During the federal election campaign last year, Robert Habeck called for the delivery of light defense weapons to Ukraine. The majority of his party was angry. When many of those who were angry at the time demanded to hand over heavy weapons after the “beginning of the era”, Habek was rather calm. Yes, it is “right” to hand over heavy equipment now; But we don’t know yet if it’s “good”. This was an important distinction in tone and substance, not a subtle one. Except that it should be the other way around: it remains to be seen if this is true, but for now it is good. If an entire people have the courage to defend themselves against a tyrannical attacker – and this is no less surprising than the attack itself – then it is a primary moral duty, i.e. “good”, not to turn a blind eye to its attacker. cries for help.
It depends on the depth of slack
Of course, the person in need of assistance does not just specify the scope of the assistance. Only the assistant can do this, but please in consultation with the person in need of help, paying close attention to his situation such as a sense of proportion. This includes accepting your losses and risks. The threat of recession is not a sufficient justification to continue to buy raw materials from the aggressor and participate in financing its war. It depends on the depth of slack. According to reputable models of economic calculation, if not infallible, there is likely to be a loss of four to five percent in economic output. Other than that, not everyone will have four to five percent less available assets. Instead, an increase in bankruptcies and unemployment that is difficult to predict and socially unevenly distributed is expected – and this in turn must be weighed against the much greater suffering endured by the people under attack. Social hardships are imminent. yes. But one cannot speak of a general intolerance to such stagnation. When asked what would happen if Russia in particular turned off the oil and gas tap, Habek was remarkably confident. “The lights don’t go out,” he says, while seeing major “social unrest” coming if his government shuts down imports. He fears that she will then be blamed for the losses. The stagnation that Russia inflicts on us can be eased more easily.
When does the arms supplier become a war party?
However, all current arms shipments to Ukraine are subject to the question of when the supplier will become a party to the war. Only when he uses these weapons himself in a war zone? Or even if he trained a war party outside a war zone to use these weapons, which would be a borderline under international law? Or even if the weapons were transported to the war zone? He doesn’t do it with integrity either. However, once one takes sides in a broader or narrower sense, whether according to international law or not, the individual is no longer alone in determining whether one is a party to a war. It may be enough for the other side to view you as a warring party. One should not allow oneself to be limited by such a feeling, and one cannot care. Especially when the other side proves to be an increasingly dictatorial structure in which their decision-making processes have been reduced to a small clique, eventually to a single person, whose state of mind can be decisive as to whether or not they press the nuclear button.
If you want peace, prepare for war
In the most tense case, politics is reduced to the nuances of tact. The more nervous the dictator, the greater the existence of saving face. Leaving the roads open for him doesn’t have to be flabby. You don’t necessarily have to call him a government-level “war criminal,” and you can still work relentlessly to defeat him. Here we can learn something from psychological strategies against hostage takers, which are often astonishingly successful, even if they are not a guarantee of success. The ancient Romans said: It is difficult, and soft in dealing. Her other saying was similarly clever: If you want peace, prepare for war.
This was by no means just a provocative slogan of war. It can mean: If you want to make peace on your own terms, you must first “prepare” for war, that is, to wage war. But it can also mean: If you want to maintain an existing peace, you must have effective weapons at hand, i.e. “ready” in the sense of “ready”, i.e. in case the other side breaks the ceasefire. And thirdly, you must also be willing, that is, mentally prepared, to use these weapons with courage. The latter is the real shocker in Germany. One can see how this desire erupted in Ukraine – and one suspects that it is likely to expire in one’s own country. Defending Europe in the Hindu Kush or in Mali – with special forces making sure that terrorism doesn’t come from there, only raw materials and economic benefits: that’s okay. But do we defend ourselves at home? We are in NATO! It uses nuclear deterrence to ensure that no one attacks us. The war may continue in the Balkans, Africa and Asia. But in North America and Central Europe, that is history. Terror only reminds him of it. In addition to fighting it, there is primarily the struggle for the best high technologies, for sales markets and jobs, which is different from military war, but far from peace, but rather a permanent tribute to the world economic order. People have simply forgotten who is responsible for the “enduring peace in the high-tech West”: the nuclear shield.