Germany Must Be Saved, But €1 Trillion in Debt Isn't the Answer

Berlin’s Russia War Hysteria is Leading to a Path of Self-Destruction

Germans are known for their fiscal conservatism. As a German myself, I have spent my whole conscious life observing the deep-seated concern my countrymen have about public debt. They often confuse personal financial prudence with what is necessary for a modern state and its economy, embodying this mistaken ideal in the character of ‘the Swabian Housewife’.

When admiration for the Swabian Housewife falls short, the cries of ‘Weimar, Weimar’ echo. Germany’s first failed experiment with democracy, the Weimar Republic, met its end partly due to inflation. This narrative claims a destructive hyperinflation weakened the state’s legitimacy from the start, rendering it unable to withstand the pressures of the Great Depression and the rise of the Nazis.

In this misguided interpretation, austerity is seen as a key to preventing inflation and avoiding the disastrous outcomes associated with it — including fascism and the horrors of past wars. Ironically, it was the austerity policies of Weimar's final governments that exacerbated the Great Depression's effects and facilitated the Nazis’ rise to power.

Yet this time, things appear different. In a remarkable shift, German elites across politics, media, and academia have united to embrace significant government spending. This includes amending the constitution, something that historically garners conservative reluctance, to embark on a journey of potentially crippling debt under the guise of preparing for war with Russia.

Germany plans to abandon the so-called debt brake — a restrictive limitation on public debt — for all expenditures labeled ‘defense.’ This encompasses an extensive rearmament program along with military support to Ukraine. Furthermore, the government intends to accrue an additional €500 billion debt over the next 12 years aimed at climate action and infrastructure, with a notable focus on military logistics.

Infrastructure improvements are not just for civilian use; the renovation of Germany’s aging railways and roads is framed as critical for military operations. Once again, a narrative emerges that these upgrades are necessary for deploying forces against Russia, positioning Germany as a central hub for NATO operations.

Additionally, Germany’s individual states are being given the capacity to incur further debt as part of this policy shift. Though the execution of these measures is complex, the overarching outcome is clear: the government has opened the door to approximately a trillion euros or more in new debt.

To some extent, this mirrors a broader trend within the EU and UK, where a collective desire for significant spending to confront Russia is emerging, driven by an erratic governing principle: Rule by permanent emergency. When genuine emergencies are lacking, new ones are manufactured.

However, Berlin's current approach to debt is distinctly German. Despite a long-held fear of inflation stemming from Weimar, the ambition to fund a military buildup reminiscent of Nazi-era policies has somehow silenced those concerns. And, as the Greeks might point out, it was not too long ago that Germany sacrificed itself on the altar of EU Austerity.

The core issue extends beyond ideological inconsistencies and a failure to recognize how such actions may appear to outsiders. The stakes are far greater. Germany genuinely requires an infusion of Keynesian economics — using public debt to rejuvenate its faltering economy. But linking this essential policy to a hysterical war narrative about Russia risks significant economic waste and dangerous repercussions.

These repercussions may manifest as disastrous failures resulting in domestic turmoil or an ill-fated ‘success’ that serves to create the very conflict it aims to prevent.

It is not inherently problematic for Berlin to acknowledge the shortcomings of its military and the necessity for genuine modernization — a fact likely understood even by serious observers in Moscow. However, the way in which German elites have connected rearmament to the situation in Ukraine and their exaggerated rhetoric about the impending war with Russia raises serious concerns.

Moreover, while German businesses could potentially find new opportunities in Ukraine after the conflict, simply funneling money into Kyiv and its corrupt institutions is not a viable strategy. Realistically, Ukraine poses more of a burden than an asset, lacking democratic foundations and plagued by corruption.

Determining the optimal balance between military and civilian spending to stimulate the economy is complex, and there is little doubt that current plans overly favor military expenditures. Since military spending is generally not productive in the conventional sense, there are justified concerns about the effectiveness of these policies. Even the Bundesrechnungshof, Germany’s chief auditing body, has criticized the proposed debt plans as excessive and warned of long-term financial risks.

The current enthusiasm for debt among German leaders is worrying. Industries, including leaders like Joe Kaeser of Siemens, proclaim a return to greatness while not addressing the critical question of ‘back to what?’ Even he acknowledges that the path ahead remains unclear.

