logo
Europe now: Rearming Germany

Europe now: Rearming Germany

NZ Herald20-05-2025

Friedrich Merz, Germany's chancellor, left, and Donald Tusk, Poland's prime minister, have been discussing Germany tightening its borders. Photos / Getty Images
The Trump administration has thrown European security and the response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine into disarray. In Part III of Rules of engagement, Cathrin Schaer considers what this means for Germany where, in many ways, a whole country based its national and cultural identity on the post-war, international rules-based order. To read Part I, with Andrew Gunn reporting from Kyiv go here. To Read Part II, with Andrew Anthony reporting from London, go here.
There's a war going on about a day's drive from where I live in Berlin, historic alliances are being torn asunder, Germany's far-right is rapidly rising and the 'international rules-based order' isn't really following the rules any more. But heck, you wouldn't really know it.
It's been one of the warmest springs on record so far and, as usual after a long, grey winter, local bars and restaurants have moved tables and chairs back onto Berlin's streets. Cycling back from a canal-side beer garden as the sun goes down, you wonder (as you always do at the end of winter) where all these delightful, laughing, beer-quaffing people were hibernating up until now.
In other words, it's pretty much life as normal here in the crowded, dirty, always-entertaining capital of Europe's biggest economy.
But of course, as anyone who reads the news is well aware, it's not. Although Berliners are doing all the usual things – working, booking summer holidays, buying groceries, walking the dog – there's an uneasiness running through daily life.
At the risk of sounding overly dramatic, it feels a bit like a crack has opened up somewhere below us. We can't quite see it, but the earth is shifting beneath those café tables. And we're not sure if the crack is going to close again quietly or whether it will widen into a deep, dark chasm that we'll all eventually be sucked into.
Is that overly dramatic, I ask at our table in a Turkish restaurant on the weekend, or do other people feel that way, too?
'There's definitely a lot of uncertainty about the future at the moment,' one German diner agrees. When Spain and Portugal went through a nationwide power blackout in late April, she says, she immediately thought a war was starting. Previously, she might have thought someone had damaged a wire or driven into a power pole.
'You're right, the existing world order is being broken down,' one of the older guests, an Englishman, said, somewhat resignedly.
'Back in the 60s, we were scared of one thing really: the atomic bomb. But in some ways that was easier to deal with. This is much more diffuse. It's hard to know exactly what's going on, or what China or Russia or Trump or the markets will do next.'
Over her hummus, another German at the table added: 'I used to be quite proud of the way Germany worked through its war-time history and the Holocaust. But now, I just feel like it was all fake. We learnt nothing. And I really don't know if I can trust the government ever again.'
It's unclear whether she is referring to the government's support for the far-right Israeli regime – support that has upset a lot of people because of the way it flounts the system of international justice that actually arose after World War II, and which Germany allegedly supports – or whether she's upset about the government's current drive to spend more on guns and bombs. Defence spending surge
Militarisation has been anathema to many ordinary Germans for decades, precisely because of the country's wartime history. Since then the Germans have been the good guys, the pacifists with the money for foreign and development aid, not tanks.
But now, thanks to the Trump administration's comments about the Nato defence alliance and 'European freeloading', its wobbly support for Ukraine and ongoing threats to pull American soldiers out of the country, Germany has become the fourth largest spender on defence in the world.
According to a March report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Germany's expenditure of $88.5 billion on its military in 2024 amount to an 89% increase in such spending over the past decade. The country hasn't spent this much on its army since the Cold War ended 26 years ago, the institute said. The newly elected government is even said to be considering bringing conscription back.
None of that really fits with Germans' post-war, pacifist self-image. 'How times have changed,' Joerg Lau, international affairs correspondent for local newspaper Die Zeit, wrote in Berlin-based foreign affairs magazine Internationale Politik Quarterly late last year. 'The idea that we are still living in a 'post-war era' is overshadowed by the premonition that it could also be a pre-war era.'
Europeans may have thought they had it all figured out, but for various reasons – including the Trump administration, the economic and social hangover from the Covid pandemic and Russia's invasion of Ukraine – they are being forced to ask themselves who their enemies are, who their friends are, and even who they are. That reassessment is particularly challenging in Germany where, in many ways, a whole country based its national and cultural identity on the post-war, international rules-based order.
The script, with the dull-but-happy 'end of history' finale, seems to have been torn up.
Cathrin Schaer is the Listener's Berlin correspondent.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Powerless progress: Turbines or mining? Taranaki energy plans collide
Powerless progress: Turbines or mining? Taranaki energy plans collide

NZ Herald

timean hour ago

  • NZ Herald

Powerless progress: Turbines or mining? Taranaki energy plans collide

Up to 200 giant turbines mooted for the South Taranaki Bight had the potential to generate 5 gigawatts of power a year. Photo / Getty Images Our national grid struggles to deliver enough power where and when it's most needed by households and industry – in cold snaps. In part II of Powerless Progress, Richard Woodd considers offshore wind turbines. Of the six developers interested in exploiting the constant winds off the Taranaki coast for windfarming,

Our last hope — geoengineering?
Our last hope — geoengineering?

