German militarism on display at NATO summit

by Johannes Stern, via WSWS

At the 2014 Munich Security Conference, German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier declared that Germany was “too big merely to comment on world affairs from the side-lines,” and that “Germany must be ready for earlier, more decisive and more substantive engagement in the foreign and security policy sphere.” Last weekend’s NATO summit in Warsaw revealed the aggressiveness with which the German government has been pursuing this goal in the subsequent two years.
In a statement prior to the summit, German chancellor Angela Merkel provided an overview of German imperialism’s plans for rearmament and war. Along with a massive increase to the defence budget, the chancellor announced stepped-up engagement of the German army and NATO in Iraq, Syria, Libya, the Mediterranean Sea, Afghanistan, and eastern Europe.
Merkel praised these additional interventions, declaring, “The Bundeswehr’s whole posture now reflects Germany’s global responsibility.” At the end of her statement, to the applause of parliamentary deputies, she declared “a warm thank you to the soldiers…who are serving in many of these deployments and thus guarantee our security.”
The German media, which has been agitating for war for more than two years, is now openly acknowledging the return of German militarism. In an article entitled “From reliable partner to initiator,” the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) wrote, “Germany has been transformed in security policy” and has “abandoned the political-cultural and military restraint which for decades was an engrained trait of German political leaders.”
Visibly relieved, the mouthpiece of the German banks declared its satisfaction that Steinmeier’s declaration was now Germany’s official foreign policy doctrine. “While the previously applicable white paper, formulated ten years ago, still stated that Germany intended to be a ‘reliable partner’ in the EU and NATO,” the “text of the future strategic principles confirms that Germany is ready to cooperate ‘actively’ in establishing global order, is willing ‘to intervene early, decisively and substantially as an initiator in global debates, live up to responsibilities and assume leadership’.”
Author Johannes Leithäuser then declared that “this change in role is not simply an announcement,” but is being “practiced in all directions by the German government.” Leithäuser went through the ever-growing list of German interventions: “Two years ago, the decision was taken to arm the Kurdish Peshmerga fighters in their struggle against the terror of ‘Islamic State’ with weapons; six months ago, Merkel, defence minister Ursula Von der Leyen and foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier responded quickly to French requests for assistance and sent ships, satellites and reconnaissance planes to combat IS.” Now, the chancellor had announced that “Germany would agree to the deployment of NATO AWACS reconnaissance aircraft over Iraq and Syria.”
A “German leadership role” in eastern Europe was emerging even more strongly than “in regard to the crises to the south of the NATO alliance area.” Already two years ago, when NATO “took the first steps in its new strategic orientation on the eastern flank,” the German government showed its readiness “to deploy German soldiers on a large scale to test the concept of the enlarged and accelerated NATO rapid response force.”
In addition, there was the “multi-national, but essentially German and Polish-supported, command centre in Stettin” which had been equipped over the past two years so “that it can lead all potential military exercises and operations in NATO’s eastern alliance area.” And now, with the sending of German troops to the Baltic and Poland, the German government had “again [indicated] its readiness to lead one of these battalions permanently.”
The rapid preparations for war against Russia are producing tensions within the German ruling elite, with sections of the SPD and Left Party pushing for greater independence from the United States. But regardless of the foreign policy differences, they all agree with military rearmament and a stronger role for the German army.
The extent to which the war conspiracy has advanced behind the backs of the population is made clear in the current edition of Der Spiegel. An article headlined “Eastern Flank Security: The Siren Song of NATO’s Hawks” cites Danish NATO officer Jacob Larsen, who declared in early June, “We need to learn to fight total war again.”
Der Spiegel itself recently urged for war against Russia. Now, it drew attention to the fact that “the last call for ‘total war’ was made in Germany during the infamous 1943 speech delivered in a Berlin sports stadium by Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels.”
Talk of “total war” is no accident, but rather describes the scenario for which NATO and the German elite are preparing, notwithstanding the catastrophes of the first two world wars. A further article in the FAZ entitled “Society must protect itself once again” reveals how systematically preparations for war are being carried out at every level of society.
The NATO states had agreed in a statement in Warsaw “that their armed forces could access the necessary civilian resources at any time, including energy, transport and communications.” In other words, in parallel to military rearmament, all of civilian and social life is to be militarised and prepared for war.
The FAZ complains that Germany, like most of the other NATO states, has “made huge cuts to civil defence since the 1990s.” While the German army has “at least been adjusted to face new challenges,” civil defence has been “partially dissolved without replacement and reduced to a skeleton,” according to Wolfgang Geier, department leader of risk management and head of the federal office for population protection and disaster relief.
A shift in course is now also under way in this area. Under the leadership of the Interior Ministry, the relevant ministries and authorities had for four years been drafting a “plan for civil defence,” which would be adopted in the coming weeks by the cabinet. Germany’s civil protection would “adjust in the coming years to the new risky situation, particularly on hybrid warfare. Our considerations are running in parallel with those of NATO,” the FAZ cited Geier as saying.

In recent years, the issue was only how the German army could support civil authorities in natural disasters. In the future, we must again think in the opposite direction: how civil authorities can assist the armed forces to fulfill their tasks.


