This reality show is performed in the genre of cabaret, with The Demiurge playing the role of the invisible, omnipotent, omniscient, obsessive-compulsive, meticulous, artistic but talantless, pedantic Master of Ceremonies. And he left his signature too, as usually. The latest of them are: “Boshirov” and “Petrov”: Boshi (the Germans) and their Pet, ROV… – 10:30 AM 9/29/2018 – “Life is a cabaret, old chum; Life is a cabaret…” 

____________________________________

PAGES and LINKS  | Updates and Posts | Posts Review | Recent Tweets

_____________________________________________

Abwehr The Demiurge | Canaris The Gardener | Open Letter to the World Leaders

“The World is silent and confused. The World needs to understand. The World needs to investigate… 
To prevent the mistakes of the Past, just the memory of them is not enough; the deep, comprehensive, definitive understanding and analysis are needed. The genre of parody and the reality show is not the best mode of this historical understanding, the dispassionate scientific approach should be more productive.” 
Operations “Trump Card”, “Call 9/11”, and “MuckCart-hy” – By Michael Novakhov

Abwehr The Demiurge – YT Playlist | Related Videos Review – Page 

_______________________________________

The Operation Trump Card

woland – Google Search

mikenova shared this story .

The three party leaders of Germany’s coalition government agreed late Tuesday to reassign the country’s chief domestic spy after he made controversial remarks about videos from last month’s riots in Chemnitz.
Hans-Georg Maassen, the head of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, known by its German acronym BfV, will now become a high-ranking official inside the German interior ministry. The change in roles comes with a higher pay grade, according to German media.
A replacement for his post at the BfV has not been named. “Details to the relative responsibilities within the Ministry for the Interior, Construction and Homeland will be presented by Interior Minister Horst Seehofer [Wednesday],” the government said.
The BfV monitors extremist organizations that threaten Germany’s democratic institutions and Mr. Maassen put himself in the coalition’s crosshairs by calling into question the authenticity of videos from anti-immigrant riots that arose after the fatal stabbing of a man in Chemnitz. He has also reportedly slipped BfV intelligence to the populist Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.

Coalition coalescence

Politicians first met last Thursday to discuss Mr. Maassen’s fate but then delayed their decision until Tuesday. German media presented the tussle as another trial for the country’s governing coalition with the left-leaning Social Democrats, or SPD, demanding his resignation and Interior Minister Seehofer saying he had faith in the official. The SPD is part of the governing coalition and Mr. Seehofer is a member of the Christian Socialist Union, or CSU, a conservative Bavarian party allied with Chancellor Merkel’s Christian Democrats, and also part of the coalition government.
Nobody appeared happy with the compromise. Left-leaning politicians wanted Mr. Maassen to wake up unemployed on Wednesday, whereas more conservative lawmakers insisted he did nothing wrong.
“That is unbelievable deception,” Katrin Göring-Eckardt, head of the Green party, was quoted as saying by local daily, Die Welt. Anyone who rewards instead of punishing someone who “cuddles” up to the AfD has lost all decency. “And the SPD plays along with everything,“ she said.
The head of parliament’s interior committee and a member of the CSU, Andrea Lindholz, defended Mr. Maassen, saying it was “regrettable” he had to leave his position because of what she described as a communication error. “Today I still have complete faith in the head of the BfV, after detailed explanations [about what he said], just as I did before them,” she said.
Andrew Bulkeley is an editor in Berlin for Handelsblatt Global. To contact the author: a.bulkeley@handelsblattgroup.com

Horst Seehofer has accomplished a number of feats in his long political career, but he could hardly be thought capable of defying the law of gravity. Until now. Mr. Seehofer could not prevent the dismissal of his confidant Hans-Georg Maassen, but he could prevent Mr. Maassen’s fall. The supposed victim skated away from his previous function as president of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution to the top levels of the interior ministry. He was spared a hard landing into temporary retirement.
Mr. Seehofer emphasized that Mr. Maassen has rendered considerable service to the country, especially in the fight against terrorism. But you don’t have to question that to maintain that Mr. Maassen has undermined confidence in himself and his authority over the past two weeks. If the head of the domestic intelligence service is unsettling the public with crass speculation, nobody should be surprised if the next terror alert isn’t taken seriously. Mr. Maassen’s behavior after the neo-Nazi riots in Chemnitz was the reason for his dismissal. The reward: promotion to state secretary and 20 percent more salary.
As right as the criticism of Mr. Maassen is, it would be wrong to reduce the so-called Causa Maassen to the person Maassen. Germany’s highest domestic spy may like to put himself into the middle of things with his interviews, but in the end he is a marginal figure. The chancellor has recently pointed out that the coalition “will not break up over the head of a subsidiary agency.” That’s true. At the same time, however, Angela Merkel has covered up what her cabinet could very well break up over: its internal contradictions and unresolved power issues. The grand coalition is made up of a Social Democratic party that is willing to govern only under certain conditions and a center-right alliance that has limited powers to govern. The result: a scary equilibrium with two existential crises in six months.

