Currently no security in Europe with the USA

GIs. Source: Pixabay

Berlin, Germany (Weltexpress). Things are diverging. This is made clear these days by the security policy statements by French President Macron and German Defense Minister Kramp-Karrenbauer. President Macron makes it abundantly clear. His goal is to insure German soldiers for French wars. Ms. Kramp-Karrenbauer is probably an early “Biden-Kowtau” in the style of an early application speech for higher NATO tasks, if the streamlined current incumbent as Secretary General thinks the time has come.

The public statements by both personalities are in some ways out of date. This results from the fact that nothing should be tackled on the drawing board if the hut at home is on fire. And it burns brightly in terms of security policy. Why? The answer to this question can be found in Washington. The lightning-fast replacement of the previous American Defense Minister Esper and the obvious undermining of presidential guidelines not only in Afghanistan and Iraq with regard to withdrawal are evidence that the US military apparatus has set itself apart with its own objectives. It’s not just anything. That scotches our own security.

Why? All you have to do is look at summer 2020 beyond Corona in the airspace near the Russian border. According to press reports, mock attacks by Western planes on Russian targets increased. How dangerous this approach is and was can be found out on all television channels when reports from the Cold War era are broadcast. How often have we in Europe missed the outbreak of war because, among other things, Officers showed courage and a sense of responsibility at the same time? Only in this way could we be saved from the worst. In this area in particular, the incidents in the American military and the processes in Washington increase the risks enormously. Often enough, deliberately induced incidents have triggered or deliberately justified wars. A military apparatus that bypasses the elected president in the USA doing what it wants is a general danger. Especially in Europe, when powerful groups in the USA, according to Ms. Nuland in connection with Ukraine, have invested billions of dollars in destabilizing other countries and want to force a “return on investment”. We are aware of incidents of this type from recent history in other contexts as well. The coup against Gorbachev set in motion a mechanism that is now threatening Washington. If the balance of power is unclear, each side is interested in assuring itself of the loyalty of troop contingents.

This was attempted from Moscow against the “Western Group of Troops” stationed in Germany at the time. In Moscow one had not expected that the headquarters in Wünstorf would act “stupid” and simply “could not be reached”. In view of the actual development, it is to a large extent uncertain whether this will also be the case with American commanders. Should we wait until this becomes apparent on the streets of Kaiserslautern when American units are up against another.

The development is in motion anyway and the federal government is not at all showing how it assesses it. This is especially true for Africa, because the withdrawal of special and other forces from Africa announced by President Trump not only raises the question of what effects this will have on the French wars in this region? Will France follow suit or will it try to bolster itself with more German troops? Will the American Africa Command pull down its tents in Stuttgart when there is nothing left in Africa that needs to be commanded? There are certainly enough desires that could be directed to the German address. But there are also constants that one should admit- even those after the French nuclear weapons, which, as we have known since President Mitterand, are intended exclusively to serve France’s last line of defense, but not to serve as an ally. One cannot imagine where that could take place, given the range. Reason enough to discuss a few things with the French partner. This also includes the question of whether it will also work without continuous wars around the Mediterranean or in Africa – mainly because the vast majority of the German people are of the opinion that they are not available for this. All plans, also at EU level, which provide for potentials but do not come clear with the German public, are for the devil.

Instead Berlin should rather see to it that its own soldiers from Afghanistan and Iraq are brought home safely. In the case of Afghanistan, that was the question when German troops had not yet arrived in northern Afghanistan. The United States is leaving, leaving us – and others out in the rain. Our soldiers too, who function as auxiliary troops according to American considerations? It is high time for Berlin to secure Moscow’s support. At the beginning of the loss-making mission in Afghanistan, this was a very tried and tested model. Now there is every reason on the German side not to make the fate of German troops dependent on non-solidarity in Washington for better or for worse. Washington makes it clear how little it is committed to German wishful thinking. Where is the sentence after which you go out together, where you went in together?

One cannot hope for the German Defense Minister in this context. Her security policy speech this week was “dead simple” and zero to the challenges. More money for threats created by our policies? To the former Federal Chancellor Helmut Schmidt one would still have to be committed in Berlin today if he demanded the reduction of NATO only to the NATO treaty, without the military apparatus. Transatlantic should only be consulted, but in the long term. Or is the hurdle of dominance: “The Americans in, the Russians out, the Germans below” not to be knocked over? Even at the risk that all of Europe will suffocate if in the long run Anglo-Saxon dominance is the real goal of all action and Russia has to be excluded by a new wall? During these weeks Moscow referred to the contract from 1991, which committed Moscow and nowadays Berlin to good cooperation. Instead of sending addresses of allegiance to Washington, Berlin should try again with German and European politics. Why not include Moscow in a trans-European and trans-global alliance that deserves the name. In Russia, the old saying applies that you have only two allies: the army and the navy. German security is served if Russian interests do not come to a head. Dear God, let a Genscher regrow in Berlin.

Previous articleLindblad’s ships bring remote wildlife and cultures closer
Next articleThe Taliban must guarantee securities


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

seven × one =