#896 Peace Weapons or War Business?

Brain Food for Pioneering Spirits: does an arms delivery fuel war or fuel peace, and why do we treat refugees from different wars so differently? In Room #896 of the Deep Talk Club, under our overarching theme “Pioneering Spirit with brAIn,” the group weighs Ukraine arms deliveries against the weapons industry’s record profits, asks who really benefits when a war drags on, traces the psychological long-tail of trauma passed on even before birth, and confronts the double standard in how asylum seekers are received depending on where they come from. Listen in on the examples that came up and the perspectives that emerged in dialogue…

Note: This session was recorded live in German as part of the Deep Talk Club, so the video above is German-language audio only. What follows is an English translation of the conversation, lightly edited for readability — the back-and-forth between the moderator and participants is preserved, but the original timestamps and speaker names have been left out.

Today we’re talking about the topic peace weapons or war business. It’s about taking a look at that and seeing what perspectives can be opened up in terms of interests, opportunities, and risks in connection with arms deliveries into war zones. I’m really curious how things will unfold today, which perspectives will come together. It’s not about being an expert, it’s about bringing in various things we observe, that we pick up on, gladly also historically, and simply, in exchange, together in dialogue, opening up different perspectives that allow us not to convince the other person of our own opinion, but to open up new perspectives, to generate insights by maybe raising question marks at one point or another, starting to think about certain things again, sorting our own thoughts, and then everyone can decide for themselves at the end of the room which impulses moved them forward and at which point they might want to start researching further or something similar. Yes, as every morning, we’re also recording the entire room today. That means whoever would like to join is warmly invited in principle, provided you also agree that the whole thing will be published. And we have three small room rules to follow, as a prerequisite to make sure these are genuine contributions and not some kind of Clubhouse trolls. First, a profile photo in which you’re recognizable, a first and last name, and at least one sentence in your bio. Whoever doesn’t want that for whatever reason, but would rather stay anonymous, or, for example, can’t speak right now because it’s too loud in the background or something like that, of course also has the opportunity to simply use the chat. And depending on how intense the exchange is here and how lively the discussion is, I’ll gladly pick up on one thing or another from the chat too. And otherwise we also observe daily that there’s often already parallel discussion happening in the chat among yourselves, which is also very welcome. Yes, and with that I’d like to take a look, peace weapons or war business. That’s of course also a topic that can certainly be emotionally charged. That’s why, once again, a reminder to make sure together that we really stay on the factual level and together pick up various impulses on the factual level that we talk about, while treating each other respectfully and not attacking the other person’s opinion or similar, and taking a look at that. So, what perspectives can be opened up regarding interests, opportunities, and risks in connection with arms deliveries into war zones? Of course we have the opportunity here to open up one of the most recent examples, which is certainly present for many of us — that’s the discussion that has taken place and continues to take place regarding arms deliveries in connection with Ukraine in the war against Russia. That’s probably what’s most present for us. At the same time, there are of course wars happening at many other places, again and again. Looking at history too, we might be able to remember one thing or another that’s hopefully already concluded. But of course, parallel to the wars in Europe, there are also wars in other places around the world, where we can open up various examples and take a look at what interests, opportunities, and risks we see in this context. So, in that sense, you’re very, very warmly invited to join and simply enter the exchange. The Deep Talk rooms are known for creating a space of reflection, where we talk together about certain topics in exchange, and through that impulses come up again and thoughts can be linked through this exchange of ideas, so to speak, in order to pick up new aspects, further aspects that come to mind. That means it’s not a monologue, and in that sense I’ll gladly mute myself now and just see who wants to open up the dialogue with me this morning in the sense of a reflection.

A very good morning, dear Sabine.

A very good morning. I can only stay until half past, but I wanted to join briefly. Yes, when it comes to opportunities, what comes to mind for me of course is that we simply say, this whole thing has to be stopped. We can’t just give an autocrat like that free rein. And of course, that it turned out this way — probably nobody expected that at the beginning, at the start. I believe yesterday Scholz was on Sandra Maischberger’s show and also said we have to keep delivering for as long as it takes, nobody can say how long that will be. So the risk, of course, is that this becomes a perpetual war and nobody really knows which direction the whole thing is heading. Regarding opportunities again — opportunities in quotation marks — I’d briefly say the entire industry surrounding arms deliveries is doing better than it ever has, and that’s of course not so nice. Those were my opening words.

Yes, wonderful, thank you so, so much for that start, and several questions can be derived from that right away. One is the first point regarding opportunities, along the lines of, we deliver weapons for as long as necessary to end this war. In the discourse, the question comes up relatively quickly — does that even make sense? Can a war actually be ended by delivering weapons, or does that just fuel the whole thing even more? That’s one perspective. Another perspective could also be — if we compare in other directions — how is that actually, to what extent are we obligated to think in terms of arms deliveries and such? And what difference does it make whether a war takes place in Europe or in other regions? How do we deal with it when wars happen elsewhere? That’s the next question. And then you opened up a second point — yes, of course the business, so to speak, with weapons, that might not be underestimated either. What role does that play in all of this? Because it’s an entire industry that also profits from it. And what interests are actually behind that too? Those are various aspects one could open up. Maybe you’d like to continue on that, Sabine, and since you also made the comparison with other countries and so on, maybe you have further thoughts on that you’d like to bring in.

