Antimilitaristic blogging

To everyone who mistakes my interest in getting the military right with militarism:

It's the opposite, it's antimilitaristic and pacifistic.

The more we get the military right the less we need to spend for it, and the less we need of it (for defence)!
The more we show off that we got the military right the less we need to spend for it, and the less we need of it (for deterrence)!

Germany is in 2nd line now; it's close enough to the Eastern NATO (and EU) frontier to bear the burden of 2nd responder status (effective defence aid to Lithuania and Poland within a week) and far enough from any even only semi-plausible aggressor (there's none) that it could in fact leave NATO.
To leave NATO would break NATO's Eastern Europe security logistically, but it wouldn't free us of our obligations from the EU treaty.

7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States. (...)

Germany isn't going to leave the EU anytime soon, so the only realistic path to minimise the German military budget and the size of the German military in the medium term is in my opinion 'to get the military right'.

Besides, I wouldn't mind getting rid of an entire (German) armed service because I'm convinced that "getting the military right" doesn't require the existence of this armed service.


P.S.: This was not inspired or provoked by any actual feedback. It's merely a description about the framework for all of this. More is here.

2nd P.S.:  I might add that being in favour of collective deterrence and collective defence is actually antimilitaristic as well, since the deterrence and defence needs are distributed on more shoulders in an alliance and thus smaller for us as long as we're allied. Alliance membership is thus a necessary ingredient for minimised military spending and activity once a certain need for deterrence and defence is recognised at all. The widespread perception of NATO as escalating demands or need for military spending comes from its perversion into an intervention club during the 1990's and the involved politicians' and bureaucrats' demands for more funds to play with. An exemplary collective deterrence and defence-only alliance would ceteris paribus guide to smaller military budgets than the members would have without membership.


  1. Don't think pacifism is the right term as you got no issue with defence. Non intervention would be imho more correct.

    Constructive criticism of the military is a very pro military thing, especially when the real life correction of assumptions is long time ago.

    Germany leaving the EU would within 10 years make Germany need an army as nationalism would make a big comeback in Europe.

  2. No, you have a common misunderstanding.
    Radical/absolute pacifism really is what you think pacifism is.
    Moderate pacifism opposes wars of choice and recognised military expenditures and might as having no utility in themselves, deriving utility exclusively by keeping the peace or defending against aggression.



  3. I am always amazed by the level of militarism when I read in the press (US missile defence fueling Polish phobia and Nato sabre rattling…) because Russia could invade the Baltics, as if Russia’s very survival and existence depended on the few square kilometres these states would add to the biggest country on earth. There are absolutely no fact nor proof to support such hypothesis (Russian’s hubris?), quite the opposite (US hubris?).
    As far as militarism is concerned, I could use the ‘caveman’ metaphor, but the official legal statistics and laws (about cousin marriage, and some practices…) actually allow us to ‘legally’ use the term ‘incestuous psychopaths’. Their beliefs that there is no other law and power on Earth above theirs and their perpetual wars overseas have completely made them forget that there is no safe haven on Earth; and that their very homes could become the next battle ground.

    1. Frankly, Russian military involvement in Chechnya and South Ossetia was way above proportion to the non-sentimental importance of these areas to Russia.

    2. I totally agree with you. I am certainly not supporting Russian aggressions of its neighbours. On the other hand Europe does not need to be a battlefield for Russo-American power play.
      10 years of Soviet war Afghanistan (= indirect conflict with USA), 10 years in Chechnya (indirect conflict with USA and Saudi Arabia), as if Chechya was the biggest reserve of oil, gas, diamond, gold… on the planet, only to rebuild it afterward?
      The first Chechen War started as a secular independence war. Dudayev did not ask much and nothing that Chechnya has not obtained anyways. But, drunken Yeltsin and officers response was violent; with one of the highest concentration of conventional weapons on Earth.

