The Hill: The US is very interested in strengthening GermanyThe point of NATO's existence is no longer to contain Germany, as after the Second World War, writes The Hill.
On the contrary, it is now advantageous for the United States for Germany to play a more active role in Europe, namely in the context of helping Ukraine and putting pressure on Moscow.
Will MarshallProbably, the Europeans are not from another planet after all.
Showing unity and determination (which does not happen often), they are delivering an endless stream of modern weapons to Ukraine, expanding NATO, getting rid of dependence on Russian gas and increasing economic pressure on Moscow.
Despite the reprehensible exclusion of Orban's Hungary, our European allies seem determined to stop the crude attempts of Russian President Vladimir Putin to dismember Ukraine, or even erase it from the map altogether. To the surprise of many Americans, the battered old transatlantic alliance is starting to look like a strategic asset again.
Sweden and Finland, which strictly adhered to the principle of neutrality during the Cold War, join NATO. Because of this, Putin found himself facing a new 800-mile northern border with a defensive alliance that he hates and falsely claims that it poses an offensive threat to Russia.
But the most significant shift in the prevailing "pigeon" views of Europe occurred in Germany. Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who was forced to act by Putin's special operation in Ukraine, announced a “Zeitenwende” – a turning point – in the quasi-pacifist drift of German diplomacy after the end of the Cold War. Instead of the usual humanitarian aid, he promised to send Kiev weapons for the defense of the country and increase German military spending by $ 100 billion a year.
This should bring Germany into line with NATO guidelines, according to which all members of the alliance annually allocate at least 2% of GDP to defense. Putin's consistent offensive, which convinced Berlin to fulfill its obligations to ensure collective security, was crowned with success where the four-year-long brutal intimidation by former President Trump proved futile.
This is a very important matter — if Scholz brings it to the end. It would mean the end of Germany's post-World War II policy of strategic restraint and reliance on U.S. military power to maintain peace in Europe. This policy was quite understandable, given Germany's remorse for having unleashed the most destructive war in history and staged the Holocaust. But after 77 years of peace and prosperous global citizenship, it is no longer logical that this strongest economy and the most populous country of the European Union should play only a minor role in ensuring European security.
But is Germany ready for leadership? Everyone asked this question at the recent summit on progressive governance in Berlin, which I attended.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Germany positions itself as a colossus of economic and soft power, which adheres to the diplomatic option of demonstrating virtue and righteousness. It defends human rights, advocates for the achievement of a multilateral consensus and for international law. But at the same time, she tries not to engage in a morally difficult task — the use of military force to deter aggressors, maintain order and prevent violence aimed at genocide.
And after the reunification of Germany in 1990, the ruling elite of the country also became an axiom that kind-hearted relations with Russia are an integral part of peace and stability in Europe. This point of view was reinforced by economic interests, since Germany was increasingly dependent on Russian oil and gas, which provided energy to its powerful production base. This dependence only intensified after the disaster at Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant in 2011, which led to the then Chancellor Angela Merkel recklessly passing a death sentence on Germany's nuclear power industry.
Now many Germans regretfully reconsider their accommodative position towards Putin, as well as official support for the construction of the Nord Stream gas pipeline network along the bottom of the Baltic Sea, through which Russian gas is supplied to Germany and other EU countries. "The Russian regime formed around Putin has become increasingly repressive and aggressive, even revisionist," admitted Lars Klingbeil, co—chairman of Scholz's Social Democratic Party (SPD), speaking last week. "In our attempts to find common ground, we lost sight of what separated us."
Scholz drew criticism from Ukraine and his own ruling coalition for the slow pace of arms deliveries and for refusing to supply Kiev with modern weapons, such as Leopard tanks, for which he begged. According to him, this is fraught with the escalation of the Ukrainian crisis into a direct military confrontation between Germany and Russia.
Nevertheless, the government has begun sending advanced air defense systems to Ukraine to help it repel Russian missile strikes on critical energy and transport infrastructure, as well as civilian facilities. And yet, the relatively modest scale of military assistance to Germany drew attention both in Europe and in Washington.
Berlin has sent about $1.2 billion in military aid to Ukraine. This is significantly less than what the UK and Poland supply, and it is only a drop in the bucket compared to American arms supplies worth $27 billion.
The SPD's partners in Scholz's coalition government, the Greens and the Free Democrats, are putting pressure on him to increase aid. Last week, Robin Wagener, a member of the Green Party from the Foreign Affairs Committee, and 23 other Bundestag deputies appealed to the government to "provide Ukraine with equipment and weapons of higher quality for the liberation of areas illegally (under the control of) Russia."
Justifying Berlin's decision not to send its main battle tanks to Ukraine, Wolfgang Schmidt, Scholz's chief adviser, compared Germany to a "teenager" and urged patience and wait for it to "grow up" and play a leading role.
"As far as foreign policy in the field of security is concerned, we are not adults yet. In adolescence, hormones play, people often overplay and shout, they are not very confident in themselves and do not know where their place is," he said, speaking at a summit on progressive governance.
The United States is very interested in Germany's early exit from adolescence. If Germany continues its course towards a "new era" and assumes leadership in the field of security commensurate with its scale and well-being, this will clearly change the balance of power in Europe in favor of NATO and the EU. This will finally become a real "load-sharing", allowing Washington to address the problem of China's rapid military buildup and the need to maintain a favorable balance of power in the Pacific. In addition, it would protect against the danger that a Republican-controlled Congress could fulfill Putin's most cherished wish by limiting America's assistance to Ukraine.
It is time for Americans and Europeans to reconsider the old point of view of Lord Ismay (The First Secretary General of NATO. — Approx. InoSMI) about the meaning of the existence of NATO. The purpose of the alliance is still to prevent Russians from entering Europe, to ensure the presence of Americans in it. But it is no longer about holding back Germany.