Yes, you’re absolutely right about that. Somehow Ukraine is of course much closer to us. Next would be Poland. What happens to Moldova if the Russians keep going? That’s already a bit of a threat in Europe — it’s not part of the EU yet, but it’s certainly a threat right at our doorstep. So we certainly think about that differently than what’s happening in Afghanistan, Syria, and so on. People always think that’s far away. I believe humanity’s suffering is exactly the same there as here. And I mean, the Americans are well known for that too — they’re involved everywhere. There are ultimately many good books about it where people simply say, well, the interest there was always something quite different. We look at where there’s oil, where there’s some kind of access, or whatever. So here I think it’s a different interest. There are no raw materials here. It’s simply that this is a Western-oriented state that just shouldn’t fall under the hammer. That’s my opinion on it.

Yes, here too we can certainly open up different perspectives, and one of the perspectives is also to think in the direction of, well, what other interest could be behind it? Maybe, for example, weakening Russia would also be a possibility that’s certainly brought up in discussions, because especially various negotiation talks weren’t concluded or brought to an end, apparently because the USA blocked them, so the question certainly arises whether other political interests might not be hidden behind this too. What do you say to that, Sabine? Do you find that far-fetched, or could there be something to it from your point of view?

There’s certainly something to that. I believe our big brother from America will always think in that direction. The weakness of one is the strength of the other, and in that sense, my personal opinion is that they’re certainly always a driver in the background. So I fully agree with her on that, Yasemin.

Yes, and I’d like to open up another aspect right away, and at the same time I’d also like to extend the invitation again — you’re very warmly welcome to really join and simply bring in various thoughts, to expand this space of reflection and open up further perspectives. Because maybe we address certain things that seem obvious, and maybe we don’t address other things at all that you might still see, that could also be considered here. And of course, under this overarching “Pioneering Spirit with brAIn,” we also want to see how this actually relates to the overarching theme, in quotation marks, and what bridges can be built here. Over several weeks now we’ve picked up technological developments and so on, and shown that it’s always about thinking in terms of connections, both regarding the influences and regarding the effects the whole thing has, all the way to, what price do we pay for something, in quotation marks, and thereby on one hand showing the complexity, and on the other hand, through these different perspectives, coming to think about it ourselves too, and using the opportunity to sort our own thoughts anew, and possibly changing attitudes, opinions, at one point or another, or feeling confirmed, or whatever results from that for you. And the more different perspectives, examples etc. we have — and as I said, it’s not at all about what’s right or wrong, or who’s right or wrong, going into judgment, but rather, on the meta-level, simply looking together and thinking a bit in different directions, in order to possibly derive new questions and new insights from that. So you’re very warmly invited to simply join and also contribute your part. Especially because Sabine has also announced that she has to leave at half past. That means if nobody else has joined by then, we’ll of course be back in this monologue mode, which would mean I’d wrap up the room for today at the latest and close it. So that would be a shame.

Yes, if we look toward risks too, the question arises — what risks can result, especially aspects like, well, if we deliver weapons, regardless of whether that’s about Ukraine or other countries, what are the risks that arise from that at the same time, can risks be derived, or is it basically, in quotation marks, just a good thing in the sense that we want to support a country so that a war is ended, so to speak, and that it can defend itself accordingly — or can risks also arise for us as Germany from taking sides, in this case even, when we’re talking about Ukraine. In other countries it’s maybe somewhat more neutral, but you could also look at whether it’s really that neutral. Sabine, what do you say to that?

Well, I mean, to this day they’re not in NATO, so NATO territory hasn’t been attacked yet, but in my opinion it counts among the Western regions, at least that’s how the Ukrainians see themselves, and in distinction from Russia that’s certainly meant too, but I might add — since you mentioned technology — yes, of course we’re in a completely different technological era today, and I find that this threat of nuclear weapons is always in the background, because the moment someone presses the button, I mean, they’d be finished too, but it would hit us as well, and I think that’s simply a completely different matter than in the past when two warring parties faced each other. And something else comes to mind regarding risks, because you said earlier, whether it’s here with us or in the rest of the world — we now see that we treat Ukrainian refugees very differently than other refugees. You could also say, is that okay, because one person, the other person — I believe I mentioned this before at some point, our cleaning lady, for example, finds that — she comes from Albania, and she says when we came here, we had a completely different world. We had to ask for everything, we had to beg for everything, and when she says what she sees now, there’s a certain dissatisfaction that comes up. She speaks perfect German, she’s really become quite Germanized by now. I don’t even know, maybe she even has a German passport, I can’t say for sure. And there’s of course also a very great dissatisfaction in the country about how differently things are handled in some cases.

