German security policy: managing conflicts instead of resolving them

The world is entering a phase in which it is all about managing conflicts, says security researcher Tobias Fella in an interview with tagesschau.de. From his point of view, the German debate about support for Ukraine was somewhat shrill.

tagesschau.de: Compulsory military service has been suspended in Germany since 2011. This was symbolic of a society that no longer wanted to deal with war. Now there is a “turning point” and politicians are discussing NATO’s two percent target and even nuclear armament in Europe. What has changed in the meantime?

Tobias Fella: If you like, history has returned. Relations between major powers have shifted from cooperation to confrontation. The first major land war after the Second World War takes place in Europe. In the Middle East, the war between Israel and Hamas has expanded into a regional conflict.

While in Asia a military conflict between the United States and China cannot be ruled out and the scenario of a possible second Trump presidency has also fueled a kind of nuclear nervousness among US allies.

“With Power shifts wars can occur”

Historically, it is not unusual that shifts in power such as those we see today from the Euro-Atlantic to the Indo-Pacific region can be accompanied by tensions, misunderstandings, arms races and wars. It is also possible that previously seemingly universal norms lose their binding force. I think this is the real turning point, the dawning awareness that many things that were long taken for granted are ultimately dependent on power.

“Aim to prevent military escalations”

As a result, today it is not so much about resolving conflicts, but rather about containing them with the aim of preventing military escalations in which, in the worst case, nuclear weapons could be used.

Specifically, we see the turning point in the Bundeswehr in that its focus has shifted back to national and alliance defense tasks, after foreign missions such as Afghanistan or Mali had been the focus for many years. This is then also reflected in the formation of the troops. Deterring and combating a major power requires different capabilities than peacekeeping missions or combating insurgents.

“A new situation”

tagesschau.de: There was a long history of military restraint in the Federal Republic after National Socialism. Have we seen a break with this since the start of the Ukraine war?

Fella: The reluctance is still noticeable, including when it comes to arms deliveries. At the moment, it is the powerful geopolitical context that is driving the changes, from China to Trump to the Ukraine war. It’s just a new situation.

tagesschau.de: Is the current debate a step towards a new long-term security policy or is it a short-term reaction to the current situation?

Fella: From my point of view, a longer-term change is noticeable. On the one hand, we recognize this on the rhetorical level, in how naturally defense and deterrence are debated today.

The fact that terms such as “war-readiness” permeate the debate and demands are also circulating that, among other things, aim to enable Ukraine to carry out more far-reaching military strikes in and against Russia, for example by targeting ministries and command posts.

On the other hand, there are major investments in the Bundeswehr. Plans are being made, training is being carried out and equipment is being acquired for a larger war. And of course all of this creates path dependencies and structures that cannot be easily changed overnight.

“Purchases of military equipment should always be examined”

tagesschau.de: Is German society ready to deal with the scenario of war?

Fella: She already does that. A majority of the population supports the turning point. Civil protection is also being given greater consideration. There are still expressions of solidarity with Ukraine and protests against the federal government’s policies.

In addition, not only federal and specialist politicians discuss the war scenario and its consequences, but also local politicians and the general public. After all, the war continues to have a strong presence in the media and that shows that the topic is given a lot of weight.

One thing is important: thinking about war does not mean giving up peace or criticism. Purchases of military equipment should always be examined to determine whether and to what extent they contribute to the security of the alliance and Germany, whether they are necessary or what role the interests of a profit-oriented arms industry play.

“Leadership also means saying no”

tagesschau.de: Is that not enough for you at the moment?

Fella: I have a bit of trouble with the German political debate. We see this, among other things, in the disputes over Germany’s leadership role in Europe. Germany has increasingly accepted this in recent months; it is the second strongest supporter of Ukraine after the USA and is also making progress by calling for greater support for Ukraine.

The debate in this country was a bit shrill. Supporting Ukraine is not a competition and is fraught with risks. The vote is essential because the USA plays a central role in European security and because creating unity is not a sure thing.

Finally, Germany must always check to what extent its interests coincide with those of its partners. It’s also true that you don’t always let yourself drift. Leadership also means saying no.

I have the feeling that after the war started we often had a lot of opinions and little analysis. I also expect experts not to act as standard-bearers of a mission, but rather as people who impart contextual knowledge and stimulate thought. Everything else tends to reflect or reproduce divisions in society.

“On the threshold of a new nuclear arms race”

tagesschau.de: There are international agreements designed for nuclear disarmament. Why is Europe now talking about rearmament?

Fella: There is the Two Plus Four Treaty, the agreement with which Germany agreed that it would not have nuclear weapons. That is clear. And there is also a global non-proliferation treaty. You also always have to make sure that you don’t contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

We have Iran, which, if it decided to do so, could probably build a nuclear bomb in a relatively short period of time. Then the question is what Saudi Arabia is doing. This is the context that needs to be taken into account. The entire architecture of arms control treaties and transparency measures that was built during and after the Cold War has largely eroded in recent years.

We find ourselves in a situation in which the world is on the threshold of a new nuclear arms race, on the threshold of conventional and nuclear instability. That’s why it’s now very much about risk reduction. To prevent unintentional escalation. And that is why dialogue is also necessary.

It’s a paradox. On the one hand, geopolitical change is increasing the demand for arms control. On the other hand, it also makes it more difficult because so many things are happening at the same time.

During the Cold War, nuclear arms control took place between the United States and the Soviet Union or Russia. And now we also have China, which is arming itself with nuclear weapons. That means the process is becoming more complicated – and we haven’t even talked about Russian proposals to include France and Great Britain in talks.

In short: we are simply entering a very, very delicate phase. And we can only hope that we don’t need another Cuban Missile Crisis to restore more dialogue and predictability.

“Always think about the consequences”

tagesschau.de: What are your expectations of the federal government in this changed geopolitical environment?

Fella: The aim must be to describe even more clearly what the situation is, that we have entered a time in which it is primarily about managing conflicts, not about resolving them. It has to be about preparing for different scenarios. This may also include how nuclear deterrence can work without the USA and whether or to what extent it is even necessary. Finally, I recommend that you always consider the consequences when making decisions, for example regarding military equipment.

I believe it is essential that the foreign policy debate is also fed back into domestic policy because social cohesion has become fragile. We see this from Marine Le Pen in France to Georgia Meloni in Italy, from the AfD to the USA with Donald Trump. And this creates attack areas that other countries can also exploit.

The required security policy change presupposes that we can at least somewhat heal social divisions in Germany, Europe and the USA. Otherwise it is not clear where the much-vaunted turning point will ultimately lead us.

The interview was conducted by Belinda Grasnick, tagesschau.de.