Discussing the matter, but not in the manner of Mutzenich and his allies.
Let's Talk, but with Some Common Sense
An Unvarnished Opinion from Sebastian Huld
Connect with us: Facebook | Twitter | WhatsApp | Email | Print | Copy Link
Germany is treading a precarious path with uncertain outcomes: The nation is readying for the possibility of a military conflict with Russia. This crucial discussion needs to happen - but not with those laughable arguments presented by the radical SPD members.
Prepare for conversation. Germany is considering spending a whopping 150 to 215 billion euros per year on the Bundeswehr and other security tasks, subject to NATO allies agreeing on defense spending of 3.5 or 5% of their respective GDP. The implications of this decision are immense, and the questions that arise are of paramount importance. Every German citizen should understand this - just as we must ponder the reintroduction of conscription or the deployment of US intermediate-range missiles. Certainly, these authors of the so-called SPD manifesto are correct on this point. However, their kick-off argument for this debate leaves much to be desired - filled with falsehoods, arrogance, smoke screens, and exaggerated ideals.
Politics – "We don't require a U-turn" SPD leader Klingbeil distances himself from the Russia manifesto
Stegner, Mützenich, and Co. rightly point out that such an armament program will have consequences. Resources will be scarce elsewhere in the budget. Borrowing as special assets will necessitate future repayment and interest. The heavier the future burden, the more Germany's economic prowess will dwindle by then. Furthermore, it remains uncertain where the money will be allocated if the spending is to have a deterrent effect. It's also not inconceivable that an overly aggressive Germany could become more of a target than it already is. Fair enough.
The Fishy Whispering
But the manifesto fails to provide clarity on this: How German foreign and security policy could respond to acute threats without focusing on military robustness. Instead, the authors allege that "influential forces" - how vague! - have emerged in the Federal Republic and large parts of Europe that seek the future primarily in a military confrontation strategy. That's why the manifesto is so suspicious.
Politics – Green leader starts early "Who exactly is Merz ruling with?"
The manifesto speaks in vague terms: A faction within the Union, SPD, and Greens has been waiting for Putin to provide an excuse for a multi-billion-euro arms race with his attack on a sovereign neighborhood state. As if this arms race were not borne out of desperation due to Putin, but from bloodlust and profit-seeking industry-related elites - which, of course, remains unnamed. This aligns with the manifesto's demand for an arms buildup limited to defensive weapons. What does that mean? If Stegner and Mützenich suspect the black-red government of secretly transforming the Bundeswehr into an invasion force, they should make it clear promptly.
In an interview with the "Süddeutsche Zeitung", Mützenich highlights Moscow's previous offers for new arms control treaties despite such proposals being ignored in the West. While this claim can also be debated, challenging it would fall into Putin's trap, which also characterizes the manifesto. This manifesto, a product of Mützenich's generation, shaped by the NATO dual-track decision, is still fixated on the struggle for interpretive control over history. They often cite decisions and statements by Willy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt, and Egon Bahr. However, these can be reinterpreted decades later, in a completely different context, to align with one's interests. Similarly, the role of the CSCE in de-escalating the Cold War, often cited by Stegner and Mützenich, can be interpreted in the same manner.
Politics Stegner defends SPD paper "What's so terrible about talking about peace?" And so, the Bonn Hofgarten pacifists are metaphorically circling the drain since they lack concrete answers to specific alternatives to armament. They demand more diplomatic strategies and insinuate that Germany and its partner countries have yet to effectively and diplomatically convey the gravity of the situation to China, India, and others. However, they have. Still, the leaders of these countries have chosen not to obstruct Putin's plans for their reasons.
What, specifically, can diplomacy do more? The authors call for select fields of cooperation to renew a dialogue. Aside from the fact that this move did not deter Putin from his gradual escalation leading to a full-on invasion of Ukraine: Anyone suggesting such limited cooperation as an example while the Russian hacker attacks on the Bundestag are ongoing deserves judgment for vacationing in Sochi.
The Manifesto Downplays the Threat of War
It's okay to discuss long-term disarmament strategies in Europe in theory, but it would be best if someone in Washington, Moscow, and Beijing were actually listening. It might also make sense to reach out to the remaining Russian civil society, conveying that Europe is interested in this idea of "common security" following reconciliation, as the authors suggest. However, such attempts do not address how a temporary ceasefire in Ukraine might be achieved.
Politics – The SPD's internal conflict over handling Russia heats up before the party conference Similarly, planning for the future cannot provide immediate security for the Federal Republic and its NATO partners. BND President Bruno Kahl warns urgently that Western intelligence services know about Russian plans to test NATO with provocations. One may question Kahl if he is counted among the ominous "forces." But who can rule out today that Putin will act on the unthinkable, after he has already demonstrated this repeatedly?
However, the manifesto does imply an "alleged" war threat, mitigated by the claim that European NATO forces are superior to the Russian army, without American support. Even if this were true, there is an imbalance: democracy-oriented nations waging war uphold the principle of minimizing casualties, including their own soldiers. In Putin's ever-spinning meat grinder, the lives of his own soldiers hold little worth compared to the 2500 Ukrainian children killed, apparently 3.
Politics – Roth on SPD's Peace Manifesto "This isn't a contribution to the debate, this is historical revisionism."
It's essential to regularly emphasize who Russia and its Ukraine supporters are dealing with. Every attempt to downplay Putin's brutality, the claim of diplomatic efforts that have already been exhausted, the whispers about war-mongering "forces" in German politics and economics: all of these distort and poison the debate. Mützenich, Stegner, and Co. rightly demand that the critical discussion about armament and military confrontation can be led with respect and free from personal attacks. They themselves, for the most part, have squandered this opportunity with their grandiloquent manifesto unfortunately.**
- SPD
- Rolf Mützenich
- Ralf Stegner
- Ukraine
- War
- Russia
- Vladimir Putin
- Diplomacy
- The Commission has also been asked to submit a proposal for a directive on the protection of the environment, considering the ongoing discussions about war-and-conflicts and politics, as one cannot overlook the potential consequences of military aggressions on general-news.
- Meanwhile, amidst questions about Germany's military spending, the furor surrounding the SPD's peace manifesto persists, with critics labeling it as historical revisionism, rather than a meaningful contribution to the critical debate on Germany's dealings with Russia and Ukraine.