It is no coincidence that the controversies are taking place in the interior ministry. Under Mr. Seehofer’s leadership, something like an opposition cabinet is being formed there. In his future role as state secretary for security, Mr. Maassen will meet his old friend Dieter Romann, the head of the federal police, with whom he shares a vehement rejection of the chancellor’s refugee policy. Given this lineup, one thing is certain: There won’t be less conflict in Ms. Merkel’s coalition in crisis.
The chancellor’s main problem, however, is Mr. Seehofer, who never intended to go along with her authority to determine refugee policy. When he talks about a reversal in asylum policy, he isn’t only referring to the usual revisions showing the imprint of a new minister over time. He means the humiliation of his rival. Government policy is characterized by a stalemate between Ms. Merkel and Mr. Seehofer. That is their plight. There is a balance of power which is actually a balance of weakness. Mr. Seehofer is badly hit after his party’s losses in last year’s national elections. He lacks the strength to overthrow the chancellor. But Ms. Merkel, too, is no longer strong enough to get rid of her opponent.
Merkel camp counting on CSU losses in Bavaria
The result is a continuation of the ongoing conflict over refugee policy. Ms. Merkel is playing for time. Her camp is counting on the Seehofer problem resolving itself after the state elections in Bavaria. A historical defeat for the CSU is emerging there, and many will blame party leader Mr. Seehofer for it. But what follows from this is completely open. Even if the CSU were to send a new minister to Berlin, the fundamental ideological dispute remains as to whether the two sister parties – Ms. Merkel’s CDU and Mr. Seehofer’s CSU – should remain anchored in the political center or in the conservative spectrum. That is precisely what refugee policy is ultimately about.
Between the CDU/CSU fronts stands the SPD, which actually wanted to position Vice Chancellor Olaf Scholz as an alternative to Merkel and suddenly appears as the chancellor’s protective guard. The Social Democrats are absorbing most of the outrage at the leadership shuffle in Mr. Seehofer’s giant ministry. Instead of celebrating the successes of their government work – the law for better daycare centers that has just been passed, or the reduction in contributions to unemployment insurance, for example – the SPD can be worn down as a buffer party. No miracle that the coalition opponents feel confirmed. The discontent of the base can quickly turn into revolt.
It’s been nearly forgotten in the meantime that the coalition agreement carries the heading “A new departure for Europe.” The hope was that a Franco-German tandem would lead Europe through uncertain times. Six months later, hardly anyone in Berlin has noticed that the reform president, Emmanuel Macron, is in serious trouble. While the German government is self-absorbed, a historic opportunity is passing. Europe’s opponents, both internal and external, are gleefully anticipating the worst.
To contact the author: koch@handelsblatt.com

UPDATE: The Kommersant Evidence
Kommersant publishes interviews with people from Chepiga’s home village. The article makes clear he has not been seen there for many years. It states that opinions differ on whether Chepiga is Boshirov. One woman says she recognised Boshirov as Chepiga when he appeared on TV, especially the dark eyes, though she had not seen him since school. Another woman states it is not Chepiga as when she last saw him ten years ago he was already pretty bald, and he has a more open face, although the eyes are similarly brown.
Naturally mainstream media journalists are tweeting and publishing the man’s evidence and leaving out the woman’s evidence.
But the Kommersant article gives them a bigger challenge. Kommersant is owned by close Putin political ally, Putin’s former student flatmate, Chariman of Gazprominvestholdings and the UK’s richest resident, Alisher Usmanov. That Russia’s most authoritative paper, with ownership very close to Putin, is printing such open and honest reporting rather belies the “Russia is a dictatorship” narrative. And unlike the Guardian and BBC websites, on Kommersant website ordinary Russians can post freely their views on the case, and are.
One thing this does stand up is that Chepiga definitely exists.
The evidence mounts that Russia is not telling the truth about “Boshirov” and “Petrov”. If those were real identities, they would have been substantiated in depth by now. As we know of Yulia Skripal’s boyfriend, cat, cousin and grandmother, real depth on the lives and milieu of “Boshirov” and “Petrov” would be got out. It is plainly in the interests of Russia’s state and its oligarchy to establish that they truly exist, and concern for the privacy of individuals would be outweighed by that. The rights of the individual are not prioritised over the state interest in Russia.
But equally the identification of “Boshirov” with “Colonel Chepiga” is a nonsense.
The problem is with Bellingcat’s methodology. They did not start with any prior intelligence that “Chepiga” is “Boshirov”. They rather allegedly searched databases of GRU operatives of about the right age, then trawled photos in yearbooks of them until they found one that looked a bit like “Boshirov”. And guess what? It looks a bit like “Boshirov”. If you ignore the substantially different skull shape and nose.

