Putin’s behavior, his conduct of the war in Ukraine, his threats of nuclear war and many other things constitute blatant breaches of the rules. We now have to consider whether we want to let him get away with these breaches of the rules out of convenience.
Imagine the following scene: Berlin, Olympic Stadium, DFB Cup final. Suddenly the spokesman for one of the teams steps in front of the microphone and tells the astonished public that they will play with 14 field players and 2 goalkeepers today.
Everyone is outraged: Such a breach of the rules is not tolerable, because “that’s not how it works”. So just cancel the final? Declare the opponent the winner?
But the first concerns quickly arise. Sponsors, television stations and the association fear for their advertising income. What if other teams imitate? How big would the economic damage be in the event of cancellation today and in the long term? Does the association end up harming itself if it interprets the rules consistently and cracks down hard?
Now save articles for later in “Pocket”.
Time is pressing, a solution must be found. A representative of the association warns that there must be a “face-saving solution” for the opposing team with its powerful president. A few minutes until kick-off, the two association presidents are completely unsettled.
Do the rules apply or not? Wouldn’t a compromise be called for to defuse the situation? What to do?
Of course, many will now smile and say that this is a nonsensical, unrealistic example. For real? When Putin illegally occupied Crimea in 2014 immediately after the Sochi Olympic Games and then tried to legitimize this act of violence with a fake referendum, he did exactly what the aforementioned team did.
He flouted the rules, ignored contractual obligations and kept playing poker until he got what he wanted. Looking back today, Angela Merkel, one of the “association presidents” at the time, says that her policy at the time was aimed at “allowing Putin to be successful.”
Today, in the context of a criminal war of aggression against Ukraine, French President Macron says that a “face-saving solution” is needed for Putin.
Surf tip: You can find all the news about the corona pandemic in the FOCUS Online news ticker
In 2015, with the approval of the then federal government, BASF sold the German gas storage facilities to Russia in order to get cheaper gas. Furthermore, the board of directors at the time claimed that there would be no risk, since a loss of Russian gas volumes could be compensated for at any time by purchases on the world market.
The greed for economic advantages overrode common sense and subsequently indirectly sanctioned Putin’s breaches of the rules.
These real examples show the danger of moral hazard. Moral hazard describes the danger when opportunistic behavior (particularly motivated in the short term) overrides previously agreed rules, when compliance with rules becomes an option but no longer an obligation.
Such opportunism negates the principle of reciprocity, an important basis of functioning human relationships. It opens the door to the rule of thumb, arbitrariness, arbitrariness, the law of the strongest and the blackmail associated with it.
It means the end of peaceful, civilized and responsible dealings, of our modern conception of society. It creates the oasis of well-being for dictators and the playground for narcissistic manifestations.
Putin’s behavior, his conduct of the war in Ukraine, his threats of nuclear war, his blackmail with energy and food supplies, his lies from before February 24, 2022 that he did not want to attack Ukraine constitute blatant breaches of the rules.
Do we let him get away with these rule breaks, since resistance will cost us, we will lose wealth and comfort, or do we insist on adhering to established rules and contracts? This crucial question should be our focus, it should be our north star in the political discussion.
When in the summer of 1940, after the defeat of France, Great Britain was left alone in the face of what at the time seemed to be an unbeatable German military machine, underarmed and weak, many English politicians urged Winston Churchill, the Prime Minister, to seek peace negotiations with Adolf Hitler.
Churchill’s answer was clear: when you have your head in a hungry tiger’s mouth, you don’t negotiate. His legendary “Never, never, never give up!
Because even if we suffer disadvantages as a result today, there can be no peaceful future without a rule-based world order. We are faced with the choice: to pay a (still) relatively small price for our steadfastness today or to have to experience greater and geographically closer catastrophes powerless tomorrow. Our children and grandchildren will thank us for our steadfastness.
PS: Putin and Ukraine are not far from us! The route Berlin – Kyiv is about 1337 kilometers, for comparison: Berlin – Rome is 1504 kilometers.
Walter Kohl is an entrepreneur, author and management consultant. His claim: Strengthen people and organizations and awaken Germany’s entrepreneurial spirit.
Ben Schulz is “the resulter” among the consultants. He is a sparring partner for the self-employed as well as for medium-sized companies when it comes to their positioning and strategy in transformation processes.
Together, the two podcast every Sunday in the medium-sized business talk “Kohl
