Rough translation of an article from Groups Against Capital and Nation
Original here:
https://gegen-kapital-und-nation.org/warum-linke-neuerdings-kriege-einsehen/
Everyone knows that wars waged between states are terrible for the people affected. The cruelty of war is no secret, and yet more and more people are willing to participate in killing on behalf of the state. The German government is preparing the population for new armed conflicts, and most media outlets are supporting it.
In recent decades, leftists have tended to oppose the Bundeswehr (German Federal Armed Forces) and the various military programs of German governments, refusing military service, criticizing the government for its military initiatives, and generally warning against a military resurgence in Germany. Since Russia's war against Ukraine, however, the position of many on the left regarding Germany's military readiness has shifted. Going to war for Germany is now a consideration worth considering, even for them.
Germany is rearming and a new mindset is needed.
The leadership in Germany continues to work on this turning point in history and is taking it to new heights:
" The Federal Government will in future provide all the financial resources that the Bundeswehr needs to become the strongest conventional army in Europe." (Merz, 14 May 2025 ) 1
This project is supported not only by the governing parties, but also by the Greens and the FDP. The AfD is also in favor of this goal.
The new standard of military preparedness is officially decreed by the government and parliament. This demands new hardships from the population. In particular, the recruitment pool for the many new soldiers is to be retrained. While in peacetime the renunciation of violence is considered a high virtue to be upheld and relied upon, now a different motto applies in two respects: Be prepared to give your life for Germany and be prepared to consider people you don't even know and with whom you have no personal conflict as enemies and to kill them.
The government places great importance on this retraining. It wants the entire population to embrace the new rearmament project and make it their own cause. The Minister of Defense announces to the public,
“ (...) that we need an increase in the size of the Bundeswehr – the sooner the better – but one that is planned for the long term and must be sustainable, and it is about simultaneously changing the mindset in society, especially among young men and women, and promoting a sense of responsibility for this service to the country. Every member of the younger generation will therefore have to decide, unlike before: What can I and what do I want to contribute to the security of the country in which I live? Do I not care? Do I want to take on responsibility, and if so, where? ( ... ) The debates that will take place in families, workplaces, schools, and universities are intentional. They are necessary because it is about raising and strengthening awareness. Only through this debate will men and women who have just turned 18 be able to develop an attitude and make a well-considered, individual, and confident decision.” 2 ( Pistorius , 27.08.25 )
In these desired discussions, positions like "I'm not interested in that" are actually valued as contributions, because politicians rely on someone eventually addressing the issue of "responsibility" with young people. However, in practical terms, the desired discussion is anything but open: if not enough young people develop the right mindset and fill the barracks, then the Bundestag will be expected to introduce universal conscription. That much is certain.
This discussion also includes leftists who are not at all or not very enthusiastic about the new military preparedness. However, this text focuses on those leftists who want to convince other leftists that military service is indeed worthwhile for Germany. The following is based on articles from taz and jungle world, as well as discussions at our events on the new military preparedness.
Defense – surely there's nothing to object to?
"What would you do, what would I do, if one day Russian tanks rolled across the Oder and Neisse rivers?" (Holly) 3
Now, the German state will tell Holly and everyone else what to do . Any attempts to disobey orders will be met with military police, coercion , and punishment , the severity of which will be tailored to its assessment of the situation.
But politicians want the discussion about personal attitudes toward military service to be conducted precisely by abstracting from such real threats – and taz author Leon Holly is also participating in this. In this contrived question of conscience, he throws down the argumentative gauntlet to Ole Nymoen. Nymoen has said that he would not fight for "my country," not for this state, and not for Europe. He also has a few arguments at hand that target the political purpose of German society – and Nymoen rejects this. The taz author, however, doesn't even engage on this level and immediately considers the consequences that could arise from not wanting to take up arms:
“Running away is out of the question, was my first reaction. Not a thought, more of a reflex. The rationalizations followed: The fight against a looming occupation would be, first and foremost, a fight for those who cannot fight or flee. Because they are too old or too weak, or have the wrong passport and aren't even allowed to leave Germany. Always talking about solidarity and ideals and then booking a train to Switzerland when things get serious? How could I look myself in the mirror then?” (Holly) 4
Nymoen speaks of a class society, a violent apparatus called the state, and says: I reject this and I do not defend it. Holly appeals to a left-wing attitude, emphasizing the importance of standing up for the weak and people with the wrong passport, and says: By running away, you abandon them to death.
