Last year’s elections saw a resurgence for Germany’s socialist party Die Linke. In an interview, coleader Ines Schwerdtner explains how the party is seeking to expand beyond current left-wing voters to reach broader parts of the working class.
Luckily it has gotten a lot better once moat weirdos left with the formation of the BSW. But yes, the Greens are still better when it comes to foreign policy.
With the openly anti nato and pro russia stance yeah. But its still heavily present. Otherwise they wouldnt vote “no” to sending weapons to ukraine.
Its such a shame Robert Habeck quit politics. Understandable but shame. If he would have come chancellor, i am fully confident, germany and EU would indefenetly be in a better position
AFAIK their stance is to use sanctions first. I agree that there are still too many “pro russia” (or at least “russia-naive”) voices in this party, but I think it is an interesting question: why don’t we sanction everything that’s possible?
The answer is of course money. But it’s not (necessarily) a sign of being “pro russia” if you’d rather sacrifice some economical growth than people’s lifes.
Plus: their federal chairman Jan van Aken said sanctions would have more impact if they come all at once. Russia’s economic system could (somewhat) adjust step by step to the individual sanctions. Harsh sanctions from the beginning might have been a shock to their system from which it could not have (so easily) recovered, That sounds rather plausible to me.
Sanctions alone won’t stop a planned armed invasion by a well equipped aggressor with a large arms stockpile. All this big talk about more sanctions having more impact, while at the same time denying military aid in the name of “peace” is really just helping the Aggressor while pretending not to, because sanctions, even when implemented correctly, will take time to have an impact, and won’t affect existing stockpiles.
Without weapons delivered by the West, Ukraine likely wouldn’t exist anymore, because they didn’t have the massive cold war era stockpiles Russia can still tap into. Neither do they have the production capacity to keep up with their demand, even though they have created some by now.
If the West had given more military aid from the start, The attack could possibly have been stopped in its tracks, or even thrown back to where it came from. But unfortunately, the "peace"mongers prevailed and prevented giving Ukraine the proper means means to hit the Russian supply chains right away, in the name of “preventing escalation”. Long ranged weapons have only been delivered once Ukraine had built and used some of their own.
It is not “peace” if you give in to an imperialist aggressor. Even if the war ends after successful conquest.
(if you search for die Linke and EU, or die Linke and russia you can actually find their official stance on those topics, which is exactly the opposite of what you claimed. Their stance on nato is also more nuanced as they argue for a complete different type of security architecture - no matter how realistic that is).
Do you want me to write out every member of DIE LINKE’ opinion on these topics or what do you expect?
And no their stance on nato isnt that nuanced, they advocate for germany to leave NATO, now its less public talking point but still strong notion in the party.
When it comes to russia: they have always been for “negotiations” with russia and against sending weapons to ukraine so they can defend themself from the genocidists.
Be it from foolish naivety or active pro russia stance but this position can not be accepted!
For me, what a party stands for is represented by their leader and their members.
For example my party: VOLT
We arent neo liberal. Not at all, us members hated who the party put out there for germanys federal election. But just like her there is a small loud neo liberal some even AI-Bros group in the party and i hope for all there is, they dont grow. Europe needs an united EU federalist movement with eye on the common people not the rich.
But just like with DIE LINKE or GRÜNE there are the social akwards, the nut cases, and the traitors to the ideals…
I only didnt join the left because their ukrane and EU stance…
I hope both VOLT and DIE LINKE sorts those people out and a red green purple alliance in the german parliaments can be forged (or red violet grey aka humanists :) )
Also, one must distinguish between soft and hard euroscepticism. Being against the fiscal-conservative monstrosity that the EU has become is not the same as being against the idea of Europe per se.
They have a naive stance towards Russia. Also wanting to not send weapons to Ukraine which is defending itself can be easily understood as being a tool for Russia. You dont go to someone who is being beaten up and tell them to negotiate with their attacker. You either step into to assist the victim or you give the victim a means to defend themself against the attacker.
They do have a pro Russian stance with their insistence on “peace talks” and more sanctions instead of military aid in the Ukraine conflict.
Because negotiations by Russia are still in bad faith and for show only, all while still creating facts on the ground in Ukraine using military force, in part even against civilian targets.
Now be fair… they are not only fighting against EU or NATO but also against every other party, organisation and most of the time against that evil traitor sitting right beside them but daring to only 99.9% agree with their ideology.
I’m not familiar with their anti EU stand. The recent events have showed us that Nato is a cashcow for the US and also a big lever for the US to blackmail all of the other countries. Furthermore, Mark Rutte is a US puppet and a bootlicker. Concerning Russia, they wanted to work with diplomacy and not by sending weapons for more people to be killed.
they wanted to work with diplomacy and not by sending weapons for more people to be killed.
Only Diplomacy, and no military aid, to stop an imperialist aggressor who is “negotiating” in bad faith while continuously attacking both military and civilian targets with the goal of conquest, killing combatants and noncombatants alike. This will surely prevent people from getting killed. On the imperialist aggressor’s side. So they can do more killing.
