Executive Summary

The geopolitical situation is deteriorating dramatically: While Ukraine negotiations stagnate, the conflict in the Middle East escalates through Israeli and American airstrikes against Iran. The West's international law credibility is eroding through double standards – Russia is internationally condemned for its attack on Ukraine, while similar actions by Western powers are downplayed. The UN security structure is effectively paralyzed, and Europe remains marginal in peace negotiations. Experts warn: The current situation is as dangerous as the Cuban Missile Crisis, yet technologically even more existential.

Persons

  • Gabriele Krone-Schmalz (ARD Moscow correspondent, Russia expert)
  • Volodymyr Zelensky (Ukrainian President)
  • Donald Trump (US President)

Topics

  • International law and international order
  • Ukraine war and negotiation strategy
  • Middle East conflict and Iran escalation
  • West's credibility crisis
  • Role of the EU and the United Nations
  • Media criticism and advocacy journalism

Clarus Lead

The West is rapidly losing international law credibility because it assesses rule violations differently depending on geopolitical interests. While Russia's invasion of Ukraine is standardly condemned as an "unlawful war of aggression," Israeli-American airstrikes against Iran receive considerably milder criticism in Western media. These double standards undermine not only the UN Charter, but also the United Nations overall capacity for action. Simultaneously, it becomes clear: The promising Ukraine negotiations in Switzerland were damaged by Iranian escalation, while Russia deliberately holds back and the West has developed no constructive peace strategy.

Detailed Summary

International Law Under Pressure

The expert criticizes fundamental inconsistencies in Western foreign policy. Russia's unlawful attack on Ukraine is clearly named and internationally condemned – rightfully so. Yet the same stringency is absent in other military operations: Israeli-American strikes against Iran are not classified with the same precision in Western media as violations of international law. The argument of "preventive self-defense" is invoked, although according to Krone-Schmalz, an imminent Iranian attack is not documented. This selectivity damages global order: Countries outside the Western alliance lose faith in universal rules.

Ukraine Negotiations: Time Play Instead of Peace Will

While Switzerland hosted negotiations in March 2026, these were interrupted by the Iran escalation. The Omani mediator had spoken of a "breakthrough in sight" – shortly thereafter bombs fell. This damages not only the current round, but also confidence in future negotiations. Krone-Schmalz argues: Zelensky is playing for time, not Russia. He hopes for the US midterms of 2024 to secure stronger Democratic support. However, this delaying course costs lives daily and worsens Ukraine's negotiating position. A realistic deal lay on the table just one month after the war began: Ukraine's neutrality, Russian administration of occupied territories without international law annexation, 15-year transitional period for Crimea with later referendum.

Europe Remains Marginal

The EU had four years to develop a peace strategy – unsuccessfully. Peace proposals came instead from China, Brazil, and Africa. Germany and France lacked constructive alternatives. Simultaneously, European politicians dominate "martial statements" characterized by "Russia hatred" and loss of touch with reality. Europe effectively has no voice in solving the Ukraine conflict – decisions fall between Washington and Moscow.

Media and Societal Divide

A significant gap opens between published opinion (mainstream media) and public opinion (population). Many Germans wish for negotiations, not endless weapons deliveries. The promoted advocacy journalism – where media takes sides – damages democracy. Instead, Krone-Schmalz calls for: Diversity of perspectives, factual debate, respect for dissenting opinions. Schools should teach debate culture so young people learn to tolerate differences.

Key Statements

  • International law is selective: The West values its own rule violations differently than Russia's. This destroys global legal order.
  • Negotiations are damaged: Iran escalation interrupted Swiss talks; Russia has negative historical experience (Minsk 1/2).
  • Ukraine delays cost lives: A realistic deal was possible after four weeks; now Kyiv's position is weaker.
  • The UN is de facto paralyzed: The Security Council has no more legitimacy; structure must be reformed.
  • Europe has no peace role: Four years without constructive proposal; decisions fall without European participation.
  • Media diversity is declining: Advocacy journalism divides society instead of informing it.
  • Dangers are existential: Modern technology makes today's conflicts more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Critical Questions

  1. Evidence/Data Quality: What concrete evidence exists that an Iranian attack was "imminent"? The transcript mentions that the Omani mediator spoke of a breakthrough – who verified this assessment before escalation?

  2. Evidence/Sources: How does Krone-Schmalz document her claim that "Minsk 1 and 2" were conceived by Germany merely as time-buying? (She cites Angela Merkel.) Is this verifiable or based on statements made later?

  3. Conflicts of Interest: What economic or geopolitical interests do the USA and Israel have in an Iran escalation – particularly in the context of oil, regional influence, and electoral tactics (Trump reelection)?

  4. Causality/Alternatives: Can one really say Zelensky is "playing for time" when Ukraine is bombed daily and forced conscription occurs? Could it also be that Ukrainian hopes for Western support represent a rationally comprehensible calculation?

  5. Causality: To what extent is the West's "double standard" a cause of escalation versus a symptom of a multipolar world in which no power can enforce universal rules?

  6. Feasibility: The proposed neutrality of Ukraine and Russian administration of occupied territories – how would that solve internal political tensions within Ukraine itself (pro-NATO versus pro-neutrality camps)?

  7. Risks/Side Effects: If Zelensky negotiates and the deal turns out worse than earlier options – who bears political responsibility? What lessons does the West draw for future conflicts?

  8. Feasibility: A reformed UN Security Council with "realistic world situation" – which countries should be permanent members, and would Russia or China agree to a structural change that weakens their power?

Other News

  • ETH and EPFL: 19 new professors appointed (7 women, 12 men).
  • UN Women's Rights Commission: Federal Councillor Elisabeth Baume-Schneider leads Swiss delegation at 70th session in New York.
  • .swiss Domain: 10 years of existence as marker of Swiss digital identity.

Source Directory

Primary Source:

Weltwoche Daily special – Interview with Gabriele Krone-Schmalz (Recording March 4, 2026)
https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/6270efa390efae00152faf31/e/69a96db5618d0d8bf70e51a3/media.mp3

Verification Status: ✓ 2026-03-05

This text was created with the support of an AI model.
Editorial responsibility: clarus.news | Fact-checking: 2026-03-05