Question:

The old world order, which Germany benefited from for so long and which brought us prosperity and security, no longer exists – and a new one is not yet on the horizon. Which illusion must we Germans say goodbye to?

Johann Wadephul:

That everyone is just waiting to be our best friend. We must be much more assertive in seeking partners. We must define key countries with which we share security and economic interests. We must approach these countries with proposals that are mutually beneficial – even if we do not agree 100 percent on all issues. And we shouldn’t be pointing fingers when seeking to balance interests.

Question:

What do you mean specifically?

Johann Wadephul:

Take large emerging economies such as Brazil – or Indonesia, which I have just visited. They define their own interests, for example in the BRICS group of countries, which also includes China and Russia. We cannot afford to say, nor would it be wise to do so, that anyone who cooperates with these countries cannot be our partner. On the contrary, we have a vital interest in expanding our global partnerships. Not least as an export nation, our response to isolationism and tariff barriers can only be greater openness. That’s why now is the time to reach out to emerging countries around the world, be they in South America, Africa or the Indo-Pacific. We do not share all, but many important goals – such as the need for reliable rules in global trade. If we manage to expand our cooperation and conclude new free trade agreements, we will have achieved a great deal.

Question:

You sound very confident, but aren’t we currently witnessing a world in which coercion and the law of the strongest are the decisive levers of power? This applies to the US under Donald Trump, it applies to Russia under Vladimir Putin, and it applies to China’s strategy of dominance under Xi Jinping. With our political style based on agreements and compliance with rules, we Germans don’t stand a chance.

Johann Wadephul:

My experience on my trips and in my conversations has been different. There are many countries around the world that share certain interests and principles with us and who also want us to defend them together.

Question:

But how can partnerships with Indonesia, Brazil and other countries help us if, for example, China is forcing these countries into ever greater dependence with its economic and, in some cases, military dominance?

Johann Wadephul:

I don’t deny that China is acting in this way. But these are deals made out of necessity, not positive proposals. We, on the other hand, are able to put forward positive proposals, and we must seize this opportunity. We must encourage the German business community, our companies, to enter these markets. When it comes to investment decisions and financing investments, we need to get more flexible and, above all, faster.

Question:

In an essay for the newspaper FAZ, historian Martin Schulze Wessel described Donald Trump’s presidency as a shift in destiny from East to West. He wrote that the EU’s foreign policy sovereignty was shrinking dramatically and that Europe’s security – and thus Germany’s future – was now being decided in Washington. How can we still achieve our own goals in such a world?

Johann Wadephul:

Always in alliance with other partners. Just look at what has happened in recent months with regard to Ukraine alone. The Federal Chancellor, together with his counterparts from France, the UK and Poland, has formed a “coalition of the willing” to support Ukraine. It already comprises around 30 countries, including non-European nations such as Japan. As a result, the future of Ukraine – and thus also the future of Europe – is not being negotiated over our heads, as our presence in Washington last Monday also demonstrated. So we can see that we have weight and influence. And right now, we have the opportunity to forge new alliances that will make us stronger.

Question:

Aren’t you painting too rosy a picture? To be strong internationally, Germany needs a strong EU – but Europe is proving increasingly powerless in key policy areas. Our importance in world trade is dwindling in the face of the rise of China; in the Middle East and Ukraine, the US is the decisive player; the migration issue at our external borders remains unresolved, and enlargement policy is effectively dead in the water. And all of Europe’s major players, with the exception of Germany, have major financial problems or are – to put it bluntly – bankrupt.

Johann Wadephul:

I don’t agree with a single one of these arguments. In the tariff dispute, the European Union made it clear to the US that we wanted a compromise – but that we were prepared to respond. We’re showing Russia very clearly that we’re prepared to defend ourselves militarily and won’t back down when it comes to our interests. In Ukraine, the US is not the sole decision-maker, as we’re currently seeing. In the Middle East, the US is undoubtedly an important factor, but we Europeans are also important, especially us Germans. I myself am engaged in intensive talks and am using our good relationship with Israel to exert influence. The EU’s enlargement policy may be entering a whole new chapter because several countries could join in the coming years – not only the countries of the Western Balkans, but also Iceland, for example, which is clearly considering the prospect of EU membership. So I see major challenges for Europe and the EU. We must work on ourselves and also implement tough reforms to strengthen our global competitiveness. The crucial thing, however, is that it’s up to us to get the European model of success back on track. Germany has a key role to play here.

Question:

Yet the threat to Europe from a volatile US President remains.

Johann Wadephul:

The dilemma about Donald Trump’s policies is that they’re causing many nations and their citizens to become increasingly wary of the US. This development doesn’t make the US stronger in the medium term, and if parts of the world turn away from the US, that’s not in our interests either.

Question:

How will Donald Trump’s presidency change transatlantic relations in the long term?

