Earlier this week, Ulrich Kühn took to these pages to argue that Germans are not free riding on U.S. security provisions, but merely take a different view of security and the way to achieve it. Yet, his arguments are fundamentally flawed and lead to a rather bizarre conclusion. What is more, Kühn fails to even define what it means to free ride.
Kühn argues that the numbers and statistics are not as bad as they might look, pointing to planned increases in defense expenditures. While Germany is planning to spend more on its military, Kühn skips over the fact that its defense budget is now at a mere 1.2 percent of GDP, well below the target of 2 percent set and agreed to by NATO members. Germany will remain well below the 2 percent target for many years to come. In fact, Berlin could not spend 2 percent of GDP on defense even if it wanted to, simply because it would not know what to buy. This is not a reflection of its investment acumen, but rather an expression of how rapidly and substantially Germany has cut its armed forces since the end of the Cold War. Re-establishing capabilities is an incredibly costly and time-consuming endeavor. In the same vein, Kühn wants us to believe that selling weapons to our allies is an expression of solidarity, whereas in reality it is simply good business. Or would Kühn seriously argue that German arms sales to Saudi Arabia and Indonesia are an expression of German commitment to their security interests? Obviously not. The simple fact remains that even if Germany were to muster the political will to defend the alliance, its armed forces are not in a position to do so.
Kühn is taking things a step further when he argues that Germany’s approach to security is fundamentally different from that of the United States: Where Washington relies on “boots on the ground,” Berlin prefers multilateral initiatives and conflict mediation. The wisdom of this approach, Kühn argues, is now followed by the Obama administration. But this is a cliché, which reflects German navel-gazing more than the realities of international politics. The Bush administration tried multilateral diplomacy in hoping to defuse the North Korean nuclear issue and reached out to Russia after 9/11. The Bush administration opened a new diplomatic era in its relations with Vietnam and was the first to introduce a real U.S. strategy into Sub-Saharan Africa. That does not square with the almost comical image the Bush administration has in Germany. But the fact that so many Germans, and apparently so many German scholars, follow a ridiculous black-and-white approach in interpreting U.S. foreign policy is a problem in itself, and not an indication of the extent of Germany’s soft power (if anything, it shows a remarkable lack of it). Put differently, it is a meaningless stereotype to argue that the United States is good at doing the fighting, whereas Germany excels at diplomacy and development cooperation.
What about Germany’s actual diplomatic efforts in the current war between Russia and Ukraine? Kühn is right to point out that Berlin has taken a leading role in trying to end Russia’s aggression or at least limit the Kremlin’s meddling in Ukraine. However, it is at least a slight misrepresentation of recent history for him to argue that Germany took the lead in implementing sanctions after the annexation of Crimea. In reality, tougher sanctions were only implemented after the downing of the Malaysian airliner, months after the annexation of Crimea. With some imagination, this could be called an act of real decisiveness, but the delay reflects the reluctance with which Germany is coming to understand the systemic nature of the confrontation with Russia. In fact, the impact of the sanctions pale in comparison to the pain Russia has endured due to Saudi oil policy. Moreover, calling the Minsk ceasefires “shaky” has an almost comical ring to it. None of the ceasefires were ever adhered to, no matter how hard Germany pushed for them. But this is partly Germany’s own fault. It was Berlin that pushed the Ukrainians to accept an OSCE monitoring mission and not a European Union one, as Kiev preferred. Since Russia is an OSCE member, Berlin has in essence pushed for the fox to guard the henhouse with predictable results. Listening to Germany’s foreign minister, one would be forgiven for thinking that Frank-Walter Steinmeier still believes that the crisis is largely an atmospheric one, a result of miscommunication; it is Steinmeier who is lobbying for Russia to be re-admitted to the G7, even though Russia’s war in Ukraine continues unabated. And if you think Germany has begun re-examining it policies vis-à-vis Russia, think again. Its modernization partnership with Russia is an utter failure, but do not expect the Foreign Office to admit that.
All of that brings us to Kühn’s opening: the Pew poll. The pollsters found that some 58 percent of Germans think that the country should not rush to defend a NATO ally militarily against a Russian aggression, compared to the United States, where 56 percent think the country should. He is right in that the questions put forward by the pollsters were not adequately framed, yet the result still merits attention. After all, the very same questions were put to other European audiences as well, with starkly different results. Are we really to believe that this is because average Germans understand the minutiae of Article V better than their European contemporaries?
