Posted by dr Walther Heipertz on July 31, 2023 at 15:04 p.m

What turning point do we Europeans need?
(6th Hertenstein Talks on the Theaterschiff Heilbronn, September 17.9.2023, 12 from 00:13 p.m. to 30:XNUMX p.m. - moderator: Prof. Dr. Walther Heipertz, Heidelberg)

As an introduction, the moderator referred to the documents -- previously sent or made available on the Internet -- in order to lead the discussion to the "basic questions" derived there, or some essential ones, as far as one comes. This time, the assembled circle was not a sub-group, but -- as planned at this meeting, which was the first non-virtual meeting after the corona pandemic -- all the participants currently present took part.

Following on from the previous lecture by MdB Michael Link First of all, it was pointed out that the escalation of the questions and their urgency - under the heading "Turning Point" - has its main cause in Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine. The moderator explained again to what extent he specifically wanted to take this urgency into account with his approach, based on two recent European policy publications.

Under these circumstances, the question of what Europe can and must achieve at all is much more acute. This, of course, is linked to the perception - certainly prevalent in almost everyone - that Europe as a whole actually seems rather disparate, desolate, perhaps even incapable of action and is currently perhaps completely hit and "presented" in its lack of reaction.

This raises the general question of how Europe can or must continue, existentially and at the same time not tolerating any time delay!”

However, the moderator assumed in his conception that even the greatest shock can usually only trigger short reactions, but does not change anything significantly in the basics that affect a situation or organization hit by the shock - except, it were obviously superfluous obstacles, which are dissolved by the sudden insight of all those involved, which, however, does not look like it. It therefore seemed important for a more decisive orientation, precisely because of these dramatic situations, to look again for - so to speak "completely new" - ways in order to possibly move faster and more sustainably in the awareness of committed Europeans, but then also to substantial European cooperation, disorientation and despondency overcome. This now on the way that ideally hidden or 'stuck' mental obstacles are first worked out and worked on or even tended to be eliminated.

The idea was to work in a certain 'methodology' with two publications with recognizable contrary conclusions regarding further strategies to be recommended for Europe. With publications, however, which have not yet - outshining everything - only emerged as a reaction to this war, but certainly in the context of increasing tensions in and around Europe. An opinion on the author should not only be formed by reading and understanding, but should also be considered in depth in an expressly 'additional comparison', such as these different conclusions - to many very parallel Descriptions of facts, which were also to be expected there due to the experience of these authors, are in part also described and described in a very comparable way - were derived differently in detail.

The idea was to at least be able to develop a more reliable, more critically examined, own statement on this, but above all by making it possible to identify which 'preliminary decisions' are co-decisive for these differences, which are indeed 'understood' by the author himself as being explicit or as a matter of course, but in the mirror of the contradictory conclusions and their possibly also fluent comprehensibility they are not at all!

Only in this way, however, does it become clear, by implication, that the direction of Edzard Reuter, in the sense of encouraging unity that transcends nations, and those of Dohnanyi, in the sense of a quasi necessary 'disarmament' of precisely these claims, are ultimately more opinions than already 'proven' necessities, as what the respective author himself more or less understands , because he wants to make it plausible as inevitable.

According to the moderator, the first important result that turned out to be exactly the opposite of this was that the escalation of polarized positions in connection with the overall problem almost meaningless is, although the authors themselves of course essentially move towards the conclusion and then also set the emphasis there.

However, the aim and result of this comparative and in-depth reading was not the creation of fundamental peacefulness between the most diverse positions. This does not result in calming down and contemplation, such as the undeterred, meditative silence, although the walls are being shot down in the neighborhood. Arguing, discussing and exchanging ideas is not enough, loosely based on the teabag saying "The path is the goal". It is only - as long as one can and wants to talk, for example in our discussion group on such a theater ship - a method, much more well-founded for possible conflict situations, whose pure existence we unfortunately cannot change anything with a snap of our fingers, to take a clear position relate.

The aforementioned "comparative and in-depth reading" of more than just one trendsetter or the like is not enough. As explained in more detail in the template, this 'discovery' of the mere factuality of a very much implicit, primarily not obvious preliminary decision means that one then also identifies the questions to which answers have just been given, quasi the ones for these prejudices causing problems. But they may be difficult to grasp, because they have probably remained so hidden because their complexity or resistance to simple answers, in the course of a felt and real pressure to act, too much uncertainty and ktrigger cognitive dissonance, so they just "closed final" were answered.

Such a basic question is, for example, whether one still lives and thinks very extensively in the national context, but senses certain inadequacies here and is therefore particularly enthusiastic and in need of a solution 'forward', i.e. the creation of a larger, more efficient one Whole, has a concept of the whole at first glance, which downright ignores or even hates its parts.

This is a field of tension that can be very effective, but which is only answered implicitly by many, in the sense of an enthusiasm for one thing (e.g. BE Reuter) -- which then, if necessary, even becomes completely different in the case of critical, more concrete questions into confronting and demarcating -- , or a strong, ever more fundamental counter-reaction in the sense of bearing doubts, perhaps even remaining small towards the other (K. v. Dohnanyi). 

