Germany´s defence spending is eroding NATO´s core principles

"Si vis pacem, para bellum" – If you want peace, prepare for war. This phrase has stood the test of time, and as much as we hope for a peaceful world, there is a danger posed by those who choose violent means to achieve their goals, as demonstrated by Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Unlike Ukraine, large parts of Europe have implemented an automatic defense mechanism by joining NATO. In theory, NATO functions as a unified system: if one member is attacked, the aggressor faces NATO’s combined military force, which, as of 2024, is undoubtedly the strongest and most capable military alliance in history.

However, this only holds true if NATO members all uphold their commitment to Article 5, arguably the most crucial part of the treaty: an attack on one is an attack on all.

Erosion from Within

While leaders such as Trump have weakened this concept by casting doubt on whether they would honor Article 5, which is concerning enough, some countries seem to avoid responsibility altogether.

Take Germany, for example. Despite being one of the world’s wealthiest countries, it is either unable or unwilling to spend the amount it agreed to for its defense. Even worse, Trump’s threats were directly triggered by Germany’s lackluster performance in this regard. For a long time, there was a popular joke that it was perhaps better this way, as Germany had once been a threat to world peace when it possessed a strong, motivated military (see World War I and its much-awaited sequel: World War II).

With its chronically underfunded military, Germany is now posing a new threat to European peace, as a large-scale war rages just 700 kilometers from its borders with the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War.

By failing to meet its military commitments, Germany undermines NATO’s foundation, implying that other countries, like the U.S. or Poland, will have to bear the brunt if the conflict spreads further into Europe. But in a system that relies on solidarity, allowing others to shoulder the hard work is a risky strategy; at some point, this approach could lead to serious consequences. In the worst-case scenario, NATO could fracture or dissolve over these tensions.

Progress is Slow in Germany

Germany frequently points out that it will meet its goal of investing two percent of its GDP in its military by 2024. What it fails to emphasize is that it has only managed this through a one-time investment of 100 billion euros to address the most urgent deficiencies, such as outdated equipment and the lack of stealth fighter jets – an area where European efforts have progressed at a snail’s pace.

This means that meeting the two percent target in 2025 is far from guaranteed. Furthermore, given the underwhelming performance of the current government, it is unlikely to be re-elected, leaving the issue for the next administration to tackle.

It is a shameful, embarrassing, and extremely dangerous stance from the German government in these times. Most of all, it is unnecessary, as one of the richest countries in the world could easily afford greater military spending. Fiscal rigor is worth little if citizens are at risk of being killed in an active war as a result.

Further reading:

Germany hits 2% NATO target for first time since 1992

The crude alternatives to arms delivery to Ukraine

As I write this article in early March of 2024, Russia is still fighting a war on Ukrainian soil while the democratic nations of earth struggle to do what is necessary by providing the Ukrainians with the right tools to regain control over their territory.

Some people, especially the ones from a left-pacifist orientation urge leaders not to supply weaponry to Ukraine.

Just like many form of protests, they demand something without having any alternatives at hand.

At best they hope to achieve peace viá diplomacy. But this demand is built on shaky grounds to say the least:

1. Vladimir Putin has broken many of his diplomatic promises such as not invading Ukraine, providing safety guarantees to the Ukraine for giving back its nuclear weaponry to Russia, accepting Ukraine´s sovereignty and many many more (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum). This shows, diplomatic approaches to be absolutely worthless at this point. Even if Russia signs a treaty of some sort tomorrow, the chances are extremely high, the treaty will be broken in mere months from now.
2. The idea of ending the war viá diplomacy means, that Ukraine should be forced to act against its own will, as current polls show that Ukraine is still more than willing to fight. It almost seems that after murdering tens of thousands of people Russia is not viewed as a viable partner for peace. So in its essence the ones calling for diplomacy demand Ukraine give up their resistance.
3. Diplomacy is the art of making compromises, meaning at this point Ukraine has very little to offer. Calling for peace also means putting some thoughts into how such a treaty could look like and at this point there is just not a good scenario for Ukraine in the bag. After all Russias demands for peace are very risky and very painful for Ukraine. Russia already claims the illegally annexed territories for itself, which at the very least would mean, that about 16-20% of Ukraine would be lost to Russia. Then there is the demand to "denazify" Ukraine by removing its leader (Its president Selensky is of jewish heritage btw, see: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/world/europe/volodomyr-zelensky-ukraine-jewish-president.html) from power, which means essentially Russia should have the right to install a puppet regime in Kyiv, resulting in Ukraine becoming at best the second Belarus and more or less loosing what it is fighting for (being an independent, sovereign and democratic nation with its own national idendity). Even in a best case scenario of being a permanent demilitarized buffer zone as many people who do not understand how NATO works demand, would pose Ukraine at great risks of getting attacked again in the nearby future and without security guarantees (which would lead a NATO-free buffer zone ad absurdum) is worthless as has been described at point 1.

Demanding peace without anything at hand does not stop an invading dictatorship, it did not stop Putin when he attacked Ukraine in 2014 and will not work this time.

Just because we want something does not mean it can be achieved, especially not by doing nothing else but kind words.

Putin sent hundreds of thousands of men into their death, killed its political rivals such as Nawalny, Prigoshin and Litvinenko and made Russia one of the worst autocracies in the world (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index). Yet people are naive enough to think, that a psychopath should be impressed by mere words?

Ukraine needs what it needs and that is aid in weaponry, money and anything else if there is a will to preserve it and its people and while doing that showing that there is no place for imperialistic dictatorships in this world.

Slava Ukraini!