The Pew poll results, moreover, are not even surprising. Anyone who has followed the domestic debate on German foreign policy has to realize that a substantial part of the German public would like the country to be a big Switzerland. Engaged on the world stage? Sure. But showing teeth? Not so much. The real question, one that Kühn failed to ask, is what exactly is free riding? If it were to mean that Germany does absolutely, positively nothing to contribute to European defense, then Kühn would be correct: Germany is not free riding. It is, after all, doing something. If, however, free riding is meant as continuously and substantially underperforming and not spending the resources that the country could afford and would be sufficient to meet the challenge Europe faces, with an implicit understanding that if push comes to shove, the Americans would show up — well, than yes, Germany is free riding. It would indeed be reassuring to know that the Germans regard war as the failure of politics, not its continuation — if only the world would be a better place.
Dustin Dehez is Managing partner at Manatee Global Advisors, an international strategy consultancy. He is a member of the Young Atlanticist Working Group of the Atlantic Council of the United States and the Young Foreign Policy Working Group of the Konrad-Adenauer-Foundation. His first book, Kalter Kaffee in Tiflis, was published by Random House in 2013 in Germany. Follow him on twitter @dustindehez.
Photo credit: U.S. Army Europe
Mike Jacobson 
48repins 
Carl 
Jaap 
strategicservice 
Carl 
Mark T 
All great points and true. However, two counter-points for the author to consider.
1-Germany has developed and fielded some of the most advanced ground force weapons system in the world today. Everything from individual rifleman weapons and technology, to smart artillery munitions, to highly advanced base defense systems, highly advanced main-battle tank and infantry fighting vehicle. They may not be fielding them in huge numbers, but they have maintained their industrial base through strategic foreign military sales and if need be can ramp up and field a force to overmatch any land-based foe they may encounter.
2-German per capita defense spending is low. But German credit to fellow European states is incredibly high, higher than any other nation, anywhere. Providing financial support and credit to Europe plays much more to European stability than huge investments in idle military formations.
Combining these two points, Germany’s strategy is incredibly subtle and effective…They are certainly NOT free-riders.
Defense inherently is not a business, but a sense that let us to survive the perils of this world, especially in Europe. I know…too many years of war into the country, lots of destruction…who wants more of this mess? Sure, nobody; they are tired and enjoying a good economic position. But let’s go to reality: America can help Europe to survive but she is not his caretaker; we have our own internal problems to resolve. Then, who is going to take care of the Germans in case the bear decides to advance to the West? Good question. From my part I prefer to move all the military infrastructure to Poland and not let a single pin inside Germany, Forget JFK “I am a Berliner” because it doesn’t work anymore, there were another times: Now they are enough strong to defend by themselves, so why to spend any single dollar in the defense of a country that is “enclosed” like a snail in its own shell? It really is a waste to our suffering coffers. To finish: Yes they are free riders…with our money.
Yes German has some very good Military equipment. But likes the will to deploy them, in the countries within NATO Europe, as well as elsewhere. I do under why Germany as whole is reluctant, do to past history. Two world Wars under your belt, is not something to be proud of. But it is the past, and we are here in the present moment, with many security issues. It is great that your are helping your neighbors finically, and big responsibility. But it is time for Europe to Unite, and take care of your collective commitments and security in Europe and abroad. Leadership is what Europe, needs, and Germany is in the position to do so.
I like to ask a question. Why does a Lion eat a deer? Because then can, and a lion is not deer. Europe is a deer to the Russians, and many others through out the world. Time to be a lion, and let the other lions know, you are no deer. Pacifism is great ideology, but in this dog eat dog world. The will and the means to defend yourself is as important, as the Ideology of Pacifism. Both can create Peace in the world, if correctly applied at the right time. No one wants war, accept the ones that think they can win. Time for Europe to keep their pacifism, intact, but there is an old American Saying. Make love not War, but be prepared for both. Europe is not prepared to defend themselves, mainly because the Yanks are going type of attitude. How can Europe be secure, if Germany and others are unwilling to defend others within NATO, in particular within Europe. The EU Has over 500 Million people, with great industrial power. It’s time for Europe to step up, and meet these challengers head on. Meet your commitments of NATO, or see the will of the American people in the defense of Europe Change. To the Yanks may not becoming. Burden sharing is needed, and a governments primary Role is to provide protection of its citizens. I believe Europe has forgotten exactly that. Maybe because, Americans are too willing to pick up the slack of other nations. Or Europe is unwilling, for real commitment under extreme circumstance. That is Europe weakness, and why Russia does not take Europe seriously. Good Luck, you will need it.
