In search of a stance on war

Germany, together with its Western partners, is now supplying war tanks to Ukraine.

The day before, I heard an old song and was strangely moved. It said: "When our brothers come, with bombs and guns - then we want to embrace them, then we don't want to fight back." The song is about a fundamentally pacifist attitude and the idea of social defense during occupations and wars. In a nutshell, this means responding to attacks not with armed force, but with refusal, sabotage and upholding one's own values in order to drive the attackers away. Anyone who finds this completely absurd is reminded of the 100th anniversary of the occupation of the Ruhr this year. Nevertheless, of course I understand that the people in Ukraine will find such an idea cynical, and I wouldn't feel any differently if I were them.

But it touches on a sore point - namely one's own attitude to war. At the age of eighteen, I was certain about this. I refused military service with complete conviction and was extremely serious about it: the Bundeswehr should be disbanded, weapons destroyed and man could become man's best friend. I no longer have this attitude today, but I come across it among some of our students. I think it's wrong and naive, but I also find a warm core of humanity and humanitarianism in it that I still like today. As a young man, my Israeli girlfriend confronted me with many questions: Should her grandparents, most of whom did not survive the Holocaust, have been allowed to defend themselves by force of arms? Would their state still exist without defense? Were the Allied troops who fought against Nazi Germany on the right or wrong side of history? My pacifism melted away like sand between my fingers in the debates and various Nazis later helped me unintentionally to differentiate my view of humanity.

Nevertheless, I still have respect for the pacifist idea and its representatives to this day. It is a utopia of humanity, but one that is repeatedly dashed against the rocks of real politics and humanity. That's why I don't think everything the utopians say is wrong: weapons are used in war zones, kill people, cause new suffering and lead to new radicalization and despair. It is a vicious circle that needs to be broken in order to achieve a warm or cold peace. That is why I am still skeptical of all those who call for more and more weapons and for whom every delivery is always too little. At the same time, the Putim regime will not be stopped with roses strewn in its path. So what other paths can lead out of the war?

There is nothing to suggest that Putin will correct his course of his own accord and withdraw his weapons and troops. To believe this would be as naive as helpless pacifism. So what could ways out of the war look like? Several scenarios are conceivable:

Ukraine hopes for a military victory. With the help of Western weapons systems, Russian troops would then be pushed back into Russian territory. The first territorial gains were celebrated with corresponding enthusiasm. They gave hope of victory on the battlefield. This semester, one of the best experts on Eastern Europe, Stefan Meister from the German Council on Foreign Relations, spoke to our students and said that Crimea could play a particularly important role in this. He saw Crimea as a "red line" for Putin and feared the use of nuclear weapons in the event of the reconquest of Crimea by the Ukrainian military. At the latest then we would be dealing with an apocalyptic escalation that neither side wants. However, the history of the First World War shows that the will of the rulers alone is not enough to prevent such a scenario. Sometimes incompetence also leads to disaster.

The counterpart to this would be a military victory for Russian troops. Putin seems to be hoping for this and is possibly looking towards America. Will the next US president also support the supply of weapons to Ukraine? Without the USA, the European states would hardly be in a position to assist Ukraine to the necessary extent. Putin would then have had more staying power and could still achieve his war aims. Ukraine would once again be completely subject to Russian power and would probably mutate into a vassal state whose population would have to flee in order to escape the dictates of the victor.

Both sides are still hoping for one of the two scenarios and there is correspondingly little willingness to enter into serious negotiations. This gives rise to the third scenario: the war simply continues, the destruction and killing continue and both sides provide the necessary supplies on the battlefields. But neither side can really have a serious interest in this either, and this could be a very small chance. Russia is also integrated into international Business Studies and security systems. What is needed here is diplomatic skill and thinking in broader terms. Is there a chance of winning over important third countries to use their influence on Russia in order to achieve peace in Ukraine? These include China, India, Brazil and South Africa. If these states were to use their influence on Russia, for example by receiving concessions from the West in conflicts of interest with the West and offers in the form of economic cooperation or security partnerships, the conflict could move forward. I don't have a master plan with concrete ideas in my pocket. But Russia cannot isolate itself completely, and that could become a ray of hope.

And that would also be the moment when the starting point of the text would become important again. In my opinion, the conflict cannot be won militarily - that applies to both sides. In the end, real peace is not created by weapons, but by words, talks and negotiations. This is about interests and zones of influence and not about morality and dogmatism. Remember: Stalin was at the table in Potsdam and Yalta - now it could be Putin, despite everything. Such talks are not feel-good rounds between friends, but extremely difficult, unpleasant and disgusting. Nevertheless, they are essential in order to create peace. We humans are just as difficult as we could be and not just as we sometimes wish we were in old songs.