The deformation of the Basic Law
In 1994, four years after the merger with the eastern state, a Passage was added that allowed the deployment of armed forces in the international context of peacekeeping or peacemaking measures. The overthrow of legitimate governments and the destruction of sovereign states was not meant by this; in some cases it amounted to this.
Since then, politics has been in a serious crisis of legitimacy. She speaks of peace, but waging wars with intentions she cannot communicate publicly. Regime Change, logistical support for terrorists, airspace surveillance in the event of targeted air strikes, also “threatened” NATO partners, all this is part of the silverware of everyday life that cannot be reconciled either with the spirit of the basic law or with publicly communicated policies.
The fact that the current federal minister of defense has misjudged the direction of the Kotau vis-à-vis the USA fits in with her overall confused Performance. The planned commissioning of fighter jets from Boeing is intended to demonstrate a loyalty to a progressive pathological acting US president and his idea of a flourishing cooperation in NATO.
Both, the minister and NATO simply do not fit in the time. When it is said that the world should become another as quickly as possible, if it includes the existence of people as a perspective, demands new perspectives.
If the basic legal situation, namely the case of threats to the sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Germany, is to be taken seriously, then measures must be discussed that actually serve the National Defense.
All strategic and military considerations must follow this objective. It has to be taken into account that NATO has for decades grown into an expansionist body whose goal is to increasingly threaten third countries beyond its own territories of the USA and Germany. The Vision of driving out potential adversaries to even think about attacking member states could be no stranger to reality than it is now.
If alliances of a military nature, then only with countries that
- are located in the immediate vicinity and
2.likewise, to have nothing to do with the Expansion of their own influence on other countries whose sovereignty is to be destroyed.
The task that arises from this is radically different from the present one. It demands a change of policy and armed forces. Their advantage would be broad support from the population. The goal of national defense is legitimate, the cronyism with the increasing Warlord strategy of the USA no longer finds approval.
New foundations for a change of policy
Clarity and courage would be the entrance to a defense strategy worthy of the name. Walking along the shelves of the gun lobbies and interpreting individual articles in panic is not enough.
The fact that, with the decision for fighter jets, the currently responsible has chosen exactly one type of weapon that will be fully deployed over foreign territories is no coincidence and shows that neither the existing concepts nor the available personnel can form the basis for a change of policy. Which does not mean that both are not possible or do not exist.
It is the same as always in life: you just have to want, then you will also find ways and people who want to tread them.