Holly then goes on to explain that the need to fight does not depend too much on what one believes one is defending in Germany, but that everything is already clear from the character of the Russian opponent :
“But the author and journalist Artur Weigandt, who has since responded to Nymoen in Die Zeit , wrote quite rightly on X: ‘ The question of whether one fights for Germany or not will never arise. If it should come to pass that Russia launches an invasion, one is not fighting for something, but against something. That is the connecting element that many do not understand. ’ ” (Holly) 5
The irony of such contributions to the debate lies in their completely distorted portrayal of both Russia and Germany. Russia is depicted as, firstly, an expansionist and, secondly, a murderous fighting machine devoid of rhyme or reason . First, " expansive": Russia has invaded its neighbor and is not only demanding regime change but also intends to annex significant portions of Ukraine into its own territory . Left-wing proponents of military action focus solely on the fact of expansion, abstracting from the reasons behind Russia's actions or simply citing an expansionist will as the underlying cause. This creates a circular argument: Expansion is justified by an expansionist drive, and the claim that this drive is the reason is further supported by pointing to actual expansion. Second, " murderous ": War inherently involves military terror against soldiers and civilians. Left-wing proponents of military action focus solely on the fact of killing , abstracting from the reasons why Russia acts this way, or simply citing a will to terror as the reason . What remains is yet another circular argument: practical terror is justified by an impulse towards terror , and the claim that this impulse is the reason is substantiated by pointing to actual military practice . In doing so , these leftists are entirely in line with the German government's cultivation of an enemy image. 6
The distorted portrayal of Germany in the debate contributions consists of imagining it as a small, harmless hobbit village.
When people, based on such crude, imaginative nonsense, confidently decide to join the army, the government doesn't intervene—on the contrary, it welcomes any nonsense. The main thing for them is that people confidently say "yes" to others —decision-makers endowed with the power of their office — leading them into the corresponding war situations . Of course, on other occasions, the government makes it quite clear that Germany's claim to military readiness has entirely different, greater goals than an effective local militia .
" Merz has made foreign policy a top priority. His message: Germany wants to assume more responsibility. It aims for a leadership role in the EU. Among the European NATO states, Germany is to become the strongest army. At the same time, Europe is to achieve ' independence from the USA ' in defense policy , as Merz stated immediately after his election victory in February, because he no longer sees the USA under Donald Trump as a reliable partner." (DW, July 6, 2025) 7
The German Wave here quite accurately summarizes the standards for the German rearmament program. The times when Germany , as a co-creator and beneficiary of the rules-based world order under US leadership, could assert and expand its successful trading power worldwide are over. The German government states that the enforcement of German interests in the world now depends decisively on its own means of coercion.
" The old order isn't completely gone yet, and the new order isn't here. But our aim must be to have a say, to defend democracy, to uphold our values and interests, and to stand up for them." ( Vice Chancellor Lars Klingbeil, March 18, 2025) 8
The German government is responding to the new global situation by transforming the Bundeswehr (German Armed Forces) to a new level. The immense US force, on which Germany has based its foreign policy to date, is to be gradually replaced by its own force. Germany cannot do this alone, but only together with its European partners. And in order to assert its interests within the alliance and avoid falling into new dependencies, Germany must now become not only the leading economic power in Europe, but also the leading military power. Germany certainly has Russia in its sights as the biggest disruptive factor. None of the left-wing proponents of military spending are asking the question: " What would you do if the Bundeswehr invaded Russia?" In fact, the German army already has a "combat-ready brigade" east of the Nemunas River – and thus considerably closer to the Russian border than vice versa. At least this much is clear: the "defense of Germany" is by no means intended to take place in Germany , but considerably further east. But the entire project of “military leadership” naturally extends far beyond Europe, “(…) so that Europe can live up to its claim and its importance in the world.” (Merz, 14.05.2025 ) 10
“ We are giving the answer; and it is a European answer from Germany with the clear message: We will defend our security, we will defend our prosperity, we will defend our way of life – no matter who threatens them, whether from within or from without (...) .” ( Alexander Dobrindt, CDU/CSU, March 18, 2025 ) 11
" Our way of life" essentially consists of hosting capital that imports and exports globally, attempting to wrest markets away from foreign capital . And Germany— like other states — wants to create a global political framework that benefits its own capital. It is precisely at this level that states inevitably clash . And as the power structures they are, they require one thing above all to enforce and secure their own importance and claims : a large military. In this context, one can consider the following statement by the Chancellor :
“ Central Asia is rich in raw materials and is seeking closer ties with us. On the African continent, the fastest-growing continent in the world, highly promising future markets are currently developing. Let's not leave them to others.” (Merz, September 8, 2025) 12
A brief interim conclusion: The first mistake of left-wing proponents of military training lies in the assumption that the reasons for preparing for war, or indeed for war itself, are entirely self-invented. The second mistake lies in the abstraction from all the purposes that Russia , on the one hand, justifies against other states (leaving only the notion of absolute evil), and on the other hand, in the abstraction from the purposes that Germany justifies against other states and seeks to enforce on the world stage with its armaments program. In the worldview of left-wing proponents of military training , the preparation of their own nation for war is then reduced to mere local homeland defense .