Germany is facing a war hysteria exacerbated by an environment of relentless propaganda and alarmist rhetoric about Russia. Media outlets and experts have created a pervasive atmosphere of fear, asserting that conflict is imminent. Criticism of this manufactured panic comes from a marginalized few, highlighting how deeply unhinged public discourse has become.

The situation is troubling, as those in power are perpetuating a narrative that drastically escalates tensions rather than seeking diplomatic resolutions. The discourse surrounding Germany’s military preparedness precludes any rationalization for navigating security through cooperation with Russia, propelling the nation toward another unnecessary conflict.

The manner in which this shift has been implemented raises further issues. While it may have adhered to the letter of the law, it violates the spirit of democracy itself. Political leaders have pushed these changes through with unseemly haste, betraying the electorate’s expressed will.

This undermining of democratic principles has led many Germans to lose faith in traditional party structures. Ironically, the rise of the AfD, Germany’s strongest opposition party, may be one consequence of this disenchantment. The centrists in Germany should not bemoan their circumstances or seek scapegoats when their own decisions have led to diminishing political stability.

Is there any hope for the future? Perhaps. Since the policies initiated will unfold over a decade, much can transpire in that time. German corporations might rebel against the damaging effects of self-defeating sanctions against Russia. The wider geopolitical landscape may shift, leading to changes in German involvement in Ukraine.

Ultimately, Germany is on a perilous path of self-harm, one that history teaches can lead to devastating consequences. There are no assurances that this time will be different.As Germany embarks on this unsettling course, its leaders must confront the real possibility that their current policies are not just misguided but could lead to profound societal and economic destabilization. The drive to confront Russia militarily, based on a combination of fear and historical trauma, could create a climate of panic that stifles rational debate about national security and economic sustainability.

Crucially, the heavy emphasis on military spending—historically associated with nationalistic fervor—risks alienating the German populace. There is a growing disconnect between governmental narratives about defense and the everyday realities many Germans face. Citizens are left wondering why the state is prioritizing military enhancements while issues like housing, education, and healthcare remain underfunded and neglected.

Furthermore, the prospect of increased national debt does not exist in a vacuum. As the government leans toward militarization at the potential expense of critical social services, public discontent could swell. Citizens may not only question the legitimacy of state spending but could also push back against a narrative that casts war as the only solution to complex geopolitical tensions. This could lead to an era of societal polarization, where fears of external threats are pitted against internal calls for accountability and reform.

Another layer worth considering is the international dimension of this policy shift. Allies, particularly in the EU, are watching closely how Germany navigates its new approach. Germany has long been seen as a stabilizing force within Europe, but as it adopts a more aggressive posture, how it balances its relationships with various nations—especially those wary of another German-led military expansion—will be critical.

Compounding these tensions is a global economic landscape in flux. As the world grapples with high inflation and the ripple effects of economic sanctions, Germany’s heavy reliance on debt may backfire if the economy slows or enters a recession. Economic downturns often breed political instability, sparking movements that can challenge the status quo, which could manifest in Germany through extreme political discourse or the rise of populist sentiments.

It is also vital for German leadership to acknowledge that there are multiple facets to the conflict with Russia. The situation is not merely black and white; the history of NATO enlargement, the West's approach to Russia, and the complex webs of dependency, energy, and trade all play significant roles in shaping public perception. Ignoring these factors in favor of militaristic rhetoric could alienate potential allies and leave Germany vulnerable to miscalculation.

To shift the narrative, a more balanced approach that fosters dialogue and reflects on historical lessons could rekindle a sense of stability and unity within Germany. Instead of framing military expenditure purely as a defense mechanism, leaders might explore diplomatic avenues that consider the concerns of both Germany and Russia. By doing so, they could potentially avoid the very conflict they are so fervently preparing for.

In conclusion, as Germany treads down this dangerous path of heightened militarization and national self-harm, it stands at a crossroads. The choices made in the coming years will not only shape Germany’s future but also have far-reaching implications for Europe and global stability. A careful recalibration of priorities, encouraging diplomacy over militarism, and reinvesting in social programs may be essential to avert catastrophe and foster a stronger, more unified Germany—one that learns from its past rather than being defined by it. Time will tell if such a shift is possible, but the stakes have never been higher.

Sophie Wagner for TROIB News

Find more stories on Business, Economy and Finance in TROIB business