Hints and Lessons Regarding German Militarisation

https://www.thedefensepost.com/2022/09/16/germany-military-best-equipped/

This story appeared last month. To be honest, I'm surprised it didn't get more attention. Scholz's statements are a more than subtle indicator regarding German militarisation and its true goals. This isn't about Ukraine, this about German leadership in Europe and it tacitly suggests that Berlin is thinking in terms beyond NATO.

The majority of Americans have not understood just how profoundly the Trump episode shook up Europe and the premise of Atlanticism. Within almost the blink of an eye, the seventy year old foundation upon which it was built – American leadership and military dominance, seemed to shiver, blur, and was in the process of crumbling. How quickly this happened added a layer of shock and it revealed something to Europe that Americans are only starting to wrestle with – America has grown unstable and thus unreliable.

Germany's power and fortunes cannot rest on a foundation of sand. The same is true among the other power players within the European framework. America may be 'back' under Biden – but look at Biden! He's not exactly inspiring and he's not going to be around long.

Then what? If the US ends up with a president Harris, Buttigieg, or Newsom there will be trouble and violence within the United States. Apart from maybe Newsom, the suggestion of these figures seems an almost absurd impossibility. The country will be unstable and its leadership unreliable. The 'stalwarts', the 'center' holding together the congress are all in their eighties or nearly so. Many believe the US may face civil war and as such the prospect of Atlanticism becomes rather shaky.

Or on the other hand, Donald Trump might be president in which case Atlanticism will be in ruins and the US will still face the likelihood of massive civil unrest. Either way, the US is not looking stable and nations like Germany and France aren't waiting around to see if the US can fix itself. The curtain may be coming down on Atlanticism and if NATO survives this epoch – it will emerge a different alliance.

These European leaders know the true nature of the war in Ukraine and what it's all about, why Washington pushed for it, and what it means in terms of geopolitics and energy. The US is starting a forest fire on Europe's border and if Washington falls into chaos, the Americans are going to walk away and leave Europe to deal with the mess – and regardless of the outcome, Russia will still be there even if Putin is gone.

Berlin has been shackled for decades, hindered and restrained by the shadow of the world wars and its own history. The German Establishment has long wanted to break out of this mold and as such it's either funding the Far Right or riding its momentum, its challenges to the conventional narrative, and its rejections of continued German shame. It's very easy for the Establishment parties to triangulate off the language and momentum created by Far Right groups like the AfD.

What Scholz and others are pushing for is a far cry from Germany's historic militarism. But they had best watch out as history sneaks up on you. The geopolitical realities and forces of history don't just go away. They return and haunt the landscape and sometimes they're able to hide behind new narratives and realities – but they're still there. Indeed they lurk behind the contest for Ukraine and European Russia.

Though the Americans are presently the force pushing into the Pontic Steppe, in the past it was Germany – Germany as it appeared in 1871. German unification was seemingly inevitable. The German people and their lands had been the battleground of Europe for too long. But unification unleashed forces and created new frontiers and gave the diaspora a unifying principle. The frontiers and old disputes are still there but the diaspora is largely gone. But the hunt for resources is even more acute than it was decades ago. A few sober voices realised the danger of German reunification in 1990 but at the time the momentum of NATO vis-à-vis the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union was too tempting.

In my opinion the Defense Post article is misleading. I don't think it was Russia's invasion of Ukraine that prompted this militarisation on the part of Germany. This has been in the works for some time but it's long been suppressed by American leadership and the fact that under the Atlanticist paradigm – any such move by Germany would be seen as revisionist and aggressive.

No, Germany's present posturing is a case of opportunism, a result of American decline. And again, the war in Ukraine is seen (by some) as a ploy by Washington – a dangerous one that plays with European security and as such it is resented. Putin was never a nice guy but he wasn't a monster until the US made him into one. Putin is kind of a self-fulfilled prophecy, forced into a role and a set of behaviours that were never his goal. People forget that Putin wanted to join NATO but was rejected. The US plan for Russia has been in the works for decades. A NATO-member Russia would have tied Washington's hands. Russia was rejected, smeared, ostracised, and now it is demonised.

The Ukraine War is being used as a cover for German militarisation. Whether these moves result in history repeating itself (a la 1914, 1939, or 1941) is a question that must be asked but its answer lies in the seemingly distant future. But it must be remembered that in the Twenty-first century things can happen quickly.

And for Russia, this is an unmistakable red flag. The West won't accept the argument but for Moscow the attack on Ukraine is viewed in preemptive terms. Few bought George Bush's argument for preemption when it came to Iraq in 2003 – but no one could stop him either. Ironically it was Iran that ended up becoming the biggest and most successful force of opposition to US goals and interests and the greatest benefactor of the invasion.

Putin's attack on Ukraine is no different and in fact he had more of an argument to make in terms of a pending threat than Bush did with regard to Iraq. But the West will not accept Putin's reasoning and as such he's the villain – just as much as Bush was but that's not how things are seen through the Western lens.

German militarisation was already in the air and now battered and humiliated, Putin is forced to watch as the various strands of Russia's nightmare tapestry start to come together. The Eastern Front of World War II and Barbarossa were a Holocaust for the Russians, an existential threat and fight for survival, an attempt at genocide that wiped out 27 million of their people. They will not forget but their concerns are dismissed by Western political leaders, financial interests, and the media machine they control.

I cannot lament the collapse of Atlanticism – it is the paradigm for America's Empire in the Northern Hemisphere just as the Monroe Doctrine is its paradigm for Latin America. But as I always say, be careful what you wish for and what comes next may prove even worse.

The Ukraine War may prove to be a seminal moment for interpreting the events of the twenty-first century, a watershed that will be looked back on and debated. You can be sure there will be many interpretations but if they fail to properly establish the context of the war – their analysis and the lessons they draw from them will be worthless.