Yes, a really important aspect you’re raising, especially since I also know examples from my own circle that actually pick up exactly this point, comparing themselves too, and expressing displeasure in this context. And that doesn’t just concern people who came here at some point in the past and have meanwhile possibly settled in, speak good German and so on, but it also concerns people who might be coming from other countries today with asylum status and simply have no opportunity to take up work here or similar. That means we often, quite obviously, treat these people differently depending on where they come from, and what’s actually the basis for that, or the justification for that, and how does that relate to, or how can that be viewed in relation to, equal treatment, in quotation marks, and what makes the difference. And with that I’d like to very, very warmly welcome Mona to join us. What a surprise, dear Mona. I’m really glad you’re here, and I’m really curious what you’d like to contribute to this topic today.

I had no idea what the topic was until I got here, but I thought I’d take a look. I’ll just say the word out loud that you already named subtly — it’s simply discrimination, to say it quite openly. I’m fully on board with that too. On what basis is that actually the case? Is it just because it’s geographically closer? I mean, we had the Bosnian War here in the 90s too, which also wasn’t that far from us relative to Ukraine now. We didn’t handle it any differently back then either. So where’s the justification now for it being different? Regarding the question you asked, I think, right as I came in — can that also have negative effects? Yes. I mean, you have to go back in history. Who did the USA supply with weapons in the past? And what did those countries do with those weapons? I mean, I’ll just mention Osama Bin Laden. He was openly supported by the USA. He received weapons, he was trained by the USA. And what did he do with that in the end? So how do we know today — A) do the weapons even stay in the country? Who even has control over that? There are already the first, well, they’re rumors, I really don’t want to fuel that, but what happens to the weapons? Are they resold? Do they stay there? Are they really used for the purpose they’re currently needed for? And what happens to the weapons after the war? I mean, on one hand we’re having discussions here in Germany that our armed forces couldn’t even defend us in an emergency. Whether that’s true or not, I’m not the expert on that. But these statements are out there. We’ve now launched some 100-billion program to get our own armed forces back on their feet, and in return we’re giving to other countries, where I have to ask myself the question, can we as a country even afford that, when it’s being said that we might not even be able to defend ourselves? So are we bringing the devil into our own house with that, or does it really make sense at this point?

Yes, thank you so, so much. And especially, we’ve used this opportunity in other rooms too. We already talked about how one of the, well, future skills, basically in the sense of development or the educational mandate for self-determination, self-efficacy and so on, also consists of practicing thinking in scenarios. So certainly also best-case scenarios, worst-case scenarios, or most-likely, etc. And it certainly makes sense to look into these different directions and to formulate these questions you just raised, and looking at it historically too — whether these were weapons from us or from other countries — to also look at what that actually means, and not just to see opportunities or just to see risks, but to open up different doors here in order to open up different perspectives, to formulate corresponding questions, and to actually always be able to make trade-offs, in order to arrive at sensible decisions, so to speak. I could imagine that especially with the war between Ukraine and Russia, many didn’t assume it would last this long. What role does the duration of a war actually play? Maybe that also triggers certain thoughts for you. Does the duration of a war actually have any effect, when we say we’re looking at this topic in terms of interests, opportunities, and risks? Does that play a role here too, or is that rather secondary? And then we’ve also opened up this aspect of proximity and distance, so to speak. What difference does it make whether a war takes place in Europe or elsewhere? We talked about the rainbow movement yesterday, for example, and one of the points that came up in the round was, among other things, that at its origin it’s actually just about ensuring equality. And I find it interesting, especially when we pick up this aspect of equality again, and you said, Mona, basically…

…it’s a form of discrimination. We can actually get straight to the point. Why do we treat people differently, for example people who live in Europe, when they’re in a war, compared to elsewhere? Or, if we look at the past, there were also examples for Europe where we maybe didn’t necessarily react differently, but even much more severely, I could say at this point, to hint at what I want to express. Sabine, Mona, would you like to dock in on that again?