Otago Daily Times

time3 hours ago

  • Otago Daily Times

Our last hope — geoengineering?

Peruvian farmer Saul Luciano Lliuya, who sued a German energy firm arguing that the company's emissions contributed to the melting of Andean glaciers, standing by Lake Palcacocha. PHOTO: REUTERS This is the second anniversary of the arrival of the emergency but practically nobody is mentioning it. Instead people are choosing to worry about more familiar problems like global trade wars, the rise of fascism and genocidal wars. It's kind of a global displacement activity: if we don't mention it, maybe it will go away. Two years ago this month (June 2023) the average global temperature jumped by a third of a degree Celsius in a single month. That shook the climate science world to its foundations, because the orthodox predictions assumed about one-tenth of a degree of warming every five years. The June 2023 event was "non-linear". Like most major shifts in natural systems, the pressure built up and up, and then suddenly the system flipped into a different stable state. It took more than another year — until last December — to figure out what actually happened. Ninety percent of the extra heat in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels goes straight into the ocean. That heat was bound to affect the ocean currents, and sooner or later one of those currents would start returning very warm water to the surface. The water gave up its heat to the air — and suddenly, two years ago, the low-level clouds over the eastern North Atlantic started to thin out, letting in much more sunshine to warm the ocean's surface. This chain of events, where the warming we cause triggers further changes in the climate, is called a "feedback" — and since we didn't cause it directly, we can't turn it off. So two years ago we got three-tenths of a degree of warming in one huge lurch — from +1.2°C to +1.5°C in June 2023 — and since then about one-tenth of a degree more in slow but steady warming. The average global temperature has been about +1.6°C for the past year. Many scientists had hoped that we could hold the warming down to +1.5°C at least until the mid-2030s, but that's already passed. This means more and bigger forest fires, floods, droughts, cyclones and killer heatwaves, which is bad enough — but it also turns the future into a minefield. The "never-exceed" limit on warming, set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 10 years ago, was +2.0°C. They chose that limit because they knew we would activate many feedbacks if the warming went past there. Some they knew about (eg melting permafrost), but they also feared that there might be some hidden feedbacks north of +2.0°C. It's turning out that big hidden feedbacks start kicking in at a much lower temperature. We already hit one at +1.2°C two years ago, and for all we know there could be another feedback just ahead. In fact, feedbacks might even come in clusters that cascade and carry us quickly up into much higher temperatures. Unlikely, but not unimaginable. So suddenly the absolute priority is to hold the heat down. Greenhouse gas emissions must be stopped far sooner than the "Net Zero by 2050" target the IPCC originally set, but there is no way that can be done in less than 10 or 15 years — and the World Meteorological Organisation says that we could reach +1.9°C average global temperature as soon as 2029. The only way to hold the heat down in the short term is geoengineering: direct intervention in the atmosphere to reflect more sunlight back into space and thereby cool the planet. Many people are nervous about it, but we find ourselves in a position where geoengineering is the least bad option. I am not a climate scientist, but I have been paying close attention to the subject for a long time (two books), and I spent three days in Cape Town last month interviewing many of the leading scientists in the field at the largest ever conference on geoengineering. None of the men and women I spoke to were ready to deploy geoengineering techniques now, but they could probably begin to deploy within five years if a crash programme was launched right away. Which governments could finance and direct such a programme? The United States is no longer a serious contender (although possibly a major obstacle). The Russians have shown no interest in the subject. But the United Kingdom, the only country committed to open-air research on geoengineering, could lead a European group. China also has the scientists and is keenly aware of the threat, and India would almost certainly join in such an enterprise. Developing countries are desperately exposed to climate damage and would also collaborate. It's a long shot, but that would be the best available outcome. • Gwynne Dyer is an independent London journalist.

