Gady's "Die Rückkehr des Krieges": A Call for Europe to Confront the Reality of War

Gady's "Die Rückkehr des Krieges": A Call for Europe to Confront the Reality of War

sueddeutsche.de

Gady's "Die Rückkehr des Krieges": A Call for Europe to Confront the Reality of War

Franz-Stefan Gady's "Die Rückkehr des Krieges" contends that new wars in Europe are increasingly probable due to technological miscalculations, geopolitical shifts, and human irrationality, advocating for a paradigm shift in societal understanding of war to prevent future conflicts.

German
Germany
PoliticsRussiaMilitaryGeopoliticsWarEuropeSecurityMilitary Strategy
None
Franz-Stefan GadyVladimir PutinAnne ApplebaumDonald Trump
What are the key factors contributing to the increased likelihood of war in Europe according to Gady's analysis, and what are the most immediate implications?
Franz-Stefan Gady's book, "Die Rückkehr des Krieges," argues that new wars in Europe are more likely due to factors beyond Putin's Russia, including technological miscalculations, geopolitical shifts, and human irrationality. He advocates for a paradigm shift in how society views war, urging a return to considering war as a part of political and societal thinking. This involves understanding war's complexities across different levels (tactical, operational, strategic) and appreciating the role of willpower and morale.
What are the long-term implications of Europe's current approach to war, and what are the critical perspectives that need to be addressed to mitigate future risks?
Gady's work emphasizes the need for a significant societal recalibration regarding war in Europe, moving beyond the current taboo and confronting the implications of modern military technology. This necessitates a reevaluation of military capabilities, resources, and societal preparedness. Failure to do so, he argues, increases the risk of conflict, particularly given existing threats from Russia and China. His analysis suggests future conflicts could be significantly influenced by technological advancements and shifts in global power dynamics.
How does Gady's analysis connect historical examples of warfare to the contemporary geopolitical landscape, and what are the secondary consequences of Europe's insufficient understanding of war?
Gady's analysis connects the increased likelihood of war to the underestimation of human irrationality and emotional factors in political decision-making. He uses historical examples across various eras to demonstrate how these factors have influenced conflicts, highlighting the need to move beyond simplistic views of war. His call for a paradigm shift aims to foster a more realistic and informed approach to national security, addressing the insufficient understanding of war within European societies and politics.

Cognitive Concepts

4/5

Framing Bias

The framing heavily emphasizes the author's perspective, presenting a view of increasing war probability as largely unchallenged. Headlines (not provided in text) could easily reinforce this bias. The introduction directly sets the tone of increased likelihood of war. The focus is on the need for a paradigm shift in accepting the reality of war, rather than exploring paths to peace.

3/5

Language Bias

The author uses strong and evocative language throughout, which could be seen as loaded. For example, phrases like "dangerous despot," "irrationality," and "hybris" carry strong negative connotations and shape reader perception. While this is arguably effective rhetoric, it lacks the neutrality expected in purely objective reporting. More neutral alternatives might include "authoritarian leader," "unpredictability," and "overconfidence."

3/5

Bias by Omission

The text focuses heavily on the author's perspective and arguments, potentially omitting counterarguments or alternative viewpoints on the likelihood of future wars in Europe. There is little discussion of diplomatic solutions or conflict resolution strategies beyond mentioning that they are not the primary focus. The limitations of scope are acknowledged but the potential bias from omission remains.

2/5

False Dichotomy

The text presents a somewhat false dichotomy between understanding war and avoiding it. While preparation is crucial, the implication that only by accepting the possibility of war can we prevent it oversimplifies the complexities of international relations and diplomacy. The text does not thoroughly explore the potential negative consequences of militarization.

Sustainable Development Goals

Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions Positive
Direct Relevance

The article discusses the increasing likelihood of war in Europe and advocates for a paradigm shift in how society views and prepares for conflict. This directly relates to SDG 16, which aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels. By encouraging a more realistic and informed understanding of warfare, the author contributes to strengthening institutions and promoting peace through preparedness and informed policy-making.