Ralf Stegner: “War is terrible and ending it is a virtue in itself”

But what does this have to do with the manifesto, which caused a stir, not only in your party?

The manifesto we wrote is based on the SPD's peace policy orientation. The SPD has always been a peace party and thus part of the peace movement, even if times have of course changed. The fact is that the aim must be to end wars, to avoid wars, and at some point to establish common security. That is difficult today, due to Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, and also due to the fact that Putin clearly wants to continue the war. Nevertheless, the end will not be military, but diplomatic. So the real argument here is not, of course, "Are you for or against Putin?" It is about standing by Ukraine, but at the same time doing more to ensure that this war finally ends.

You just mentioned the peace movement. Did the peace movement leave the SPD, or did the SPD leave the peace movement?

I still believe that we are and must remain part of the peace movement. The peace movement has always been heterogeneous, never a party-political event, but rather a hodgepodge. There have always been parties involved with which we Social Democrats had little or nothing in common. What has changed, however, is the fact that we have reached a kind of militarization of thought and action.

What do you mean?

If you look around, everyone is talking about massive rearmament, or about solving all problems – from industrial policy to European unity – through rearmament. Of course, this is usually phrased differently. We certainly need defense and alliance capabilities, and Germany must do more to achieve this than it has done so far. But there's a difference between striving to put the Bundeswehr in better shape than it is now and planning to jump from the 2 percent target of gross domestic product for military spending, which was considered a major effort not long ago, to 5 percent. That would be 225 billion euros a year! Tanks will then also be able to drive over the renovated bridges.

What do you see as critical?

Anyone who seriously believes that with such sums spent on armaments, there's still money left to solve the world's real problems—poverty, environmental destruction, civil wars—or to use money domestically for social purposes, for education, for investments in the future, is mistaken. Therefore, it would be sensible not to rely solely on armaments, but to pursue arms control, which has never been agreed upon in times of peace with friends, but always in times of crisis with adversaries. This is directed at all those who claim that this is out of step with the times.

German Defense Minister Pistorius, also a member of the SPD, takes the view that our freedom is being defended in Ukraine, while the Social Democratic veteran Egon Bahr once postulated: "International politics is never about human rights. It's about the interests of states!" Which of these two views are you more inclined to?

There's even talk in interviews now about Germans being able to kill Russian soldiers again. I think that's a horrific thought. I often spoke with Egon Bahr, who was a very intelligent man. We didn't always see eye to eye on the subject of human rights, because I do believe that all people in the world have the right to live in peace and freedom, and that human rights must of course apply to everyone. We're in a situation where there are many wars, and to be honest, we have to admit that double standards are regularly applied when it comes to international law and human rights. In one place it's addressed, in another it's ignored.

Could you please give some concrete examples?

When war crimes are committed in Sudan, nobody cares. We rightly talk about the violation of international law through Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, but we have remained silent for quite a long time about what is happening in Gaza. It must be recognized that it is not just about Israel's security, which must always be paramount for us. It does not serve the fight against terrorism when children starve to death, when people are deprived of food and medicine, when civilian areas are bombed, or when criminal settlement activities that are completely incompatible with international law are pursued. Instead, it contributes to new generations growing up hating one another. Applying the same standards in this regard is my expectation of a democratic party and a democracy.

So your claim to the SPD is not only to be the party that leads the peace movement, as a kind of avant-garde, but also the party that represents international law in international relations?

Yes, and that must also be the lesson from our dark history of the 20th century. Unlike other people, I don't believe—I studied history—that one is out of date when talking about history. History doesn't repeat itself, and historical processes aren't the same either. But the idea that there used to be a peace-loving Soviet Union, with which everything was essentially settled, is a grave mistake. Willy Brandt began the policy of détente, together with Walter Scheel, shortly after the tanks rolled into Prague. According to scholars, the Soviet Cuban Missile Crisis created the greatest danger of a Third World War that has ever existed. Before that, there was the invasion of Hungary on June 17, and I suspect that the Soviet leadership has more human lives on its conscience than Putin. What I want to express, however, is that these examples alone make it clear that the claim that everything is completely different today, so that the historical experiences of the past don't count, is false. This also applies to the assessment that we invest incredible amounts of money in armaments with the promise that the weapons will never be used. This is something that human history also contradicts.

