What a spectacle (Part 2)
- Bernd Liske
- 1 day ago
- 12 min read
Only the truth gives hope
The second part of this three-part series will now focus on facts and initial assessments of the problems associated with migration. The first part can be found here.
Migration crisis – scope, costs, causes
The further you stray from reality,
the more painful the truth becomes.
With so much artistry involved in shaping the political debate on migration, it seems appropriate to once again examine the realities that give rise to this expression. Only when voters are aware of these realities can they understand the virtuoso performance being played out before their eyes: so that they can enjoy it, but above all so that they are not blinded by it. Otherwise, they run the risk of mistaking artistic fiction for reality. If we therefore strip the debate of its artistic embellishment, we arrive at the conclusion that what was performed in the German Bundestag on January 31 was a largely insubstantial, hysterical debate characterized by attacks on political opponents and insults, in which very little was said about the substance of the motion and certainly nothing about other ideas for solving the problem, but all the more about the AfD, which was able to make a quick getaway, and not without reason.
On that day, too, not a single contribution discussed the fact that the motion, like the one two days earlier, blamed Russia for the migration crisis.
The migration crisis stems largely from the Syrian civil war, which Russian dictator Vladimir Putin has fueled and prolonged for years. To this day, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin continues to exploit migration as a hybrid weapon by sending hundreds of people across the Belarusian border to Europe every week. More than a million Ukrainians have fled to Germany as a result of Russia's war of aggression, which violates international law.
Therefore, the scope, costs, and causes of the migration crisis will be discussed below: This cannot be done often enough (see also The Russians: Who else? from January 27).
Between 2022 and 2024, there were 847,000 asylum applications. According to the Federal Ministry of the Interior – in response to a request from Alexander Throm (CDU) – a total of 22,021 people who entered the country illegally were identified between January 1, 2022, and April 30, 2024, who came to Germany via the migration route through Belarus. That is 3 percent (!!!).
Between 2014 and 2024, there were 3,159,480 asylum applications. Between 2016 and 2024, the federal government's costs for refugees and asylum seekers amounted to approximately €209 billion, and they are estimated to rise by a further €96 billion over the next four years until 2028. Added to this are the costs incurred by the federal states.
Three countries dominate the applications: Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq. There were 935,177 Syrians (29.6 percent), 374,473 Afghans (11.9 percent), and 226,748 Iraqis (7.2 percent). Together, they accounted for just under half of all asylum applications.
There are also over 1.2 million Ukrainians in Germany. Last year, the costs for them amounted to 35 billion euros as of October 31 (1, GDP 2023 at 4,185.6 billion euros).
This raises the question of what causes are responsible for the refugee movements in these four nations, for example.
In Syria, it was the civil war. It was a consequence of the CIA's Operation Timber Sycamore to overthrow President Assad, which involved building up, arming, and training the Syrian opposition. Syria, like Libya, was an emerging country with a growing economy that was increasingly turning toward the West. Europe supported the American action with sanctions that fueled the protests (1, 2). The Russians came at the request of President Assad to restore the country's sovereignty, at least in part. The war claimed 269,000 lives.
The war in Afghanistan was a consequence of the intervention by the US and its allies after September 11, 2001. The goal set by George W. Bush of turning Afghanistan into a democracy was never achieved. Harald Kujat, former Inspector General of the German Armed Forces, considered the mission a failure as early as 2011. The inglorious end is well known (1, 2). The war claimed 176,000 lives, including 59 German soldiers. The mission cost Germany up to 47 billion euros. Today, the country is shunned and its reconstruction is being hampered (1, 2, 3), so that people in search of a dignified life continue to make their way to Europe.
The invasion of Iraq in 2003 by the US and a "coalition of the willing," in violation of international law, claimed approximately 300,000 lives—some say up to a million civilians were killed. The initial spark for the war was the false claim made by US Secretary of State Powell before the UN that Iraq possessed poison gas (1, 2). No poison gas was found, and the intended goal of seizing control of the oil was not initially successful (1, 2). Instead, it succeeded in paving the way for ISIS (1, 2).
The West's obsessive drive towards the East was to reach a preliminary climax in Ukraine. In his book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, Zbigniew Brzeziński, one of the leading thinkers in American foreign policy, emphasized the importance of Ukraine as follows (see also here):
Without Ukraine, Russia is no longer a Eurasian empire. It can still strive for imperial status, but it would then become a predominantly Asian empire, which would in all likelihood be drawn into crippling conflicts with the rebellious states of Central Asia, which would not accept the loss of their recently gained independence and would receive support from the other Islamic states in the south.
Even before 2014, the US had invested five billion dollars in Ukraine, and after the Maidan coup, another 68 billion dollars were added by 2022. The conceptual basis for these activities was developed by the Pentagon's think tank, the RAND Corporation, which employs almost 2,000 people and focuses on strategies for destabilizing Russia and considerations regarding war with China. Among the goals of a study published in 2019, " Extending Russia ," and the paper "and Unbalancing Russia ," was to "use Ukraine as Russia's greatest external vulnerability." The situation escalated when Russia begged the US and NATO in vain for security guarantees in 2021.
