Germany: Only those who practice will be fit for war

March 27, 2024

Linda Loony

According to Defence Minister Boris Pistorius, the Bundeswehr needs to become “fit for war” and the “backbone of deterrence” again. The troops are currently working hard to achieve this.

NATO’s “Steadfast Defender” exercise, which is currently underway, marks the largest military exercise of the Alliance since the end of the Cold War, 35 years ago. The simulation of a conflict scenario with Russia as a potential opponent on the eastern flank is not just an exercise, but serious preparation. According to Bundeswehr estimates, Russia could be ready to wage war against NATO in a few years’ time – and the Alliance wants to prepare for this by demonstrating and practising its own attack capability.

But any outcry among the population and the media seems to have got stuck in the collective throat. There are no large demonstrations against war and armament on the streets, reporting on the exercise and its objectives is limited and very few people are likely to have discussed it at work or with friends. According to a population survey of around 2,200 people, 70% are convinced that Germany must remain a member of NATO and 65% are in favour of the financial commitments to NATO. The Bundeswehr missions on NATO’s eastern flank are also overwhelmingly supported.

However, attitudes towards alliance defence depend heavily on the perception of Russia as a threat to “freedom”, i.e. the extent to which the NATO ideology that this is not an ever sharper inter-imperialist conflict, but a conflict between “democracy” and “autocracy”, catches on. There is no doubt that this narrative is particularly effective in view of Russia’s imperialist aggression and occupation of Ukraine. However, the level of knowledge about the Bundeswehr missions on NATO’s eastern flank itself is rather low (1). Yet the sabres are rattling louder in Europe than they have for a long time.

This article will first provide an overview of NATO’s current Steadfast Defender exercise. This will be followed by a global political categorisation. Finally, the article deals with the question of the programme to which the working class must be won in these times.

Everyone joins in

All 32 NATO member states are taking part in this gigantic exercise. The aim is to practise raising the alarm in the event of an Alliance crisis, to prepare for deployment, to deploy troops to the operational areas and ultimately to “fend off the aggressor in battle” (2). With a strength of 90,000 soldiers, NATO is to demonstrate its effectiveness and at the same time show Russia what consequences an attack on the Alliance’s territory would have. Deterrence is the declared aim on NATO’s eastern flank.

The exercise extends over a period of three months and includes various elements: Grand North, Grand Centre, Grand South and, finally, the Grand Quadriga. The Bundeswehr will not only be operating in Germany, but also in Norway, Poland, Hungary, Romania and Lithuania. This extensive presence makes it clear that this is not just a regional defence exercise, but coordination on an international level.

The deployment of men and material is impressive: around 90,000 soldiers, 50 naval vessels, 80 aircraft and over 1,100 combat vehicles are being mobilised. The Bundeswehr is part of the NATO operation with its Quadriga 24 manoeuvre. Inspector General Carsten Breuer emphasises the importance of Germany as the pivotal point for the defence of Europe (3). Quadriga 24 involves the deployment of military convoys in four partial manoeuvres at different times and is the largest exercise of German land forces since the start of the Russian war of aggression in Ukraine. With 12,000 soldiers, 3,000 vehicles and 30 aircraft, this is a considerable deployment.

The enemy – Russia

A fierce war has been raging in Ukraine for two years now. This has intensified the confrontation between Western imperialism and its Russian adversary to a degree not seen since the end of the Cold War. Although no NATO combat units are directly involved, the Ukrainian armed forces were and are being massively equipped before and during the war. The support includes weapons, logistics, information services and training in modern weapon systems. The equipment supplied comes from Western armies, accompanied by the modernisation of their own arms industry.

Western imperialism has secured moral sovereignty over the war situation in this country: Russia, as an undemocratic, reactionary state, is attacking Ukraine and thus threatening peace, freedom and democracy throughout Europe, while the West is merely acting as a selfless helper. Even if Ukraine’s self-defence against the invasion is justified and it would be wrong to say to the Ukrainian masses that it does not matter whether their country is occupied or not, NATO and the Federal Republic of Germany are concerned with gaining control over as much of Ukraine as possible, securing it as their area of exploitation and investment and expanding NATO itself to the east.

