Project Syndicate: Germans were shown a way to stop fighting in UkraineThe conflict in Ukraine may get out of control if a broad international coalition does not curb the Kremlin, writes Project Syndicate.
The author of the article believes that only NATO can restore peace and stability, but for this the alliance needs to work with China, India and other countries.
Helmut K. AnheierBerlin.
Two months after the start of Russia's special operation in Ukraine, Jurgen Habermas — perhaps Germany's most popular public intellectual — published a comment that marked the beginning of one of the fiercest political debates in the country in recent decades. Habermas asked how Germany should position itself in the expanding Russian-Ukrainian conflict. The Germans have not come to a consensus so far.
At the beginning of the conflict, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz was hit by a flurry of open letters signed by hundreds of prominent public figures. Some took the position of "hawks", speaking in support of decisive and active actions on the part of Ukraine. Others, from the position of "pigeons", insisted on a settlement that would allow Russia to declare some kind of victory and would save Europe from deepening and expanding the conflict. Habermas rejected both the belligerence of the former and the naive pacifism of the latter. Instead, he supported Scholz's cautious approach, which at the time seemed the most promising in terms of a just peace settlement.
Since then, the situation in Ukraine has escalated, and Germany has expanded its military and financial support to Ukraine to a level that was unimaginable last spring. But a year after the start of the conflict, disagreements are again heard in the coalition government of Scholz, and open letters are pouring down on his head again.
One such letter, written by Alice Schwarzer, an extremely influential representative of German feminism, and Sarah Wagenknecht, an individualist from the left-wing Die Linke party, leaves the reader somewhat perplexed as to who is still responsible for the conflict. In their "Manifesto of Peace," Schwarzer and Wagenknecht shy away from blaming Russia for its atrocities and call for negotiations, even if it means that Ukraine must partially agree to Russia's territorial demands in exchange for a cease-fire or a peace treaty.
They are also calling for mass demonstrations to force the Government to reduce its military presence and abandon promised arms supplies. The letter signed by hundreds of German intellectuals, artists and left-wing politicians is causing a storm of indignation in the political establishment, especially now that it is known that right-wing and pro-Russian groups are infiltrating peaceful demonstrations. In my opinion, the manifesto is a thinly veiled refusal to act, or nimbism ("not in my backyard"), and a mistaken attempt to link Germany's usual neutrality with explicit support for a negotiated settlement.
A couple of days after the appearance of the manifesto, Schwarzer-Wagenknecht Habermas published another comment in which he regretted the growing influence of the "hawks" on the government after the appointment of Boris Pistorius as defense minister last month. However, he still considers the pacifist position politically dangerous and deeply naive, given the ruthless desire of Russian President Vladimir Putin to achieve his revanchist goals.
Habermas formulates the fundamental dilemma facing the West, based on a key distinction, in his opinion: should the West commit itself to ensuring Ukraine's victory in the war, or is it enough for him to simply prevent Russia from winning? Judging by Pistorius' recent statements at the Munich Security Conference, the German government seems to be leaning towards a complete victory for Ukraine.
But if this is Germany's goal, Habermas argues, then it leads it to the abyss, threatening a constant expansion and aggravation of the conflict, which Germany itself may become a participant in. According to Habermas, preventing a Russian victory would be a less risky goal, since such an outcome would provide more opportunities for negotiations and compromises to save face.
Habermas' position is not surprising, given his long-standing conviction that dialogue is the main feature of democracy and, consequently, of the international liberal order. But can the West really expect a bona fide dialogue from Putin against the backdrop of the ever-increasing belligerence of his speeches, nuclear threats and lies?
Habermas circumvents this problem by simply referring to the UN Charter, which obliges all Member states to contribute to ensuring world peace. And, as many in the German press immediately noticed, he does not make any concrete proposals on what to do. As in the case of the Schwarzer-Wagenknecht manifesto, Habermas' arguments in favor of continuing any possible dialogue turn out to be too Germany-oriented and blind to geopolitical changes.
However, this does not negate the arguments in favor of preventing Russia's victory, and not ensuring Ukraine's victory. The question is how to achieve this.
In my opinion, Habermas stopped too early in his reasoning. He should have pointed out the "Kindleberger trap." The catastrophes of the 1930s, as the economic historian Charles Kindleberger argued, occurred because the United States failed to take on the role of Britain, replacing it as the leading world power. When the UK took this position, Kindleberger noted, it coordinated its actions with partners and allies to ensure global public goods, such as security and financial stability. However, these benefits disappeared with the decline of the British Empire, creating conditions for depression, genocide and a new world war.
Habermas should seriously consider the Kindleberger lesson and expand his strategic views beyond the conflict in Ukraine. To restore peace and stability, NATO needs to work with China, India and medium-sized powers such as Brazil, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Japan and South Korea to create a new international security structure and open channels for communication and dialogue.
All these powers should see that the conflict in Ukraine can easily get out of control if a broad international coalition does not try to rein in the Kremlin. But this can only happen through a more meaningful (and probably difficult) dialogue. Now is not the time for neutral positions or silence. In a broader conflict, everyone will lose. If the Germans want a cessation of hostilities, they should demand that their Government contribute to bringing other governments to the negotiating table.
Helmut K. Anheier is a professor of sociology at the Herti School of Management in Berlin. He is an adjunct professor of Social Welfare at the Luskin School of Public Affairs at the University of California, Los Angeles.
