Germany’s assumptions about peace and power are out of sync with reality

June 14, 2015
Members of Ukrainian armed forces fire grenade launcher in Avdiivka in Donetsk region

Members of the Ukrainian armed forces fire a grenade launcher, in response to what servicemen said were shots fired from the positions of fighters of the separatist self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic, in the town of Avdiivka in Donetsk region, Ukraine, June 18, 2015. REUTERS/Maksim Levin

During the Cold War, the purpose of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was often summed up as “keeping the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” Today, more than a year into Russia’s covert war against Ukraine, the old adage could be tweaked to describe a new reality in Europe: The Russians are in, the Americans on the fence, and the Germans on the up and up.

Germany’s rise as Europe’s preeminent power would make sense based on economics alone. Yet the development was anything but inevitable, given the country’s Nazi past and division after World War Two. It took an event as shocking as Russian President Vladimir Putin’s land grab in Ukraine last year for Germans to realize just how much their country — and the world — had changed in the quarter century since the collapse of the Soviet empire.

After 1990, a new generation of Germans came of age thankful to Russia for making the miracle of reunification possible. Many attributed “Ostpolitik” — West German Chancellor Willy Brandt’s policy of rapprochement with the Soviet bloc during the 1970s— as laying the groundwork for a peaceful resolution of the Cold War. Successive German governments put a premium on close ties with Russia, for a number of reasons: gratitude for reunification, guilt for the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union and the stubborn hope that the recipe of Ostpolitik — trade effecting political change — would help nudge post-communist Russia toward democracy and make military confrontation impossible.

Putin’s annexation of Crimea and instigation of an insurgency in eastern Ukraine rattled Germany’s political establishment. Chancellor Angela Merkel, who grew up in Soviet-occupied East Germany, saw her uneasiness about Putin confirmed once and for all. Her foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, had a tougher time squaring Putin’s military adventure with the Russia he had wished to see. As a Social Democrat, Steinmeier viewed himself as a political heir to Brandt’s Ostpolitik. He had also worked as chief of staff to Merkel’s predecessor, Gerhard Schroeder, a personal friend of Putin’s.

In abandoning their patience for Kremlin shenanigans, Steinmeier and other leading Social Democrats marked a major shift in in Germany’s Russia policy. Merkel’s center-right Christian Democrats had always been more skeptical of Putin, and the Greens, born out of grassroots political and social movements of the 1970s, opposed the Kremlin’s crackdown on Russian civil society. Only the Left party, a coalition of former East German Communists and disgruntled West German radicals, defend Putin.

Before the fighting broke out in Ukraine, Germany behaved like a big Switzerland, with no obvious interests abroad apart from developing new markets for its export-driven economy. Problems with neighbors were solved through multilateral European institutions. Deployments of German military personnel were made in joint missions with allies. The outdated NATO arrangement of “keeping the Germans down” was comfortable because it absolved Germany of the burden of leadership. As Poland’s foreign minister Radek Sikorski famously said in 2011, “I fear German power less than I am beginning to fear German inactivity.”

Of course, Berlin’s reluctance to lead came from the excesses of German power during the first half of the 20th century. The European Union offered a post-modern continental order that would guarantee peace through member states’ economic interdependency and the partial abdication of sovereignty. Safely embedded in the bubble of Europe, Germany could be the first among equals without having to contemplate such distasteful things as geopolitics or military strategy.

Germans’ pacifism was based on the trauma of World War Two and the fear that their country would become the main battleground in the event of a World War Three. But Germans were fooling themselves if they believed that the peaceful neighborhood they helped create had somehow transcended the logic of brute force. After the risk of a Russian attack subsided with the Cold War’s end, Europe’s largest economies continued to prosper under the guarantees of NATO membership and the protection of the U.S. nuclear shield. Incidentally, no amount of moral rectitude prevented Germany from occupying the spot as the world’s third-biggest arms exporter until very recently.

Putin’s use of military force to hack away at Ukraine was a rude awakening. Such things weren’t supposed to happen in the post-conflict Europe that Germans had convinced themselves they inhabited. The wars of Yugoslavia’s disintegration were already 15 years past and had never threatened to engulf the rest of the continent. The Kremlin’s intervention in Ukraine, on the other hand, seemed to forebode a confrontation between Russia and the West unthinkable since the Cold War.