Only the picture on the left is Chepiga. The two on the right are from “Boshirov’s” Russian passport application file, and the photo of “Boshirov” issued by Scotland Yard.
Like almost the entire internet, I assumed both black and white photos were from Chepiga’s files, and was willing to admit the identification of Chepiga with “Boshirov” as valid. But once you understand is that – as Bellingcat confirm if you read it closely – only the photo on the left is Chepiga, you start to ask questions.
The two guys on the right and the centre are undoubtedly the same person. But is the guy on the left the same, but younger?
<a href=”http://Betaface.com” rel=”nofollow”>Betaface.com</a>, which runs industry standard software, gives the faces an 83% similarity, putting the probability of them being the same person at 2.8%.
By comparison it gives me a 72% identity with Chepiga and a 2.1% chance of being him.


There is a superficial resemblance. But if you take the standard ratios used for facial recognition, you get a very different story. If you draw a line between the centre of the pupils of the two guys centre and right, and then take a perpendicular from that line to the tip of the nose, you get a key ratio. The two on the right both have a ratio of 100:75, which is unsurprising since they are the same person. The one on the left has a ratio of 100:68, which is very different.
To put that more simply, his nose is much shorter, and less certainly his eyes are further apart.
It is possible this could happen in photos but it still be the same person. The head would have to be tilted backward or forward at quite a sharp angle to alter these ratios, which does not seem to be the case. The camera could be positioned substantially above or below the subject, again not apparently the case. And the photo could be resized with height and width ratios changed. That would hard to detect.
But the three white dots across the bottom of the nose are particularly compelling (the middle one largely obscured by a red dot in the Chepiga photo). They illustrate that Chepiga has a snub nose and Boshirov something of a hook. Again, the software is reinforcing what they eye can plainly see.
However, there are also other ratios that are different. Chepiga has a narrower mouth compared to the distance between the pupils than the two photos of “Boshirov”, and that is measured on the same plane. The difference is 100-80 compared to 100-88. It is a ratio that can be changed by facial expression, but this does not seem to be the case here.
Professor Dame Sue Black of the University of Dundee is the world’s leading expert in facial forensic reconstruction. I once spent a fascinating lunch sitting next to her, while I was Rector. I shall contact her for her view on whether the guy on the left is the same person, and if she is kind enough to give me an opinion, I shall pass it on to you unadulterated.
This website is less definitive, but gives a nice clear result, and you can repeat it yourself without having to subscribe (unlike <a href=”http://Betaface.com” rel=”nofollow”>Betaface.com</a>).

Again for comparison, I tried two photos of myself 12 years apart and got “from nearly the same person”.
It is worth repeating that the only evidence that Chepiga is Boshirov offered by Bellingcat is this photo. The rest of their article simply attempts to establish Chepiga’s career.
This is gross hypocrisy by Bellingcat, who have argued that scores of photos of White Helmets being Jihadi fighters are not valid evidence because you cannot safely recognise faces from photographs.

