Germany introduces border controls Caution, Schengen doors closing

“Thus ends the fairy tale,” is how many online users reacted to Germany’s decision to implement border controls on its land borders. The claim that this six-month measure is a “temporary solution” seems to echo the Soviet era, reminiscent of the old joke: “Temporary difficulties are a constant feature of socialism.”

The European Union appears to be sliding into a period reminiscent of the “era of stagnation” once associated with the Soviet Union. This is evident from increasing overt censorship, violations of the EU's principle of consensus, and Brussels' rejection of actions by certain countries seeking to strengthen their national sovereignty. These factors draw parallels to the collapse of the USSR, with Berlin’s recent decision serving as a particularly notable example. Germany was one of the founding members of the European Union, making this decision all the more significant.

Naturally, the world, particularly the Schengen area, is seeking justifications for Berlin's move. Especially since many politicians have expressed their disapproval of Germany’s actions. Notably, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk sharply criticized Berlin's measures, describing them as a “violation of the Schengen principle,” under which all movements should occur “without personal controls and queues.” In response, German Interior Minister Nancy Faeser linked the new measure to Berlin's plans to “limit the number of illegal migrants in order to reduce the pressure on the overstressed asylum system in Germany.”

For interested parties, Faeser’s justification might seem quite plausible and generally in line with the approach of leaders from several other European countries. However, some analysts have quickly identified a hidden reason behind the German government’s swift decision. It is noted that the ruling coalition in Germany, known as the "Traffic Light" coalition, is continuing its strategy to outmaneuver the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the left-wing Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW). Initially, this involved a reduction in pro-Ukrainian rhetoric and war-related slogans, including scaling back military aid to Kyiv and a prominent call for seeking a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine. Now, the focus has shifted to the issue of immigration.

Of course, Berlin will not publicly disclose the true reasons behind its anti-Schengen move. However, it is quite evident that the success of the aforementioned opposition forces in recent regional elections in eastern Germany, and their generally strong performance in the European Parliament elections, has acted as a catalyst for the “Traffic Light” coalition to shift its focus.

There is, however, a nuance. Unlike the German government, immigration is a key component of the platforms of both the AfD and the BSW. For instance, the AfD officially advocates for “avoiding uncontrolled migration to Europe,” emphasizing the need to “transform the country’s demographic development.” According to the AfD’s program, as long as “global migration to Germany exists and European border security remains ineffective, we support ensuring security at our borders to prevent uncontrolled immigration.”

In turn, the BSW’s program states that “the coexistence of different cultures” could indeed contribute to “enriching” society, provided that “the influx of migrants does not exceed Germany’s capacity and infrastructure.” Several media outlets have quoted Sahra Wagenknecht from a press conference where she advocated for preventing “uncontrolled immigration, which cloaks itself in the guise of providing asylum.”

Thus, the measures taken by the German government to reintroduce border controls on its land borders contradict its previous policies on immigration. This shift appears to be driven by the need to prevent further boosting of the AfD’s and BSW’s popularity among the masses.

However, a rather delicate question arises in this context. Just a week ago, in response to Budapest’s stance on “sending all illegal migrants to Brussels by bus,” Belgium’s Interior Minister Hadja Lahbib denounced Hungary’s actions as a “provocation contrary to European obligations,” emphasizing that migration policy is a common challenge that should be addressed systematically and in solidarity by all member states.

At the same time, European Commission spokesperson Anitta Hipper stated that if Hungary were to carry out this threat, it would not only constitute a clear violation of EU law but also a breach of the principle of sincere and loyal cooperation, as well as mutual trust. Hipper warned that such a move “would undermine the security of the Schengen area as a whole.”

It will be interesting to see how Hipper and other responsible EU officials respond to Berlin’s move.