Can Germany Strengthen its Defenses Without Fanning the Flames of War?

European countries find themselves increasingly obliged, in this volatile global security environment, to reassess their defense strategies. 

The war in Ukraine and NATO's new commitments bring military readiness, deterrence, and allied cooperation once again to the forefront of national and international security agendas. 

If Germany's case is unique, its leading role in this debate swings in a delicate balance between its post-World War II pacifism and the growing need for military preparedness, with alliance obligations. 

It is a heavy decision with several considerations of military muscle development versus the risk of an arms race with adversaries, considered by political, defense, and military analysts regarding NATO's security commitments and Russia's burgeoning capabilities.

The views of defense experts like Franz-Stefan Gady and Claudia Major add immense values to how Germany and its European allies can work their way out of the challenges. 

Their discussion covers a balance between strategic principles and the practical ways of strengthening the defense in Europe, while maintaining peace and preparing for war. 

Deterrence in the Concept of Modern Defense Policy

Among the basic principles which have been the very underlying current defense strategies, deterrence represents a principle of deterring aggression by making the possible aggressor aware that the target has sufficient capability to respond effectively to an attack. 

According to Gady, successful deterrence presumes military strength and its interdependence with diplomatic efforts. A good defense policy isn't about waging war but preventing it," he explains, underscoring that Germany and other European nations must rethink their strategic priorities beyond diplomacy alone. 

For decades, Germany's foreign policy had been built on peace-building efforts and soft-power diplomacy in which military preparedness was low on the agenda. However, the growing threat in Eastern Europe all across Russia demands a balanced approach between military readiness and continuous diplomatic engagement.

The philosophy of deterrence is an insurance policy. It functions in such a way that the stronger the defensive capability, the lesser the prospect for actual conflict. 

In the case of Germany, deterrence is not an arms race but an investment in necessary defense capabilities to deter predators. "A good defense policy is one that acquires weapons not to use them but to ensure they're never needed", Gady argues. Such posture shall be contextual against a backdrop of the fact that the general framework of security for Germany is achieved through the larger NATO alliance.

Deterrence and Military Readiness

Critical shortfalls in personnel and resources have made the current posture of German defense a cause for concern with regard to its obligations within NATO. 

Since Germany is a strategic logistical hub, readiness is an issue which surpasses national boundaries. To military analysts, the conventional forces need to be increased in order to maintain a credible deterrent force. 

The modern German military lacks manpower, logistical capacity, and modernized weaponry. Most significant of all, there is an urgent need to integrate nascent technologies such as AI and quantum computing with existing platforms that could boost battlefield capabilities and situational awareness.

Claudia Major, a German security expert, further underlines the importance of deterrence against Russia's direct aggression. 

She identifies that the possible deployment of advanced weaponry, such as American Tomahawk missiles and the conventionally-armed hypersonic missile Dark Eagle, has been a factor of good deterrence with regard to showing how fast and hard NATO can respond. 

Deterrence is a means of persuading one's opponent that any attack would have to be paid for with unacceptable costs," Major explains, adding that although the weapons themselves do not guarantee peace, they are a strategic keystone in preventing war.

The Pacifist Dilemma and Germany's Defense Culture

The defeat of Germany in the World Wars fashioned its historical experience and brought forth a deeply entrenched pacifist orientation within its political and public spheres. 

This, according to Gady, has created "parasitic pacifism," whereby Germany enjoys the American security umbrella without making any proportionate contribution to collective defense. This dependence has allowed Germany to focus on economic growth and moral posturing while leaving the hard responsibilities of defense to more reliable allies-like the United States.

Moving away from pacifism does not mean abandoning ideals of peace; rather, it means pragmatic acceptance of the responsibility for defense in keeping with the strategic role of Germany within NATO. Keeping peace presupposes readiness for possible dangers-a contradiction expressed with the saying, "If you want peace, prepare for war." 

It means for Germany a reorientation of its military doctrine toward answering modern challenges and to develop such capabilities as to be able to assume a more active role in ensuring European security.

Strategic Reorientation of German Defense Policy

The noble pacifism of Germany may create, indirectly, certain risks because security gaps can be used by adversaries. 

