The return of large-scale armed conflict in Europe has led Germany to radically review its security policy.
With Russia and Ukraine still at war for almost two years and a conflict between Israel and Hamas underway, the European Union and NATO are finding their way into a new world order in of security.
When the war in Ukraine broke out, Germany was initially reluctant to offer Kiev direct military supplies. But soon after the Russian invasion, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz restated, in dramatic terms, Germany’s moral obligation to help resist Russian aggression.
In his speech entitled ““Zeitenzwende” or “turning point”, delivered before the Bundestag, Germany’s parliament, the chancellor described “Vladimir Putin’s war” in Ukraine as a risk of a return to the dark days of Europe before the 1940s, alluding to history of Germany, as he urged parliamentarians to support sending weapons and supplies to a non-EU, non-NATO ally.
“Many of us still remember the war stories of our parents or grandparents”he declares, “and for the youngest, it is almost inconceivable: a war in Europe. Many of them express their horror.”
“The question at the heart of this matter is whether power can trump law. Do we allow Vladimir Putin to return to the 19th century and the era of great powers? Or do we have ability to keep warmongers like Vladimir Putin in check? For that, we must have our own strength.”
Major turning point
This speech marked a major turning point, not only in the Ukrainian conflict, but also in the way the German government discusses military strategy, which, given the country’s history until 1945, has long been a topic difficult. Until recent years, it was enough to contribute to global security through NATO rather than unilaterally increasing German military power to avoid reopening embarrassing discussions about what a “strong” Germany could do. mean for Europe.
Since the Zeitenzwende speech, Germany’s contributions to Ukraine have at times been cut off, with kyiv and other European partners complaining that Berlin was not moving fast enough to keep its promises.
But while the Ukrainians work to push back Russia on their crucial southeastern front, Germany tries to get things done. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius is now speaking about Germany’s defense posture in terms that have not been heard since the country’s reunification in 1990.
In a recent article in the newspaper, “Tagesspiel”Boris Pistorius called for “fundamental changes” within the German military, the Bundeswehr, which he says needs major structural reform “to be effective and capable of war in the future”.
This formulation is radically different from the relatively timid way in which German governments have approached the question of military power in recent decades. In his final paragraph, Boris Pistorius expressed himself in even more one-sided terms which will have made many thinkers and policy makers in Berlin uncomfortable.
“We need a change of mentality, not only within the Bundeswehr, but also in politics and society”he says. “The security of our country is at stake, and therefore the foundations of social coexistence, progress and economic growth. As a state and society, we must be able to defend ourselves and be resilient in order to to be able to continue to live in peace, freedom and security in the future”.
Ready to fight
According to Minna Ålander, a German security policy expert based at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, Boris Pistorius’ comments aroused some astonishment, as well as rejection from the left wing of his party, the social democrats. Many of his colleagues share a deep aversion to the normalization of war and are alarmed that Boris Pistorius is prepared to speak in these terms.
Minna Ålander also tells Euronews that the structural problems facing the Bundeswehr are simply too serious for the government to avoid, given the promises it has already made.
“There was a sense of losing momentum after the summer, but Germany is under great pressure to fulfill its promise to send a 4,000-strong brigade to Lithuania, as promised by Boris Pistorius “she says.
“Currently the Bundeswehr is not able to set it up and it will probably take several years before the brigade is fully equipped and staffed. This is not a good thing for a country the size of Germany”, she adds.
“It has also become, to some extent, a matter of prestige. In addition, Germany has made very high troop pledges – 30,000 troops, 85 ships and jets – and so all of this represents a huge challenge given the current state of the German army.”
“It is not enough to inject money into the German army, if the structural problems (especially inefficiency) are not resolved,” concludes Minna Ålander.
Time to pay
Of course, it’s not just about Germany itself.
Looming over the change in strategy is NATO’s spending requirement, that is, the obligation for all treaty members to spend at least 2% of their annual GDP on defense.
Germany has historically failed to meet this requirement, and Olaf Scholz hinted at remedying this in his speech to the German Parliament, but it has not yet appeared in a long-term budget. Olaf Scholz has just reaffirmed this promise, saying that Germany will begin to achieve the goal “in the 20s and 30s” – a commitment which could help prevent a major risk for the legitimacy of the alliance.
Underspending by NATO’s European members has been the subject of a fixation on the part of Donald Trump, who, as president of the United States, has often complained that Germany in particular profited from US defense spending and even threatened to withdraw thousands of troops stationed in that country.
In 2020, Donald Trump declaresat Fox News: “They make a fortune on the backs of the troops, they build cities around our troops. We will first get rich”.
As Donald Trump seeks another term – and performs well in the polls against Joe Biden – former advisers turned critics have warned that if he is re-elected, he could try to follow through on his previous threats to completely withdraw the United States from NATO.
And if Germany, NATO’s second-largest economy, was still unable to meet its obligations in January 2025, by which time Donald Trump could have been re-sworn in as President of the United States, a withdrawal from NATO would be easier to get the increasingly isolationist Republican Party to accept.
The United States’ departure from NATO would destabilize the European security order at an incredibly dangerous time. And as Minna Ålander explains to Euronews, it is not only the conflict in Ukraine that has raised awareness of the seriousness of the situation.
“I think the Hamas attack and the Gaza war had a huge impact on German society and politics. The shift to right-wing rhetoric was instantaneous, especially on the issue of migration.”she says.
“But it must also be emphasized that we will probably have to prepare for other conflicts that may erupt in Europe’s neighborhood, given that the old security order has collapsed”.