Suddenly, Russia was no longer the partner that Germany imagined it had had all these years. Even worse, the American response to Putin’s lightning operations in Ukraine was sluggish and dazed. President Barack Obama’s “reset” in relations with the Kremlin had failed miserably, premised on the naive belief that Putin’s protégé, Dmitry Medvedev, was an independent political actor genuinely interested in using his brief presidency to westernize Russia. In another miscalculation, Obama had offended many Europeans with his administration’s “pivot” to Asia. After Putin seized Crimea, Obama snubbed Russia as a “regional power” that acted out of weakness, not strength, and wasn’t the No. 1 U.S. security threat, anyway.

The view from Berlin was somewhat different. Merkel stepped up as the West’s chief negotiator with Putin not so much as an intermediary for the Americans as out of a vital European interest to stop the conflict from escalating out of control. It was an unusual role for a German chancellor, but if Obama thought he had bigger fish to fry, Merkel was the woman for the job. She spoke for hours with Putin in 35 phone calls last year and half a dozen meetings since the start of the conflict. She tirelessly sought new formats for negotiation and arranged Putin’s first encounter with Petro Poroshenko after his election as Ukraine’s president last year. In February, Merkel staked her reputation to save the so-called Minsk peace process in all-night talks with the Russian president.

There is a long historical tradition of Germany and Russia deciding the fate of the smaller nations that lie between them. Merkel brought French President François Hollande into the peace process to demonstrate European unity, and she resisted Putin’s attempts to reach a grand bargain above the Ukrainians’ heads by insisting on Poroshenko’s participation. An unintended consequence of the Russian intervention in Ukraine was that Germany started taking the concerns of its eastern European neighbors more seriously. Berlin is now the first foreign destination for politicians from Kiev, and Ukraine’s embassy in the German capital has become the country’s most important diplomatic mission in Europe, if not the world.

Putin is missing the Russian-German axis from the time of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, when Schroeder openly criticized the administration of President George W. Bush. The Russian president feels so isolated by the current German government that he has reportedly written several letters to former Chancellor Helmut Kohl, Merkel’s ailing 85-year-old mentor, to put in a good word for the Kremlin.

Anti-Americanism may be what Putin’s German sympathizers have in common, but it was a mistake if the Kremlin counted on widespread frustration with U.S. foreign policy automatically to translate into support for Russia. Reports about widespread and intrusive intelligence gathering by the National Security Agency on German soil have caused a storm of outrage among the public. But for Merkel’s government, the revelations have mostly been an embarrassment because they reveal the degree of Germany’s dependence on U.S. spy agencies.

For Merkel, it’s convenient to let the United States play the bad cop by threatening to deliver defensive weapons to Ukraine and hatching plans to station heavy arms in NATO countries in Eastern Europe. Germany, meantime, can continue being the good cop by advocating dialog and talking peace. The danger is that the Minsk process has gone nowhere, with the top international negotiator, Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini, quitting this summer.

The limits of Germany’s leadership will soon be put to the test.

10 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Until Russia has a real govt. instead of a corrupt overlord they will not be trusted or taken seriously. Putin’s actions remind us all of Hitler’s actions with Autstria and Poland.

Posted by LetBalanceCome | Report as abusive

I think we all know who’s out of sync with reality…

Posted by nsanity | Report as abusive

This is a well written article with factual information and reasonable assessments. Interesting, is a forward looking perspective that considers Obama’s strong socialist leanings, inexperience and overall ineptness. All will be gone soon, and Merkel, Putin et al. have to know a new dawn is coming. The notion that the new Russian shirtless muscleman, the ayatollah and the Chinese island builders are, in all cases, to be feared, is about to change dramatically. Obama can ignore the constitution and give away the front porch, but the house still remains.

Posted by rlroll2 | Report as abusive

I believe that this one sentence may outweigh the rest of the article: “[Steinmeier]… had also worked as chief of staff to Merkel’s predecessor, Gerhard Schroeder, a personal friend of Putin’s.”

Posted by UauS | Report as abusive

Way to make a good article all about your hate for President Obama, rlroll2.

Posted by dashboardcowman | Report as abusive

“The limits of Germany’s leadership will soon be put to the test.”

If anyone is up to the task Germany is capable, targeted toward the betterment of all, and, hopefully, willing.

