SPD- “Manifest”: Why we have to learn to argue about upgrading

A U-turn in security policy demands a number of quite prominent SPD politicians in their so-called “manifesto”. No, they don’t have it smaller. It is about the big picture: “Military alarm rhetoric and huge upgrade programs no longer create security for Germany and Europe, but lead to destabilization and to strengthen the mutual threat perception between NATO and Russia,” says the paper, which also bears the signatures of Rolf Mützenich, Norbert Walter-Borjans and Hans Eichel.

Ex-parliamentary leader, ex-party leader, ex-minister, Ralf Stegner is of course included. The about four pages of text also reads over long distances like a greeting from a peace -moved past of German social democracy. You can see the blue flag with the white pigeon flutter in front of your eyes. New Eastern Policy, Brandt and Bahr and Easter marches – the SPD still keeps large pieces on their history. Even if the whole truth belonged that the absurd arms between East and West did not make a very small contribution to the end of the Cold War. Only what does it follow for today, for the new tension policy between Russia and Europe?

It is not helpful to disconnect any criticism of the course chosen as Kuchen in front of the Kremlin. And it is unfair to brand every reminder as an eternal Moscow vassals. The authors and initial signers finally indicate a painful lack, a lack of space for debate. This room has not been narrowed more and more until only one point of view has found space in it: the military. This applies to the political debate and the journalistic – this does not apply to many private discussions at counter and coffee boards.

The public, if not confessed, so hill silent, blatant political turns seemed increasingly strange. There are doubts, worries, fears of the new German course taken – they may not reflect the majority, but they are available. So numerous that it seems almost surprising why this outcry was long in coming. Why he is only coming, just before the NATO countries at the end of the month in Den Haag officially want to officially decide on the five percent goal.

Of course you can question this goal. Why five percent of the annual economic output? What exactly for? And where actually? Germany was not even able to reach NATO’s two percent goal in the past year, and that was already the case with almost 90 billion euros. Five percent are the equivalent of 220 billion euros, almost half of the entire previous federal budget.

Of course, thanks to the recently loosened debt brake, the finance minister could procure the lion’s share of it in the form of loans, i.e. debts. However, this time it would not be a one-time feat, as with the 100-time billion of Chancellor Olaf Scholz for the Bundeswehr. On the contrary, the five percent filling horn occurs year after year … The question is allowed until when that should apply? Five years, ten for Putin or just until the German government debts have doubled?

There are justified questions that can be given to different answers. In other words, over 220 military billions every year will probably be disputed.

Chancellor Merz and the ministers of Klingbeil, Pistorius and WadePhul should be extremely inconvenient. Conversely, this does not mean that those who are now crying out are automatically right. There are good reasons to accept the opposite. An imperialist great power that brutally attacks its neighbors is not stopped in the chair circle. An aggressor rarely wants to talk, he only understands the language of hardness, especially since it initially consisted of better arming himself for his own defense.

You can complain as the “military confrontation strategy” as the authors of the paper. You can also dismiss the BND chief’s warnings that Ukraine is only a step on Russia’s path to west-but in security policy it is better to stick to an old rule: Better Safe Than Sorry.

There will always be critics who consider caution to be unnecessary, too expensive, too complex, too. There is no glory in prevention. This may be the parallel at the pandemic period. It can be said about them: At the core, the Corona policy at that time was correct, there were exaggerations, misjudgments, unnecessary hardship. But there was definitely too little of one of those days: debate.

If this “manifesto” is to have a good thing, maybe that: let’s argue!