Musk slams Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill as 'a disgusting abomination'
Musk slams Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill as 'a disgusting abomination'

1News

time14 hours ago

  • 1News

Musk slams Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill as 'a disgusting abomination'

Elon Musk blasted President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" of tax breaks and spending cuts as a "disgusting abomination," testing the limits of his political influence as he targeted the centerpiece of Republicans' legislative agenda. The broadside, which Musk issued on his social media platform X, came just days after the president gave him a celebratory Oval Office farewell that marked the end of his work for the administration, where he spearheaded the Department of Government Efficiency. "I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore," Musk posted on X. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it." The legislation, which has passed the House and is currently under debate in the Senate, would curtail subsidies that benefit Tesla, Musk's electric automaker. The tech billionaire followed his criticism with a threat aimed at Republicans. ADVERTISEMENT "In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people," he wrote in another X post. It's a sharp shift for Musk, the world's richest person who spent at least US$250 million (NZ$416 million) supporting Trump's campaign last year. He previously pledged to help defeat Republican lawmakers deemed insufficiently loyal to Trump, but now he's suggesting voting them out if they advance the president's legislative priority. Winter's here, supermarket spying, and TikTok's new feature. (Source: 1News) However, it's unclear how Musk will follow through on his criticism. He recently said that he would spend "a lot less" on political campaigns, though he left the door open to political involvement "if I see a reason". The tech titan's missives could cause headaches for Republicans on Capitol Hill, who face conflicting demands from Trump and their party's wealthiest benefactor. Alex Conant, a Republican strategist, said "it's not helpful" to have Musk criticising the legislation, but he doesn't expect lawmakers to side with Musk over Trump. "Senate Republicans are not going to let the tax cuts expire," Conant said. "It just makes leadership's job that much harder to wrangle the holdouts." ADVERTISEMENT Trump can change the outcome in Republican primaries with his endorsements; Musk doesn't wield that level of influence, Conant said. "No matter what Elon Musk or anybody else says — and I don't want to diminish him because I don't think that's fair — it's still going to be second fiddle to President Trump," said Republican West Virginia Senator Shelley Moore Capito. Musk's business interests stand to take a hit if lawmakers approve Trump's bill, which would slash funding for electric vehicles and related technologies. Musk is the chief executive of Tesla, the nation's largest electric vehicle manufacturer, and SpaceX, which has massive defence contracts. Last month, Musk said he was "disappointed" by the spending bill, a much milder criticism than the broadside he leveled on Tuesday (local time). The budget package seeks to extend tax cuts approved in 2017, during Trump's first term at the White House, and add new ones he campaigned on. It also includes a massive build-up of US$350 billion (NZ$583 billion) for border security, deportations and national security. To defray some of the lost tax revenue to the government and limit piling onto the nation's US$36 trillion (NZ$60 trillion) debt load, Republicans want to reduce federal spending by imposing work requirements for some Americans who rely on government safety net services. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., strides from the chamber after speaking about the reconciliation process. (Source: Associated Press) ADVERTISEMENT Musk's post threw another hurdle in front of Senate Majority Leader John Thune's already complex task to pass a bill in time for Trump to achieve his goal of signing it by July 4. The South Dakota Republican has few votes to spare in the GOP's slim 53-seat majority. Two of the Senate's most fiscally hawkish Republicans quickly backed Musk. "We can and must do better," Kentucky Senator Rand Paul wrote on X. Utah Senator Mike Lee said, "federal spending has become excessive," adding that it causes inflation and "weaponises government". Still, Trump enjoys fierce loyalty among the GOP base, and in the end, his opinion may be the only one that matters. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt played down Musk's criticism. "The president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill," Leavitt said, and Musk's post "doesn't change the president's opinion". The tension in the GOP delighted Democrats, who found themselves in the unlikely position of siding with Musk. Democrats are waging an all-out political assault on GOP proposals to cut Medicaid, food stamps and green energy investments to help pay for more than US$4.5 trillion (NZ$7.5 trillion) in tax cuts — with many lawmakers being hammered at boisterous town halls back home. ADVERTISEMENT House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., tells reporters he agrees with Elon Musk's criticism of President Donald Trump's spending and tax bill. (Source: Associated Press) "We're in complete agreement," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said of Musk. The New York Democratic lawmaker stood alongside a poster-sized printout of Musk's post during a Capitol news conference. The last time Musk weighed in significantly on legislation, the scenario was far different. His power was ascendant after the election, with Trump joining him for a rocket test in Texas and appointing him to spearhead the Department of Government Efficiency. During the transition period, Musk started whipping up opposition to legislation that would prevent a government shutdown, posting about it repeatedly on X, his social media platform. Trump soon weighed in, encouraging Republicans to back out of a bipartisan deal. Lawmakers eventually patched together a new agreement.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store