Dr. Wolfgang Bittner

The West-East Conflict—An Orchestration

This is the edited transcript of the presentation of Wolfgang Bittner to Panel 1, “A Decoupling of the Two Systems or a New Paradigm for Humanity?” of the Schiller Institute’s June 18-19 Conference, “There Can Be No Peace Without the Bankruptcy Reorganization of the Dying Trans-Atlantic Financial System.” Dr. Bittner is the author of 80 books and is a Doctor in Law. Subheads have been added.

Three Facets of Post-World War II Germany

After the end of World War II, Germany was positioned as a European bridgehead of the United States against the Soviet Union and, after its dissolution, against Russia. In order to understand what is happening geopolitically today and why Germany is affected in a special way, one needs to know three things.

First, that to this day Germany has been denied a peace treaty by the Allies of World War II, with the exception of Russia. Theoretically, therefore, Germany is still at war, since only an armistice was agreed to in 1945. That this is so, is also clear from the so-called Enemy State Clause under Articles 53 and 107 of the United Nations Charter, according to which Germany is still an enemy state vis-à-vis the enemies of World War II. Supposedly, this no longer has any relevance, but if it did not, this passage could have been deleted long ago. The Enemy States Clause states that coercive measures could be imposed without special authorization by the UN Security Council if Germany were to pursue aggressive policies again—including military intervention if necessary. Although Germany was granted “full sovereignty” by the Unification Treaty of 1990 (2+4 Treaty), this agreement has been relativized again by supplementary treaties, for example on troop deployments and military cooperation.

If one considers these facts with regard to the geopolitical situation in which we find ourselves, many things become clearer: Washington has considerable possibilities to exert pressure and influence decisions of the German government; this can be observed constantly. On the occasion of Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s inaugural visit to Washington on Feb. 8, 2022, U.S. President Joseph Biden simply stated that the Nord Stream 2 pipeline would not be put into operation.

Second, it is important to know that Germany is still an occupied country. It is hardly known that, in addition to smaller military bases, the U.S. has eleven large main bases on the territory of Germany. Nuclear weapons are stationed in Büchel in Rhineland-Palatinate, and Ramstein Air Base is the largest military base of the U.S. Air Force outside the U.S.A. The command center of NATO’s air forces is located there, NATO monitors the alliance’s missile defenses from Ramstein, and the U.S. controls the worldwide deployment of combat drones from there. Germany is also a center of U.S. espionage.

In addition, since 1945, the U.S. has covered Germany with more than a hundred so-called “think tanks,” i.e., networks that represent U.S. interests. Almost all of the leading politicians and journalists are members of these extraordinarily influential, well-funded organizations, of which the Atlantic Bridge is probably the best known. Moreover, many of these influencers have been trained in courses in the United States.

Third, it is important to know that the U.S. has systematically prevented cooperation between Germany and Russia for more than a century. This is also stated in a speech by U.S. security expert George Friedman, and I quote,

The main interest of U.S. foreign policy during the last century, during World War I, World War II, and the Cold War, was the relationship between Germany and Russia. When they are united, they are the only power that can threaten our supremacy. Our main goal was to make sure that this case does not happen.

This policy has continued—basically since the founding of the German Empire in 1871—to the present. Friedman reasons as follows:

For the United States, the main concern is that ... German capital and technology combine with Russian raw material resources and Russian labor to form a unique combination.

To prevent this, the U.S. has created a corridor full of weapons between Western Europe and Russia, and has isolated Russia.

In 2001, it was still possible for Russian President Vladimir Putin to address the German Bundestag. He advocated then, and repeatedly thereafter, a common economic and cultural zone from Vladivostok to Lisbon. He said—and this must also be quoted:

No one doubts the great value of Europe’s relations with the United States. But I believe that in the long run, Europe will consolidate its reputation as a powerful and independent center of world politics only if it will unite its own capabilities with those of Russia.... We have already taken the first steps in this direction together. Now it is time to think of what needs to be done so that the unified and secure Europe becomes the harbinger of a united and secure world.