While current military preparations include plans for the military defense of Germany against potential attacks, and civil defense is also receiving renewed attention, this should not be confused with a purely defensive state program. As aspiring European military leaders with global ambitions, Germany is actively pursuing opposing forces against other nations and anticipates corresponding countermeasures. The homeland security measures included in the government's recent initiatives serve to make Germany less vulnerable to blackmail in its own maneuvers against other countries. Therefore, these plans for the defense of Germany's territory should not be confused with the security needs of people currently living in Germany. The German state program anticipates retaliatory measures from other nations, and thus, depending on the course of the war, the potential harm to the people living in Germany is virtually guaranteed.
The two errors of the left-wing proponents of military service are continued in the chorus of opinions on why the German state is better than the Russian state:
Which kind of rule would you like?
The question "To defend Germany or not?" is on the table for many left-liberals and left-wing radicals. Left-wing opponents of rearmament put forward their arguments as to why they would not volunteer for German military service, citing, for example, German asylum policy, the existing poverty in Germany, and similar issues. Left-wing proponents of military service take a different approach: To find an answer, they essentially compare the German form of government and its achievements with that of the perceived enemy. In its most abstract form, this comparison pits the German democracy against an opposing state that is at least on the path to fascism.
“Mense and his new fans from the milieu of reactionary anti-imperialists (…) seem (…) to assume that all people (…) could simply ‘run away’ (Mense) if events like an invasion occur. Those who are unable to do so, they recommend, should submit without a fight to the terror regime of the Russian aggressor, thereby denying the importance that values such as freedom of expression and of the press, as well as a reasonably functioning rule of law, have for their own reasonably comfortable existence in this country.” (Liske) 13
"Even the radical left can no longer avoid such debates, because defending democracy against a far-right threat, currently primarily from Russia, can only be achieved with a conventional army." (Schulz) 14
"The Federal Republic of Germany is also far from a socialist utopia. And yet there is much about society and the constitution worth defending, such as the liberal fundamental rights or the social welfare state mandate in the Basic Law. Especially when the alternative is reactionary Russian mafia capitalism (...)." (Holly) 15
In some discussion contributions, democracy with its freedoms is cited as a condition for the possibility of abolishing capitalism or achieving a "liberated society":
“(...) whether the interest in criticizing the existing order and in political emancipation does not make it necessary to fight for and defend civil liberties.” (Simon) 16
These viewpoints ultimately result in a limited, but nonetheless significant , praise for one's own ruler and its actions , such that they support its national war efforts .
These articles offer several opportunities for critical analysis on different levels, for example:
Firstly, regarding the content : It may well be that some people in Germany have a reasonably comfortable existence (which , by the way, is n't limited to democracies). But is that really the norm in a capitalist society? Was n't there a precedent that capitalism is synonymous with exploitation, and the root cause of all sorts of miserable consequences? Is the welfare state truly a good thing, or does it rather demonstrate that capitalism inevitably and repeatedly produces permanent and widespread poverty? Is freedom of expression really a civilized standard if it consists of the state allowing me to do something I can do perfectly well without it, namely , have an opinion?
Secondly, on a strategic level : Are freedom of expression and freedom of the press truly capable of fundamentally changing society, or are they rather an obligation to refrain from doing so (see, for example, Article 18 of the Basic Law ) ? Wasn't the KPD (Communist Party of Germany) banned in Germany primarily because of the fundamental right to freedom of expression— because it claimed to know what was going on in capitalism ? Is the realistic chance of right-wing extremist parties taking over governments in Germany and France truly rooted in Russian politics, or is it not rather due to Western societies themselves ?
Thirdly, one can also question the speculative construction of the articles : they simply assume that a Russian invasion of Germany would aim to introduce Russian law into Germany, just as they assume that a German society in an active state of war would maintain the current legal order. As a rule, a society preparing for war — and especially when war is being waged — becomes more conservative and authoritarian.
The problem with all these objections to the left-wing proponents of military service, however , is that the discussion threads being discussed increasingly distance oneself from Germany's current measures to improve its military readiness and the practical integration of people into this project.
Some leftists have their subjective reasons for supporting the German rearmament project and confidently saying "yes" to military service (fundamental rights, democracy, welfare state). Right-wing segments of the population, in turn, have their own subjective reasons for supporting the German rearmament project and confidently saying "yes" to military service (sacrifice as a virtue, the return of "true" masculinity, national unity).
These subjective reasons from the left and right are certainly not what the German state, represented by its leading parties and figures, is currently or will be concerned with in the future. And these subjective reasons are irrelevant once you're in military service. This becomes even clearer when you consider the end of basic training: there's the solemn swearing-in ceremony, the oath to which every member of the army is prepared to die and kill for.