Europeans and Germans especially know what real war means. Americans do not and are therefore much more triggerhappy. Also Americans are much more in depth than European Countries and so buy their weaponry on credit or printing extra dollars. The value decreases (inflation) of the dollar is being paid by everyone who have dollars so Americans are not paying what they think they are paying…. Europeans, Asians, Chinese are paying part of the bill.
Yes Europeans Know world War very well, but you guys keep on making the same mistake over and over again and again. From American prospective, the lack of being involved has caused world wars. That part of the reason we do want we do. Europe learned from world War I, that alliances has gotten them into War. But WWII, was the lack of alliance, and commitment to an alliance that could have stop WWII, early on, not meeting their commitments to Poland in world war II. Are we doing it again?
Oh as far as everyone, paying for defense of Europe, through inflated U.S Dollars. Who hold’s the majority of their assets in Dollars? The United States Citizens. How about using your own currency, this time, and meet your commitment in NATO. If not, you maybe on your own in the future. Exactly what Europe wished for or is it, I get confused, you love us when need us and then you hate us, when you think you don’t. Which is it? Our US Dollar, inflation included. Time for Europe to truly defend Europe, and let The Euro take the hit, on printing money to meet your commitments of your own security. Try it , your turn, to devalue your Currency for your own security and try it world wide. Your logic, is illogical and smells of a free rider. Oh it’s not just money, we are talking about, how about putting your own lives on the line, for change. Protect Poland and NATO members, all NATO member or go it alone. Americans are Questioning, Why defend Europe, if they will not defend themselves? Or is it that Germany, has already made their deal with the devil, again on Ukraine this time around. Like what they did during WW II, with Poland, wasn’t it with Russia too?
“Europeans and Germans especially know what real war means. Americans do not and are therefore much more triggerhappy.”
This is by far the most inane thing I have ever read in the normally intelligent comments that appear on this website.
No, the difference between Americans and Germans on security matters is that Germans are very familiar with the consequences of defeat, and now believe that the best way to avoid defeat is to never fight in the first place. This is the logical leap that undergirds the ideology called pacifism. For a good example of the opposite viewpoint, look at Poland: Poland has been ripped apart and put back together more times than historians are capable of counting, and very clearly understands that the best way to avoid defeat is to both possess the capabilility and will to defend itself.
The author is absolutely right in assessing that a great many Germans, and possibly most Germans, wish to be a big Switzerland. They thoroughly understand (correctly) that war will only bring suffering. The problem that this is not the way the world appears to work. Pacifism and unilateral disarmament played no clear role in preventing war between the US and Soviet Union – deterrence did.
Pacifism is great, the Ideology the world needs. But here’s the problem, not all countries are pacifist and people too. Is a police officer, a pacifist, can he or she enjoy pacifism as a rule or means, all the time. Especially when there are Murders rapist, etc. in the world. Is it possible, that a Pacifist citizen may need protection, from person or country that brakes the law? When does a person or country have right to protect themselves? who decides, those laws? The UN, the nation, the people? Is there ever any reason to go to War? War is Defeat, in one way or another. Mankind has reached a level of warfare, that makes it nearly impossible for rational minded people to contemplate War, especial Nuclear War. But here is the problems, there are always people that will think irrational or illogical. Or sometimes just instinct to destroy for some. Can you admit even a pacifist Nation, requires there own active, and willing Police, Military to defend your Right to be Pacifist. Switzerland was not a pacifist nation, they were the bankers of Hitler. Don’t mistake cowardice for Pacifism, its not the same. Your right unilateral disarmament usually does not work. Take for example the unilateral disarmament of United states Tactical nukes, used on the battlefield. Did not reduce Soviet, and Now Russian Tactical Nukes. I do Agree, the best way to win a war, is not to play the game, go to war. But at the same time, the perception of weakness, may it be real or not, can and does create war. As well as the other way around.
Have you every looked at it this way? America, had to be and act Trigger happy in order to prevent world war? Most likely not. A lot of European views of the United States, is limited, by their view from Europe. As is Mine, From the United States, view point.