If only ot werent for their anti EU, anti nato (or eu military alliance), and pro russia stance
Luckily it has gotten a lot better once moat weirdos left with the formation of the BSW. But yes, the Greens are still better when it comes to foreign policy.
With the openly anti nato and pro russia stance yeah. But its still heavily present. Otherwise they wouldnt vote “no” to sending weapons to ukraine.
Its such a shame Robert Habeck quit politics. Understandable but shame. If he would have come chancellor, i am fully confident, germany and EU would indefenetly be in a better position
AFAIK their stance is to use sanctions first. I agree that there are still too many “pro russia” (or at least “russia-naive”) voices in this party, but I think it is an interesting question: why don’t we sanction everything that’s possible?
The answer is of course money. But it’s not (necessarily) a sign of being “pro russia” if you’d rather sacrifice some economical growth than people’s lifes.
Plus: their federal chairman Jan van Aken said sanctions would have more impact if they come all at once. Russia’s economic system could (somewhat) adjust step by step to the individual sanctions. Harsh sanctions from the beginning might have been a shock to their system from which it could not have (so easily) recovered, That sounds rather plausible to me.
Sanctions alone won’t stop a planned armed invasion by a well equipped aggressor with a large arms stockpile. All this big talk about more sanctions having more impact, while at the same time denying military aid in the name of “peace” is really just helping the Aggressor while pretending not to, because sanctions, even when implemented correctly, will take time to have an impact, and won’t affect existing stockpiles.
Without weapons delivered by the West, Ukraine likely wouldn’t exist anymore, because they didn’t have the massive cold war era stockpiles Russia can still tap into. Neither do they have the production capacity to keep up with their demand, even though they have created some by now.
If the West had given more military aid from the start, The attack could possibly have been stopped in its tracks, or even thrown back to where it came from. But unfortunately, the "peace"mongers prevailed and prevented giving Ukraine the proper means means to hit the Russian supply chains right away, in the name of “preventing escalation”. Long ranged weapons have only been delivered once Ukraine had built and used some of their own.
It is not “peace” if you give in to an imperialist aggressor. Even if the war ends after successful conquest.
Oversimplification, but I get the gist.
(if you search for die Linke and EU, or die Linke and russia you can actually find their official stance on those topics, which is exactly the opposite of what you claimed. Their stance on nato is also more nuanced as they argue for a complete different type of security architecture - no matter how realistic that is).
Do you want me to write out every member of DIE LINKE’ opinion on these topics or what do you expect?
And no their stance on nato isnt that nuanced, they advocate for germany to leave NATO, now its less public talking point but still strong notion in the party.
When it comes to russia: they have always been for “negotiations” with russia and against sending weapons to ukraine so they can defend themself from the genocidists. Be it from foolish naivety or active pro russia stance but this position can not be accepted!
Yea, I pretty much expect you to clearly separate between “die Linke” as party with an official program and spokesperson and party members.
Otherwise we will discuss opinions and hearsay instead of official stances, which were criticized.
Edit: and just to be clear, I don’t share their viewpoints.
For me, what a party stands for is represented by their leader and their members.
For example my party: VOLT We arent neo liberal. Not at all, us members hated who the party put out there for germanys federal election. But just like her there is a small loud neo liberal some even AI-Bros group in the party and i hope for all there is, they dont grow. Europe needs an united EU federalist movement with eye on the common people not the rich.
But just like with DIE LINKE or GRÜNE there are the social akwards, the nut cases, and the traitors to the ideals… I only didnt join the left because their ukrane and EU stance…
I hope both VOLT and DIE LINKE sorts those people out and a red green purple alliance in the german parliaments can be forged (or red violet grey aka humanists :) )
They don’t have a pro-russia stance.
Also, one must distinguish between soft and hard euroscepticism. Being against the fiscal-conservative monstrosity that the EU has become is not the same as being against the idea of Europe per se.
They have a naive stance towards Russia. Also wanting to not send weapons to Ukraine which is defending itself can be easily understood as being a tool for Russia. You dont go to someone who is being beaten up and tell them to negotiate with their attacker. You either step into to assist the victim or you give the victim a means to defend themself against the attacker.
They do have a pro Russian stance with their insistence on “peace talks” and more sanctions instead of military aid in the Ukraine conflict.
Because negotiations by Russia are still in bad faith and for show only, all while still creating facts on the ground in Ukraine using military force, in part even against civilian targets.
Now be fair… they are not only fighting against EU or NATO but also against every other party, organisation and most of the time against that evil traitor sitting right beside them but daring to only 99.9% agree with their ideology.
I’m not familiar with their anti EU stand. The recent events have showed us that Nato is a cashcow for the US and also a big lever for the US to blackmail all of the other countries. Furthermore, Mark Rutte is a US puppet and a bootlicker. Concerning Russia, they wanted to work with diplomacy and not by sending weapons for more people to be killed.
Only Diplomacy, and no military aid, to stop an imperialist aggressor who is “negotiating” in bad faith while continuously attacking both military and civilian targets with the goal of conquest, killing combatants and noncombatants alike. This will surely prevent people from getting killed. On the imperialist aggressor’s side. So they can do more killing.
Removed by mod