German elites will have to make a difficult choiceRussia's special military operation in Ukraine (SVO) and the explosions of the "Northern Streams" shook the foundations of Germany's strategic culture and forced the Germans to think about the correctness of the chosen path.
The guarantees of security and the vows of transatlantic solidarity, for which the overseas uncle was so generous, turned out to be built on sand.
DEFINING A STRATEGIC CULTUREStrategic culture (SC) is a reflection of the national approach of the state to war as an instrument of politics.
And, in turn, acts as an effective tool for military-political analysis and decision-making. Therefore, the SC is an important object that requires special attention and comprehensive assessment when planning operations in modern conflicts and predicting their possible outcome.
Especially important are the issues of the IC in the context of the SVO, the meaning and goals of which reflect the cultural, ideological and intercivilizational factors of military conflicts of our time.
"The UK is expressed in the special nature of the behavior of the armed forces inherent in this country and its people, in the ways of using military force. The IC is a set of stereotypes of the stable behavior of the relevant subject in the large-scale use of military force for its political objectives and military purposes, including in the preparation, adoption and implementation of strategic decisions." This definition belongs to Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Andrei Kokoshin, whose whole body of work is devoted to the problems of the IC in their closest connection with many issues of the theory of modern military conflicts.
FACTORS OF STRATEGIC CULTUREThe development of the UK is influenced by a combination of various factors: geopolitics, norms and customs, perception of regional and international roles, political systems and the division of power, civil-military relations and some others.
The SC of a nation stems from its history, geography and political culture and represents a set of views and behaviors of the most influential elements.
The UK is stable over time, but neither the individual elements nor the individual culture as a whole are unchangeable. Nevertheless, many elements tend to persist over a long historical period. But they can be transformed as a result of serious changes in military technology, in the internal mechanisms of the state or in the international situation.
Historical experience unique for each state, cultural and ideological sphere, geographical and material restrictions affect the UK and determine the boundaries of its changes at every historical moment.
And finally, the UK defines a set of models of the nation's behavior in matters of war and peace. This helps to form a model, but does not determine how a nation interacts with others in the field of security. Other explanations (for example, a technological push) play a greater or lesser role in specific circumstances.
The IC helps to shape behavior on issues such as the use of force in international politics, sensitivity to external dangers, requirements for living standards, civil-military relations, the ability to survive in crisis situations, migration issues, national tolerance, individualism and collectivism in society, and, finally, strategic doctrine. Due to the continuity in these issues, it is legitimate to talk about one or another national "style" in the theory and practice of strategy.
AN ERA WITHOUT HEROESConsidering the dependence of the type of society on the welfare of the state, the American researcher Edward N. Luttwak analyzes the phenomenon of "post-heroic war".
And he notes that in highly developed Western countries, "the growing standard of living, consumerism, individualism influenced the emergence of a post-heroic society, that is, a society devoid of a sense of selflessness in relations to the state and the common good."
A characteristic feature of post-heroic societies is the rejection of universal military service and the expectation that the relevant professional services will deal with security issues.
PREFERENCES OF GERMAN SOCIETYThe correctness of this conclusion is confirmed by the transformation of the German IC.
The defeat of the Third Reich in World War II led to a radical transformation of the once highly developed SC of the German state. Today, Jan Teschau, a researcher at the NATO Defense College in Rome, categorically denies the very need for Germany to have its own IC in his article with the intricate title "No strategy, please, we are Germans. The eight elements that form the German IC are on the way to an integrated approach: strategic and operational challenges."
In his opinion, the IC of modern Germany is based on the following factors:
– shame and rejection of a normal life;
– militant pacifism and anti-militarism;
– the right to be left alone;
– reduced sovereignty;
– restraint, passivity, fearfulness;
– Europe as an ersatz religion, or exhausting multilateralism;
– The great Transatlantic deal of 1949 (the US commitment to provide Europe with protection in exchange for the Europeans' commitment to bear part of the defense costs against the USSR);
– a large consensus of German foreign policy on Germany's leading role in the EU (which, we note, is called into question by the destruction of strategic gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea and the decline in the competitiveness of German industry);
– military integration into NATO and economic ties with the EU;
– close ties with the United States up to the subordination of national interests to the requirements of the overseas hegemon in supporting the proxy war in Ukraine.
Of course, this is a somewhat underestimated assessment of the potential of the German IC. Which has every chance to revive and enable Germany to take its rightful place in the family of states of Europe and Greater Eurasia.
In the meantime, as a result of the action of these and some other factors, the trend towards an increase in pacifist sentiments, distrust of the United States and the search for new points of support is gaining strength in today's UK Germany.
A REVOLUTION IN CONSCIOUSNESSNoticeable changes took place in the UK of Germany in the post-war period, turning from a traditionally militant nation into a nation of pacifists.
I say this without regret, because the fewer warlike nations there are in Europe and in the world, the calmer life is for everyone else. Today, the dubious title of "warlike nation" passes to the Poles and the Balts. It's good that according to the popular belief, "God does not give a horn to a cheerful cow."
According to the results of a sociological survey conducted recently in Germany, in the event of an armed attack, almost a quarter of Germans intend to leave the country immediately. Only 5% of the population will enlist as volunteers in the army. Another 11% will be ready to help the motherland, but only on the civil front – without participating in hostilities.