If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Seamus Padraig
Seamus Padraig
Jul 16, 2016 4:18 PM

“Germany’s civil protection would ‘adjust in the coming years to the new risky situation, particularly on hybrid warfare.'”
Realize that they consider us–meaning websites like this–to be part of ‘Russia’s hybrid war against the West’. The age of the free, wide-open internet are coming to an end in our civilization, I’m afraid. There’s already talk coming from the EU about requiring people to log onto the internet using government IDs, or perhaps even finger or retina scans. Very scary …

Jul 16, 2016 9:57 PM
Reply to  Seamus Padraig

Realize that they consider us–meaning websites like this–to be part of ‘Russia’s hybrid war against the West’.

Yes indeed.
When your entire tenuous grip on power is based on such gems as
¶ Slobodan Milosevic is operating a rape factory in Kosovo (Robin Cook, Foreign Minister for Tony Blair)
¶ The Serbian Radio and Television Centre are legitimate military bombing targets (Clare Short, Minister for Tony Blair)
¶ We landed under sniper fire (Hillary Clinton)
¶ Saddam Hussein has Weapons of Mass Destruction. He has hidden them in the palm trees. This is solid intelligence. This is not speculation (Colin Powell)
¶ I am telling him again – he must disarm (George W Bush)
¶ Saddam Hussein has weapons of destruction which can be targetted on Britain in 45 minutes (Tony Blair)
¶ Those who are not with us are against us (George W Bush)
¶ Vladimir Putin has illegally invaded the Crimean Peninsular (Jens Stoltenberg)
then any alternative narrative – such as one, for example, based on the truth – becomes an act of war.

Jul 18, 2016 7:21 AM
Reply to  reinertorheit

Every time we attack a foreign country we bomb their journalists.
We bombed Radio Television of Serbia. We bombed the Iraq TV (March 23, 2003) We bombed Al Yazeera in Kabul (13 November 2001) and in Baghdad , during the Gulf War (April 8, 2003) We bombed Libyan state TV (July 20, 2011). And each and every time a general appears on our TV, saying we had to bomb the other guys’ TV station, because the other guy used television as a weapon.

Richard Le Sarcophage
Richard Le Sarcophage
Jul 17, 2016 12:17 AM
Reply to  Seamus Padraig

Scratch a Rightwinger, or a ‘conservative’ and you will find a fascist.

Seamus Padraig
Seamus Padraig
Jul 17, 2016 2:47 PM

Beware: some fascists pose as leftists or ‘progressives’ too.

Seamus Padraig
Seamus Padraig
Jul 17, 2016 2:57 PM

As I posted in comment section of a previous article here:

Liberal dupes … believe that we are still free, because they wrongly understand fascism as an ideology (Racism! Nationalism! Xenophobia!) or else confuse it with certain systems of symbology (swastikas, fasces, cool-looking uniforms, etc.). But in reality true fascism in neither an ideology (false consciousness, as the Marxists would say), nor is it a particular system of symbology. Fascism, properly understood is simply a state of affairs–namely, the total fusion of state and corporate power. That was the definition Mussolini gave it long ago, and since he was fascism’s inventor, I’ll take his word for it! The consequence of this is that fascism, in practice, can adopt virtually any ideology or symbology, even some that might, at first glance, seem rather ‘lefty’. In the west today, for example, the true fascists have now adopted cultural (not economic!) Marxism as their ideology.
Ironically then, the new fascism has cleverly disguised itself as anti-fascism! Pretty slick, eh?

Jul 18, 2016 10:44 PM
Reply to  Seamus Padraig

“The consequence of this is that fascism, in practice, can adopt virtually any ideology or symbology, even some that might, at first glance, seem rather ‘lefty’. In the west today, for example, the true fascists have now adopted cultural (not economic!) Marxism as their ideology.”
Liked it the first time you posted it, and I like it again.

Jul 16, 2016 10:32 AM

I’ve yet to be convinced that the definition of leadership is ‘proactive military engagement’.
There is a fine line between upholding international peace and wishing to emulate old Adolf, after all…..

Jul 16, 2016 9:01 AM

Der Spiegel – or Der Sturmer, as most people know it – has been banging the drum for war for over ten years.
The international lineup of warmongering psychopaths – Stinkmeier, Merkel, Stoltenberg, Crapalotti, Brzezinski and their kin – is growing apace.
Frankly I was appalled that John Kerry was admitted to Moscow this week – he should have been turned around at the border and sent back to his hellhole country on his dumb plane.

Richard Le Sarcophage
Richard Le Sarcophage
Jul 17, 2016 12:21 AM
Reply to  reinertorheit

The plain truth about Putin is that he is, in contrast to the entire insane sewer of Western politics, NOT a psychopath. Putin will keep his word, speak his mind plainly, and do everything he can to avert war with the psychotic West, whereas the vermin that US hegemony and neo-liberal capitalism have installed in power in the West seemed fanatically determined on causing the thermo-nuclear apocalypse that we thought we had avoided. One wonders just how widespread is the spiritual disease of End Times religious fanaticism among Western elites.