This is therefore also intended to legitimise all of NATO’s rearmament programmes and serves as a propaganda tool for those in power. However, attentive observers will notice that the morality of Western imperialism in condemning despotic governments is quite flexible, as it depends solely on the usefulness of the state in question for the realisation of its own national interests. For example, the EU has fewer problems with allowing the authoritarian state of Turkey to continue its war against the Kurds, as it is holding back masses of refugees who would otherwise potentially seek refuge behind the wall of Fortress Europe. They obviously also have no problem supporting the bombing of Gaza politically and militarily – after all, the Zionist regime is defending Western imperialist interests.

In any case, this supposed moral necessity of defence is much more palatable than openly admitting the fact that both Western and Russian imperialism have always pursued their own geopolitical and therefore economic interests, which are now colliding in the Ukrainian sphere of influence. This means that the conflict is not only about whether Ukraine is an independent state, but is also interwoven with the question of whether it should be a semi-colony of Russia or of the NATO imperialists. In short, Ukraine today is both the scene of a struggle against the Russian invasion and between the rival imperialist powers for the redivision of the world.

The battle for spheres of influence

Since the 1990s, NATO has been pursuing the project of expanding its member states and spheres of influence to the east. The admission of North Macedonia in 2020 represents the final stage in the integration of former “socialist countries” for the time being. Their integration into NATO also includes the permanent stationing of NATO battalions in Eastern Europe, which has been implemented since 2016. At the NATO summit in 2022, it was then decided to significantly increase the number of battalions. In June 2023, Germany pledged to permanently station 4,000 soldiers and their equipment in Lithuania for this project. Around 40,000 NATO soldiers are currently stationed in Eastern Europe.

Russia, in turn, has always seen this as a threat to its own spheres of influence and has also repeatedly called for the military neutrality of countries in Eastern and South-Eastern Europe as “buffer zones” between itself and NATO in response to imminent or potential membership. Here it is clear that Russia, conversely, propagates NATO as an attacker on its sovereignty and security and relies on nationalism as an ideological link. Russia is also responding to these activities with provocative manoeuvres.

This makes it clear that the military mobilisation of Western imperialism is not a direct consequence of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, but rather a continuing necessity in the struggle for spheres of influence. It also becomes clear that even an end to the war in Ukraine would not mean an end to rearmament, because a military capable of war is essential in the competition between imperialist states for the right to exploit their semi-colonies (4).

Preparations for war

With the “war for freedom in Europe”, Western imperialism has an ideological advantage to blame Russia for all the symptoms of crisis felt by the working class and thus to disguise economic attacks on the social achievements of workers as “patriotic” necessities. For example, the leadership of IG Metall, the trade union representing the German defence industry, agreed with this tenor in its position paper on the security and defence industry in January 2024 and underlined its support for the German government’s rearmament goals. The trade union emphasises the jobs gained or retained in this way as an achievement and declares its support for arms exports. The trade union bureaucracy is thus moving completely in line with the German bourgeoisie.

Even the reformist SPD does not oppose the mantra of rearmament, while DIE LINKE does not really know whether it should be in favour of, or against, such a “security policy”. While it still makes a commitment to “peace” at party conferences, parliamentarians and functionaries from the right-wing, “government socialist” wing repeatedly violate these resolutions. In practice, DIE LINKE stands out above all by avoiding the issue of war as much as possible.

However, conflicts have also arisen recently within the ruling class over which of the concessions made to wage earners should be cancelled for the rearmament plans. For example, the SPD had criticised the proposal by FDP leader and Finance Minister Christian Lindner that the special fund for rearmament should be covered by savings in social benefits. But this small rebellion by the reformists should not be misjudged as a true commitment to the working class, because both the SPD and the Greens are in favour of, and are shaping, the current rearmament policy.