Yes, gladly. So, in the end, the first question was, does the length of a war make a difference? Yes, definitely. I believe if the war had ended relatively quickly, there wouldn’t be any big discussions at all. I think, generally speaking, the longer a war lasts, the more suffering happens on both sides. That’s simply how it is. I don’t think we’re playing chess. It’s about human lives. The longer such conflicts go on, the more people end up being used as chess pieces, so to speak. That means, of course, threats are made, people are driven to their deaths. I don’t even know the name of the city, but there was Mariupol in the south. They basically starved it out, bombed it, until nobody was left. This unimaginable suffering that happens there. And the problem is, the longer such a war goes on, the less both sides have to gain. It’s simply become a situation now where you have to say quite clearly, honestly, there’s almost nothing left to save. Because A) the country is bombed to rubble, there’s almost nothing left that could still be saved in principle. On the other hand, neither side can save face either way, because neither side will get its demands enforced. Now on one side we of course have a despot who of course doesn’t want to lose face — he’s actually already lost it, but I don’t think he’s quite accepted that yet. And on the other side we have someone — I mean, you also shouldn’t forget who Zelensky originally was. I mean, he was mocked. He’s not actually an entrenched politician. I believe he was an actor before. So nobody would have credited him with this kind of leadership. He’s of course proven himself very well throughout this whole time. But there too, of course, the question is, what are the underlying interests, how does it continue afterward? So these are simply things — when something drags on this long, I think people just want it to be over. And to achieve that ending, people are then also willing to make compromises. Whether those are always good is a different question. On the topic of why we might view Ukraine differently — well, I mean several components play into that too, I think. I think you’ve already addressed many topics in the past. On one hand, of course, the topic of cultural identity comes in. For example, what religion predominates in the country. I mean, that’s discriminatory again now, but it’s just how it is. When we talk about neighbors and people who are culturally very similar to us, I think we generally have a higher interest in helping them than if they’re, in quotation marks, strangers to us who hold a different culture, who have a different background, who simply find it harder, first of all under the assumption that because the culture is so different, they integrate with us more difficultly. I mean, the language issue isn’t out of the picture either — it’s still a different language. And sure, some of them might have already known it, others not, like in every country. But I think there’s of course the issue that the closer a person is to us, the more the person is a neighbor with whom we can also identify, let’s say, appearance-wise, the more we might feel the urge to protect that person, than if it’s someone where I say, I can’t identify with that person. They have a background, both economic and social, that I can’t identify with. I mean, it’s always the case that when we as humans face unfamiliar things, people, objects, we always initially feel a bit of fear too, because it’s all unknown. That’s completely normal. I think you could say more about that from a brain-research perspective, why that is. But it’s simply natural that when we face strangers, we don’t feel as comfortable as when it’s the neighbor we know well. I think that plays a big role in this.

Yes, thank you so, so much. And since Sabine already announced earlier that she has to leave at half past, I’d like to give you, Sabine, the opportunity once more to dock in, or gladly say something concluding before you leave us for today.

Yes, that’s kind of you. Hello Mona, first of all. Yes, so, quite right, that’s a topic — I remember when it started, something was in the news constantly everywhere, and there was also a bit more personal attitude from everyone, oh the poor people, and so on. And meanwhile, with the length of it, it’s become almost, I won’t say routine, but something like that. And I always find that concerning too, no matter where it appears. It’s always just, I need more weapons, I need more weapons. I mean, maybe this weapons production also gave Germany a bit of a push regarding how our defense policy has been on the wrong track, that might have been a positive thing at some point. But indirectly, it can’t just be more and more delivering from all sides constantly. So right now I don’t know how this continues. I mean, what’s happening now with the Wagner Group, that was a bit of a hope. Maybe there’ll be some weakening on the Russian side and then maybe that’s a solution. But the rest, I don’t know. There can’t always be more and more sent there and more and more. That’s just destruction of resources, destruction of wealth, pure destruction of everything. Yes, so I’m certainly no expert on this at all. I see it more from the emotional side, and yes, I don’t know. I wish you all a nice day, and I unfortunately really have to sign off now.

Yes, thank you so, so much, and a wonderful day to you too, dear Sabine. And yes, there are so many aspects that have now been added as further factors, to pick up on the brain-research point again — sure, what’s similar to us, so to speak, what’s familiar to us, doesn’t seem threatening to us, and accordingly we’re more open here to also providing support, to helping, because we don’t feel an existential threat or fear in the first moment, while especially with foreign cultures, where we might not have had any points of contact yet, images are automatically stored somewhere in us, or none at all, because we simply have no experience with it, so there’s a certain discomfort there too, which certainly plays a huge and vehement role. And whether that’s then a foreign culture, a foreign religion, are various factors that come together here. And that ultimately has an effect. Then we have another aspect regarding damages. Those aren’t just damages in terms of, in quotation marks, everything possible being bombed. Even if we consider what further consequences that has, something like the psychological damage that arises here, all the rapes that also take place in war zones and so on. That means all of that of course has to be processed on one hand, and on the other hand there’s also a post-war business, so to speak. So we talked about the business with weapons, for example. But there’s also a post-war business. That means the longer a war lasts, the more there is afterward, so to speak, on-site, to rebuild it again. And here too, ultimately, viewed from various perspectives, it’s again about the opportunity to make money with it, so that maybe there isn’t necessarily always an interest in a war ending quickly, but perhaps it’s even quite deliberately dragged out, because you can make a business out of it again for yourself. That’s one thing. And the other thing I want to mention, which I think we’ll probably all nod along to, is that when we say we’re all for peace — the question is always, what’s actually the right way? Do we fuel the war or the peace with an arms delivery? And that’s the question that’s being very heatedly discussed, especially in the context of Ukraine. But I think this question isn’t just to be asked in this context, but also in every other war. Whether that’s soldiers who are on-site, supposedly to provide help or offer protection, or whether it’s arms deliveries etc. etc. There are many we could open up. The longer this situation drags on, the worse the damages are, and the longer it will take to be able to do the work of processing it, so to speak. To the extent that you can — and certainly a lot can be processed — but especially the psychological damage, especially things like rape, then the losses people suffer, losing family members and so on. I don’t even know — you can process it, but you’ll never forget it. And that’s also something that ultimately remains as long-term damage.

