‘Schlaf der Gerechten’ is a German expression that infers that those with a clear conscience — the righteous — sleep well. When considering Germany’s efforts to support Ukraine since the Russian invasion in February 2022, you could argue that German political slumber is certainly dangerously deep, and their understanding of the situation blurred by self-righteousness rather than reality.
Germany’s past must be understood when examining the country’s reluctance to take a decisive stand in armed conflicts. Germany still has a strong pacifist movement that emanated from a country deliberately distancing itself from its role in two world wars. Germany’s fascist past has been a topic of debate and deliberation in both schools, universities and within society as the country vowed never to revisit those dark times. Germany is careful never to be seen as an aggressor. This perception arguably prevents it from taking on the role of strategic leadership as Europe’s biggest economy on the political stage. It remains happily complacent — a vindication that will somehow guarantee peace and prosperity.
Germany a pacifist if not passive ally
Germany is happy to provide generous humanitarian aid. However, in comparison with other European countries, it has a more modest record regarding military involvement and its military funding to Ukraine is unassertive in terms of GDP. I would argue that this identity, deeply embedded in the German psyche, prevents Germany from forming a political foreign strategy on how to defend itself and decisively provide support for Ukraine and, in the long-term, security in Europe.
It might come as a surprise to readers that part of Germany’s post 1945 legacy, is that German universities have civil clauses that restrict them engaging in defence related projects and research. Conventional universities often have a strong pacifistic foundation, and the study of war or defence strategies, is not on the academic agenda.
There are two military universities where this is not the case. However, compared with other countries, the German politics student, or scholar of international relations, is not taught military strategy as the traditional universities have been unwilling or unable to teach this material.
Deficit in understanding strategic security issues
This has arguably led to a void in military strategy or an understanding of its relevance. There has been no political willingness to address this deficit as Germany seemed incapable to imagine that war in Europe could ever become a newfound reality. The enthusiasm for pacifism may have had noble origins but has resulted in a naivety and deliberate complacency that can prove to be more than precarious.
German politicians smirked and dismissed warnings from Poland and the Baltic States about the threat that Russia posed. These countries have upped their defence spending whereas Germany, still intent on believing its own convictions, is barely achieving the minimum NATO target of 2% of GDP. Germany has historically relied heavily on American military strength and NATO to protect its borders, happily avoiding the expense and responsibility of arming its own forces and addressing ever more alarming security issues both in respect to cyber warfare, espionage and sabotage. Naivety is cheaper than strategic defence deterrents.
Dismal state of the armed forces
The German defence forces are in a miserable condition. The chief army inspector Alfons Mais describing in 2022 the state of the armed forces as being completely ‘blank’ (naked) due to years of underfunding which diminished their military capabilities. He mused that in his forty years of experience that neither he nor the governing would have expected war to be a realistic scenario. The lethargic 16 years of Angela Merkel’s CDU (Christian Democratic Union) reign and later in collation with the SPD (Social Party Germany) were arguably so unconvinced by the possibility of war, or its imminent involvement in one, that the cuts to military spending left the forces void of basic operability.
Germany’s present defence secretary Boris Pistorius used the term ‘Kriegstüchtigkeit’ in a speech to parliament this year — meaning the need for the ability for Germany forces to be able to fight and defend Germany’s borders by 2029 at the latest. The very fact that this is not the case is alarming and gives a sobering insight into the desolate state of the German armed forces.
Security services equally ill-equipped
The intelligence forces prove to be in no better predicament than their military counterparts; either in terms of funding or appreciation of the threat Russia posed prior to the Ukraine invasion. The head of the intelligence services (BND – Bundesnachrichtendienst) Bruno Kahl was so ‘surprised’ by the Russian invasion and had to be physically rescued out of Kiev in February 2022. German intelligence was understandingly accused of not foreseeing the Russian incursion even when it was fully underway despite warnings from allied countries. The slumber of the self-righteous must have been abruptly shortened that particular night.
