Let's Discuss Arms Race, But with Substance, Not Suspicion
A Take by Sebastian Huld
More Info
Discussing the matter at hand, avoiding the approach taken by Mutzenich and his associates.
Facebook ⮝ ⮝ FacebookTwitter ⮝ ⮝ TwitterWhatsApp ⮝ ⮝ WhatsAppEmail ⮝ ⮝ EmailPrint ⮝ ⮝ PrintCopy Link ⮝ ⮝ Copy Link
Germany is setting foot on an uncertain path: The country may soon be escalating a potential military conflict with Russia. This vital discussion needs to happen immediately and broadly, but not with such nonsensical arguments as the ones conjured up in the left-wing SPD members' manifesto.
Germany must engage in dialogue. With the possibility of a yearly military and security spending of 150 billion euros or 215 billion euros, depending on the agreement of NATO countries on defense spending of 3.5% or 5% of their respective GDP, the repercussions would be immense. The country as a whole must understand these implications, just as much as the reintroduction of conscription or the placement of U.S. intermediate-range missiles. The authors of the so-called SPD manifesto are correct in acknowledging this. However, their opening volley for this debate falls flat with misleading arguments, self-righteous bluster, veiled hints, and unrealistic mirages.
Politics: "No U-turn" - Klingbeil distances himself from the Russia "manifesto"
Stegner, Mützenich, and their allies are correct to point out that such an armament program would have consequences. The money would be diverted from other crucial sectors in the budget. Even if borrowed as special funds, these loans will eventually have to be repaid, and interest must be paid. The heavier the economic power Germany loses as a result of these expenditures, the more burdensome the repayment will become. Moreover, it is unclear for what the money is intended if it is meant to serve as a deterrent. It is also not implausible that a heavily armed Germany could become a more desirable target than it already is. All correct.
Hushed Whispers
But the manifesto fails to provide any insights into how German foreign and security policy could respond to acute threats without increasing military strength. Instead, the authors claim that "invisible forces" have seized the Federal Republic and large parts of Europe that seek to resolve crises mainly through military escalation. This vague assertion makes the manifesto all the more shrouded in mystery.
Politics: Green leader starts the debate early - "Who is Merz actually ruling with?"
The manifesto makes the murky claim that somewhere within the Union, SPD, and Greens, someone has been waiting for Vladimir Putin's aggression against a sovereign neighboring state to provide the pretext for a multi-billion-euro armament program. As if this program were not a desperate attempt to counter Putin, but a greedy war-mongering strategy born from war-profiteering elites—which, of course, remain unnamed. This perspective aligns with the manifesto's demand for a limited armament program, focusing solely on defensive weapons. Should members of Stegner and Mützenich's camp have any evidence that the black-red government harbors aspirations to turn the Bundeswehr into an invasion army, it is imperative that this information be made public promptly.
Historical Dispute as a Crutch in the Argument
Interview with the "Süddeutschen Zeitung", Mützenich regrets that Moscow's offers for new disarmament treaties in the past have been discarded by the West. Although this claim is debatable, questioning it risks falling into Putin's historical trap, which is also evident in the manifesto. The generation of Stegner/Mützenich, marked by NATO's double decision, has a strong focus on the struggle for historical interpretation. They often cite decisions and statements by Willy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt, Egon Bahr. However, these can be reinterpreted years later in a completely different context, according to one's own interests. Similarly, the much-cited role of the CSCE in de-escalating the Cold War. At the core, these historical arguments serve as crutches that don't address the issue at hand but effectively divert attention.
Bonn Hofgarten Pacifists' Faulty Logic
Politics - Peace Manifesto under Fire - "This is not a debate contribution, this is historical revisionism"
It is necessary to keep stressing the nature of the Ukraine and its supporters' adversaries. Every attempt to minimize Putin's ruthlessness, claims of failed but attempted diplomatic efforts, murmurs about war-mongering "forces" in German politics and economy: all this distorts and corrupts the debate.
Mützenich, Stegner, and their allies have rightly demanded that the discussion about armament and military confrontation be conducted in a respectful and personal-attack-free manner. They have fallen short of this goal somewhat with their grand manifesto. However, as this crucial dispute has begun, it does not have to end. After all, it is always worth discussing peace.
- The Commission, in light of the current discussion on potential military conflict with Russia, has been asked to submit a proposal for a directive on protecting the environment, considering the significant financial and economic implications of an arms race.
- Amidst the ongoing discussion about arms race and military conflict, it's important to remember that politics should not be dominated by vague assertions and veiled hints, as seen in some recent manifestos, which may contribute to the escalation of war-and-conflicts, rather than promoting a peaceful solution to general-news issues.