Mona, would you like to add to that?

Gladly. Yes, you’ve already said it, ultimately, we’re creating ticking time bombs right now. We know this from other countries too, when refugees come. I really don’t want to defame anyone or anything like that. But we simply have to face the reality that traumatized people who don’t get the help they need — of course everyone reacts differently — but it’s foreseeable that when someone gets under stress and such traumas aren’t processed — I mean, we see this quite often with soldiers coming from war zones, though less so in Germany now, I mean. But I think the post-war period was maybe a bit more like that, that was somewhat the phase of my grandparents, when people really came back traumatized from such a war and simply didn’t get help. I mean, we just have to look over at America. That topic is super present over there. Every time I go to Los Angeles, it breaks my heart. I mean, that’s a mega-rich city, and I have the feeling, since 2015, when I was there for the first time, the slums where all the veterans live on the street just keep getting bigger. That’s become a mega problem over there by now. And I mean, it’s sad that you serve your country and end up wasting away on the street because nobody takes care of you. And I’d say, it’s not so much about the financial help now, but people don’t get helped mentally at all either. How many come back with post-traumatic stress disorder and nobody treats them? I mean, every time something bangs somewhere, an exhaust pipe backfires, they immediately feel transported back into the war. I can totally understand that. And we’re talking about countries like America, which could actually, actually, if you really looked at it, really afford it. I don’t even want to talk about how it is for countries in a completely different financial situation. I don’t want to say the Americans are financially well off, that’s a different story. But the point is simply, we see how many traumatized people eventually snap or reach for a weapon when something, basically, triggers them. It’s not an accusation at all in the sense of “they wanted to do that on purpose,” but these are simply really deep-seated problems that people struggle with, that currently aren’t being talked about at all, because that’s simply not the focus right now, but that’s what happens. And that doesn’t just happen to soldiers, it also happens to the people who are affected by it, who were threatened by it, whether they had a weapon held to their head or were shelled by bombs. I mean, that affects thousands of people in this case. I’ve never seen, after a war, in any country, a measure where people were really permanently given therapy for everyone in the country, basically. People are left alone with it in the end. And with that, I inevitably create, over time, over the duration, over the number of people, a lot of ticking time bombs, where I never know when one might go off. And as I said, that’s not an attack on the people, they really can’t help it. But that’s the reality of the whole situation. And nobody talks about that either.

Yes, an absolutely important point you’re raising in this context. And you can look at that from two perspectives again. On one hand, the perspective that we provide help by taking people in, regardless of where the war is and which people we take in, who in some form seek asylum with us and are then taken in. That means we do have people here who are traumatized. To what extent is help actually being provided here, other than, for example, providing housing, enabling language learning, which are already great things, but honestly, it needs quite a bit more than that. And then we also have the perspective, so to speak, of when these people don’t get asylum with us, but thought through in terms of consequences. You mentioned earlier the weapons and Bin Laden. And here it’s basically that these are traumatized people who, in some way, we don’t exactly know what effects that will have, and whether that might also have any effects, for example, on Germany. And especially regarding all these psychological effects, I’d like to look at this from brain research again, because it’s not just those affected whom we might immediately think of, namely those who experience this war situation directly, but we have really interesting findings from brain research, where we now know that, for example, during pregnancy certain things are already stored. That means, especially traumatic experiences, both from the mother and from the father — so the reference persons of an unborn child — have an influence on what an unborn child, so to speak, unconsciously or consciously experiences, but stores without the ability to remember it. And that can subsequently lead, for example, to certain behavior or patterns that you can’t properly attribute in adulthood, because you don’t have the memory of having experienced something specific. That means that through hormone cocktails, so to speak, that are released, certain things are already transmitted via the bloodstream too. That’s one thing. That means it’s not just about thinking of those who might come directly from war zones and can be accompanied here, but also unborn and born children, where you might not immediately assume that they perceive it that consciously or experienced it. That shouldn’t be underestimated either. We assume that small children, for example, maybe don’t pick up on that much or something similar, but that this really does get stored here already as traumatic experiences that can also have an effect, that should be kept in mind too. I think that’s also really important. And then I’d like to bring up another point. In an exchange with someone who works at the airport, I learned that — I don’t know exactly if it’s still like that today, but especially at the beginning, in the context of the Ukraine war, when people were being taken in in Germany, you can imagine, you come from a war zone and maybe don’t have a passport anymore or any ID or similar. And this acquaintance who works at the airport told me that it was really extreme, because the instruction was, basically, the main thing is that people have something with which they can, in quotation marks, prove their name and address. And with that they were taken in. But it’s certainly conceivable in doubt, I mean, wherever help is offered, abuse also takes place. So it’s certainly conceivable, for example, that letterheads or similar were used. You could present something with someone else’s name on it. That means someone could then also gain access with a foreign name, where we might not be able to exactly identify or know who that actually is, basically. And that also carries dangers, so to speak. So on one hand it’s good to reduce bureaucracy in the sense of fast assistance etc. However, we’re possibly also opening new doors here regarding problems that could await us in the future too. So, seeing that from both perspectives too. And I found it really fascinating when I was told that. And we’re not talking about some exceptions or anything — that was a standard situation, that people actually arrived with basically nothing and were taken in with nothing. The main thing was having some piece of paper with a name on it. Mona, what do you think about that?