But further steps toward that goal have been stymied by U.S. strategists. The Russian president’s offer of cooperation has been, and continues to be opposed by U.S. imperial pretensions. The aim is to eliminate Russia—and now China as well—as economic and military competitors and ultimately subject them to the unipolar claim. This hubris is determining the policy of the U.S.A. and has led to the fact that the whole world is disrupted—chaos, conflicts, and wars wherever you look.

Knowing all this—and these are all facts, not conspiracy theories—much of what is happening today is self-explanatory. The U.S. has long pursued a long-term strategy that serves its interests alone. In doing so, they walk over dead bodies, and their vassals—including Germany—go along with every dirty trick.

Long-Term Strategy and Unipolar Claim of the U.S.A.

In the view of its power elites, the United States of America is “God’s Own Country” and called to rule the world. To enforce this claim, which is not justified by anything, they have developed a long-term strategy since the 19th Century, including the maintenance of an overly highly armed army and the establishment of numerous military bases all over the world.

At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that U.S. society—and right up to Congress—is religiously fundamentalist-fanatical in large part. Right up to the present day, the elective affinity between Puritanism and capitalism, an “economic doctrine of predestination”—whoever God loves, he will make rich—is deeply rooted here. Moreover, many of the hardliners apparently believe that anything that benefits the U.S. ultimately benefits the whole world.

This hubris was also followed in the policies of President Barack Obama, who comes across with a winning smile, and who, in a speech to the Military Academy at West Point, called the U.S. “the only indispensable nation,” the linchpin of all alliances from Europe to Asia, “unsurpassed in the history of nations.” Obama thus professed what had long been the practiced policy of the United States.

This power policy had its beginning at the latest in 1823, when President James Monroe, with the doctrine named after him, postulated a “claim to protection and intervention” for Central and South America in the interest of the United States.

Then, in 1904, Theodore Roosevelt sweepingly authorized the U.S. to exercise an “international police power” and to uncompromisingly assert economic and strategic interests. His motto was, “Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far.” After all treaties with the Native Americans had previously been broken and the last devastating battle had been fought at Wounded Knee in 1890, this applied primarily to the Latin American countries in the “backyard of the United States,” but also to Morocco and Korea, and a little later, worldwide.

Quite in line with this was a statement by the subsequent President Woodrow Wilson. To ensure smooth U.S. trade around the world, the U.S. was justified—Wilson said—in blowing open closed doors “even if it violates the sovereignty of recalcitrant nations.”

Barack Obama put it this way in a 2016 interview with U.S. television station Vox:

We occasionally have to twist the arm of countries that don’t do what we want them to do.... We are the greatest, most powerful country on Earth.... We have no equal in the sense of countries that could attack or provoke the United States.

The goal of being the world’s No. 1 power was finally achieved by the United States after World War II, when President Harry S Truman proclaimed in 1947 that U.S. policy must be directed toward assisting free peoples, preserving their freedom, for the preservation of peace in the world and for the benefit of the United States. How this “leadership role” then turned out in realpolitik to the advantage of the United States and mostly at the expense of the “free peoples,” is shown by a look at history up to the immediate present.

In October 2014, then-U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden boasted,

We gave Putin a simple choice: Respect Ukraine’s sovereignty or face increasing consequences.

By that time, the U.S.-prepared coup d’état in Kiev—in defiance of Ukraine’s sovereignty—had already taken place, civil war had begun in eastern Ukraine, and U.S. President Barack Obama was pressuring European leaders to impose tough sanctions on Russia.

Ukraine After the 2014 Coup d’État

Now, I come to Ukraine after the 2014 coup d’état.

On Feb. 24, 2022, Russia attacked Ukraine. Since then, Ukrainian politicians have been romping about in the German media, making claims and insulting the German government for not adequately meeting [their] demands. Meanwhile, more than a few people are wondering why Germany should owe Ukraine anything at all. With what justification does the Ukrainian government demand money and weapons from Germany? And why is the Berlin government responding to it? If it is indeed following orders from Washington, it would be part of the problem instead of helping to solve it.

