestine, you experienced how we’re now in more of an outlier position. How bitter a realisation was that?

Johann Wadephul:

If our position serves Israel’s security, then it’s the right position to take. However, regarding policy on Gaza, we’re being very clear; we have, after all, also imposed a partial weapons embargo on Israel. And we’ve supported the conference on the two‑state solution, because we are convinced that only the two‑state solution will bring peace and stability and respect on both sides in the long term. So ours is a helpful position, for Israelis and Palestinians in equal measure. Practically all Arab neighbouring states recognise this and made an effort to speak with me at the UN General Assembly.

Question:

Can Germany be a mediator between Arab states and Israel?

Johann Wadephul:

My role is that of a mediator. But the primary mediator in the Gaza Strip is the United States. I lend my support.

Question:

Israel accepts US President Donald Trump’s plan for ending the war in Gaza with the Islamist Palestinian organisation Hamas. Could a ceasefire be just around the corner?

Johann Wadephul:

Developments in recent days make me cautiously optimistic. The US plan for Gaza offers hope that there can be an end to the fighting, as well as an end to the suffering, and that the hostages can be released. Hamas must now seize this opportunity. We have accompanied the negotiations from the start with numerous talks. Along with our US, Arab and European partners, we have a common goal: lasting security for Israel and political prospects for the Palestinians. At the same time, it is clear that also this current proposal cannot be implemented immediately. There are lots of urgent questions that need to be answered, such as: How will the Gaza Strip be administered in the future? How will security be ensured? How will the delivery of humanitarian supplies be reinstated? How will reconstruction be organised? This will remain an arduous process.

Question:

What role can Germany play with regard to the ceasefire?

Johann Wadephul:

We stand ready to provide concrete support for the implementation of the plan. We can contribute a great deal to resolving some of the operation-related questions I’ve just mentioned. We have agreed to contribute to the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip; our efforts will be coordinated by the Federal Foreign Office in cooperation with the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. This is another way we are providing an incentive for an agreement to be reached.

Question:

What can you do now to save the German hostages?

Johann Wadephul:

The US plan aims to free all those who are currently still being held captive. No distinction by nationality is being made. All hostages must be released now. Because all hostages are in such poor condition, all efforts must now focus on getting them out of the hands of Hamas as quickly as possible.

Question:

You have invested a lot of time into efforts to defuse the conflict over Iran’s nuclear programme. This has not been successful. How disappointed are you?

Johann Wadephul:

The greatest disappointment has been felt by the people in Iran. The regime has taken wrong decisions that will have serious consequences. I did not want anyone to claim that we did not make every effort to prevent this new UN sanctions regime from being imposed, as well as to find a negotiated solution. Now, the sanctions have been reimposed; there was no alternative. Iran must never acquire a nuclear weapon. In the negotiations, Iran has lacked credibility and has failed to ensure transparency. The sanctions will have a critical impact on Iran’s economy. It is my hope that the regime in Tehran will now set a new course. That’s why our offer to resume talks remains on the table.

Question:

But is there not a danger that Iran will now speed up its efforts to build a nuclear bomb?

Johann Wadephul:

This will not be possible in the very short term due to the military action that was taken by Israel and the United States. Ultimately, however, there is this fear. That’s why we continue to press for a negotiated solution with Iran, so that there can be a long‑term resolution to this issue.