Yes, it’s blatant discrimination. So sorry that I say it so clearly, but I know people who also left their country for really legitimate reasons and had to enter here. What hurdles they have to overcome — I mean, they often leave without their papers too, yes, they have to get them if they want to stay here. It’s tough. And on one hand we’re discussing that we can’t deport people to their countries if they don’t have papers, which of course leads some people who want to exploit the system to — I mean, there are even smugglers who tell people, destroy your papers so you can’t be deported. So on one hand we know these problems exist, and on the other hand we open the door to create them ourselves too. Because who’s to say that among the whole stream of refugees — and that wouldn’t be unusual — the aggressors weren’t also among those who came here too, because they thought…

…well, then we might as well use the opportunity right away. I mean, our federal police say this regularly, that with these disappearing border controls — that’s not funny, because on one hand we as a country also have a duty, and our federal police too, to know who’s staying in our country, also whether that person is peacefully disposed toward us or not. That’s exactly the task of the corresponding federal police, to take care of something like that, which is why we used to have borders too, to check who’s coming in here. And now, through the whole intra-EU political situation — I mean, don’t get me wrong, I think that’s great. I travel a lot around Europe too, and as a citizen I also think it’s great that I’m not always being checked. But the flip side is, well, but the police have already raised their hand within the EU and said, watch out, we no longer even know who’s actually moving around in our country. How are we supposed to protect the population if we don’t even know who’s here? And on the other hand we’re creating the problem ourselves too, by basically telling everyone, well, you just need, I don’t know, a school ID from 20 years ago with your name on it, which, honestly, you could forge without any problem. That’s really no big feat. Who at the airport even knows whether that’s an original document or not? I mean, if you talk to the federal police, I mean, they’re trained accordingly to recognize official documents. They have checkpoints that can verify such things. But who’s doing that at the airport? Honestly, that opens the door for everything, of course. I don’t even want to know what potential future attackers are now in our country, without — as I said, there are so many people, I understand that, but the question is also, do we ever catch up on that, do we ever have people show documents at some point? That’s the problem. Sure, there are emergency situations where you can allow that briefly, but where’s the limit? When do I reset to the normal state, and how do I catch up on that for the people who were affected by this regulation? But eventually everything regulates itself again. Will that ever be corrected retroactively? How do we deal with the people then? What if, basically… We mustn’t forget, social benefits are also partly being paid out. I don’t want to be mean, but that’s money that we all pay into the system. So I do want to know where my money is going. I mean, I work hard for that money, and I’d really like to know who’s getting all of that. Do they even have a claim to it, or have they simply taken advantage of the system and pocketed things they actually have no claim to? Those are also things nobody talks about. And that’s what really gets a lot of people worked up. Where, for example, retirees sometimes have to fill out applications to get, I don’t know, a replacement for a broken washing machine, while for other people it’s just handed to them. So there too, discrimination starts — especially affecting people who this really concerns, who stick to the rules and fill out all the forms and register things normally, they basically get obstacles put in their way, while other people have it handed to them more or less. So that’s the topic again. Of course, as I said, individual cases — it might have been a different agency, I don’t want to rule out that everyone basically had different guidelines, because a lot of this stuff is partly at the state level and even differs by district, but nevertheless, the stories naturally spread that there are simply unequal treatments happening, and again nobody talks about how to fix that. If something like that happens — hey, wherever people work, mistakes happen, okay, but how do you correct something like that? Who checks it? How is it even verified? How do you want to deal with it? Because, as I said, we all know that if someone doesn’t have a passport, they can’t be deported. So how is that now with all the refugees? So what happens if at some point they’re also asked to get a passport? And if so, and if not, can we then also not turn them away? So let’s assume there’s peace in the country again at some point, right? Of course we assume that the majority of people — and that’s also true, you can see that in statistics from the past too, when wars subside — we’ve also seen that with Libya and Syria back then. Everyone said in 2015, oh God, we’ll be overrun. But most of them voluntarily went back again. I believe 90 percent or so, after things had calmed down, voluntarily returned to their country. Because real refugees actually want to go back to their country when it’s possible again somehow. That means the majority goes back on their own. But there are always a few who stay. And how do we deal with the people who then decide to stay here? And then they might not have papers. What do we do with them? So we’ve partly created that problem for ourselves.