      NSA and CIA know to collaborate with FSB and GRU when needed (assassination of Dudayev). The second Chechen war was Russia vs CIA and Saudi funded Chechens, with the introduction of wahhabism, an unknown form of Islam in the Caucasus.
      Russians compete really hard with their American counterparts (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan…).

      In Ukraine, during 2014 Euromaidan, the American ‘advisers’ exposed their support and project to help Ukraine. How did they not know that they were talking in front of FSB agents?
      That’s hilarious. No surprise that Putin immediately snatched Crimea and Ukraine never fought back. After the Memorandum of Budapest, disillusion is high in Ukraine.

      My point is more that, there is no real third way (China, India, Latin America…?) that could mitigate those two powers. It is always a strict bipolar world, ‘either you are with us or you are against us’. And such people rise to power.
      Does one have to be with or against any of them? They are both psychopaths.

    3. I consider them as too playful.

      Maybe it's about time for the EU to invoke its own "Monroe doctrine" with well-defined geographic limitations, defining an area in which American, Russian (and yes, also Chinese, Turkish or Saudi) meddling will provoke non-violent hostility on part of the EU.

    4. Pan European Union?

      "Monroe doctrine" = active (aggressive) defence of sovereignty
      It seems a natural right even codified in Common Law ‘a man’s home is his castle’.

      The EU is an enlarged version of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, with some copy-paste in its functioning. Though, we must recognize that a certain Austrian painter was right about some criticism. Europe would need at least one common language (English seems designated as Esperanto never made it); one trustworthy media source (like Arte?), a nucleus common education… that do not exist yet (i.e. Brexit).

      Yugoslavia was a smaller Austro-Hungarian Empire copy, and contrary to what many believe it did not bloodily collapse because different peoples, with different ethnic/cultural/religious background (genetics proved the differences insignificant) were ‘forced’ to live together in a dictatorship (lack of democracy).
      Czechoslovakia and USSR counted far more different constituent peoples (15 republics + Autonomous Republics + Autonomous Oblasts + Autonomous Okrugs) and were far less democratic than Yugoslavia and never collapse in a Yugoslav kind of bloody war.
      So, people mix + lack of democracy is not = to bloody end.

      American civil war, Spanish civil war, Vietnam war, Korea war, Israel-Palestinian conflict, Iraq civil War in G.W. Bush established freedom and democracy, Scotland independence, Catalan independence… show that the ethnic composition of a territory and the existence (or not) of democracy is not a mathematical formula that can predict an outcome, whether good or bad.

      What do we mean by democracy?
      How many are consciously voting in US elections? When Bernie Sanders tried to democratise the system, he was defeated by African American lobbies that wanted to protect the current system that best fit their electoral representation.
      Is democracy, the 20 lobbies per one deputy in the EU parliament, influencing and pushing for the vote of laws serving best their interests?

      Europe has the potential to become the third way. Why not? Yugoslavia and the Non-Aligned once represented that third way.

      But I do not see how in today’s Europe?
      Intelligence services are the nuclei that protect sovereignty, against external (foreign powers) and internal (including domestic politicians, media, various associations and foundations, cultural and religious centres …) threats.
      In the Russian Federation, imams and priests are FSB agents. In Yugoslavia, UDBA was surveilling people going to churches, mosques and even participating in international sports events. In the so-called democratic countries (like USA, I use this country again because it is one of the most powerful and richest in the world), mass surveillance is so disproportionate, that even Russians, Chinese or North Korea cannot compete for lack of resources.

      We can use the term democracy to make everybody happy (like in the USA), but I am afraid, the very functioning might be as dictated in Common Law ‘a man’s home is his castle’.

    5. The original Monroe doctrine wasn't about protecting one's sovereignty. It was about establishing an exclusive sphere of influence.

      A common language is not essential. Switzerland and Canada do well without. Common political news are more important imo.

  4. Brexit, you might overstate the EU power that is just about to lose one of their most important navies.