I have addressed the looming conflict and the war in several articles (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Among the points made on February 17 and 24, 2022, was the thesis that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz could still have prevented the war during his visit to Moscow on February 15, 2022. On February 22, Russia invaded Ukraine, on February 27, the German chancellor gave his speech on the "turning point," and today Germany has 1.2 million Ukrainian refugees.
The war in Ukraine is part of the US's war against Russia – interesting in this context is a statement by former General Keith Kellogg, now President Donald Trump's special envoy for Ukraine – but also Germany. The strategic reason for this is the US's concern about an alliance between Russia and Germany, the prevention of which is one of its fundamental goals.
Germany is increasingly falling behind as a competitor on the world markets. It has to bear the primary consequences and heavy burdens of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and now Ukraine. These have intensified massively since the "turning point" and are linked to permanently high energy costs, inflation, recession, industrial migration, rising insolvencies, growing poverty, and foreseeable further increases in unemployment figures. Germany pays the US several times more for gas than it would pay Russia (1, 2, 3). The destruction of NordStream also shows how bad things are for Germany.
Blaming Russia for all of this is a distortion of historical facts, it is deceiving the people, it is inciting hatred. The cause of the migration crisis has long been the aggressive actions of the USA – which Germany actively supports. This is not about freedom and democracy: it is about natural resources, it is about geopolitical influence.
Any polemic against these facts and classifications is pointless. Merely proving the error or pointing out insufficiently considered complexities may make a supplementary contribution, but it does not change the fundamental facts. In light of this, it is easier to understand the grandiose theater that was performed in the Bundestag.
A thought experiment, an opinion, a reflection on the basics of dealing with the migration crisis
How lateral thinking emerges from reflection
and breaks through its boundaries,
forward thinking feeds off lateral thinking
and leads it to new shores.
The intentions formulated in the CDU/CSU motions initially lead to a thought experiment. Germany is to become "fit for war" by 2029 because Russia threatens NATO and thus also Germany. To deter Russia, a significant increase in military spending and a new form of military service are needed. Donald Trump is now demanding that the European member states of NATO spend 5 percent of their gross domestic product on armaments. For Germany, that would amount to 209 billion euros (GDP in 2023 at 4,185.6 billion euros) – with a budget of 53 billion euros planned for 2025. Even Alice Weidel can imagine this – after Elon Musk has made such an effort to win her over.
Such an arms build-up presupposes the assumption of war, and one of the questions that arises is where this war is to take place or where it is likely to take place. In the latter case, at the latest, it cannot be ruled out that Germany will be affected and that this could also result in nuclear contamination. The consequence of this would likely be a significant migration movement, which in this case would affect Germans who would set off with their families: to Austria, Switzerland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc. It can be assumed that there would then be a desire for a welcoming culture in which Germans are treated as people in need—regardless of whether they are fleeing the immediate war or its consequences in search of a better life.
The idea spreads in two directions. First, it must be noted that in the ongoing and now heated debate on rearmament, there is no sign of reflection or even action to respond to the consequences of the threat for the population: there are neither coordination processes with neighboring countries on the admission of German refugees in an emergency nor a large-scale program for the construction of shelters. How can this be? Only two explanations seem possible: No one seriously believes that Russia is making an effort to attack NATO, and the primary goal of rearmament – "war readiness" – is to attack Russia. However, ignoring both the fact that Russia would then have to attack Germany and the consequences this would have for the German population is evidence of a suicidal fixation in which one's own losses are irrelevant and whose origin lies where one believes one will not be affected.
The other direction is how Germany behaves towards refugees. The discussion that gained momentum after the attacks in Magdeburg and Aschaffenburg makes it seem possible that Germany is moving closer to American conditions. Migrants were handcuffed and shackled, flown to Colombia and Brazil in military aircraft, sometimes beaten and left without food for up to 50 hours. Just as Germans would want to be treated humanely in similar cases, those who come to Germany have the same right, and the same applies here: it does not matter whether they have fled because of war or because they are seeking a better life for themselves and their families. Humanely, this is totally legitimate: Germans would not act any differently. This consideration is important not least because otherwise there is a risk of knee-jerk reactions if the pressure to leave the country increases: Germany cannot afford further attacks.