Yes, and here too, the duration of the war ultimately also plays a role, because you just said it almost in passing — once the war has subsided, which can take very, very different amounts of time. My brother-in-law, for example, is from Afghanistan and was originally taken in as an asylum seeker here in Germany many, many decades ago. Meanwhile, he’s lived here for many years, he’s married, and yes, a grandfather many times over and so on. And yes, and the question arises, of course, and the war is basically still not over — that might be worth adding as an aside. So there’s still all the unrest and everything you keep following in the news too. That means that can also last a very, very long time. Especially with wars, you don’t know in advance whether it will last a few days, a year, or many, many years. And in that sense, especially during this in-between time, you can’t say we’d now like to have documents presented again, because in doubt, everything, in quotation marks, has been bombed on-site, and there’s no possibility to submit anything afterward either, or similar. That’s not so easy to solve at this point.

And then I’d like to pick up on one or two things from the chat. First, the question came up — has anyone ever asked in which countries these weapons for Germany are produced? In which countries are these weapons for Germany produced? That’s one question. And then we have a note from Ulle — thanks for the note — you already know a bit about other cultures, what status women have, what views they hold that are considered outdated here. That’s why it might be that people have something against some refugees and not against others. And here we have this point again, maybe picking up the different cultures once more. Even though this asylum status can then change over time too, regardless of whether we’re talking about Ukraine, which directly gets the opportunity to work here too, or whether it’s people from other countries who initially get asylum, can’t work yet, but then at some point this status changes and then they too become available for the labor market, so to speak. And here too, many discussions can be followed publicly. I remember an interview that took place with a doctor, in which she talked, for example, about how it’s actually sometimes difficult, especially in the emergency room or something, when a nurse, for example, has a challenge with it or a problem with it, taking instructions from a female supervisor or from a female doctor. And we’re not talking about normal patient treatment here, but about an emergency room, where it’s really about time and about life and death or something like that. And there you can see how sensitive that can sometimes be, depending on which contexts, or also on the labor market, we’re talking about — that there are certainly aspects here too that are far too little discussed. That’s not meant to say that people from other cultures shouldn’t have access, shouldn’t get asylum, or shouldn’t work. At the same time, especially in certain areas, we’re also glad and grateful to have support here too. Nevertheless, it shows on what levels and dimensions problems arise here too, and how important it is to look at this and consider how to accompany these processes, which are taking place and are completely human, at this point. Mona, do you have further thoughts on that, before we move on to the closing round? And if you’d like to say something on the first question that was asked, about production, feel free.

On production, I have to admit I don’t know. I mean, we also buy some things ourselves, so, in the end I don’t want to claim that this isn’t possibly a kind of ring exchange too, so to speak — saying, okay, we give you what we actually bought ourselves. As I said, the question is, what’s actually being spent on this 100 billion that we announced for ourselves, and how much of that money actually reaches our own armed forces versus being transferred directly abroad. I mean, we ourselves have ordered things that we’ve never even received delivery of, and instead we’re already giving away other things, even though we’re already in shortage. So that’s extremely critical at this point. And on the topic you just mentioned about the emergency room — I mean, that exists in various fields, in many fields it’s maybe not as critical because no lives or time-criticality are attached to it, but that’s the general topic of integration. How do we integrate people? And I mean, I was married to a foreigner myself, yes, and I have a very, very personal connection to this topic, and my ex-husband always, always said, I’m a guest in this country and I have to submit to the rules of this country here, without discussion. He learned the language, he can go to government offices alone, he works in Germany, he’s integrated, but he also always wanted to be integrated. I’ll say it quite openly, I also know counterexamples, where people don’t want to integrate at all. Then the question is, how do we deal with such people? And that question isn’t generally resolved at all yet. And again, it’s not about whether someone — I know many Muslims who have integrated very well into our Christian culture, who have no issue with that at all. But there are always fanatics who believe they have to interpret things that aren’t even in the scriptures, and who believe they have to handle things differently. So then there’s always the question — and that’s a fundamental question that’s still unresolved, that I think nobody really dares to tackle, because it’s of course a difficult topic — where’s the boundary, where does it end, where does it start? Because on one hand we don’t want to discriminate against any religion, but on the other hand, also quite openly speaking, yes, for example, if you look at Islam, it says in the Quran that men have to cover themselves just as much as women. Why do only the women now have to wear this, I don’t know what it’s called, the hijab or whatever it’s called — why do they have to wear a veil now and not the men? That applies to both. Those are things where I always think, you can also interpret things wrongly, basically. And then people invoke the corresponding holy scripture, in which it doesn’t actually say that at all. So then the question is, do you doubt the faith now, or the interpretation, or where does it start and where does it end? And that carries over into our society, when we want to shape our society. And laws, in the end, are nothing other than the shaping of society with what we consider socially acceptable. That’s all laws really are. We think it’s bad when someone gets killed, that’s why we criminalize murder. That’s nothing other than a consequence of that. But where does it start and where does it end? And how do we deal with things that we might not even understand deeply ourselves, or that are also foreign to us, to come back to that word? And that’s just a sensitive topic. And unfortunately, for every nine great people who really want to actively integrate here — I can’t confirm the statistic now, but there’s always going to be a bad one somehow too. And that happens on both sides, that’s not just “the others,” that’s the same with Germans too. For every nine great German people, there’s unfortunately still one asshole among them, that’s just how it is. That’s the case on all sides. So it’s a very, very difficult topic, how you want to draw boundaries around that in the future. But also for that, as I said, there are no plans. I think, well, you could say, since the Second World War really. The world is simply changing so fast and so dynamically that our laws simply can’t keep up with that. They can’t keep pace with it. We’re seeing that with the AI topic too, right now. So the world is changing too fast for our legal regulations, or our rules, our provisions, our regulations, whatever you want to call it, I mean nothing other than procedural instructions, to be able to keep pace with it. And on many topics we as a society simply haven’t even thought yet about how we want to deal with it. We see the effects, but only too late. And that’s always the problem with laws, they always lag behind.