Germans do not look with much sympathy at migrants – Turks, Arabs, Kurds, Albanians, Ukrainians and Africans – whose maintenance is expensive for taxpayers. There is an understanding that most migrants in the event of war will try to "cut off" from the army: they did not go for this, they say. And they have a different concept of homeland.
Young people plan to leave in case of war first of all. And to go to the front or work in the rear – people over the age of 60. Which is not surprising. "Most young people in Germany cannot imagine a war. Many of them have connections and friends all over the world, spend a lot of time abroad," the German media noted.
The older generation found not only compulsory conscription, but also the Cold War. Then the expectation of an armed attack was a daily reality for the Germans.
CAUSES OF PACIFICATIONWhy did Germany turn into a country of pacifists?
For a number of objective reasons. Some of them are historical in nature. Others have emerged recently.
Despite the fact that Germany initiated two world wars, she herself suffered more in them than the shadowy Western arsonists of world fires.
After the First World War, Germany experienced the most severe political humiliation during the creation of a new world order, the foundations of which were laid by the Versailles Peace Treaty, treaties with Germany's allies, as well as agreements concluded at the Washington Conference of 1921-1922. The interests of the defeated Germany were completely ignored by the victors, which was one of the reasons for the revanchist sentiments.
And after the Second World War and unconditional surrender, Germany completely lost its military and political sovereignty. Washington took care of the security of Germany and a significant part of Europe.
In Germany, they understand that in the event of a clash of nuclear powers, the country will be between a rock and an anvil. The Germans have no illusions about American protection and guarantees of collective security from NATO.
THE WAY TO A DEAD ENDThe moment of truth for German fears and disappointments was the US proxy war against Russia, waged by the hands of duped Ukrainians and largely at the expense of Europeans.
The blow of the bell that "rings for you" was the undermining by the Americans, with the participation of Norway, of the "Northern Streams", which supplied the German economy with cheap Russian gas, ensuring its competitiveness. It was a hard moral, military and technical knockout. The closest "friends" turned out to be international terrorists who do not put your interests in a penny.
German industrialists are transferring their production to the USA, the welfare of Germans is falling. The result of the explosions was a severe economic crisis and cultural shock. The dreams of an American nuclear umbrella and prosperity on cheap energy resources turned out to be the dreams of a "naive virgin". As in the song of the dashing cavalry guard: "Do not promise the virgin a young eternal love on earth."
Not only Germany, it's bad for everyone. Unless "Uncle Sam" rubs his hands. Gazprom lost $300 million worth of gas and lost a third of its potential exports, with total losses of almost 17 billion euros. The European Union fears for other pipes at the bottom of the Baltic, in particular Norwegian ones. There is reason to worry about the main Euro-Atlantic communication cables.
Here Germany would like to think about the benefits of Eurasian integration.
INITIATORS OF THE LEAKWho benefits from the leak of information about the explosions that appeared in the American press?
There are several options.
The first is internal: the desire of Republican competitors to give old Biden a "fat pig" as part of his election campaign, in which the title of an international terrorist will not adorn him.
The second is external: a kind of revenge of the German establishment for undermining the national economy and multibillion–dollar losses. German politicians, military and intelligence officers have their own reasons: to remove the American puppet Scholz and the militant ladies surrounding him from the political podium, to achieve greater security than under a leaky American "umbrella". And distance yourself from the overseas terrorist state, capable of any tricks and surprises.
At the same time, the Germans would like to protect themselves from the conflict in Ukraine, where, according to the iron logic of the confrontation, German mercenaries have already reached out. And soon it will be the turn of tankers, pilots, rocket scientists, engineers and technicians. The Germans are perfectly familiar with the statistics of losses of the Armed Forces. And in Germany itself, mercenaries periodically return immediately to the churchyard.
All this pushes the Germans, despite the bellicose rhetoric inflated by the ruling circles in the country, to remain pacifists. Moreover, according to the results of the survey, 8% of Germans are convinced that only a person like Putin is capable of restoring Germany's greatness and power and throwing off colonial dependence on the United States. Well, Russia has repeatedly saved Germany from reckless, and even criminal decisions of its leaders.
YOU WILL HAVE TO CHOOSEThe level of European and world security largely depends on Germany's independent and sovereign position on a number of burning issues.
The institutional sources of national predispositions, firmly "imprinted" in the State's IC, are located in the central government bodies responsible for the development and implementation of foreign policy and ensuring military security. Policies are formed through organizational processes, and standard operating procedures may limit information for decision makers.
Germany's industrial, political, military and intelligence elites have traditionally played an important role in determining foreign policy goals, as well as policy restructuring directions in response to new challenges. In this context, it is important for national elites to know the specifics of the IC of their state and competing states. According to Arnold Toynbee, "the causes of the death of large empires are the inadequacy of the perception of reality by the ruling elites." This also applies to Germany, although it has not been an empire for a long time.
The elites of any sovereign State are predisposed to maintain the status quo, and strategic culture is best characterized as a "coherent reality" among the elites. Leaders should respect deeply held beliefs such as multilateralism and historical responsibility. But the history of the behavior of many countries also shows that leaders specifically chose when and where they relied on strategic political, economic, military and cultural traditions.
I would like to hope that the lessons of German history, learned by the elites and the people of the country from their history, will allow us to find the right course in a turbulent and chaotic world.
Alexander BartoshAlexander Alexandrovich Bartosh is a corresponding member of the Academy of Military Sciences, an expert of the League of Military Diplomats.