Yet Higgins now claims his facial identification of Chepiga as Boshirov as “definitive” and “conclusive”, despite the absence of moles, scars and blemishes. Higgins stands exposed as a quite disgusting hypocrite. Let me go further. I do not believe that Higgins did not take the elementary step of running facial recognition technology over the photos, and I believe he is hiding the results from you. Is it not also astonishing that the mainstream media have not done this simple test?
The bulk of the Bellingcat article is just trying to prove the reality of the existence of Chepiga. This is hard to evaluate, but as the evidence to link him to “Boshirov” is non-existent, is a different argument. Having set out to find a GRU officer of the same age who looks a bit like “Boshirov”, they trumpet repeatedly the fact that Chepiga is about the same age as evidence, in a crass display of circular argument.
This unofficial website does indeed name Chepiga as a Hero of the Russian Federation and recipient of 20 awards, as Bellingcat claims. But it is impossible to know if it is authentic, and by contrast there is no Chepiga on the official list of Heroes of the Russian Federation, for the stated 2014 or for any other year, which Bellingcat fail to mention. Their other documents and anonymous sources are unverifiable.
The photo of the military school honours arch, with Chepiga added right at the end and not quite in line, looks to me very suspect. My surmise so far would be that most likely Bellingcat’s source of supply is Ukrainian, and trying to tie the Skripal affair into the Ukrainian civil war via Chepiga.
My view of the most likely explanation on presently available evidence is this:
Boshirov is not Boshirov, and the Russian Government are lying.
Boshirov is not Chepiga, and Bellingcat are lying.
The whole Skripal novichok story still does not hang together, and the British government are lying.
I will continue to form my opinions as further evidence becomes available.
UPDATE Incredibly, at 13.15 on 27 September the BBC TV News ran the story showing only the two photos of “Boshirov”, which of course are the same person, and not showing the photo of Chepiga at all!

A third suspect has been identified in the Novichok poisonings of former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury, according to reports.
Investigators believe another Russian military intelligence officer visited the city on a reconnaissance mission prior to the attack in March, the Telegraph reported.

The spotter would have travelled alone to assess the location before Ruslan Boshirov and Alexander Petrov brought toxic nerve agent Novichok into the UK in a perfume bottle.
They are suspected of poisoning Russian defector Skripal and his daughter Yulia by smearing Novichok on his front door before heading back to Moscow.

The Skripals both survived, but local woman Dawn Sturgess died after her partner Charlie Rowley found the perfume bottle used to dispense the poison.
It is believed that security chiefs have identified the new suspect who came to Salisbury to scope out the intended target.
Skripal suspect ‘true identity’ revealed as decorated Russian colonel
Philip Ingram, a former intelligence and security officer, told The Telegraph: “There was almost certainly intelligence on the ground before the attack was carried out, it is what is called a pattern of life study.
“They wouldn’t have turned up at the house and put it on the door handle on a whim.”
It follows reports that security services are investigating four other suspects believed to be linked to the attack – and analysis from a former Russian spy who said kill teams would tend to operate in teams of six.

Ex-spy Boris Karpichkov, 59, told the Mirror that eavesdroppers from Russian spy agency the FSB would have monitored Yulia Skripal’s mobile, email, internet and Skype before she travelled to the UK to meet her father.
The team would have formed a  “Special Operations Group”, or SOG, and cloned the passports of prisoners in other EU states to travel without visas – and some members may still be laying low following the attack.
Suspect Ruslan Boshirov has recently been identified by the investigative journalism bureau Bellingcat as a decorated GRU Colonel, Anatoliy Chepiga – despite repeated claims from Kremlin that his picture “means nothing to us”.

Chepiga, 39, served in wars in Chechnya and Ukraine. He was made a Hero of the Russian Federation by decree of President Vladimir Putin in 2014.
Prime Minister Theresa May damned Russia for the attack at an address to the UN Security Council on Tuesday.
She said: “We have taken appropriate action, with our allies, and we will continue to take the necessary steps to ensure our collective security.

“Russia has only sought to obfuscate through desperate fabrication.”
Moscow continues to deny claims of involvement, as officials called out Mrs May for refusing to present her evidence to them.
The country’s Ambassador to London, Alexander Yakovenko, tweeted yesterday, quoting Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov: “London arrogantly demands that we take responsibility for the crime just because they have some “evidence” no one has ever seen and they would not present it to the public. Frankly speaking, this is just childish.
“London violates at least three or four treaties and refuses to answer any questions. As for me, it is a clear sign of guilty conscience.”

The Russian embassy said in a statement: “The UK is refusing to provide the Russian investigation with any information or evidence gathered by British Police when working on the Salisbury incident.
“British authorities (earlier) announced that they did not intend to pursue extradition of the “suspects” and made it clear that they were not interested in submitting their own requests for legal assistance, which could be provided by means of interrogation of certain persons, provision of access to documents, etc.”
A Home Office spokeswoman said: “We set out our position clearly this month. The Police and CPS have identified two men as the prime suspects in the attack in Salisbury. We have repeatedly asked Russia to account for what happened in Salisbury in March, and they have replied with obfuscation and lies.
“We want these men to face justice in the UK and have taken steps to ensure that if they ever leave Russia in the future they can be arrested, detained and brought to the UK.”

