Cc by-sa 3.0
Said 1000 times and nothing happens? As if! Germany is well integrated into the u.S. Course of war. Example defender europe.
"Anything but shying away from responsibility" in his keynote speech at this year’s munich security conference, german president steinmeier announced that. The head of state conceded to the new german mantra of taking responsibility, "that many people, at least in germany, are already concerned that the term "responsibility" primarily refers to military missions abroad".
But this concern is misleading; responsibility in today’s world means above all, "facing reality and always looking for practical ways to change the world. We just have to be clear: we will not succeed from a position of weakness." and politics the strong – that’s been known in this country since adenauer’s time – you win "only from the commonality".
Germany wants to reare itself of this common ground in nato and the eu, but is now also practicing it in the context of a military exercise in which it stands in loyalty to its transatlantic partner, who, as steinmeier also did not conceal, "under the current government, even the idea of an international community has been rejected" .
During the training for troop deployment and "interoperability" it is a matter of "defender-europe 2020", one of the grossest nato manovers since the end of the eastern bloc, about whose gigantic logistical effort one is meanwhile informed, while the belligerent thrust remains rather in the background, or is immediately glossed over as a contribution to the security of europe and is now also accompanied by its own propaganda war.
Defending europe ahead
The bundeswehr has ied the appropriate language via its press and information center. With the manover, it is said, the u.S "a clear commitment" for the security of europe, while "conversely, the european partners" show, "that they will reliably support joint projects".
This is "on the one hand, to reaffirm the commitment to stand by the alliance and, in particular, the commitment of the united states to the security of europe", while, on the other hand, defender europe "clear signals of deterrence of attacks on nato countries" on the other hand. All in all, this also means a military-strategic upgrading of germany, which, within the framework of the "bundnisverteidigung" no longer playing the role of a frontline state, but, as is proudly announced, a strategic one "hub" to play.
Criticism of the project, which is to run at full speed from april to may 2020, has been voiced here and there. It is a test of how useful germany, its harbors and airports, its railways, roads and rivers are for military purposes, whereby the country and some of its cities – in the north especially hamburg and bremerhaven – are to be used for military purposes – "serve as a hub", martin dolzer, the peace policy spokesman for the left party in hamburg’s parliament, said.
With it dolzer gives only the official line again, which it holds however for an erroneous development: "this manover is the wrong signal, an unnecessary turning on the escalation spiral" (cf. Defender 2020: northern germany in the middle of it instead of just being part of it). From the bremen left-wing party it hieb to it: "this manover burns tens of millions of euros, produces environmental damage and disturbs the civilian population."
These effects are undeniable. In terms of costs, the final amount could still be in much higher dimensions, and also in terms of environmental damage, not only the emissions of the tanks, other vehicles and aircraft could be quite a bit. But these are somewhat strange objections to a military undertaking that is officially accorded a very high status in matters of world peace – and thus also of a possible world war.
Die schwache der hiesigen kritik zeigt sich exemplarisch beim aufruf des dgb, der "no to the nato manover" says. He takes "in the sense of the employees" stellung und verweist auf die "considerable resources", the need for investment (in the face of the challenges of climate change, digitalization, etc.).) and were needed for social security measures. This is why the dgb also rejects the increase of the budget to 2 % of the gdp, because "diese ressourcen wurden fur die dringend notwendigen zukunftsinvestitionen fehlen".
In the case of the defender deployment, however, it is not only the misallocation of public funds that is to be deplored, but also a failure to achieve the relaxation and cooperation in international relations that is actually called for – called for in particular since the charter of paris (1990), which established the "european union" "the end of the age of confrontation and the division of europe is proclaimed" have. In the light of this, the move to deploy powerful forces to russia’s borders in the shortest possible time is a completely wrong approach "to demonstrate nato’s military superiority".
This appeal is a document of pseudo-criticism – regardless of whether the union’s "no" will be followed by something in the near future or not. First invoking the charter of paris is a joke. For this agreement has long since been made a waste paper by nato and by the federal republic in the forefront: the entire russian apron has been seized by the west and only in the last act, the allied seizure of ukraine, has it met with russian resistance, to which putin’s decisive but defensive reaction of the "so far and no further" to a "who is female" how dangerous an act of expansion was reinterpreted. The dgb is also involved in this reversal when it deplores the failure to live up to the solemn claim of the paris charter to cooperative conflict resolution, and when it condemns the misdevelopment to the "outbreak of war in ukraine" dated.
"Spatestens" since this event, according to the dgb, the undesirable development, the "respect and cooperation" the dgb is of the same opinion when it deplores the failure of the charter of paris to achieve a cooperative solution to the conflict and the misguided development of the war in ukraine. It is a strange optics to put the subject and the target of the western expansion on the same level. And under the hand here also nothing has developed, which then in a fatal war to the "outbreak" had come.
After all, years before, in 2007 at the munich security conference, putin had called nato’s advance and its other efforts to arm up to the militarization of space an aggressive act and had taken the liberty, which the west otherwise claims for itself, of drawing red lines for its part; a new edition of the soviet capitulation, as happened under gorbachev, was not to be expected by the west. "Precisely this, that russia no longer opposes western expansion only rhetorically but also practically, is the core of the conflict." https://www.Jungewelt.En/supplement/art/347051?Sstr=lauterbach
Secondly is the dgb’s reference to the demonstration of western "uberlegenheit" – to say the least – quite an understatement. Misapplied means, for buildup instead of demolition, have allegedly led to a new confrontation that would have violated the mandate of the 2+4 treaty and the basic law that "that only peace should emanate from german soil" is in danger of losing sight of its mission. Military intentions are therefore not recognizable.
According to this logic, nato somehow got on the wrong track and is now insisting on its superiority instead of reaching out to the other side – as is actually the case with germany, which with its economic superiority is able to reach out to the whole world "the peace" let.