Germany argues. That’s allowed in a democracy. It has to be, because the topic deserves it – war and peace, arms deliveries and negotiations. The tone is irritable, no wonder? Anti-liberal reflexes are also making their way. Newspapers are criticized for printing unpopular positions. TV station, because people who you don’t like get a chance to speak on talk shows.
Occasionally it seems: It is not the better argument that should prevail, but the most assertive lobby. But it would be absurd to support Ukraine in the name of liberal democracy while trying to suppress dissent at home because it supposedly benefits the opponent.
This is reminiscent of the so-called refugee autumn of 2015, when the “Refugees Welcome” faction made fun of the “concerned citizen”. It is also reminiscent of divergent views on the purpose of anti-corona measures. Vaccinations, masks, quarantine. Suddenly the Monday demonstrations revived. Where does the freedom of the individual end? The controversy revolved around this question.
Jürgen Habermas advocates early negotiations
So now the war in Ukraine and the German response to it. The anniversary of the Russian invasion is approaching. Manifestos and open letters are written. Jürgen Habermas advocates early negotiations. He was promptly accused of treason against the Ukrainians. An understanding between the two camps hardly seems possible. All those involved are firmly convinced that they are doing what is morally right.
Russia is the aggressor and at the same time a nuclear superpower. On the one hand, this results in the duty to support the victim in his efforts to defend himself to the best of his ability. On the other hand, it feeds the fear that the aggressor will use nuclear weapons. This leads to a dilemma that cannot be resolved by objective criteria. Which weighs heavier – the fear of Russian imperialism and Russian brutality or the fear of an escalation of the war? The answer includes personal experiences as well as character traits.
Striking accusations such as appeasement and bellicism serve above all to seal off one’s own point of view from the opposing point of view. But if the debate is to be honest, answers to key objections must be provided. Maybe it helps to ask the opponent five questions.
Five questions for the arms supply faction:
- They claim that the West has not taken Vladimir Putin seriously enough for too long. Whether in 2008 with the invasion of Georgia or 2014 with the annexation of Crimea – Putin has never made a secret of his neo-imperial intentions. He should therefore be taken at his word. However, his threat to use “all available means” in the war against Ukraine, including nuclear weapons, is only a bluff. Yes, what now? When does Putin have to be taken at his word and when not?
- What do you say if Putin actually uses a tactical nuclear weapon? “No one could have expected that” or “I was unfortunately wrong”?
- They claim that the Russian army was greatly weakened by the war in Ukraine. The ground forces received no more support from the Luftwaffe. The Russian armed forces are in a desolate state. Half of the Russian tanks were destroyed. However, they warn that Russia could march with its soldiers beyond Ukraine to Moldova, the Baltic States, Georgia and Poland. Is that a realistic risk?
- They say that Russia must be defeated so that Putin’s neo-imperialism finally has no chance of making any further headway. But who is stopping Putin or a possibly even more brutal successor from rearming massively after Russia’s defeat? Sanctions appear to have only a very limited effect.
- When will your demand that Russia be defeated be fulfilled? Does that include the complete reconquest of all occupied territories and Crimea? Many security experts do not think it is possible to achieve this goal in the foreseeable future. Should we fight and die forever?
Five questions for those willing to negotiate:
- They warn of an escalation of the war, also with regard to the Russian nuclear arsenal. But if the West doesn’t take any risks and doesn’t offer any resistance at all, because Russia has nuclear weapons, then Putin has a free hand to let his soldiers murder, burn and rape wherever he wants. Would you like to encourage him to do this?
- They are afraid of using nuclear weapons. But doesn’t Putin regularly threaten to do so without actually doing it? After all, the consequences for his country would be devastating. The Pentagon has already worked out a number of options for how the US would respond. The first likely move would be a massive conventional strike against the Russian Black Sea Fleet. The nuclear deterrent worked for decades during the Cold War. Why not now?
- They are calling for negotiations aimed at restoring the February 23, 2022 status. In other words, Ukraine should give up its right to territorial integrity in exchange for a ceasefire. At the same time, her sovereignty was also assured by Russia in the Budapest Memorandum. Do you want military aggression to be rewarded?
- They appeal to Western governments to urge Ukraine to enter into negotiations. In other words, the West should dictate that the victim is no longer allowed to defend themselves. On the other hand, Ukraine is not only defending its own country, but also the European peace order. So we let them fight for us first and then ask them to lay down their arms and hand over the land and the people to the aggressor. is that fair
- They demand a compromise that saves face for both sides. Can there be a compromise between those willing to be destroyed and those who are at the mercy of being destroyed? What would such a compromise between Nazi Germany and European Jewry have looked like 80 years ago? Or between Nazi Germany and the Sinti and Roma?
Germany is arguing about the right path to peace. It is not itself a party to the war, but is geographically in a possible area of escalation. A dispute in which primarily one’s own arguments are repeated leads to a dead end. Anyone who is not prepared to deal with the arguments of the other side remains in a dead end.
To home page