So creating peace with more weapons is not your motto?

We're spending billions upon billions on armaments, and we're spending billions more to painstakingly repair the consequences in Aleppo, Gaza, or Ukraine. This really doesn't seem to me to be the best use of human reason. From this, I conclude that if we want positive development, it may be difficult to achieve peace given the current circumstances. But we must do everything we can to achieve it, not just talk about it.

To return to the manifesto, do you think that you and the other initiators and signatories struck the right tone with regard to the statements you just made?

This manifesto is titled, something hardly anyone noticed, with the words "Defense Capability, Arms Control, Understanding." These are the headings, which is why, if one can read, one need not discredit our manifesto as a "Russian paper" or a pacifist document. However, the manifesto is critical of a position that relies on an arms race and assumes that Putin can be forced to the negotiating table by military means—something that hasn't happened yet.

What really annoys me about this is that the other side always carelessly claims, "We're against war too, but..." And then nothing follows the "but." What follows, day after day, in the wars of our time, is death, injury, trauma, rape, child abduction, and destruction. Constantly claiming that Putin doesn't want to talk or comparing him to Hitler doesn't get us anywhere, or—if we become participants in war—it leads us into the abyss.

What would be the solution?

To learn from history that you cannot equate nations with their governments. We stand in solidarity with Israel, but not with the Netanyahu government. Russia will always be part of European history and geography, which is why we formulated it this way in the SPD party platform: It's about security against Russia. That's the case at present, but I believe that in the long run, there will only be shared security with Russia. Perhaps the United Nations, if countries like China were to participate, could ensure compliance with ceasefire agreements in Ukraine, but also in the Middle East, and provide certain security guarantees.

Mr. Stegner, even your political opponents, whether within or outside the party, recognize that you and your fellow campaigners are acting out of conviction, not out of strategic calculation, because your positions won't win you any ground in today's SPD. How is your relationship with your party currently? Are there times when you doubt that you yourself, although still a Social Democrat, are no longer a member of a social democratic party?

First of all, I have more leadership experience in this social democratic party, in my SPD, than most of my colleagues in the Bundestag. I was a member of the Schleswig-Holstein state government for many years, a member of the state parliament and parliamentary group leader, as well as state chairman and deputy federal chairman of the SPD, and have now been in the Bundestag for a few years. That means I know my party very well. I don't at all believe that the positions I represent are minority positions within the SPD—not just within the SPD, not just among our electorate, but also among the population.

But not in the Bundestag group! I believe also in the Bundestag parliamentary group. However, the willingness to overlook this or to focus on other matters is probably quite strong.

Why is the SPD losing votes year after year?

If we look at the 16 percent we achieved in the last federal election, the worst result in 138 years, it's clear that the party is disoriented and confused after such a debacle, which is hardly surprising. In my opinion, one reason for this poor election result is that we left issues like peace policy and migration to the populists, almost without a fight. In addition, the issues for which we Social Democrats were elected—affordable rents, decent pensions, and good wages—played no role at all.

But haven't you also lost the milieus, long ago, from which your voters were recruited in earlier times, when the SPD was still considered a people's party?

You are right in that we have lost the ability to speak a language that does not compete with the populists in terms of simple content, but which is understood – instead of this plastic language where one does not even know what one wants.

Could you give an example of this plastic language?

Let's return to the example of war and peace. If some only talk about arms deliveries and others are pro-Putin, then we lack an SPD that supports differentiation and doesn't duck when the wind is blowing from the front. Then we shouldn't be surprised if votes that we actually need to win are lost to the AfD, BSW, and the Left. Most people in the world don't want to die as soldiers at 18. War is terrible, and ending it is a virtue in itself. My party friend and colleague Rolf Mützenich, whom I respect greatly, declared in May last year that the war in Ukraine should be frozen in order to negotiate temporary ceasefires. He didn't mention permafrost, but he was viciously insulted. I was among those who defended him, which relatively few have done. Today, in July 2025, the same proposal is being put forward by the British, Germans, and French, and the difference is that many people have died since then, and the military situation for Ukraine has deteriorated significantly. What conclusions can one draw from this? Instead of insulting Rolf Mützenich, perhaps they should have listened to him.