Indeed, Gady provides a call to reassess Germany's military doctrine, shifting away from peacetime assumptions to considerations about real-world threats and the utility of various defense systems. 

He also claims that paying attention to traditional systems, such as tanks and artillery, would not be enough. Capabilities need to be integrated with advanced surveillance, cyber defense, and rapid response. Such a reorientation will enable Germany to take up much more active roles within NATO and strengthen its standing in defending Europe's eastern flank.

Major further notes that, even on such issues, public debate is scant in Germany due to the executive nature of the decisions on defense. She calls for openness and public participation in debates on defense policy, adding that such involvement could promote better understanding and acceptance of the reforms needed.

Stationing of US Missile Systems in Germany: Escalation or Necessary?

During a news conference, Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced that US missile systems, including Tomahawk cruise missiles and the hypersonic Dark Eagle, will arrive in Germany by 2026. Needless to say, it has driven an already heated debate among Germans even further. 

Critics like Sahra Wagenknecht warn of an escalation with Russia. Major counters these considerations by pointing out that these missiles are conventionally armed and hence indicate a defensive consideration, not an aggressive escalation. 

This again she says may enhance deterrence because the presence of such systems would reinforce the NATO defensive posture, and thereby perhaps prevent the possibility of Russian aggression rather than provoke it.

The Strategic Utility of New Missile Systems

The planned deployment of these missiles, Major explained, fills the critical "capability gap" in the European defenses, to serve not only as a deterrent but to thwart attempts by the Russians to gain ground in the region. 

Russian advancements with land-based nuclear-capable systems-like the Iskander missile stationed in Kaliningrad-directly confront European security. The introduction of the US missile systems, Major said, remedies that imbalance by bringing range and precision to NATO that could counter potential Russian strikes against key military infrastructure.

This deterrent capability, she says, is the result of the new NATO military strategy adopted in 2019, which aimed at option flexibility across all domains.

Major suggests that independent systems-but interoperable-could be developed by European powers as a more promising method to increase NATO's capabilities, a process which has already begun at an early stage through cooperation between France, Italy, Germany, and Poland. Major, however, stresses that for the immediate short term, the American systems are an important stopgap.

Arms Race or Sustainable Deterrence?

Those against military buildup point to the fact that the new weapons deployment heightens the chances of a new arms race, at least in Eastern Europe. 

Once more, both Gady and Major make it clear that controlled and strategically envisaged improvements in defenses do not add up to an arms race. As a matter of fact, such steps will prevent an arms race by way of filling deterrence gaps. The level of armament in NATO countries, especially in Germany, has remained incomparable to Cold War levels, hence an arms race only occurs if both sides continuously escalate in response to each other's moves.

Furthermore, past practice in relation to treaties such as the INF (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces) Treaty-which many believe Russia has breached-shows that there is some limitation in placing sole reliance on disarmament agreements with unpredictable adversaries. 

Thus, while NATO is open to any discussions regarding arms reductions, credible deterrent capabilities that might be violated by an adversary cannot be given up. 

This therefore means that a balance between deterrence, diplomacy, and public engagement has to be struck.

With a dramatically changing security environment in Europe, Germany and its allies have reached a turning point in the development of their defense policies. 

Gady and Major underline that what Germany really needs is the application of a well-balanced deterrence policy: military strength should be combined with diplomatic actions and active PR. That is to say, Germany also needs to reorient itself from its pacifistic tendencies toward pragmatic defense, in which preparedness makes sure of peace instead of threatening it.

In that respect, the way forward for Germany, as well as other European states, is to develop a defense culture with its roots in resilience and responsibility while addressing the moral and strategic challenges of military stationing and alliance obligations. 

This will require open debates, strategic investment in military capabilities, and constant cooperation within NATO to establish a viable security strategy directed toward peace in the continent. 

As Major has lucidly put it, "Maintaining peace in today's world involves both clear-eyed defense and an unwavering commitment to diplomacy - a balance we must achieve if we are to navigate the challenges ahead." 

Sources: Der Spiegel, DPA