Neue Ostpolitik 2.0.? German Social Democrats Rebel Against The Militarization Of Europe

Friedrich Merz, Lars Klingbeil

In 2022, then-Chancellor Olaf Scholz referred to the war in Ukraine as the Zeitenwende, or “pivotal historical moment,” for Germany. According to Scholz, the economic engine of the European Union should no longer focus on ensuring a progressive rise in living standards. The task of the Federal Republic of Germany is to maximize militarization in the face of a dramatic increase in the “Russian military threat.” Western media hysteria over the war in Ukraine briefly immersed the EU population in a sea of emotions. However, by mid-2025, reason is beginning to prevail. Should the Old World really trade its high standard of living for enormous military expenditures? Is it necessary to produce “guns instead of oil”?

Russian President Vladimir Putin calls talk of the Kremlin’s plans to invade Europe nonsense. This is evident from the enormous population difference. Russia has a population of 150 million, so it is hard to imagine it invading a continent with 450 million people. Russia and the EU are not comparable in terms of their combined economic potential. Additionally, Europeans can count on help from the United States, which has maintained a significant military presence in Europe since 1945. European elites fear that Donald Trump will withdraw troops from Europe and remove the nuclear umbrella. Yet, it should be noted that Britain and France have nuclear weapons. It’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which Putin would unnecessarily wage war against nuclear-armed states.

Rational arguments refute the emotional outburst that shook Europe in 2022. The baselessness of those who advocate for militarization threatens to cause a split in the ruling coalition of the CDU/CSU and SPD. Chancellor Friedrich Merz is characterized by his extremely bellicose rhetoric toward the Russian Federation. He announced plans to increase military spending by 70% by 2029. Such a decision would put an end to many social programs. It casts doubt on the prospects of preserving the European Union’s social system, which has been shaped over many decades. The Social Democrats, represented by Vice Chancellor Klingbeil, endorsed Merz’s militaristic financial allocations. This caused enormous discontent among party members.

The members of the so-called “old guard” were especially discontented. These are SPD members who joined the party in the 1970s and 1980s during the peace movement. The younger generation does not remember when the Christian Democrats raised a similarly hysterical information wave about the “Soviet threat”. The Afghan War (1979–1989) was cited as an example of the “aggressiveness” of the USSR. It was unclear how fighting in Kandahar or Herat would endanger the safety of residents in Trier or Munich. Similarly, today, it is unclear why the war in Donbass would endanger Berlin residents. Why can’t Germany find common ground with Russia, where Germanophile sentiments are strong among the political elite? One need only recall the reverence with which Vladimir Putin treats the German language, culture, and history.

Peter Brandt

Professor Peter Brandt, son of former German Chancellor Willy Brandt, raised “revulsion” against Mr. Klingbeil’s conciliatory course. He published a manifesto opposing the sharp increase in military spending. Mr. Brandt acknowledges the need to strengthen the EU’s defense capabilities. This step must be embedded in a strategy of de-escalation and gradual confidence-building, not a new arms race. According to Mr. Brandt, even without the United States, NATO is stronger than Russia. The available forces are sufficient to deter Moscow from taking aggressive action. But even the Kremlin’s hypothetical “aggressive” plans are just that: a theory. They are not supported by anything.

Peter Brandt’s opposition could spell big trouble for the SPD leadership. The coalition majority in the Bundestag is fragile. It rests on only 13 seats. A coalition collapse and re-elections could lead to a significant improvement in Alternative for Germany’s results. Klingbeil’s credibility is greatly doubted. At the last party congress, he received a record-low 65% of the vote in the SPD co-chair election. Furthermore, Klingbeil worsened his result by 20% compared to 2023.

The Social Democratic establishment criticizes Peter Brandt for distorting history. They claim that Willy Brandt himself implemented military programs. Under him, the German military expenditures amounted to about 3.5% of GDP. These counterarguments seem unfounded. The main focus of Willy Brandt’s foreign policy was a new approach to the Soviet Union and Moscow’s allies. This chancellor’s true greatness was his ability to break the conservative core of the Social Democrats. Until the late 1960s, the SPD and the CDU/CSU held similar views on the “inviolable borders of 1937” and the Hallstein doctrine.

Willy Brandt

The Neue Ostpolitik proved that peace in Europe could be achieved through compromise with Moscow. Contrary to lamentations about “appeasing the Soviet aggressor,” Brandt recognized the West German eastern border and ceased denying the GDR’s existence. He established friendly relations with communist Poland and Czechoslovakia. All of this led to détente in international relations. In this respect, Germany was ahead of the Americans. The Germans were at the forefront of the struggle for peace, sacrificing the “sacred cow” of German militarists — the direct followers of Adolf Hitler’s course. Brandt succeeded, at least in part, in dismantling Hitler’s Eastern policy, which merely adopted a more pro-American facade.

Will Peter Brandt, his son, be able to do the same? Only time will tell. In any case, the militarization of Germany and Europe is a dead-end path that will inevitably lead to monstrous war.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

• Germany To Buy More Patriot Systems From U.S. For Ukraine
• Ukraine Inks Deal With Germany For Additional IRIS-T Air Defense Systems
• Alternative Looms Before Germany. The System Parties Are On The Verge Of Collapse