“ I pledge to faithfully serve the Federal Republic of Germany and to bravely defend the rights and freedoms of the German people.” 17
Praise is not given for defending one's neighbor/family/ the weak or for upholding specific liberal laws, but rather for reliable service to the German state. The second part of the sentence emphasizes that as a soldier, one is not simply serving a king who lives a life of luxury, but actually the German people. However, "the people" is an abstraction from all real differences in wealth and poverty within society. All people are reduced to a single characteristic: they are subject to a legal system imposed by the state, and it is precisely within this system that people are supposed to find their freedom. And unfortunately, this isn't even untrue: the German state obligates everyone to adhere to the system of property ownership; thus, it obligates everyone to seek their personal advancement while respecting private property; it obligates them to compete for money. This cutthroat competition as a way of life within society is indeed impossible without a state that, as the authority, governs this very competition. In this way, the state relates all people to itself, and people constantly need the state for their competitive efforts. Everything that the state then grants itself against other states, the people are expected to defend as their own, as their freedom.
The people must offer themselves as a means to ensure that the state remains the sovereign authority, and that this is not challenged by foreign sovereigns in their absolute claim over the land and its people. "Freedom of the German people" thus also implies that no other rule than the existing one should govern the people and the territory. The preservation of the German state's sovereignty over the land and its people is vowed and sworn to. From the state's perspective, the "for what" has long been decided: it demands unconditional support for itself in the name of the national collective over which it rules as political power.
To those on the left who prefer to weigh things up, let me say this: In the trenches, you are a representative of Germany, you kill for Germany, and you are killed as a German. You take your false leftist ideals about this society and your distorted perceptions of Russia to the grave, and the carnage on the various battlefields continues.
1 https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/service/newsletter-und-abos/bulletin/regierungserklaerung-von-bundeskanzler-friedrich-merz-2347888
2 Press conference of the Federal Chancellor and the Federal Minister of Defence after the Cabinet meeting on 27.08.2025;
https://www.bundeskanzler.de/bk-de/aktuelles/kanzler-nach-kabinettsitzung-im-bmvg-2381762
3 https://taz.de/Kaempfen-fuer-Deutschland/!6028014/
Note: Conscientious objectors were confronted with similarly simplistic questions well into the 1990s. Anyone who didn't answer such questions by saying that, due to their Christian faith or other esoteric reasons, they wouldn't even save their loved one from a murderous soldier, even if they happened to have a weapon in their hand, was arrested.
4 https://taz.de/Kaempfen-fuer-Deutschland/!6028014/
5 https://taz.de/Kaempfen-fuer-Deutschland/!6028014/
6 Here is a loose selection of quotes from the articles in taz and jungle world: “reactionary Russian mafia capitalism”, “aggressive autocracy”, “terror regime of the Russian aggressor”; in reference to the Russian army: “authoritarian blind obedience”
For a critique of the cultivation of enemy images, see the article “Justifications for War” in the GKN brochure on the war in Ukraine, p. 16:
https://gegen-kapital-und-nation.org/media/wer_frieden_will_web.pdf
Furthermore: Identifying specific reasons for Russia's war is not the same as understanding Russia's military operations. Identifying specific reasons for war helps one understand why they wage war and the underlying motivations for their killings, enabling one to address this issue. For criticism of Russia, see the text:
“Putin declares war: Nationalism in its deadly consequences,” in the brochure on page 30.
7 https://www.dw.com/de/friedrich-merz-will-größere-rolle-deutschlands-in-der-welt/a-73154146
8 German Bundestag Verbatim Report, 214th Session, 18 March 2025; https://dserver.bundestag.de/btp/20/20214.pdf ;
9 See the statement by Defense Minister Pistorius:
https://www.bundeswehr.de/de/auftrag/verteidigung/aufgaben/bundeswehr-litauen-grosse-schritte-deutsche-kampfbrigade
10 https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/service/newsletter-und-abos/bulletin/regierungserklaerung-von-bundeskanzler-friedrich-merz-2347888
11 German Bundestag Verbatim Report, 214th Session, 18 March 2025, p. 277 5 7 ;
https://dserver.bundestag.de/btp/20/20214.pdf ;
12 Merz at the conference of heads of German diplomatic missions abroad, 08.09.2025;
https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/aktuelles/merz-botschafterkonferenz-2383372
13 https://jungle.world/artikel/2025/51/ukraine-krieg-eu-verteidigung-des-kleineren-uebels
14 https://jungle.world/artikel/2025/43/debatte-frieden-rechte-lieber-pirat-als-soldat
15 https://taz.de/Kaempfen-fuer-Deutschland/!6028014/
16 https://jungle.world/artikel/2025/42/ukraine-krieg-russland-debatte-augen-zu-und-aequidistant
Section 9 of the Soldiers Act (SG)
Comments
Post a Comment