“These are the challenges of our time”

Peter Unfried: Mr Fischer, in your new book ‘Who Are We?’ [Wer sind wir?], you set out a revised identity for the German People. Capable of defending the country, able to engage in power politics, capable of leadership, resolutely European. How is that supposed to be achieved in reality? 

Joschka Fischer: That’s not a question you can ask me. I've just turned 78. 

May I ask one more question, or should I hand over to Ms Brantner? 

Fischer: If Europeans do not unite now, we will become pawns of the major global powers. In my view, the EU has important responsibilities, not only in the economic sphere, but also in the areas of technology and trade. But we need to move away from the ideas that I, too, have long held: that, so to speak, a pan-European state will emerge organically from the nation states. I don’t see that happening anymore. We have to take the nation states as our starting point, particularly when it comes to defence. The EU will not be able to establish a European defence community, as it was not designed for that purpose. We also need the UK and Norway on board for this, and within the EU it ultimately comes down to Germany and France. 

Franziska Brantner: You call it a defence community, while I always refer to it a defence union, but it’s six of one, half dozen of the other, as we say. It won’t work without the British, and if you’re lucky, Norway might join in too – perhaps even Turkey and Canada. We Greens had, in fact, been thinking along these lines for a long time: All of this takes place solely within the EU, with all 27 Member States acting in unison, and all within the framework of these treaties. Together with others, I have managed to change this position, because it simply won’t work as it stands. 

Fischer: However, as Germans – as a country at the heart of Europe – we must bear one principle in mind: Never alone again! 

Brantner: As far as I’m concerned, there is no question about it: Never alone again. People often say that I tend to think more like a Frenchman than a German, but of course it can only be Franco-German. I always try to appeal to Mr Merz by saying, “Channel your inner Adenauer.”

What does that mean? 

Brantner: He’s always referring to Adenauer, isn’t he. But unfortunately, he doesn’t pursue Adenauer-style policies in the European sense. To be honest, Franco-German relations weren’t particularly good even under the ‘traffic light’ coalition. Even I had hoped that Merz would handle it better than Olaf Scholz. 

Fischer: On the contrary. 

Brantner: On the contrary. However, achieving something together – including in the field of defence – is vital for our survival in these times, when the Americans are not only saying that they’re no longer there for Europe, but are potentially against Europe. 

Fischer: You can safely leave out the word ‘potentially’. 

Brantner: Ok, I’ll skip ‘potentially’. But can I ask you a question? I found it really fascinating how, in your book, you emphasised this Franco-German aspect as well. The French foreign ministers at the time, Védrine and de Villepin, weren’t exactly your best friends, but you always managed to get things done anyway. How? 

Fischer: I’m quite happy to answer that, but not in the presence of third parties and not on the microphone. Basically, the French see us as a difficult partner - which we undoubtedly are - and we see them the same way, which is undoubtedly true as well. I believe that recognising differences and different strengths, as well as cultural differences, and applying this to the political sphere – also with regard to the role of the nation – are prerequisites for cooperation. 

Brantner: It is extremely important to be aware of the differences. If we were to discuss nuclear sharing within the framework of a defence union, for example, the question that always surfaces in the German debate is: And what will you do if Le Pen becomes president? Or if Bardella becomes president? The implication is: That won’t work, because they won’t defend us if push comes to shove. What are you getting at? 

Brantner: The interesting thing is that in France, people think it is far more likely that the Nazis will regain power here, rather than Bardella becoming president there. I would also like to point out that Ms Le Pen considers the AfD’s EU parliamentary group to be too far-right. 

Fischer: The age-old enmity between Germany and France has its roots in the era of national confrontation. I view this with some concern. Right-wing radicalism and right-wing extremism in Germany cannot be compared with right-wing extremism in other countries. 

How do you mean? 

Fischer: It's quite simple. The French had their De Gaulle; we had our Hitler. That’s the difference.

The history of democratisation and civilisation in Germany since 1945 is truly commendable. 

Brantner: But, Mr Unfried, I don’t think we should underestimate how tenuous this level of civilisation is perceived to be by our neighbours. The concern about the AfD, not only in France but also in Poland, for example. And the concern about Germany’s rather German-style rearmament against the backdrop of the American withdrawal from Europe. Perhaps we should at least take note of that. 

Fischer: In other words, a significant part of history is coming back to haunt our neighbours. And that’s why I find myself wondering: With the AfD today, would we end up with another Two-Plus-Four Treaty… 

... which established the definitive internal and external sovereignty of a united Germany. 

Fischer: I don't think so. 

Brantner: I don’t think so either. 

Fischer: I consider it a grave mistake that the parties of the democratic centre are not engaging in this historical debate. The AfD is a historical problem. It is about Germany, its history, its role in Europe, its sense of identity – whether European or national – in short, our identity. The economic problems are a contributing factor. But the central problem is a historical one. They want to go back to a different Germany. They want to go back to the era before Adenauer. We need to develop the necessary sensitivity in our dealings with our neighbours, and I see very little of that at present. 

