Adelheid Bahr,

Federal President Fischer,

Federal President Köhler,

Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul,

Barbara Hendricks,

ladies and gentlemen,

The Russian war of aggression against Ukraine has rocked the peaceful order in Europe.

When I addressed the Bundestag, I quite deliberately spoke of a “watershed”.

Egon Bahr lived through several such watersheds:

• fascism and the cataclysm of the Second World War,
• the division of Germany and Europe,
• and, finally, the collapse of the Iron Curtain.

And so I have frequently wondered over the last few weeks: What would he say today, in the face of this watershed?

Egon Bahr believed that change begins in the mind.

Instead of toiling away at the status quo, he spoke as early as 1965 – just four years after the Wall went up – about conditions for reunification.

With his eyes firmly on the goal that spurred him, too, during his lifetime: securing peace and freedom in Europe.

Because that is what matters – above all else, today as before.

I would like to contribute three ideas on the subject.

The first idea is that Ostpolitik was never a German Sonderweg, a course pursued by Germany alone. And nor must it ever be.

Willy Brandt and Egon Bahr knew exactly where they stood.

Their historic policy of opening up to the east of our continent was firmly rooted in the west.

Without Kennedy’s speech on world peace, without the initially tacit and subsequently much more active support of the US, and without being embedded in a European context, a policy of this kind would have been impossible.

Willy Brandt summed this up in the historic debate on the Eastern Treaties – fifty years ago, almost to the day:

“Patriotic policy in Germany can today only be European policy.”

For us, similarly, our policy on Russia can only be joint European policy!

Brandt and Bahr, in their day, had to first speak with Moscow in order to achieve détente in the relationship with Warsaw, Prague or East Berlin.

Today we are in a different situation.

When we speak with Warsaw, Prague or Bucharest, we are dealing with independent, sovereign states, with friends and partners within the European Union and NATO.

That is the reality on which we base our policy.

And the Russian President, too, must recognise this reality.

After my talks at the Kremlin a few weeks ago, I thus told the EU ambassadors in Moscow that our greatest strength in this crisis is our unity.

And we have provided proof of this unity in recent weeks.

For Germany, this means consulting on our policy at a European level and embedding it in a European context – thereby enabling a European consensus.

It is also with this goal in mind that we will be going to the European Council at the end of next week, to set out a path towards European sovereignty.

But everything that is seen as a course pursued by Germany alone – particularly in relations with Russia – harms us, harms our security and harms Europe.

My second point concerns the question of how to preserve our peaceful order in Europe.

This peaceful order did not yet prevail in Egon Bahr’s time. He had to work towards creating it.

This explains the formula used in his Tutzing speech, which is not the paradox it seems: “changing the status quo by first attempting not to change it.”

His long-term goal consisted in overcoming what was, from a German perspective in particular, an unsatisfactory status quo, the division of our country.

Today, however, the circumstances are fundamentally different. We have the greatest possible interest in the long-term preservation of the security order that has prevailed in Europe since Helsinki.

Russia, meanwhile, is in the process of demolishing this status quo with its war on Ukraine.

What Putin wants is to turn back the clock to a time when the great powers divided up the map of the world among themselves.

In which they treated the countries of Central and Eastern Europe merely as buffer zones or zones of influence.

But time cannot be turned back. We must make that clear to the Russian leadership.

By resolutely defending our rules-based order against attacks such as the one we are currently experiencing.

Anything else would mean opening up Pandora’s box, as inevitably happens with any forcible redrawing of borders, particularly in Europe.

One look at historical maps is enough for us to recognise the danger.

That is why we have said very clearly to Moscow, from the beginning of the crisis, that the pillars of the peaceful European order, the inviolability of borders, are non-negotiable!

That brings me to my third idea – concerning the formula coined by Egon Bahr: peace in Europe is only possible with Russia and not in opposition to it.

This statement remains true.

Yet at the same time, we must acknowledge that the current course of the Russian leadership poses a real threat to security in Europe.

That is the regrettable starting point of a Russia policy that – quite in the spirit of Egon Bahr – must begin with a clear-headed assessment of reality.

But must not stay there!

Anyone who wants peace must be willing to negotiate.

We, too, are keeping channels of communication open and utilising every option for mediation.

• That is why the French President and I are speaking with President Putin.
• That is why we are liaising closely with other partners who have influence – with the United States, of course, but also with China, Turkey and Israel.

For the moment, nobody can predict whether these talks will bring us closer to success or indeed to a political solution.

But that will not stop us!

It is clear that there can only be peace through a ceasefire and negotiations.

At the same time, however, we are not naive.

Dialogue is not an end in itself.

Dialogue – particularly with Russia – requires us to have strength of our own.

Willy Brandt and Egon Bahr knew that, too. Incidentally, the greatest percentage increase in defence expenditure in the Federal Republic of Germany was during their time in office.

A willingness to engage in dialogue must go hand in hand with a willingness to resolutely defend our values and principles against attacks.

When democracy, freedom and human rights are attacked – as is happening now in Ukraine – then words must be followed by deeds.

We will therefore continue and enhance our political and economic support for Ukraine. And we therefore decided to supply Ukraine with weapons for self-defence.

This is not a decision that we took lightly. But it was right and necessary.

And the tough sanctions that we have passed together with our friends and partners in recent days and weeks are just as right and necessary.

Ultimately, it is also our values and our peaceful order that are at stake in Ukraine!

Ladies and gentlemen,

There is one mistake that we must avoid at all costs: equating Putin with Russia.

It was not the Russian people who made the fateful decision to invade Ukraine.

This war is Putin’s war.

Ukraine wants peace.

We want peace with Russia and the Russian people.

This distinction is important.

• It is important in order not to jeopardise the reconciliation between Germans and Russians following the Second World War.
• It is important in order not to open up rifts between us and the many people of our country with Ukrainian and Russian roots.
• And it is important in order to show the brave Russians who are taking to the streets to protest against Putin’s war of aggression, at great personal risk, one thing: You are not alone! We stand with you.

It is this Russia that sparks hope of better times to come – including in relations between Germany and Russia.

During my visit to Moscow a few weeks ago, I spoke with representatives of Russian civil society, which is under enormous pressure.

One of them said to me:

“You know, democracy stems from us as people.”

The brave people on the streets of St Petersburg, Moscow and Novosibirsk show that he is right.

They show that there is a Russia other than Putin’s Russia.

This other Russia is the foundation for the German-Russian relations of the future.

I know that, for many of you, this is an issue close to your hearts.

And I would like to thank all of you who work as part of associations to maintain and strengthen links with ordinary people in Russia. Your work is probably more important now than ever!

Ladies and gentlemen,

I know that, were Egon Bahr here today, he would have been thrilled to plunge into our discussion on the limits and possibilities of an Ostpolitik in keeping with the times.

I still remember our shared time in Hamburg – Egon was the head of the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy there.

He never minced his words.

Every age does not just have its challenges.

It also finds its own responses.

For Egon Bahr, it was always clear that:

“As long as the response is not a fatalistic declaration that there is nothing we can do, we must examine what we can do.”

That is what he strove for.

And it is what we strive for today.

Thank you very much!