Thread by @ActuallyHager

In the 🇩🇪 discourse on sending heavy arms to 🇺🇦, political theorist Jürgen #Habermas weighed in through an article in the Süddeutsche today. A quick🧵with a summary and some thoughts in English, for my non-German-speaking colleagues. Original article here: sueddeutsche.de/projekte/artik…

Habermas begins that 77yrs after WWII and somewhat threatened peace, war returned to our doorstep unleashed by 🇷🇺. The war dominates our media in an unprecedented way, and the ‘calculated publicity of an unpredictable war‘ may impress the older gen more than media-native young 1/

Habermas argues that with drastic sanctions against 🇷🇺, 🇩🇪 became party to the war. That is why every military step should consider if it constitutes formal entry/participation in the war by Putin’s definition. As such, there is no space for ‘risky gambling’ in decision-making 2/

Scholz’s careful weighing is justified acc to Habermas; the risk of nuclear war as 🇷🇺-reaction to formal entry to war is untenable, though the West should not be blackmailable. He does not exclude supporting #Ukraine - but only ‘up until to the point of immediate involvement’. 3/

Habermas laments that there is a ‘shrill dispute’ (Meinungskampf) going on in 🇩🇪between ‘morally enraged accusers’ and ‘reserved judicious Government’ . Indignation, shock, and empathy guided short-sighted demands for heavy arms to 🇺🇦. Pacifists now revel in Realism. 4/

He generally critiques #Zelenskyy ‘who understands the power of images’, and his video-speech to the Bundestag as 'moral appeal'. Habermas also alleges the 🇺🇦 twists ‘miscalculations and misdirection of previous governments ‘into moral blackmail’. 5/

So far for the summary. Now there are many things wrong with the 🇩🇪 public discourse on military/war, but I think #Habermas dismissal of Scholz’s critics perfectly mirrors the audacity, willful ignorance, unchecked privilege, and sheer hubris of 🇩🇪/🇪🇺/Western foreign politicy. 6/

The last 77yrs were anything BUT free of war- even for Westerners. #Srebrenica was a genocide we watched happen in the heart of Europe. #Syria #Libya #Yemen are wars fought with and dragged out w/ our very own arms. #Iraq and #Afghanistan were wars of our own making. 7/

It's widely known that Germany is one of the world’s leaders of arms exports (Top 5 in the last years). Many recipients of 🇩🇪 arms being Autocracies either directly involved in war, in anticipation of popular unrest, or actively engaged in it. 8/ sipri.org/research/armam…

If arms exports make us active parties to ongoing conflicts, 🇩🇪 was belligerent and catalyst in countless conflict before this war. But somehow that was never been privy to the same careful moral deliberation. Is it because this time Europeans specifically would pay the price? 9/

🇩🇪's discourse rn is truly disturbing to me. Is war only an impediment to peace if it affects the lives of white Europeans? How far does a conflict have to go until the death of non-Europeans becomes as unacceptable to the West – or worthy of a footnote in such an article? 10/

Sth I need pundits/politicians/theorists to understand is that there is no one-size-fits-all ‘correct’ decision in war. Where foreign involvement may worsen things significantly in one case, it may be immoral and inhumane to stand by and stay out in another case. 11/

And yes, sometimes that can even change in the course of the exact same war. Objectives, operational environment, and the threat to civilian lives can change. Retreat from #Afghanistan shows how today's 'morally right' can be tomorrow's 'disaster'. 12/
theloop.ecpr.eu/counterinsurge…

State-involvement, geopol, 🌍linkage & technology of war changed, even for this ‘conventional’ territorial war. But if we accepted that our traditional definition of war needs amending, why are moral decisions about war still made as if no parameters of warfare changed? 13/

🇩🇪 has a special responsibility because our energy and foreign policy enabled the aggressor of this conflict for years. Under these circumstances, political stalling amounts to passive compliance at best – and active facilitation for Putin at worst. 14/ nytimes.com/2022/04/07/opi…

Sending arms to Ukraine isn't choice between best outcomes - it's a choice between the lesser evil. Sending arms means we might come party to a war we were already involved in to begin with. However, our inaction means that we once again watch war crimes and genocide unfold 15/

Imho, it’s not great that we need to send heavy artillery to 🇺🇦. But I’m certainly more ok with sending arms to an ally wanting to even the playing-field, than sending them to a regime gearing up for repression in peace-time. Thank you for reading! 16/16.