In his defence, Bruno Kahl did have an appreciation of the increase in Russian aggression since the annexation of the Crimean peninsula in 2014, and had complained that intelligence reports were criticised in political circles as ‘scaremongering’. Threats had been repeatedly dismissed and those making them accused of ‘self-proliferation’.
The report exemplifies the anchor bias that is widespread both within German politics and society itself. This collective cognitive bias is based on a peaceful past that will perpetuate as there is an inability or unwillingness to perceive a threat or a change to the status quo. This naivety is complicit to Germany’s lack of leadership and strategic vision on how to protect itself and its fellow European allies from vicious and illegal attacks. It is the proverbial ‘ostrich burying its head in the sand’ to avoid uncomfortable information and facts. There is a distinct lack of leadership and political will to confront the new geo-political security threats.
A biography about Angela Merkel’s years in power has been published this year by the acclaimed political journalist Eckart Lohse. The book is titled — ‘Die Täuschung. Angela Merkel und ihre deutschen’ — ‘Illusion. Angela Merkel and her Germans’, referring to a false sense of complacency and willing naivety. It will be rivalled by Merkel’s own autobiography,due end of November this year, which might explain the paradoxical relationship she had with Vladimir Putin: a man she understood was not to be trusted, and yet with the signing of the lucrative Nord Stream gas pipelines, put Germany’s industry and economy very much in his unscrupulous hands.
Intelligence report to parliamentary committee — foreign infiltration and aggression
This week, the three major intelligence agencies Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), the Verfassungsschutz (domestic intelligence services) and the Bundesamt für den Militärischen Abschirmdienst (with the rather unfortunate acronym ‘MAD’ which is responsible for military counterintelligence service), presented their yearly report to the Kontrollgremium (control committee) in the German federal parliament. All three parties expressed grave concerns about the imminent threats they believe Germany faces and conveyed their worry that the country was ill-prepared. The head of the BND stated that Germany was in direct conflict with Vladimir Putin, who in his words, is seeking to establish a, “new world order.”
All heads of the intelligence services explained that the threats were hybrid; involving deliberate misinformation campaigns, manipulated media reports and the cooperation with extremist political groups from the far-right who sabotage democratic processes. Incidences of sabotage and espionage were described as common events and bribery of politicians to spout Russian propaganda under a code name “Einflussoperationen” (operations of influence) evident.
An equally alarming and more vivid report also emerged early this week about an explosive device in a parcel on a DHL transport plane that caught fire and was luckily discovered before take-off at Leipzig airport. The incidence is being investigated by the federal prosecutor’s office with a connection to Russia being considered as highly likely. The committee informed that Russia is testing Western red-lines and has no regard for civilian safety.
These findings coincide with an update given by heads of the British intelligence agencies, including MI5’s Ken McCallum, who also quoted in The Economist as observing an increased willingness of Putin’s spies to create a climate of chaos through sabotage and “dangerous actions conducted with increasing recklessness”. Sir Richard Moore from MI6 was also quoted as seeing many acts of sabotage in Europe. He described the Russian intelligence services as “feral” in their overt actions and ambition to create paralysis in western countries through chaos, whether this be through hacking, or false flag operations such as spraying of David stars in Paris that was meant to fuel antisemitism in France. The Kremlin seems only too attune on how to exploit democratic sensibilities and weaknesses.
Legal restrictions on German intelligence units
German intelligence services are limited by restrictive legislation that hinders their reconnaissance work. The storage of suspects’ IP addresses is not permitted under German law and makes effective investigative work near impossible. Such restrictions are indicative of how slow Germany lawmakers progress in an age where cybercrime is certainly nothing new and demonstrates how ineffectual German intelligence services operate. Germany needs robust and stringent legal reforms as well as extra funding not only for its armed forces but also for its intelligence agencies. Rosenberg, who is the president of MAD, told the parliamentary committee that her agency needed a new legal framework to be able to operate effectively and to address the present realities German security faces.