I see, rather, that our culturally rooted and valuable sensitivity is now leading to a situation where we are not prepared to face certain unpleasant things that are now necessary. 

Fischer: For example? 

Tough, no-nonsense power politics to defend our liberal and emancipatory achievements. More Fischer! 

Fischer: Oh, come on. The Greens have adopted a very realistic, values-based, and also power-based position throughout the entire Ukraine crisis. That’s a great achievement - one I wouldn’t have thought the party capable of. After we brought an end to the Red-Green coalition in 2005, I thought we’d be going back to those pacifist illusions.   

Brantner: I also object. You mentioned Ukraine, Joschka. During the three years I spent at the Ministry of Economic Affairs, I worked intensively on achieving raw material independence. This is one of the key security issues of our time: whether or not we can exist as a sovereign nation. When the topic turned to recycling raw materials, I was sometimes laughed at as an ‘eco-warrior’. So I said, ‘Look, this isn’t about being eco-friendly – it’s all about being completely independent of China. That’s just one example. When we said we needed 5% of GDP for defence, the CDU criticised us over it. Later, with our help, they gave themselves an unlimited defence budget. So, there are plenty of accusations that can be levelled at us. But the idea that we aren’t willing to do the necessary unpleasant things - I don’t think that’s accurate. 

Fischer: Not at all. I agree with you one hundred per cent. 

Amidst all this enthusiasm, it is perhaps worth remembering that the Greens suffered a crushing defeat in the 2025 federal election, when they were voted out of office. 

Fischer: Well, the Greens’ debacle in the parliamentary election wasn’t just about the result; it was also down to their policies. They squandered a huge opportunity to make the core Green issue one that could win majority support. But now, unexpectedly, two great opportunities have presented themselves once again. 

Now I'm curious. 

Fischer: First: The victory in the state election in Baden-Württemberg. That was an impressive comeback by Cem Özdemir. Second: The victory in the mayoral election in Munich. That also has enormous appeal, which I wouldn’t underestimate. And I’m no longer an expert on green issues. 

What is the opportunity here? 

Fischer: If the Greens are serious about the situation facing the country and the continent, with the rise of new nationalism, then they need to grow up now. And growing up means: Being able to win a majority. The goal must be to make green issues capable of winning majority support. Look: The Chancellor is still spouting on about internal combustion engines. However, renewable energy has now evolved from being purely a green issue into a matter of national security. And if I’m reading the signs of the times correctly, this is not just a short-term trend. The chance of gaining a majority is now within reach. 

What is the task for the Greens today, right now, immediately, Ms Brantner? 

Brantner: Joschka Fischer is absolutely right that it is our duty to link the fight to save the climate to the foundations of security, freedom and prosperity. We in Germany and Europe have to become competitive; we need to be at the forefront of technology; we must be capable of defending ourselves, as a European entity. And we must tackle the climate issue together, using innovative economic approaches, and as Greens we must have the best solutions for this. That would be my aspiration. 

The entire package? 

Brantner: These are the challenges of our time. The SPD is still stuck in the recent - or more distant - past and, unfortunately, the CDU is also increasingly reverting to such old ways. 

Fischer: Yes, this is happening under pressure from the AfD. 

Brantner: During our time in government, we suffered greatly from accusations of being ideological. It worked out well enough at first, but then things took a turn for the worse. Over the past year, we have managed to shift the blame for ideological bias onto the other side for now. 

In what way? 

Brantner: Anyone who, at the time of the Iran crisis and rising oil prices, says we should continue to rely on internal combustion engines and build more new gas-fired power stations than necessary is ideologically blinkered and fails to recognise both the security and the climate implications. But we are dealing with fragile public sentiment.  That is why we have to be pragmatic and demonstrate just how many people can benefit from this. The other thing – and here I agree completely with Joschka Fischer – is that we should no longer promote this solely as a sustainability issue but, of course, also as a security issue. Renewable energies are sources and energies of freedom, but also of peace. And the third point: We have also addressed this as a social issue - since last autumn at least. 

The fundamental question at this time, in a rather paralysed situation, is surely this: How can we build a broad social consensus for a coalition that will actually tackle the urgent issues that have been neglected for so long? 

Fischer: May I? First: Cem Özdemir has paved the way for a new majority. The will of the electorate in Baden-Württemberg is very clear: They wanted Özdemir as Minister-President, and they wanted a strong CDU. 

Second? 

Fischer: Second: Baden-Württemberg is in the throes of a severe crisis of de-industrialisation, caused by the state’s disproportionate dependence on the automotive industry and the blunders made in recent years and decades by politicians at state and federal level as well as the business community. The measure of success for a Green-CDU/CSU government will be whether it manages to open up new opportunities, i.e. beyond Mercedes and Mahle [automotive supplier; ed.], to take the step into the digital future. Baden-Württemberg has the chance to achieve both: a functioning Green-CDU/CSU government and a digital economy. 