Johann Wadephul:

That’s not something we can predict with any accuracy. However, it’s important to me that there are also positive effects – including the clear willingness of Europeans to assume greater responsibility for their own security. Our announcement that we would increase defence spending to five percent of gross domestic product was met by Trump with a clear US commitment to NATO – including a commitment to provide assistance with defence under Article 5 in the event of an attack on a NATO member. And we have seen in the case of the Ukraine negotiations that Trump is indeed willing to adopt European positions. This shows that we’re exchanging ideas and that we have influence. If we can build on this, then I’m not worried about the transatlantic alliance.

Question:

But an alliance also depends on being able to rely on each other. Can Europeans, can we Germans, really still rely on the US?

Johann Wadephul:

The US President, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defence have all clearly stated that the US stands by Europe and is also prepared to defend Europe. We shouldn’t question this any more than the Americans themselves do.

Question:

So you’re relying on Donald Trump?

Johann Wadephul:

Yes. Once again, we Europeans shouldn’t question the US’ promise of protection when they give it to us. At the same time, we Europeans must continue to work on our independence in terms of security policy. This is an expectation that the US rightly has, and it’s also very much in our own interests.

Question:

How should we deal with a Russia that’s permanently hostile towards us, possibly also after Vladimir Putin’s time in office?

Johann Wadephul:

Quite simply by ensuring that we’re always in a position to defend ourselves against any aggression.

Question:

Do we have to be permanently ready to act in deterrence?

Johann Wadephul:

Yes, definitely. Germany has relied for far too long on the assumption that Russia wouldn’t attack another country if we only invested enough in our mutual relationship. Think of the Nord Stream gas pipelines. In retrospect, these were serious political mistakes that have yet to be adequately addressed. Our task now is to do everything in our power to ensure that something like this never happens again. Unfortunately, we cannot place any trust whatsoever in Russian foreign policy right now. And that’s why we must play things safe.

Question:

What scenarios of Russian aggression against NATO and/or the EU are being considered at the Federal Foreign Office?

Johann Wadephul:

We take what Russia is saying, more or less clearly, very seriously. These are primarily statements concerning the states of the former Soviet Union...

Question:

... you mean the Baltic countries: Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania...

Johann Wadephul:

... and also the Republic of Moldova. In all of these places, we Europeans must be prepared for Russian provocations or even military action. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the Russian Foreign Minister wore a sweatshirt adorned with the abbreviation for the former Soviet Union at the meeting in Alaska, which was supposed to be about peace. This was a clear demonstration of Russia’s claim to power and domination. To take a leaf out of Goethe’s Torquato Tasso: one sees the aim and is at once repelled.

Question:

If you refer to Goethe, allow me to quote military historian Sönke Neitzel, who claims that we may be experiencing “our last summer in peace”. What evidence is there that he’s right?

Johann Wadephul:

If the quote from Neitzel is a vehement call for deterrence, then I support it. When it comes to the specific point in time, I think that it’s an exaggeration. But it’s true that we must take our defence readiness seriously. I spent a significant part of my life during the Cold War, and I deliberately joined the Bundeswehr for four years after gaining my higher education entrance qualification. The simple logic behind security in the West was that we had to be capable of deterrence – and deterrence meant being able to defend this country at any time in such a way that any attack would pose a considerable risk.

Question:

What security guarantees can and will Europe give Ukraine?

Johann Wadephul:

The ones that are needed.

Question:

And they are?

Johann Wadephul:

It must be ensured that Russia will not continue to attack Ukraine. Therefore, these security guarantees will have to involve a significant contribution from the US. A great deal of work is still required with respect to formulating this together wisely. Firstly, Ukraine will only be prepared to negotiate, possibly also on territorial issues, if reliable security guarantees are in place. On the other hand, achieving peace between Ukraine and Russia will only be possible if these security guarantees are also accepted by Russia. So this will be one of the most difficult negotiations imaginable. That being said, I hope that they will be successful.

Question:

The position of all Western countries to date has been that there should be no direct military contact between Russian and Western soldiers. We would be abandoning that position by sending ground troops to Ukraine. What do you say to those in Germany who are concerned that this could lead to a further escalation of this war?

Johann Wadephul:

If that were the case, we would not have been allowed to station a Bundeswehr brigade in Lithuania.

Question:

But Lithuania is NATO territory, Ukraine is not.

Johann Wadephul:

Let me give you a second example. As part of the airspace surveillance of the Baltic region, which the Bundeswehr is also involved in, NATO aircraft are already in regular contact with Russian aircraft that enter our airspace and are pushed back. I consider the fear of escalation to be exaggerated; there’s a reason why Russian disinformation repeatedly exploits this.

Question:

According to Vladimir Putin’s logic, he will never be able to agree to NATO troops in Ukraine, because that’s precisely what he’s waging war against; that’s why he started the so-called “special military operation” in the first place. What’s the upshot of all this?

Johann Wadephul:

I understand your focus on concrete security guarantees for Ukraine. However, I want to say very clearly at this point that I very much doubt that negotiations between Russia and Ukraine will take place in the foreseeable future. Despite intensive efforts by the West, and despite Ukraine’s willingness to compromise, even discussing the current front line as the basis for a ceasefire, Putin is not budging at all at the moment. Those who want to negotiate do not continue to bombard others relentlessly. I strongly advise keeping up the pressure on Russia. It’s more likely that new sanctions will be imposed on Russia in the near future than that Putin will agree to a ceasefire in negotiations.