You talk as if Poland Fault, that Germany invaded Poland, and the soviet Union. Or was it because, they the Polish were considered easy pickings for Germany and the soviet Union, because of Military weakness. But that is a different time, then now. Or is it, Ukraine. Hmm protecting the Russian speak people, or was it German speaking people. Wait, that was Hitler, Right…. It sure sounds the same to me. Oh yeah France and Britain were suppose to protect Poland. Hmm, or is it Ukraine. Dam, they all sound alike. Don’t they, something happen in the past, isn’t happening now, Again. ? So how do Europe deal with it? Oh that’s right, they don’t! Or will they
In Truth all of NATO, is free riding on the United States Protective umbrella; and has been for almost 70 years. Why do you think Russia is acting up? Putin knows that NATO EUROPE, IS DIVIDED, and unable, or should I say unwilling to really stand up to him. Everyone expects United States come running in, the yanks are coming. It’s Time for Europe to stand on their own two feet, and take care of Europe security. Stop expanding the EU, and accepting new members under the NATO Umbrella of security. Or should I say United States Umbrella of Security. You guys got us into two world wars, are you looking for a third? Do you ever Think, us Yanks are getting tired of doing it alone. With all do respect for my richer cousins across the pond. Does it make sense that a Nation of 320 Million or so, pay for the lion share in Blood Sweat and Tears, for over 500 Million people in the Eu etc, Come on, it time folks, to Unite Europe and stop using the eastern block countries as your personal crumple zone on the European Car. Meet Your Commitments to NATO, or you could be on your own, as one by one they get eaten by the lion, at your neighbor’s front door. You can be next! Or do you make a deal, like with Poland in WWII. Folks History is repeating itself, here and now. I know that Europe Looks at alliances as what caused WWI. But the lack of Alliances caused WWII. American prospective on world history is different then Europe. That is part of the Reason, we do what we do. Think about. We do have our hands full, how about helping yourself and us for a change. Most Likely not, because if you wont help an NATO member in Europe. Why would you Help United states if we were attacked. NATO IS DYING, AND PUTIN KNOWS IT!!! You got what you wished for! Americans are questioning, why should we defend Europe. Maybe we should make a deal with Russia. NOT!, that difference between American and European. Grow up, Pissed of cousin here, an American, and Grow a pair, and protect your Families and loved ones. If you don’t who will?
“In Truth all of NATO, is free riding on the United States Protective umbrella; and has been for almost 70 years.”
But isn’t that precisely what the architects of the postwar ‘Bretton Woods’ reality wanted; that our allies would all be dependent on us as a world power and in return they could all sell their goods into a single vast common market with the US as a ‘buyer of last resort’ ensuring the continued existence of that new economic reality by protecting free and open trade and transit with our worldwide navy and other military forces.
Yes your absolutely correct, it started in World War I. But took off in World War II, after United States abandoned it’s Isolationist policies, towards world affairs. Realizing, our inaction in the beginning of Both world Wars, contributed to extension to these Wars. All of it, was mainly enacted after world war II. Because of reconstruction effete in Europe and abroad. Forgiveness of Debts,for European countries, Etc. Europe Has Rebuilt, and is ready to take on their responsibilities, along time ago. Will they today?
United States Broke it’s promise, moving away from the Gold standards in the 1970’s, Remember it well Nixon. Our Debt from Various wars, Vietnam in particular, caused it.
In the early 1950, The European Union was established. As time went on, it became more as a counter balance to the United States economy and eventually to replace the United States as reserve Currency. Currency wars have been going on, and are still being waged. At the same time United states provided the lion share of the defense of Europe and the world.
You talk of the world paying for the Defense of Europe and the world by inflation effect of U.S Dollars. To some extent that True. But What you forget is Who Holds most Assets in United States Dollar is United States Citizens. We are not just talking about Money, how about lives, blood sweat and Tears,
I will go into it further but I don’t have the time right now. But hear is the bottom line, United States Should not be doing this alone, we Have been for along time. The Threat that the would has today needs to be met together. If Countries in NATO, do not pick up there far share in Blood Sweat, and National treasures. A Change of Heart will occur, in the United States, and the Yanks may not be coming this time around. Europe has the means and resources to defend Europe, and they have had, it for a very long time. Europe Wants to be a player on the international Stage, but they want there security to be paid for by another, United States. Not going to Happen in the future. There is a huge turn around coming, and you see the effects world wide. We are pulling Back, and most likely head towards Self imposed Isolationism. You see it, in the News head lines. What we have today are not Allies, but dependents. Europe Needs to do some self examination, in there motives. Americans are Catching on, and realizing and questioning, is Europe our friend and ally. Really. Russia and China see it, and there is a lot of maneuvering in world politics, and alliances are changing. Free Trade is not Free, in Europe, and the world is going back towards protectionism. I know this as a fact, 35 years in International Trade business.