"Grassroots activist" pulling the "yapping chihuahuas" card of Russian imperialists denying the autonomy of independent Eastern European democracies and reducing them to mere geopolitical puppets. Very telling of the mindest of the "Russian liberal" and a constant reminder that the concept of "democracy" in Russia is about as well defined as fairy dust or a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Next time stick to writing about miscellanea instead of trying to get paid pushing agitprop and crying about "satanic European weapons" killing "innocent Russian servicemen " (who, of course, went to Ukraine for tourism and nothing else). Nonsense perspective from a nonsense person, stay in your lane.
As a political scientist researching military institutions, militarism, and their fixations / justifications (and as someone who regularly talks with people from within German security policy and armed forces circles), I was very happy to see this article: Its main question is one that desperately needs asking, and which does not get asked enough, especially in the relevant policy circles, by a long shot. I'd wager a lot of the flailing and panicked militarized rhetoric has something to do with nuclear deterrence and the related cultural memory, but I'll leave it to others with more expertise to comment on that.
However, I'd like to also raise a critical point: The dual premise of "Russia doesn't want to harm us!" / "Russia cannot harm us!" is factually incorrect. It is certainly true that Russia poses no serious _conventional_ military threat to most of Europe, and that its armed forces are already failing in Ukraine. It is also true, however, that Russia is a) extensively invested in hybrid warfare, political influence, and disinformation in Europe and b) certainly view themselves (just watch Duma members on Russian television or read Putin's speeches) at war with (some collectivized image of) "the west" - which includes Europe.
By not recognizing (unless I've missed something in the text, apologies if so) these two aspects, I believe you risk building your critique on the very same vocabulary as those calling for "Kriegstüchtigkeit": They are speaking of a conventional response to a conventional threat (which you have correctly outed as spurious), but your analysis of Russia also limits itself to this conventional threat. Wouldn't a critique of current militarism & fearmongering require recognizing that the European security policy debate is missing the point, rather than operating within their framing?
(In short: There is a real threat, just not the one that everyone is yapping about. Hope this makes sense, wrote it quickly while at work.)
Very important perspective. I'm so tired of hearing that America "orders Europe around." European egos wouldn't accept that for even a second. Fact is, they want war and they're pushing for war. If anything, these yapping chihuahuas are pushing America as we speak. I don't think they'd stop at anything to prevent a Trump win.
"Grassroots activist" pulling the "yapping chihuahuas" card of Russian imperialists denying the autonomy of independent Eastern European democracies and reducing them to mere geopolitical puppets. Very telling of the mindest of the "Russian liberal" and a constant reminder that the concept of "democracy" in Russia is about as well defined as fairy dust or a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Next time stick to writing about miscellanea instead of trying to get paid pushing agitprop and crying about "satanic European weapons" killing "innocent Russian servicemen " (who, of course, went to Ukraine for tourism and nothing else). Nonsense perspective from a nonsense person, stay in your lane.
As a political scientist researching military institutions, militarism, and their fixations / justifications (and as someone who regularly talks with people from within German security policy and armed forces circles), I was very happy to see this article: Its main question is one that desperately needs asking, and which does not get asked enough, especially in the relevant policy circles, by a long shot. I'd wager a lot of the flailing and panicked militarized rhetoric has something to do with nuclear deterrence and the related cultural memory, but I'll leave it to others with more expertise to comment on that.
However, I'd like to also raise a critical point: The dual premise of "Russia doesn't want to harm us!" / "Russia cannot harm us!" is factually incorrect. It is certainly true that Russia poses no serious _conventional_ military threat to most of Europe, and that its armed forces are already failing in Ukraine. It is also true, however, that Russia is a) extensively invested in hybrid warfare, political influence, and disinformation in Europe and b) certainly view themselves (just watch Duma members on Russian television or read Putin's speeches) at war with (some collectivized image of) "the west" - which includes Europe.
By not recognizing (unless I've missed something in the text, apologies if so) these two aspects, I believe you risk building your critique on the very same vocabulary as those calling for "Kriegstüchtigkeit": They are speaking of a conventional response to a conventional threat (which you have correctly outed as spurious), but your analysis of Russia also limits itself to this conventional threat. Wouldn't a critique of current militarism & fearmongering require recognizing that the European security policy debate is missing the point, rather than operating within their framing?
(In short: There is a real threat, just not the one that everyone is yapping about. Hope this makes sense, wrote it quickly while at work.)
Very important perspective. I'm so tired of hearing that America "orders Europe around." European egos wouldn't accept that for even a second. Fact is, they want war and they're pushing for war. If anything, these yapping chihuahuas are pushing America as we speak. I don't think they'd stop at anything to prevent a Trump win.