Lafontaine accuses Germany of vassalage to the US over Ukraine war
Oskar Lafontaine accuses Germany of acting as a vassal of the United States in the Ukraine war. The debate over German sovereignty and energy dependence, re…
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
Lafontaine accuses Germany of vassalage to the US over Ukraine war
Is Germany a sovereign country? The question, which seemed settled in 2022, returned to the spotlight when veteran German politician Oskar Lafontaine published an article accusing Berlin of acting as a "vassal of the United States" in the Ukraine war. The thesis, published on 30 August 2022, holds that German foreign policy is subordinated to Washington's interests and that this subordination prevents any real contribution to peace. The text, reproduced and debated in economic forums, has reignited a discussion that goes beyond Ukraine: energy dependence, military autonomy and Europe's role in the global order.
Lafontaine's argument: the history begins before February 2022
Lafontaine argues that the war in Ukraine did not begin on 24 February 2022, but has a prehistory dating back to the United States' self-image as the world's sole superpower. According to his analysis, Washington has for decades pushed NATO's eastward expansion and the arming of Ukraine, ignoring Russian warnings about troops and missiles on its border. The article cites Brzezinski, Carter's former national security adviser, who pointed out back in 1997 that Ukraine was to become a key state for dominating Eurasia. For Lafontaine, the 2014 Maidan coup marked a point of no return: the United States installed a friendly government and integrated the Ukrainian armed forces into NATO structures, disregarding Russian security interests.
The text compares the situation with the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, when the United States refused to accept Soviet missiles on its doorstep. "No state should launch a rival power's rockets at the border of a nuclear power without warning," writes Lafontaine, who calls the argument that every country may freely choose its alliance "deceptive". In his view, an aggressive superpower cannot lead a "defensive alliance", and Germany should take its security into its own hands and become independent of the United States.
Ramstein and Nord Stream: the symbols of vassalage
The article points to two specific episodes as proof of Germany's lack of sovereignty. The first is the conference at Ramstein air base, where US Secretary of War Lloyd Austin gathered allied countries to contribute to the Ukraine war. The second is the decision on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which, according to Lafontaine, belongs to Washington, not Berlin. "When the Americans are at war, Germany is always part of the war, whether it likes it or not," he states. The text recalls that Charles de Gaulle rejected NATO installations on French soil precisely so that France could decide on war and peace for itself.
The blowing up of the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines, mentioned in the debate, is described by Lafontaine as "a declaration of war against Germany". He criticises the federal government for wanting to "sweep the incident under the carpet" and considers it "pathetic and cowardly" to know something but not say it. The debate stresses that Germany pays four times more for American gas than for Russian gas, a figure repeated with irony: "when you turn on the tap, coloured flames come out and then Aladdin appears".
From Willy Brandt to Scholz: the loss of an independent foreign policy
Lafontaine invokes the German politicians who tried to pursue an independent foreign policy. He mentions Willy Brandt, who sought peace with Russia and its Eastern European neighbours after the Second World War, and Helmut Kohl, who negotiated German unity with Gorbachev, recognising that peace with Russia was a prerequisite for the European order. He also cites Hans-Dietrich Genscher, who clashed with American politicians over his antiestéticar of a limited nuclear war in Europe. For Lafontaine, that tradition has been broken: Germany acts as a vassal, not as a partner.
The debate notes that Germany has been a "branch office" of the United States since 1945, a condition dating back to its defeat in the Second World War. It is argued that, like Japan, Germany has no nuclear weapons of its own and no full military autonomy, and that its current energy dependence is the result of political decisions —the closure of nuclear and coal plants, the ban on fracking— that have left it without its own access to energy sources. "They managed to ensure that a country that lost a world war because of its problems with energy sources and its vulnerability to naval blockades guarantees itself no independent access to energy sources," one participant sums up.
What about the rest of Europe?
The discussion extends to the European Union. Lafontaine argues that the United States wants to prevent the emergence of another world power, and that includes the EU. The debate claims that the EU is an American creation and that Russia never opposed Ukraine joining it, but that NATO membership was the imposed condition. It is noted that "in continental Europe I don't think there are any sovereign nations left", and Germany's situation is compared with Spain's, considered an even lower link in the chain of dependence. The phrase attributed to NATO's first Secretary General —"keep Russia out, the United States in, and Germany down"— is cited as a summary of the postwar architecture.
The debate also addresses India's role, which some participants say is benefiting from the situation by refining Russian oil and selling it to Europe while evading sanctions. Against those who argue that the United States is playing for geopolitical dominance and the elimination of rivals, others reply that "earning a few rupees is not in the same league as liquidating Russia and clipping Europe's growth". The discussion remains open: there is no consensus on whether German vassalage is a choice, an imposition or an inevitable historical inheritance.
The initial question —is Germany a sovereign country?— remains unanswered. Lafontaine says it is not, and that this lack of sovereignty prevents any contribution to peace. His critics recall that he himself was a controversial politician, opposed to the fall of the Wall and a defender of the Soviet Union. Between these two extremes, the debate on Germany's role in the global order continues, with Nord Stream as the symbol of a dependence that nobody seems willing to break entirely.
Is Germany a sovereign country? The question, which seemed settled in 2022, returned to the spotlight when veteran German politician Oskar Lafontaine published an article accusing Berlin of acting as a "vassal of the United States" in the Ukraine war. The thesis, published on 30 August 2022, holds that German foreign policy is subordinated to Washington's interests and that this subordination prevents any real contribution to peace. The text, reproduced and debated in economic forums, has reignited a discussion that goes beyond Ukraine: energy dependence, military autonomy and Europe's role in the global order.