Similar to what I did when I looked into anti-Semitism and came to the conclusion that it is a billion-dollar business whose primary focus is not combating anti-Semitism — success would destroy the business — and in examining the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, I arrived at a peace plan for the Middle East. Here, too, I would like to venture into unfamiliar territory, albeit briefly, and put forward assumptions in the hope that I am wrong or, alternatively, that the focus will be placed on this issue. The following assumptions are made – with a view to the period since 2015, so to speak: There has been and continues to be no consideration of a maximum budget for the migration issue and thus no derivation of what Germany can afford, in order to then be able to say that no one can be accepted until then because the resources are not available (this does exist for subsidies and other items); There has been no consideration of how many children in total and broken down by region ( ) the education system can cope with – with analogous consequences. There are only inadequate concepts for using the labor market for socialization – without this being to the detriment of German workers. There is no centrally controlled training and study program for skills needed to care for refugees. There is no effort to establish structures and central contact persons along nationalities through which continuous dialogue (not monologue) is possible via a communication strategy – as is done with religious communities (1, 2, 3). There is no comprehensive communication strategy – which seems essential, especially as it should help to defuse the discussion in all directions – and there is probably no newspaper for migrants in their respective languages. There is no consistent concept for the deportation of migrants. If these theses stand up to fact-checking, they contribute to the assumption that the meaning – the nature – of migration includes a weakening of Germany.
In the search for structures, the state refugee councils, which are organized in the federal states and whose nationwide homepage consists of a single page with links to the federal states, caught my attention: symbolic of a situation I assume to be true. A look at individual homepages leads to the further thesis that refugees are objects of a multitude of measures – to a large or relevant extent uncoordinated – from which a lot of money can be made, but not subjects with whom integration and deportation can be coordinated and successfully advanced. Accordingly, the developing discussion about deportation centers has probably not yet addressed the requirements for dealing with families and their children, who cannot be left without school and educational support during longer stays.
The CDU/CSU motions – a look between objectivity and interpretation
You don't have to have been everywhere
to have an idea of what you will find there.
Looking objectively at the CDU/CSU's plan, one cannot help but acknowledge the relevance of the debate and the – albeit very limited – conditional substance of the proposals. The former is evident from the figures presented above on the number of migrants, the costs they incur, and the assumed deficits, but also from the fact that the further influx has not really been decisively halted. This is also evident from the calls for help from local authorities. According to a survey by the University of Hildesheim, 23 percent of local authorities say they are overwhelmed by the task of providing accommodation, and 40 percent are using emergency shelters for this purpose. Childcare, immigration authorities, and labor market integration are particularly overburdened.
In this respect, the necessary conclusion can be drawn that Germany must officially and completely transparently—for its population, for migrants here and there, and for the world—go into quarantine, similar to the pandemic, which, incidentally, also had consequences at the borders. Germany did not conjure up these problems, but they were imposed on it – by the US and its own failures – and it is currently unable to get rid of them and is completely overwhelmed. While we would welcome evidence to the contrary, it must be stated that there is a lack of an overall concept for dealing with the influx of migrants and, as a result, amateurs—with a view to comprehensive overall solutions— are trying in many places to tie the threads together into various islands of effectiveness, but are also hopelessly overwhelmed. In this respect, instead of the effective reactions to the proposals, one can encourage substantial discussions of the conditionally substantial ideas.
However, showing understanding for the proposals and supporting them with a resilient image – quarantine – should not preclude analyzing them from other perspectives. It has already been established and proven that they are based on a picture of the situation – which is actually not a picture of the situation but a distorted image – that has no connection to reality and is therefore unsuitable as a foundation for sustainable solutions to problems: Russophobia is not a suitable foundation. This leads to the conclusion that, although the proposal is a certain contribution to an overall solution that would have certain effects if implemented, it is unlikely to lead to sustainable relief and a higher level of security – unless a decision is made to revise the program as a whole with this intention in mind.
This raises the question of whether the proposals can be attributed to motivations that have nothing to do with the interest in finding a sustainable solution to the migration problem in Germany and reducing the various burdens. The inherent Russophobia is primarily related to a lack of sovereignty in naming the US as the instigator of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Ukraine. This is linked to the silence and continued active participation in adventures that can and will lead to sustained or even increasing migration flows. The lack of interest in taking on substantial responsibility in these countries to enable the local people to live a life worth living also contributes to this and clearly demonstrates the limited effect of the planned measures. The pressure on the borders thus continues, adding another area of overload: the federal police and all the other structures responsible for border security and deportation.
From the already proven fact that wars were a major cause of migration flows in the last decade, it is easy to conclude that a policy of peace — at least in its original and not in its annexed form — would make a significant contribution to curbing these flows. However, there is no mention of this in the CDU/CSU's proposals, nor is it evident in German foreign policy. However, we will not pursue this idea further here beyond a few keywords that are considered to promote migration in terms of their associated consequences – such as Germany's efforts to become a midwife for something similar to ISIS in Syria: Armament, TAURUS, Ukraine must win, "we are waging war against Russia," defeat Russia, "the majority of people in Georgia want their country to continue on its European path," "we stand shoulder to shoulder with Moldova," "crimes must be solved, perpetrators must be held accountable."
