This post series is about required changes in the relationship between Germany and the USA. Changes triggered by the actions of the present US government. These changes are happening already – not only in the strategic thinking of a political class in my country, but also on the level of politically interested and concerned citizens. The wind of change touches historical strings, attitudes and deep convictions of my generation, at least in the western part of Germany. A generation which has an overview over decades of US-German relationships – and which has got enough time to follow developments in the US on an almost daily basis.
For us, the daily messages coming from the present US administration were and are quite disturbing. As I said: My generation can look back upon decades of interest overlaps and also certain interest collisions between Europe and the US and, in particular, between Germany and the US. It is, however, the first time that we elderly citizens feel a major and deep alienation between our nations.
New conflict lines emerge on short time scales. Conflict lines that not only run across the military alliance between our states, but also across our democratic societies. Unfortunately, we had to register that leading members of the US administration support a far-right extremist party in Germany. It is the same administration who now fights a war against one of the leading universities in the world – Harvard. In my personal view, this is a first culmination a war of ignorance against education and science. And, dear readers in the US, believe me: My and previous generations of educated Germans have some experience with such wars. Harvard more then deserves and will get our full and open support. Dear Robert Reich, we share your view upon this matter completely.
The political disruptions and shock waves of actions and decisions of the US administration on our side of the Atlantic raise questions regarding a naivety of my generation. Up to now, we have always thought that we Germans, despite political disagreements, could trust in a solid partnership with the US based on a broad variety of common values. This variety seems to shrink dramatically – and the repeating interventions and statements of e.g. Mr Vance or Mr Musk with respect to and support for a right-extreme and anti-democratic party in Germany obviously were only the first alarming signs of a deep and growing rift between our nations – but also within each of our nations.
Disturbing perceptions – a new transatlantic reality with diminishing common risk sharing
We closely follow actions and statements which indicate that a foreign US policy formerly balancing values and interests has been replaced by a pure business orientation and a sequence of ever changing tariffs. Well, some obviously overloaded bunches of neurons in the US may regard this as a clever strategy to achieve “deals”. For us in Europe it is a clear sign of a growing instability of common interest sharing – and a resulting unreliability of a former ally.
We take notice of US defense politics that evaluates existing alliances predominantly along financial costs arguments and/or the chance to sell weapons – and no longer along a line of common values and upon qualified military requirements which, of course, have to be fulfilled by all partners.
Dear American friends, do not misunderstand me – the question of a fair burden sharing regarding defense and deterrence is both legitimate and necessary. I will come back to it in this post series – with a very critical view upon previous German administrations. But, may I remind you that effective deterrence of a common enemy is also based on a common risk sharing? May I remind you that the United States once assured Germany that they would build and provide required major blocks and equipment of this deterrence – in particular regarding the nuclear escalation ladder?
Profit interests instead of common deterrence efforts?
But, maybe, Putin is no longer a threat in the view of the present Trump administration? The new proclaimed future chances of an economic cooperation between the imperialistic aggressor Putin and the US raises the question of how a risk evaluation of the US administration would look like in case that Putin should perform a limited attack against a Nato member at the eastern borders of Nato towards Russia.
In addition, the secretary of defense, Mr Hegseth, and vice president Vance have qualified their European allies as “pathetic”. Such a qualification of partners, of allies, of course raises further questions about the integrity and continuity of our partnership – and in particular of the Nato alliance.
We elderly ones, therefore, are indeed afraid that a US risk evaluation in case of a Russian attack e.g. on a European state at the eastern flank of Nato will turn into an advantage of Russia – because the present US administration may come to the conclusion that interfering would not pay off – and that facing a potential escalation, it would not be worth taking respective risks to defend the allegedly “pathetic” Europeans.
Some on our side of the Atlantic may even go so far that the overlap between interests of Trump and Putin have become bigger and more important than common interests of Trump with his Nato allies. If you do not believe me, look at a TV report here.
Now, what advice do you think we will give our grandchildren regarding our future defense strategy and potential allies?
A confusing, puzzling time for my generation
An average American probably has difficulties to understand the shifts and twists of the relation and political attitudes of parts of my generation in Germany towards the US throughout the past three decades. However, an overall characterization of present dependencies on the military strength of the US by words like “pathetic” is wrong, offensive and misleading. It says more about the education of those who used this term than e.g. the role of Germany’s defense within an US led Nato.
For me and many friends of mine, it is puzzling to see that the allegedly “pathetic” Germany orders 35 F35-fighter planes, orders around the same amount of new modified Eurofighters, hundreds of new tanks and evaluates the production of up to 1000 new Taurus cruise missiles and the order of around 80 American long range AGM-158 JASSM missiles to remedy deficits in Nato defense capabilities. In addition extensive drone production is evaluated. Not to talk about running investments into war ships – together with other nations.
And we have even seen that our “pathetic” chancellor Scholz has agreed to the deployment of 200 American long range strike missiles with conventional war heads on German soil – without a debate about consequences with the German citizens. And now, we see a present German foreign minister assuring a defense spending up to 5% – likewise without previous debates. Pathetic? No sufficient burden sharing?
Well, the F35 will be part of the so called “nuclear sharing” with the US, a historically motivated kind of burden sharing imposed on post-war Germany. I wrote already in may last post about the fact that Germany has been declined to possess and develop nuclear weapons – for good reasons. But, honestly, F35 planes by the very nature of their electronic systems and their integration into American led tactical war planning systems mean an even deeper dependency on US communication and command structures for tactical and strategic warfare. Pathetic? Or naive?
Still a trustworthy leading ally – or an opponent?
On the other side we feel the need to become strategically independent of the US – in a time when Russia has unfolded and still extends a destructive conventional war against a European state – under the permanent threat of a nuclear escalation. A Russia which does not even hide further imperialistic objectives. A Russia which bombs Ukraine with an increasing number of ballistic rockets and drones – whilst assuring Trump “that the negotiations are on the right way”? Up to now we have seen exactly zero concessions by the Russians to the ultimately clever US deal makers.
However, the problems with Putin and the US run deeper. Already during the time of the first Trump administration, we heard that article 5 of the Nato treaty stood to disposition. Has this really changed?
An analysis of some comments of members of the present US administration regarding not only a diminishing support of the Ukraine, but also the defense operation in cases of a Russian attack on limited regions are not at all suited to damp down growing mistrust that reaches beyond the legitimate request of a fair burden sharing. This development of mistrust was not initiated by us.
Other reasons of mistrust are the obvious deep rifts between our European ideas of democratic values, the meaning of a democratic constitution, the role of executive institutions and an independent jurisdiction in it – and, in contrast, the attitudes and actions of the Trump administration. My generation witnesses an US administration which in our perception systematically destroys fundamental institutions of their own democracy. An administration which attacks the last barrier of a democratic system, an independent jurisdiction, by requesting absolute power to the executive.
The consequences of an overdue new strategy reflection of core interests of Germany may therefore in the end reach much farther and deeper than the question of a new and fairer burden sharing.
Stay tuned …