Posted by hometown | Report as abusive

Germany abandoned nuclear power, then naively made a huge investment in solar power where there’s little sunshine. As a result, they were held hostage by Russian natural gas along with the rest of the EU. As this dependence is eliminated, I expect stiffened resolve in waiting out regime change in the Russian Dictatorship.

Posted by JimVan | Report as abusive

Putin has reiterated that Russia has no plan to attack any European country. Ukraine is a backyard of Russia and any political leader with a sense of geopolitics will not antagonize Russia on that issue. Tom Graham wrote recently in the Financial Times, Washington’s quarrel with Russia is nothing short of “geopolitical malfeasance”, with the distracting impact far from being limited to the Middle East. Putin has repeatedly denied claims his country has sent troops to Ukraine supported or armed the rebels. Reagan brought Moscow and Washington closer.closer. Merkel will be committing a great political blunder, if she alienates Moscow. The cornerstone of Germany’s foreign policy should be similar to Willy Brandt’s strategy of having closer ties with Moscow. This policy rejuvenated Germany and helped Germany evolve into a major power in Europe if not in the world. It appears Merkel has been brainwashed by Obama. Obama’s pro-Islamic strategy is to foment trouble in Europe so that ISIS will be free to expand the boundary of its caliphate. Obama wants to open another theater of war in Europe to facilitate ISIS terrorists to have a free hand to occupy more countries in the Middle East and from that strong base to spread its tentacles across Europe. Muslims living in European countries will act as fifth-columnists of ISIS. ISIS began its career as a ragtag rampaging jihadists without any country of their own.Now due to Obama’s impotence and his obstinacy in not ordering boots on the ground, ISIS terrorists are now occupying vast swathes of Syria, Iraq, Libya, now Yemen, and the caliphate is expanding. ISIS has also captured thousands of American armored cars, tanks, SUVs, large cache of American arms and ammunition. Iraq has become a delivery station of American arms and vehicles to ISIS terrorists. So the real threat to Europe is the escalation of caliphate.The presence of a vast population of Muslims and Muslim immigrants in European countries will help of ISIS in the event of their invasion of Europe.There may be hundreds of 9/11 in European cities. In these circumstances, Merkel should follow the policy of Brandt and take independent steps to halt the blitzkrieging ISIS instead of ruffling Putin’s feathers.

Posted by AYeshuratnam | Report as abusive

A US-oriented article: change the time-line to start with US encouragement of pro-US oligarchs in Ukraine to take over from pro-Russian oligarchs and threaten Russia with further inroads into its ex-empire…
NATO has always been anti-Russian, whether anti-Soviet or ever since, purely as a cat’s paw to further US interests. Its comments can hardly be described as disinterested. I am unconvinced that the oligarchs the US has helped take over ex-Soviet ‘provinces’ are in any way preferable to those Under Soviet domination.

Thus German and European interests are to keep both the wolves at bay while not entering into direct confrontation with either.

One should bear in mind that over the last 40 years, at least, by far the most predatory state has been the US which has caused millions of deaths and tens of millions of displaced persons who are in most cases still in a highly precarious situation, living on UN and NGO handouts.

One can well understand and sympathise with Merkel’s predicament, especially when some European states are, quite reasonably, still afraid of Russia and others more worried by US ongoing and relatively general abuse of military and economic power and their relative technological dominance. The Chinese are now exerting a growing influence world-wide which could well give Europe more leeway in its relations with the US.

Posted by captainbwana | Report as abusive

Europe in general, and Germany in particular, has been ignoring a persistent message from now 3 different US administrations – We Are Not Going To Continue To Underwrite Your Security.

Our troops are mostly gone, our ships and planes are leaving, and the only people impressed with the prospect of arms caches in E. Europe are the supply Sargents that will be harvesting them for parts. As to Putin, we are now nearly two years waiting for the Russian blitzkrieg to… Transnistria. The only thing our military posturing has demonstrated is that Philip Breedlove is an idiot. It tells a great deal about the effectiveness of the Obama administration that he is still there, making the US military look ridiculous every time he speaks.

Meanwhile, the southern flank of Europe is dissolving, and a genuine lethal threat has spent the last 6 years spreading, while European politicians argued about headscarves.

Posted by ARJTurgot2 | Report as abusive