2010 – Sergei Skripal, a former Russian military intelligence officer jailed for spying for Britain, is released and flown to the UK as part of a swap with Russian agents caught in the United States. He settles in Salisbury.
March 3, 2018 – Yulia Skripal arrives at Heathrow Airport from Russia to visit her father in England.
March 4, 9.15am – Sergei Skripal’s burgundy BMW is seen in suburban Salisbury, near a cemetery, where his wife and son are commemorated.
March 4, 1.30pm – The BMW is seen driving toward central Salisbury.
March 4, 1.40pm – The BMW is parked at a lot in central Salisbury.

March 4, afternoon – Sergei and Yulia Skripal visit the Bishops Mill pub.
March 4, 2.20pm to 3.35pm – Sergei and Yulia Skripal have lunch at the Zizzi restaurant.
March 4, 4.15pm – Emergency services are called by a passer-by concerned about a man and a woman in Salisbury city centre.
Officers find the Skripals unconscious on a bench. They are taken to Salisbury District Hospital, where they remain in critical condition.
March 5, morning – Police say two people in Salisbury are being treated for suspected exposure to an unknown substance.

March 5, afternoon – Wiltshire Police, along with Public Health England, declare a ‘major incident’
March 7 – Police announce that the Skripals were likely poisoned with a nerve agent in a targeted murder attempt.
They disclose that a police officer who responded to the incident is in serious condition in a hospital.
March 8 – Home Secretary Amber Rudd describes the use of a nerve agent on UK soil was a ‘brazen and reckless act’ of attempted murder
March 9 – About 180 troops trained in chemical warfare and decontamination are deployed to Salisbury to help with the police investigation.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov says Moscow might be willing to assist with the investigation but expresses resentment at suggestions the Kremlin was behind the attack.
March 11 – Public health officials tell people who visited the Zizzi restaurant or Bishops Mill pub in Salisbury on the day of the attack or the next day to wash their clothes as a precaution.
March 12, morning- Prime Minister Theresa May tells the House of Commons that the Skripals were poisoned with Novichok, a military-grade nerve agent developed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
March 12, afternoon – Public Health England ask everyone who visited Salisbury town centre on the day of the attack to wash all of their clothes and belongings.

March 14 – The PM announces the expulsion of 23 suspected Russian spies from the country’s UK Embassy.
March 22 – Nick Bailey, the police officer injured in the attack, is released from hospital.
March 26 – The United States and 22 other countries join Britain in expelling scores of Russian spies from capitals across the globe.
March 29 – Doctors say Yulia Skripal is ‘improving rapidly’ in hospital.
‘Unknown time in the spring’  – Dutch authorities expelled two suspected Russian spies who tried to hack into a Swiss laboratory
April 3 – The chief of the Porton Down defence laboratory said it could not verify the ‘precise source’ of the nerve agent.
April 5, morning – Yulia Skripal’s cousin Viktoria says she has received a call from Yulia saying she plans to leave hospital soon.

April 5, afternoon – A statement on behalf of Yulia is released by Metropolitan Police, in which she says her strength is ‘growing daily’ and that ‘daddy is fine’.
April 9 – Ms Skripal is released from hospital and moved to a secure location.
May 18 – Sergei Skripal is released from hospital 11 weeks after he was poisoned.
June 30 – Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley fall ill at a property in Amesbury, which is eight miles from Salisbury, and are rushed to hospital.
July 4 – Police declare a major incident after Ms Sturgess and Mr Rowley are exposed to an ‘unknown substance’, later revealed to be Novichok.
July 5 – Sajid Javid demands an explanation over the two poisonings as he accuses the Russian state of using Britain as a ‘dumping ground for poison’.
July 8 – Mother-of-three Dawn Sturgess, 44, dies in hospital due to coming into contact with Novichok.
July 10 – Mr Rowley regains consciousness at hospital, and later tells his brother that Dawn had sprayed the Novichok onto her wrists.
July 19 – Police are believed to have identified the perpetrators of the attack.
August 20 –  Charlie Rowley is rushed to hospital as he starts to lose his site, but doctors can’t confirm whether it has anything to do with the poisoning.
August 26 – Charlie Rowley admitted to intensive care unit with meningitis
August 28  – Police call in the ‘super recognisers’  in bid to track down the poisoners
September 4 –  Charlie Rowley’s brother says he has ‘lost all hope’ and doesn’t have long to live.
Independent investigators, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, confirm the toxic chemical that killed Ms Sturgess was the same nerve agent as that which poisoned the Skripals.
September 5 – Scotland Yard and CPS announce enough evidence to charge Russian nationals Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov for conspiracy to murder over Salisbury nerve agent attack.
September 13 – Britain’s most wanted men speak to RT and claim to be humble tourists
September 26 – The real identity of one of the two assassins, named by police as Ruslan Boshirov, is reported to be Colonel Anatoliy Vladimirovich Chepiga.