In the course of this topic - initially only mentioned by the moderator as an example of the meaning and derivation of such "basic questions" - which should actually lead to the discussion of this question and then the others as well, it became clear that this alone could be the subject of a separate discussion group and should, if one really wants to make well-founded progress and more self-confidence, with which one would then be able to be more vigilant, more sensitive, more precise and more certain in public in the further discussion on European politics.

When asked, it was therefore preferred that what was more or less assumed in the concept for the preparation of the event should now be made up for: dealing with the - or first of all taking note of the main statements of the - publications on which it is based, in order to then perhaps to name some other basic problems that both authors have already decided for themselves, as it were, in a covert manner.

The moderator therefore briefly outlined the arguments of the two authors, which can also be read in more detail in the excerpts. Then, excerpts from the first focus (“European ambitions as an anti-national dead end or quite the opposite”) from the following synopsis were discussed, with the moderator explaining how, from his point of view, the nature and importance of the already mentioned question of nations changed for the problems of the EU can be contoured more precisely.

At the end, it was once again established that such basic questions require more space for discussion and that efforts should be made to actually work on this again in discussion groups with more time and focus in each case. The aim of such topic-centred discussion groups must be to give each other more energy and direction again through in-depth orientation on the basic topics of our European commitment and interest more discouragement resistant more in Europe's complex search for itself and its formation civic movement from below to create with. Such an approach is essential because the statements made by European officials - which are absolutely essential and in no way to be discriminated against - are usually only waved through as an "advertising block" if they are not embedded in a livelier, more continuous dialogue with citizens.

Posted by Heinrich Kuemmerle on July 31, 2023 at 15:11 p.m

Ursula Hecht took minutes of the discussion Michael George Link Member of the Bundestag

 

6th Hertenstein Talks, September 17.09.2022, XNUMX

With a lot of commitment Bettina and Heinrich Kuemmerle prepared and invited to the 6th Hertenstein Talks.

The event took place this year - after it could only be held virtually last year - in the theater ship on the Neckar in Heilbronn and this special backdrop also gave the event a special whistle.

district chairman Heinrich Kuemmerle welcomed the numerous EU members from all over Baden-Württemberg and the guests and his special greetings went to the participants from the city administration, the local councils present, and the district chairmen from Stuttgart and Mannheim.

But what are the Hertenstein Talks and what does the program include?

In September 1946, in Hertenstein, Switzerland, the program was discussed, decided and presented in 12 theses by European federalists. 70 years after this announcement, the program was reactivated in the event of the "Hertenstein Talks" and, thanks to our district chairman, will now be held regularly every year in Heilbronn.

The goal is: a federalist, democratic European federal state should be created with the goal of a world union!

Although the Hertenstein talks are about Europe, since February 2022 the focus has been on the Russian Federation's war of aggression against Ukraine, which is why the 6th round of talks was focused on this topic.

Michael George Link MdB and board member of the EUROPA-UNION Heilbronn spoke as the first speaker on the topic:  

Europe at war?

Wake-up call: Can the European Union still be held together?

To which Link replies: right now, Europe must stand united. So far we have been free riders and have enjoyed the security.

But what do we learn from the events of war in the short and long term? And he divides his presentation into

History -- Now State -- Outlook

1. A long-running conflict since Putin has reigned as dictator for 24 years. Our frequent choices signify weakness for him.

He wants the expansion of his empire - we want economic strength and peace.

Narratives are easy to build in this country. By brainwashing the Russian people, starting in kindergarten, he shows us as weak, as opponents, as a danger. The appointed representatives are notdemocratically elected and controlled from above. And the Russian Church, chauvinistic, with an outdated social structure, is very accepted.

2. The conflict has long been indicated, as the partial occupation of Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014, decided in the Duma as an indispensable part of Russia. Link emphasizes that we closed our eyes, long did not realize how Putin wants to expand his empire.

That Ukraine is independent was a thorn in Putin's side. He wanted to stop Ukraine on the way to the EU.

The Ukraine - a nation with 50 million inhabitants sees its future in the EU, it is a nation of will! And it doesn't depend on the ethical origin - a multi-ethnic state is important! 

Link is currently seeing a war of attrition here, a partisan war in which the whole family is integrated. It is known that armored personnel carriers are missing to safely transport the soldiers and that Ukraine has currently recaptured a lot of territory - is important.

3. As an outlook, it is clear that Europe must be able to produce critical needs such as energy and technology itself in all areas. And he points out that China is far more dangerous. Efficient, everything documented – reacting quickly. China wants to redefine international law in the UN: Democracy that works!

At the end of his lecture, Link states:

What can Europe do:

The previously desired order of peace must change into a desired order of conflict - also through military deterrence! We have to work on the conflicts! Strengthen the EU!

Sanctions against Putin work - but they don't do enough!

European states can only develop further through compromises.

Conclusion: We need more Europe. Together we are stronger!