Lafontaine's argument: the history begins before February 2022
Lafontaine argues that the war in Ukraine did not begin on 24 February 2022, but has a prehistory dating back to the United States' self-image as the world's sole superpower. According to his analysis, Washington has for decades pushed NATO's eastward expansion and the arming of Ukraine, ignoring Russian warnings about troops and missiles on its border. The article cites Brzezinski, Carter's former national security adviser, who pointed out back in 1997 that Ukraine was to become a key state for dominating Eurasia. For Lafontaine, the 2014 Maidan coup marked a point of no return: the United States installed a friendly government and integrated the Ukrainian armed forces into NATO structures, disregarding Russian security interests.
The text compares the situation with the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, when the United States refused to accept Soviet missiles on its doorstep. "No state should launch a rival power's rockets at the border of a nuclear power without warning," writes Lafontaine, who calls the argument that every country may freely choose its alliance "deceptive". In his view, an aggressive superpower cannot lead a "defensive alliance", and Germany should take its security into its own hands and become independent of the United States.
Ramstein and Nord Stream: the symbols of vassalage
The article points to two specific episodes as proof of Germany's lack of sovereignty. The first is the conference at Ramstein air base, where US Secretary of War Lloyd Austin gathered allied countries to contribute to the Ukraine war. The second is the decision on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which, according to Lafontaine, belongs to Washington, not Berlin. "When the Americans are at war, Germany is always part of the war, whether it likes it or not," he states. The text recalls that Charles de Gaulle rejected NATO installations on French soil precisely so that France could decide on war and peace for itself.
The blowing up of the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines, mentioned in the debate, is described by Lafontaine as "a declaration of war against Germany". He criticises the federal government for wanting to "sweep the incident under the carpet" and considers it "pathetic and cowardly" to know something but not say it. The debate stresses that Germany pays four times more for American gas than for Russian gas, a figure repeated with irony: "when you turn on the tap, coloured flames come out and then Aladdin appears".
From Willy Brandt to Scholz: the loss of an independent foreign policy
Lafontaine invokes the German politicians who tried to pursue an independent foreign policy. He mentions Willy Brandt, who sought peace with Russia and its Eastern European neighbours after the Second World War, and Helmut Kohl, who negotiated German unity with Gorbachev, recognising that peace with Russia was a prerequisite for the European order. He also cites Hans-Dietrich Genscher, who clashed with American politicians over his antiestéticar of a limited nuclear war in Europe. For Lafontaine, that tradition has been broken: Germany acts as a vassal, not as a partner.
The debate notes that Germany has been a "branch office" of the United States since 1945, a condition dating back to its defeat in the Second World War. It is argued that, like Japan, Germany has no nuclear weapons of its own and no full military autonomy, and that its current energy dependence is the result of political decisions —the closure of nuclear and coal plants, the ban on fracking— that have left it without its own access to energy sources. "They managed to ensure that a country that lost a world war because of its problems with energy sources and its vulnerability to naval blockades guarantees itself no independent access to energy sources," one participant sums up.
What about the rest of Europe?
The discussion extends to the European Union. Lafontaine argues that the United States wants to prevent the emergence of another world power, and that includes the EU. The debate claims that the EU is an American creation and that Russia never opposed Ukraine joining it, but that NATO membership was the imposed condition. It is noted that "in continental Europe I don't think there are any sovereign nations left", and Germany's situation is compared with Spain's, considered an even lower link in the chain of dependence. The phrase attributed to NATO's first Secretary General —"keep Russia out, the United States in, and Germany down"— is cited as a summary of the postwar architecture.
The debate also addresses India's role, which some participants say is benefiting from the situation by refining Russian oil and selling it to Europe while evading sanctions. Against those who argue that the United States is playing for geopolitical dominance and the elimination of rivals, others reply that "earning a few rupees is not in the same league as liquidating Russia and clipping Europe's growth". The discussion remains open: there is no consensus on whether German vassalage is a choice, an imposition or an inevitable historical inheritance.
The initial question —is Germany a sovereign country?— remains unanswered. Lafontaine says it is not, and that this lack of sovereignty prevents any contribution to peace. His critics recall that he himself was a controversial politician, opposed to the fall of the Wall and a defender of the Soviet Union. Between these two extremes, the debate on Germany's role in the global order continues, with Nord Stream as the symbol of a dependence that nobody seems willing to break entirely.
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (66 replies).
More summaries
-
US Promised Gorbachev NATO Would Not Expand East, Ex-Envoy Claims
Jack Matlock says the US gave categorical assurances to Gorbachev that NATO would not move east. Gorbachev denies it. The documentary evidence remains disputed.
-
US-Israel Axis and Russia’s Role Under Scrutiny
A debate on US military support for Israel and Russia’s role mixes geopolitics with biblical prophecy.
-
Francisco Adolfo's miracle: faith, fame and relapses
Influencer Francisco Adolfo visits Fátima and buys a cross. Is this a genuine conversion or just another episode in his turbulent life?
-
Kremlin doubles down on nuclear threat against US and NATO
A Kremlin spokesperson claims Russian warheads guarantee the destruction of the US and NATO. The atomic blackmail reopens the debate on European rearmament.
-
Russian state TV drops the pretense and openly discusses invading Estonia
Russian state television is openly discussing an attack on Estonia, while the Duma drafts a law allowing military intervention abroad. Saber-rattling or a prelude to war?
-
Ceuta crisis: Russia and Israel theories meet a chaotic Spanish response
The Ceuta migration crisis pits two narratives against each other: a Russian-Israeli plot and Spanish incompetence. Facts and timeline of the disinformation.