Question:

Does that also apply to the US?

Johann Wadephul:

Trump’s response could be very clear. These negotiations are now, in a sense, “his” project. If Putin torpedoes the whole thing, the “coalition of the willing” certainly expects the US to respond with sanctions and also further arms deliveries to Ukraine.

Question:

Since you mention keeping up the pressure on Russia, when will the Federal Government supply Ukraine with Taurus missiles, as announced by Friedrich Merz during the election campaign?

Johann Wadephul:

We will be watching developments very closely over the coming weeks and then take decisions in Berlin.

Question:

You said just now that Germany must be permanently ready to act in deterrence – but this coalition currently rules out general conscription. Isn’t that a bit of a contradiction? And couldn’t a situation arise in which this country needs to return to general conscription?

Johann Wadephul:

I make no secret of being an advocate of conscription, and the need for credible deterrence is currently increasing as opposed to decreasing. The coalition agreement, which is the most important basis for our work, neither automatically provides for its introduction nor rules it out. So we will have to talk about this. I will, of course, contribute to this process.

Question:

At the beginning of this interview, we talked about the realignment of the world order, and that also includes the events in the Middle East. Germany officially supports the two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, even though it has long been clear that this will not happen in the foreseeable future, and perhaps never. There’s no majority for this in the Israeli Parliament, nor is there any Palestinian force that could support it. Why the diplomatic charade?

Johann Wadephul:

A two-state solution is the goal of the vast majority of the world’s countries, and it reflects the basic constellation of this conflict under international law and the Oslo Accords. I know of no better scenario in which Israelis and Palestinians can live peacefully side by side. And that’s why it makes sense to continue pursuing the two-state solution, even with intermediate stages. We’re working on this together with Israel’s Arab neighbours.

Question:

How precisely?

Johann Wadephul:

Our primary focus at the moment is on the Gaza Strip. We’re doing everything in our power to bring about a ceasefire there and also to secure the release of the hostages held by Hamas. I can assure you that we’re engaged in intensive talks with neighbouring Arab countries and, with the involvement of our European partners, are working on how the Gaza Strip can be administered and secured after a ceasefire and the release of all hostages.

Question:

But while we’re talking here, Israel is continuing to create facts on the ground in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. You’re in close contact with your Israeli counterpart, and the Israeli Government is aware of Germany’s position and its criticism of the military operation in Gaza. However, none of this is making any impression on Prime Minister Netanyahu. He simply carries on. How powerless do you feel?

Johann Wadephul:

Despite all the criticism of Israel, I would like to call to mind that, since 7 October 2023, Hamas has been holding completely innocent people in the most horrific hostage situation, mistreating them and letting them die. And that’s why the very first demand we’re making of Hamas is that they release these hostages at long last, and the very first and clearest accusation we level is at the Hamas leadership for not taking this step. Only then do I criticise the Israeli Government for its current actions in Gaza, which we strongly reject.

Question:

Nevertheless, this raises a very painful question for Germany. The Federal Republic in particular has a special historical responsibility for the security of Jewish life and for the existence of the State of Israel. Israel is also considered to be the only democracy in the Middle East. But let’s be honest, in view of Netanyahu’s policies and the statements made by his right-wing extremist ministers, are we really still dealing with the Israel of days gone by?

Johann Wadephul:

We consider the Israeli Government’s policy in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank to be wrong. However, we also see that there’s considerable support for it among the Israeli population. That’s why it’s so important to work towards a prospect of peace that must be accepted by both societies in order to achieve genuine progress.

Question:

The example of Germany’s policy towards Israel clearly shows how little foreign and domestic policy can be separated from each other at the moment. The Chancellor’s decision to stop supplying Israel with weapons that could be used in Gaza caused quite a stir. As Foreign Minister, what have you learned about the culture of debate in our country?

Johann Wadephul:

I was surprised that the aspects the Federal Chancellor took into account in his decision were completely swept under the carpet by some people. The Federal Government stands fully behind its special responsibility for the security and existence of Israel and is at the same time bound by international law in its support. We had to assess – politically, legally and also as Christians – the fact that the UN now estimates that well over 50,000 Palestinians have been killed, the vast majority of whom were not Hamas fighters, and that over half a million people in the Gaza Strip are at acute risk of starvation.

Question:

With what we know today, what, if anything, was perhaps even good about all the furore?

Johann Wadephul:

The whole situation has had an impact on foreign policy. I myself had travelled to Israel the week before and warned the Israeli Government, whose response was to declare a new stage in the fight against Hamas. We would have forfeited our international credibility as the Federal Government if we had not acted in response. This was noted both in Israel and in the rest of the world. We want to be a credible partner, both for Israel and also for peace around the world. Sometimes this means being candid about unpleasant truths in conversation with our friends.

Question:

And in Germany?

Johann Wadephul:

It led to a storm that cleared the air. Sometimes it’s necessary to think clearly and then clearly articulate what you stand for – and what you can no longer condone.

Interview: Marc Brost