Angela Merkel wants to become party leader again. Whether this will happen is uncertain: Before the party congress, people will vote in Bavaria and Hesse. This can completely change the situation in the CDU.
Actually everything should be clear now. Angela Merkel has made it clear that she wants to be re-elected CDU chairman at the next congress. In the past, applause would have jump up in the union – the confirmation in office would have been only a formality. But on Friday it remains surprisingly quiet in the CDU . The best word was the conservative union of values. But their boss did not applaud – he demanded the withdrawal of Merkel.
Things have started to slide in the CDU. Only the chancellor left the feeling in the Maaus causality, then in the election of the Union faction leader. Two such mistakes in a row Merkel have not happened in their entire term. The situation has become so critical for the head of the CDU that she was now forced to reaffirm her candidacy. Merkel is thus trying to end the debate on a change of leadership in the party before she really gets going. So far, only a simple Berlin CDU member has announced plans to compete against Merkel. But who knows what the next few weeks would have been if the chairman had not taken a stake as a precautionary measure?
Doch trotz Merkels Ankündigung ist noch nicht sicher, dass sie auf dem Parteitag im Dezember auch tatsächlich antritt. Denn niemand weiß, wie die christdemokratische Welt nach den beiden Landtagswahlen im Oktober aussehen wird.
Klar ist bisher nur, dass das bayerische Ergebnis Merkel in keinem Fall Freude bereiten wird. Entweder erreicht die CSU wider Erwarten doch noch ein akzeptables Ergebnis – dann werden die Christsozialen dermaßen breitbeinig auftreten, dass sogar Uli Hoeneß im Vergleich dazu wie ein Sänftling erscheinen wird. Oder die CSU verliert so deutlich, wie es die Umfragen erwarten lassen. Dann wird die CSU nach Sündenböcken suchen, und dabei auch Angela Merkel finden.
Zwei Wochen nach den Bayern wählen dann auch die Hessen. Die CDU steht in dem Land derzeit zehn Prozentpunkte unter dem Ergebnis der letzten Landtagswahl. Bereits das ist für die CDU ein Fiasko. Wenn Volker Bouffier sogar die Staatskanzlei verlieren sollte, würde das gewaltige Schockwellen auslösen – die vor allem Merkel erschüttern würden.

Kein realistisches Szenario, in dem jemand anderes die Mehrheit im Bundestag hinter sich vereinen kann

Als Kanzlerin ist Merkel zwar immer noch in einer kommoden Lage. Sie kann nur durch ein konstruktives Misstrauensvotum aus dem Amt gehoben werden. Es gibt aber kein realistisches Szenario, in dem jemand anderes die Mehrheit im Bundestag hinter sich vereinen kann. Derlei würde schon die SPD verhindern, die keinem anderen CDU-Politiker vor Neuwahlen zur Kanzlerschaft verhelfen wird.

Als CDU-Chefin wird Merkel jedoch nicht durch Vorgaben des Grundgesetzes geschützt. Wenn die Delegierten Lust auf einen Wechsel verspüren, können sie sich einfach eine neue Führung wählen – so wie es die Unionsfraktion am Dienstag getan hat.
Before the election, Merkel has long been tormented by the question of whether she should continue. For this reason, she will also check very carefully after the state elections whether the CDU will still be wearing her – or whether she would rather present her successor to her party. That would actually be the beginning of the end of the era Merkel.

D emokratien the party democracy is in crisis. That’s how it sounds for many months now. And then we look around – and what do we see? For a long time now, politics has been as alive as it is today.