What makes you think that? 

Fischer: It is also in the interests of the CDU/CSU. And there’s one thing you simply can’t avoid. That’s the issue regarding personnel. There is a reason I mention Cem Özdemir. He has a way of connecting with people that not many of us have. You won’t be able to ignore personnel issues in the long run, Franziska. This also applies to the question of how much of a future the chorus of differing opinions presented by the Greens actually has. 

That sounds like a rhetorical question. 

Fischer: There’s no future in that - in my mind. 

Brantner: On the issue of the coalition, I would even go a step further. I believe that if we can pull this off successfully with the CDU in the important industrial region of Baden-Württemberg, then we could provide the impetus for reform at the national level. Winfried Kretschmann has already set this in motion: Modernisation of the state. The issues of the economy and the environment, as well as IT and technological leadership. If Baden-Württemberg could succeed in building the European alternative to Palantir, its impact would extend far beyond the state and even beyond Germany itself. 

You win a majority by not asking too much of people. This applies not only to Merkel, but also, to a lesser extent, to Kretschmann. When you say: Look everyone, we’re now going to start pursuing progressive policies, everyone runs away screaming. 

Brantner: What you’re saying about Kretschmann just isn’t true. Baden-Württemberg may not always have been considered ‘progressive’ in the traditional sense, but its policies are forward-looking. What have we done? What has Kretschmann done? The healthcare sector has been strengthened beyond measure. Built up the AI and IT sector, established Cyber Valley. Supported the whole biomed and tech hub in Heidelberg. I could mention plenty more. I’m not entirely keen on the term ‘progressive’; I prefer ‘forward-looking’ – and for me, this clearly represents a forward-looking policy. 

Tell that to those friends of the Green Party who have always been keen to label Kretschmann as conservative. 

Brantner: Right now, it’s not simply a question of whether we veer right or left but, rather: Do we just keep going backwards further and further, or do we move forward? Seen in this light, what Cem Özdemir is proposing is very progressive. And yes, we need to talk more generally about what we are achieving in the individual federal states. All the things we’re achieving in Schleswig-Holstein. Or in North Rhine-Westphalia. What Tarek Al-Wazir has achieved in Hesse. We have rarely managed to present our truly positive experiences of state government as positive examples. The CDU are always much better at doing that. And Söder, one way or another. 

I stand by my preconception: The republicanism that is required – embracing a new and tougher culture – clashes with our idealised notions of identity, and that is why we shy away from it. 

Fischer: Not true. Germany has changed dramatically over the four years of the war raging in Ukraine. It is now one of the leading providers of material support to Ukraine. Alright, we do have an East-West divide on this issue. But what were we discussing back then: Do we need drones? ‘Unarmed’, they said at the time. That’s a debate that only makes you chuckle today. The barrier is gone between: Defence is rubbish and civilian action is good. 

Many people, whether right-wing conservatives or left-wing progressives, are looking for something to hold on to because the reality is so complex.  

Fischer: There’s nothing complex about it. Putin is waging war against the Ukrainians and against us too. Trump has bid farewell to the role of key security partner that the US had played for decades. We are on our own as Europe and now have to sort this out by ourselves. 

Brantner: But what exactly do you mean when you say that we have to integrate things that are not wanted? 

We were the good guys, after all. 

Fischer: That’s why he ended up at *taz*, after all. 

Brantner: Well, we argue a lot within the Greens. We still have a lot of issues that need sorting out. But we Greens have fully accepted that we are living in a different world, in a different era, and that it’s something we have to come to terms with. We are European Germans, German Europeans, fighting for the sovereignty of this continent, so that it may continue to exist in the future, together with its values.

This interview was first published in German on Böll Thema 26-1: Wir, die Republik.

The views and opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect those of the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung European Union | Global Dialogue.

Franziska Brantner is the federal Co-Leader of Alliance 90/The Greens and a Member of the German Federal Parliament. In the ‘traffic light’ coalition (2021–2025), she served as Parliamentary Secretary of State at the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action.

Joschka Fischer is a consultant and journalist. He was Foreign Minister and Vice-Chancellor of the Red-Green federal government (1998–2005).  

Peter Unfried is chief reporter at *taz* and editor-in-chief of *taz FUTURZWEI*, a magazine on the future and politics. 

Further reading:

Joschka Fischer: Who are we? Germany in Search of its Identity [Wer sind wir? Deutschland auf der Suche nach seiner Identität], Kiepenheuer & Witsch 2026. In his new book, Joschka Fischer analyses Germany’s role in a new world order, highlighting the risks and opportunities facing a nation at the heart of Europe in times of geopolitical, technological and economic transformation.