Yes, thank you so, so much. And in that context it’s simply important to also always look at historical contexts and draw lessons learned, so to speak, in order to think about how — whether that’s legally regulated or not, let’s leave that open — but how you can handle things differently, better, in future situations, in comparable situations, things where maybe mistakes were made in the past, simply out of ignorance, simply because you weren’t prepared for it. And I also find the point interesting that Silvana wrote in, that in some companies it’s contractually stipulated that if women as supervisors aren’t accepted and someone refuses to comply, they’ll be dismissed. And that’s maybe a way of dealing with it from the company’s perspective, but societally we haven’t solved the problem with that yet. That means we might have “one more unemployed person” on the market, so to speak, in quotation marks. But the thinking and the rethinking hasn’t taken place. So it’s possibly a short-term solution for the company, to “get rid of” this person again. And that doesn’t just apply to people as refugees with a migration background or something — Mona, you put it so nicely, we’ll certainly find that among Germans too. But societally, a rethinking doesn’t necessarily automatically take place with the person at that point, and that’s why it’s important to talk about it and to raise awareness at this point about what needs or necessities are required here in terms of support.

Yes, I think, given the time, we can slowly wrap up for today. I found that really, really exciting. I was especially happy, Mona, that you joined today without knowing what topic awaited you here in the room today. And yes, and I think we’ve opened up so many examples and created perspectives to show that on one hand there are interests, opportunities, and risks, and they’re diverse too, as we’ve seen. So it’s not just the war situation itself and who’s right or wrong — we didn’t go into judgment at all, but rather both the opportunities and the risks that arise in this context. And not just from the fact that there’s war somewhere, but also through our own behavior, such as arms deliveries or not, participation or not, taking sides or not, all the way to, when we take people in here in Germany, what does that mean as a consequence, what needs to be considered in that? You can see that it’s far-reaching, and I found that really, really exciting. And then we’ll transition to tomorrow’s topic, extremism, and take a look at what extremist developments regarding opinions, attitudes, and movements can currently be observed. Against the background that we’ve picked up so many diverse technologies, developments, and also aspects on the societal level, all the way to political topics, tomorrow we want to look accordingly at this title, extremism, and see what we can gather. And with that I’d like to give you the opportunity again, dear Mona, what’s your closing word for today, for the room?

If I look at the title, peace weapons or war business, I’d say war business. That’s my summary. Simply too many people make money from it — both from the war itself and from reconstruction, relief efforts, etc., fundraising and so on — for certain people, not all, but certain people, to have an interest in staying at peace and trying to negotiate. Certain people simply have more interest in making money from war. And unfortunately, a lot of money can be made in war. That’s a fundamental problem.

Yes, there’s definitely something to that. Yes, and in that sense the question is, what impulses can you take away for yourselves today, that might also give you something to think about, to sort your own thoughts, to reconsider and examine one thing or another for yourselves, and then to decide for yourselves — are there various aspects where you decide for yourself, I’d like to research this further, or other aspects where you might not have perceived one perspective or another at all before and have gained new perspectives through this? Whatever you take away from this for yourselves is entirely up to you. And I’m certainly looking forward to tomorrow’s topic, extremism. And in that sense, you’re very, very warmly invited tomorrow morning at 8 o’clock, if you have time and feel like it, to join again in the Deep Talk Club. Until then. Thank you so much for participating, and hopefully see you tomorrow. Ciao!