Or Should not the fall of the CDU chief strategist and confidant Merkel Volker Kauder on the open stage be Described as a success of party democracy? That may not quite have Shakespearean features, but it would be enough for an evening on the studio stage. Have the Umstürzler agreed? Is Ralph Brinkhausthe schemer who plays the naive? Or is there a ringleader behind him? And what this prelude to the overthrow of the Chancellor, for which, of course, the theatrical machines would have to be a real big spectacle of it?
But no, the cancellation of Kauders is a “great moment of democracy,” they all say now, led by the Chancellor. The deselection Kauders should be a moment of glory, while the arrival of the AfD in the Bundestag by the same people is denounced as decay of democracy. Here is measured with two different measures. The vote of no confidence against Merkel’s man at the top of the political group should be a democratic masterpiece. The vote of no confidence of the AfD (and its voters) against the established parties, on the other hand, is regarded as pure populism and is therefore dangerous. We do not complain. Since finally something has been going on in German politics for years. And those who do not like that say that democracy is in trouble. Conversely, a shoe becomes out of it.
Wettbewerb belebt das Geschäft, wissen nicht nur die Handelsleute, die freilich gerade deshalb am liebsten den Handel abschaffen oder protektionistisch beschränken wollen. Offenkundig gibt es Bürger in Deutschland, die der Meinung sind, man habe sie – warum auch immer – politisch vergessen. Und nun findet sich eine Partei, die ihnen eine Stimme gibt, diese aber nicht etwa – oder nicht nur – als außerparlamentarische Opposition auf den Straßen und Plätzen des Landes erhebt, sondern ihre Ziele repräsentativ parlamentarisiert: als Opposition im Deutschen Bundestag mit seinem ganzen schwerfälligen Antrags- und Ausschusswesen. Das wird als Populismus geschmäht, anstatt es als Belebung des Parlamentarismus zu feiern.

Dank der AfD steigt die Wahlbeteiligung

John Stuart Mill, perhaps the greatest liberal thinker of the 19th century, saw two dangers to democracy: he called them the “dictatorship of the majority” and the “dictatorship of habit.” The dictatorship of the majority is today another word for the institutionalization of political alternatives, called the grand coalition. Dictatorship of habit is another word for the stagnation of a state that could at some point stifle its expendable spending. Let’s call the New Myself Populists – but they enliven democracy. It has not been as exciting in the Bundestag for a long time since the AFD was sitting there. Before, it was always said that the democratic discourse had shifted from parliaments to talk shows.

Horst Seehofer has accomplished a number of feats in his long political career, but he could hardly be thought capable of defying the law of gravity. Until now. Mr. Seehofer could not prevent the dismissal of his confidant Hans-Georg Maassen, but he could prevent Mr. Maassen’s fall. The supposed victim skated away from his previous function as president of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution to the top levels of the interior ministry. He was spared a hard landing into temporary retirement.
Mr. Seehofer emphasized that Mr. Maassen has rendered considerable service to the country, especially in the fight against terrorism. But you don’t have to question that to maintain that Mr. Maassen has undermined confidence in himself and his authority over the past two weeks. If the head of the domestic intelligence service is unsettling the public with crass speculation, nobody should be surprised if the next terror alert isn’t taken seriously. Mr. Maassen’s behavior after the neo-Nazi riots in Chemnitz was the reason for his dismissal. The reward: promotion to state secretary and 20 percent more salary.
As right as the criticism of Mr. Maassen is, it would be wrong to reduce the so-called Causa Maassen to the person Maassen. Germany’s highest domestic spy may like to put himself into the middle of things with his interviews, but in the end he is a marginal figure. The chancellor has recently pointed out that the coalition “will not break up over the head of a subsidiary agency.” That’s true. At the same time, however, Angela Merkel has covered up what her cabinet could very well break up over: its internal contradictions and unresolved power issues. The grand coalition is made up of a Social Democratic party that is willing to govern only under certain conditions and a center-right alliance that has limited powers to govern. The result: a scary equilibrium with two existential crises in six months.