Is this also due to the inability to deal with different opinions in society and politics?

Also. Personally, I don't accuse colleagues of being warmongers, even if they support a policy that I consider extremely dangerous. Conversely, I have been discredited as stupid, naive, pacifist, or a Putin supporter.

So you still consider your idea of social democracy to be contemporary?

I'm certainly not in the wrong party, nor have I become a minority. Perhaps I am in the minority in terms of the way I do politics—that may be true; my style has also changed. Many people give the impression that politics today... it's mainly Instagram and TikTok, but politics is already much more than that. Passion, the ability to guide things, historical knowledge, hard work, and professionalism—all of that is part of it.

You're not afraid of taking risks. On October 3 of last year, you spoke at the peace demonstration at the Victory Column and were booed. A chorus of boos rang out for minutes after you took the floor.

As for the demonstration: I was heavily criticized at the time. It was said to be a Wagenknecht event. A colleague from the Bundestag parliamentary group had organized a counter-demonstration with around 30-40 participants, while the rally I spoke at had about 27,000 people. Trade unionists, churchgoers, Social Democrats, and maybe 2,000 Wagenknecht fans. They stood at the front with their banners and booed when I spoke about Putin's war of aggression and against anti-Semitism, but the many others who didn't booed—we as the SPD have to stick with them. I had trouble leaving the demonstration that day. Why? Because people kept approaching me, wanting a selfie, extending invitations, and expressing approval. Therefore, I repeat here once again: if the SPD were no longer part of the peace movement, then that would not only be wrong in principle, but then the same thing would happen to us that we already had with the Hartz VI reforms, namely that we would lose a significant part of our party, not just our voters.

Let's return to foreign policy. What's going wrong?

Foreign policy is something that must be conducted with a clear compass of values, but which must be done in recognition that wisdom means getting along with those whose values one does not share. To believe that one can conduct foreign policy from a moral stance, along the lines of: "We Germans represent this morality," and then to be astonished that a large part of the world has entirely different moral ideas... and that billions of people, as well as others, do not want to be constantly lectured... All of this leads to nothingness and insignificance. Egon Bahr once said that if we only talk to those who share our values, then we are left with Iceland and Norway. That sounds a bit exaggerated, of course, but it is generally true. Wisdom is being able to empathize with the other side, especially when the other side holds different ideas. Germany should set a good example and positively influence world events. But if we then arm ourselves to the teeth and pretend that we are completely defenseless and that the Russian invasion is imminent, but at the same time cut humanitarian aid after the Trump administration has ruined almost everything that was there, we ensure that the problems are not only not solved but exacerbated.

To what extent is your political engagement influenced by your private life? You have three sons. Is your political activity perhaps also motivated by concern for your children? And a second question: To what extent has it grounded you that you began your political career in Schleswig-Holstein, compared to the Berlin bubble in which many politicians operate?

Every day, I feel very fortunate that I belong to a generation that was able to grow up in prosperity and peace. This is the first generation in Germany to whom this often-forgotten reality applies. This is the historical exception, not the norm. This gives me the obligation to ensure that this also applies to our children and grandchildren. Today, we must also leave them a habitable planet. I've also been a grandfather for a few weeks, so these are circumstances that naturally affect me deeply. Back then, I joined the SPD to make the world a better place, like most people who join the SPD. Perhaps as a party, we should make sure that this is more noticeable again, because it still applies today. As for grounding: I've been very fortunate in my life, on the one hand, to see a lot of the world, and on the other, to shape a large part of my political life in Schleswig-Holstein, this small state between two seas, where everyone knows each other and where people are quite straightforward and direct. Here, I've had successes and defeats, and I've learned that the purpose of political engagement is to improve people's lives. This attitude sometimes gets lost when you see someone in Berlin who can barely walk because of their own importance.

Probably in your party too? It's probably cross-party.

Do you have feedback? Write to us! [email protected]