Billions have been paid over the last few years, and Berlin politicians are paying more and more, as if they could easily dispose of the money that is being taken away from their own people. In addition, several hundred thousand refugees have already been taken in. They have not been checked or registered, are being cared for, and can travel wherever they want within the European Union. For months now, after the Coronavirus pandemic, this constitutes a second state of emergency with serious repercussions.

Recently, Federal Minister of Economics Robert Habeck even declared that Germany is a party to the war and must “lead servantly.” Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said—repeating Joseph Biden’s statement of 2014—Russia must be ruined with the sanctions. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, in his Feb. 27 government statement, called Russian President Vladimir Putin a “warmonger,” and so on. Obviously, diplomatic customs and principles of international law no longer apply to Western politicians. How are Russian politicians supposed to be able to talk to them at all?

It is claimed that Western values and democracy must be defended in Ukraine, and that this must be done with all available means, including not only billions of dollars in payments, but also arms deliveries and possibly—according to several politicians—NATO participation. But what has the situation in Ukraine actually been like since the regime change of 2014, which was prepared by the United States over a period of years?

After the bloody coup, Crimea, which had been Russian for 171 years, had joined the Russian Federation following a referendum, and the Russian-speaking inhabitants of the Donbas, who had to fear reprisals, demanded more autonomy within Ukraine, which they were denied. As a result, they too broke away from Kiev-Ukraine and proclaimed the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics.

The result was a disaster that began with the civil war in eastern Ukraine. Then-ruler Petro Poroshenko, an oligarch and U.S. puppet, sent tanks and artillery into the Donbas to shoot at the population there. Some 14,000 people were killed, and towns and villages were destroyed. Involved were volunteer battalions, including the fascist Azov Regiment, as well as American mercenaries, in addition to the Ukrainian army “advised” by the U.S. military.

In order to resist, the eastern Ukrainians enlisted support from Russia. A flashpoint was created on Russia’s doorstep, and all attempts to extinguish it failed. Kiev-Ukraine, with fascists in its parliament and government, waged war against its own people—with the U.S. behind it. The Minsk agreement to settle the conflict was ignored by Kiev, and the army was rearmed. The fate of the country was in the hands of the U.S., which had taken over the country in a cold war and positioned it against Russia.

The further development up to the present moment is well known: A proxy war between the U.S. and Russia, in which Ukraine is being pulverized. To justify this disastrous action with the defense of Europe, corresponds to the systematic manipulation of opinion. Before the war, Ukraine was close to collapse and only hung on the drip of the IMF and the EU. Opposition members were persecuted and, in some cases, murdered (I named names in my book, The New West-East Conflict, Der neue West-Ost-Konflikt).

‘Situation Is Dangerous as Never Before’

The question is where we are and how to proceed. Hundreds of billions more for armaments? There will be an even greater inflation than before; money for social welfare, education, science and art will become even scarcer; the poor will become even poorer; many companies will face ruin. In contrast, the arms industry will profit immeasurably and the U.S. economy will jump into the gap and supply Germany with expensive, environmentally harmful fracking gas. The U.S. and its vassals will continue to do everything possible to strangle Russia and bring about regime change in Moscow. Joseph Biden and his backers are almost there—with the help of the EU and the German government and its media.

But Russia is a nuclear power, and U.S. military bases in Germany are in the crosshairs of the Russian Air Force. The situation is dangerous as never before. Not only are we facing the collapse of the global financial system, we are also on the brink of a Third World War that would make large parts of this world uninhabitable. Clarification of the true situation seems to me to be the only way at present to bring about the most urgently needed change in policy.

One final remark: What I have been talking about is the public-political situation in which we find ourselves. The worldwide disenfranchisement of the individual in favor of authoritarian institutions and systems of power is another issue.