It is no coincidence that the controversies are taking place in the interior ministry. Under Mr. Seehofer’s leadership, something like an opposition cabinet is being formed there. In his future role as state secretary for security, Mr. Maassen will meet his old friend Dieter Romann, the head of the federal police, with whom he shares a vehement rejection of the chancellor’s refugee policy. Given this lineup, one thing is certain: There won’t be less conflict in Ms. Merkel’s coalition in crisis.
The chancellor’s main problem, however, is Mr. Seehofer, who never intended to go along with her authority to determine refugee policy. When he talks about a reversal in asylum policy, he isn’t only referring to the usual revisions showing the imprint of a new minister over time. He means the humiliation of his rival. Government policy is characterized by a stalemate between Ms. Merkel and Mr. Seehofer. That is their plight. There is a balance of power which is actually a balance of weakness. Mr. Seehofer is badly hit after his party’s losses in last year’s national elections. He lacks the strength to overthrow the chancellor. But Ms. Merkel, too, is no longer strong enough to get rid of her opponent.
Merkel camp counting on CSU losses in Bavaria
The result is a continuation of the ongoing conflict over refugee policy. Ms. Merkel is playing for time. Her camp is counting on the Seehofer problem resolving itself after the state elections in Bavaria. A historical defeat for the CSU is emerging there, and many will blame party leader Mr. Seehofer for it. But what follows from this is completely open. Even if the CSU were to send a new minister to Berlin, the fundamental ideological dispute remains as to whether the two sister parties – Ms. Merkel’s CDU and Mr. Seehofer’s CSU – should remain anchored in the political center or in the conservative spectrum. That is precisely what refugee policy is ultimately about.
Between the CDU/CSU fronts stands the SPD, which actually wanted to position Vice Chancellor Olaf Scholz as an alternative to Merkel and suddenly appears as the chancellor’s protective guard. The Social Democrats are absorbing most of the outrage at the leadership shuffle in Mr. Seehofer’s giant ministry. Instead of celebrating the successes of their government work – the law for better daycare centers that has just been passed, or the reduction in contributions to unemployment insurance, for example – the SPD can be worn down as a buffer party. No miracle that the coalition opponents feel confirmed. The discontent of the base can quickly turn into revolt.
It’s been nearly forgotten in the meantime that the coalition agreement carries the heading “A new departure for Europe.” The hope was that a Franco-German tandem would lead Europe through uncertain times. Six months later, hardly anyone in Berlin has noticed that the reform president, Emmanuel Macron, is in serious trouble. While the German government is self-absorbed, a historic opportunity is passing. Europe’s opponents, both internal and external, are gleefully anticipating the worst.
To contact the author: koch@handelsblatt.com

The three party leaders of Germany’s coalition government agreed late Tuesday to reassign the country’s chief domestic spy after he made controversial remarks about videos from last month’s riots in Chemnitz.
Hans-Georg Maassen, the head of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, known by its German acronym BfV, will now become a high-ranking official inside the German interior ministry. The change in roles comes with a higher pay grade, according to German media.
A replacement for his post at the BfV has not been named. “Details to the relative responsibilities within the Ministry for the Interior, Construction and Homeland will be presented by Interior Minister Horst Seehofer [Wednesday],” the government said.
The BfV monitors extremist organizations that threaten Germany’s democratic institutions and Mr. Maassen put himself in the coalition’s crosshairs by calling into question the authenticity of videos from anti-immigrant riots that arose after the fatal stabbing of a man in Chemnitz. He has also reportedly slipped BfV intelligence to the populist Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.

Coalition coalescence

Politicians first met last Thursday to discuss Mr. Maassen’s fate but then delayed their decision until Tuesday. German media presented the tussle as another trial for the country’s governing coalition with the left-leaning Social Democrats, or SPD, demanding his resignation and Interior Minister Seehofer saying he had faith in the official. The SPD is part of the governing coalition and Mr. Seehofer is a member of the Christian Socialist Union, or CSU, a conservative Bavarian party allied with Chancellor Merkel’s Christian Democrats, and also part of the coalition government.
Nobody appeared happy with the compromise. Left-leaning politicians wanted Mr. Maassen to wake up unemployed on Wednesday, whereas more conservative lawmakers insisted he did nothing wrong.
“That is unbelievable deception,” Katrin Göring-Eckardt, head of the Green party, was quoted as saying by local daily, Die Welt. Anyone who rewards instead of punishing someone who “cuddles” up to the AfD has lost all decency. “And the SPD plays along with everything,“ she said.
The head of parliament’s interior committee and a member of the CSU, Andrea Lindholz, defended Mr. Maassen, saying it was “regrettable” he had to leave his position because of what she described as a communication error. “Today I still have complete faith in the head of the BfV, after detailed explanations [about what he said], just as I did before them,” she said.
Andrew Bulkeley is an editor in Berlin for Handelsblatt Global. To contact the author: a.bulkeley@handelsblattgroup.com