The irony that Germany has an innovative and highly modern defence industry and yet has failed over years to invest in its armed forces and intelligence services is a paradox of economic strength versus strategic weakness and is difficult to ignore. Armin Papperger, CEO of the German arms manufacturer Rheinmetall, has not escaped Russian attention. In July of this year, CNN reported of a foiled assassination attempt planned by the Kremlin to kill Papperger as well as other leading European defence industry leaders. The tip-off apparently came from American sources who alerted the German secret services, and the attack was prevented.
Wake-up call?
So, what will make German policy makers in Berlin realise that self-righteous slumber is dangerous, and a new sense of conviction and urgency is needed to protect German citizens, its infrastructure and national security from Russian aggression? Will it be a return of a Trump presidency and his more than ambivalent relationship with NATO, will it be an act of aggression on German soil, will it be pressure from its allies?
Until now nothing seems to have jogged the governing parties into a new reality. Olaf Scholz’ Zeitenwende (turning point) speech in February 2022 in reaction to Russia’s invasion promised €100bn for the German armed forces. This sum might seem large, but economists and military experts believe that a consistent supply of similar level of funding every year for many years is necessary. Moritz Schularick from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW) says that Germany needs to invest at least 5% of its GDP per annum in military technology and services to offer national and European security.
Germany the weak link in European security
Currently, Germany is the weak link in European defence and needs to invest and not dither. However, the governing parties are more interested in appeasing voters than confronting them with harsh realities. Money being used for defence is unlikely to win votes. Topics such as inflation and cost of living as well as immigration are the concerns that dominate political discourse. The chancellor and his SPD are reluctant to arm Ukraine to the effect that it could beat Russia. The delivery of German long-range missiles — the Taurus — demanded by Kiev has continually been refused by Olaf Scholz and his party the SPD. In line with populist politicians such as Sahra Wagenknecht, Scholz dallies with ideas of peace talks with Putin as he fears escalation. The reality of who is effectively escalating is not addressed. On face value, peace talks might sound positive, yet the suggestion is completely ignorant of Putin’s long-term imperialistic ambitions and hence misplaced, dishonest and most likely ineffective. The idea, however, does suit the narrative of naivety and reluctance to address new and challenging realities.
Need for leadership in unstable times
Germany needs now more than ever true leadership. The Merkel years were built on a false premise that trade would facilitate and uphold peace. Germany’s dependency on Russian gas was an unwise contract of dependability. The same goes for Germany’s ever increasing trading dependency on China — Russia’s ally and enabler in the war against Ukraine. The future economic adjustments will be grave and no doubt the mood amongst the population, spoilt from years of healthy economic growth and high living standards, likely to sour.
Joachim Gauck, Germany’s former president from 2012 until 2017 – an east German vicar and champion of freedom – gave a speech in 2014 at the Munich Security Conference calling for strong German leadership and investment in security if it is to defend European values
“to preserve and help shape the order based on the European Union, NATO and the United Nations. At the same time, Germany must also be ready to do more to guarantee the security that others have provided it with for decades.”
He demanded that we should,
“not turn a blind eye, not run from threats, but instead stand firm, not forget, neglect or betray universal values, but instead uphold these values together with our friends and partners. Let us be seen to be living by them, let us defend them.”
Such leadership and understanding of the present day precarity that Germany faces seems void in a political landscape of visionless mainstream parties; a challenged coalition government whose days are numbered and populist parties acting as Putin’s proxies.
Germany and its role in Europe should not be defined by the outcome of the American election — its security should not be either. Germany needs to redefine itself, its role in Europe and emancipate itself from a haunting past that arguably provided a precursor for its wish to take on an inert role in security questions. Russia is on a full war economy — Germany needs to face that reality, take responsibility for its own security and Europe’s and not sleepwalk into disaster. Strong defence is the best deterrent and guarantor for freedom and peace — who is going to tell them?
More in Europe.
Subscribe to our newsletters
Each of our Bylines sends a newsletter every month and we also send out a ‘Best of Bylines, featuring a selection of the best articles from across the network