Which movement?

According to the population survey cited above, over half of those surveyed last year were still in favour of an increase in the defence budget, an increase in the number of soldiers and the reintroduction of compulsory military service. Only 8% were in favour of reducing defence spending and personnel.

The ideological mobilisation seems to be bearing fruit: Bourgeois workers’ parties such as the SPD and trade union leaders (and to some extent also the Left Party) support the raison d’état and are trying to bind wage earners with short-term economic arguments and by fighting for the supposedly morally “right” goal, i.e. the defence of Western freedom and democracy.

For revolutionary forces, it is important to point out the contradiction between the goals of the bourgeoisie and the objective interests of wage earners, and not just through symbolic actions on the streets. A political and ideological struggle must be waged in the labour movement. The ideological mobilisation must be broken up.

This applies to the labour movement in Russia as well as in the Western imperialist states. This struggle also means breaking with anti-war demands that spring from a pacifist, petty-bourgeois basis. It is not about repeating phrases such as “never again war” or even fuelling the hope that a “European defence architecture” would protect us better than NATO or that the German government would meet our demands.

An anti-war movement that does not go beyond this, or takes the side of an imperial power, ignores the systemic nature of war and is ultimately doomed to failure. Within the framework of class society and the imperialist world order, war is a political means of enforcing the interests of the bourgeoisie. The (misguided) belief that one should only take the “morally” right side of peace in the trial of strength between the great powers and their preparations for war, or ask the government to stop, may deal with the immediate effects of war, but it fails to take the fight to its real roots: the capitalist system.

Proletarian antimilitarism

The programme for the working class must therefore be a consistent proletarian anti-militarism, i.e. a commitment to defeatism in the new Cold War.

The main enemy is not to be seen in an imperialist competitor, but in one’s own country, in one’s own national bourgeoisie. And an immediate goal is to prevent the struggle over Ukraine from escalating into an open global war between the imperialist powers.

In Russia, the working class must fight against the invasion of Ukraine and demand an immediate end to the war and the withdrawal of all Russian troops. Given the autocratic nature of the Putin regime, the struggle for democratic rights, freedom of expression and the release of political prisoners is crucial. This must be combined with the goal of preventing workers from having to bear the costs of the misery and warmongering caused by sanctions. The struggle must be rooted in the workplaces and combine the fight against the war with mass strikes and the expropriation of the oligarchs. In Ukraine, the struggle against the occupation is a justified one, but it must be combined with a political struggle against the reactionary Zelensky government, the false hopes in Western imperialism and for the building of an independent labour movement and revolutionary party.

In the NATO countries, a call must be made for the working class to take a stand against warmongering, rearmament and sanctions, which do not topple a reactionary regime but, in their consequences, harm the Russian working class and, above all, further intensify the imperialist confrontation. The parties of the working class, trade unions and left forces must reject any “national” unity with the Western governments and fight against reactionary laws. A genuine anti-war movement must expose the imperialist interests of Western support for Ukraine. In doing so, revolutionaries must take action against social pacifism and social chauvinism and make the true character of the war clear to the masses.

In perspective, this also means that revolutionary forces must do work in the army, especially in the event of a potential reintroduction of conscription, which would form the army from the broad mass of the working class instead of only from volunteers, as is currently the case. Antimilitarist work among and the organisation of ordinary soldiers and conscripts are steps on the way to the struggle against the militarisation and armament of our own nation.

The expropriation of the arms companies and the associated control over production must be another core demand of the proletarian anti-war movement. At the same time, a proletarian anti-war programme must also propose solutions for the workers of these corporations, i.e. retraining opportunities must be created for those employed there to enable them to change sectors for the same income.

The labour movement needs to change course and the programmatic method described above must be applied to all armed conflicts supported by Western imperialism, such as the war in the Gaza Strip. The creation of an internationalist anti-war movement is the indispensable means of transforming the struggle against the danger of war into a class struggle against the capitalist class.