I can see how the Stratfor statement could be quite offensive. Although Germany today is unified, prosperous, and strong (as was true in 1939), there are so many relevant differences that the comparison is absurd. Reading the Stratfor article (nice work Joerg getting us a free copy of the article), I don't detect any anti-German rhetoric; the tone seems coldly analytical rather than harshly partisan. I think they offended out of thoughtlessness, not malice.

The main point of the article, that Germany has to make a choice, and for the first time in a while is in a position to make a truly independent choice, is correct.

And here we come to one of the weaknesses of the Realist school of thought. The Realist school suggests that nations have interests, and that in the long run personalities, ideals and ethics don't matter very much. Believers in the realist school are forced to conclude that an independent Germany of today or tomorrow will be inevitably led to behave the way Germany has historically.

Happily, few things are inevitable; realism is only part of the equation; personalities, ideals, and even pure chance are equally important.

How ironic that there have been many attempts on this blog to explain and even minimize (dare I say, justify?) Russian actions, by analyzing them in terms of spheres of influence (a perfect example of the Realist approach)...and yet a fairly straightforward, although sloppy, realist analysis from Stratfor is seen as fear-mongering.

"Rather I just assume that fear mongering is their business model."

And now a brief defense of capitalism. In a capitalist world, the writer and editor's compensation would be tied directly to the number and quality of reader complaints via an independant, for-profit, reputation-based rating service. Sloppy statements, like what Joerg quoted from Stratfor, would literally cost the writer and the editor money. It is the socialist fantasy of lifetime employment, and the unfortunate tendency of consensus-loving technocrats to cover for each other's mistakes, that keep people like that employed :-P

Joerg, since you appear to have a login for Stratfor, have you tried making a complaint?

---

Unfortunately, both socialistic and capitalistic systems use a sort of fear-mongering. The socialists use it to enforce unity and consensus (examples: anonymous experts protect your privacy yet understand you well enough to protect you from dangers you couldn't possibly understand; you need permission to hold a protest; only officially recognized religions are protected). The capitalists use it to brainwash you to buy stuff (examples: "keeping up with the Jones", pervasive and intrusive advertising). It is a problem under both systems; but at least in capitalism, no-one arrests you if you don't buy what they're selling.

"I thought that parts of the realist school have evolved and now accept organizations like the EU and Germany's ties ("constraints") within it."

I am sure some realists -- shall we call them neo-realists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neorealism_(international_relations) ? -- believe this.

However, the pure (or perhaps I should say, classical) realist school now can now pose a perfect dilemma to the neo-realists: Germany has seen fit to ignore its clear obligation under Article V of the NATO treaty to provide for mutual self-defense. The reason given, on this very web site no less, was "the people do not believe it is in our interest". This was Zyme writing, but he seemed to be expressing the consensus. Who can say if, one day, the German people will no longer accept the ties or constraints of the EU, if those ties are no longer in its interest?

A related problem: If the German position is that EU ties have replaced NATO ties, why hasn't Germany begun the process of formally leaving NATO? The classical realist has a perfect answer: staying in NATO permits a security policy of free riding, which is in German's interest. Free riding enhances German's power relative to other states.

Whereas from a neo-realist point of view, free riding is a threat to the theory; free riding will cause other states to ignore their international obligations and constraints, thus disproving a core neorealist assumption (that international ties can and will constrain states in a meaningful, reliable, long-term manner). Free riding permits the traditional realist to dismiss the neo-realist claims of structural constraints as mere propaganda.

Some politicians, like Fischer, understand this problem and have spoken out. But my sense is, Germany withdrawing from NATO is no more realistic than German troops being permitted to actual engage in real combat in Afghanistan (refer to my response to Zyme here, it is still my position that Germany's combat troops are under unrealistic caveats. Although I didn't use the phrase free riding in that post, that is what I was trying to say without being even more offensive that I already was).

As I have said, I am not a realist (traditional or neo-), I don't think it explains all behavior, nor do I think that realism alone produces good foreign policy. Still, I am interested, it is possible, limiting yourself to a realist or neo-realist point of view, to resolve this dilemma?

Zyme,

"Instead, we don't see a major danger at all."

I think you misunderstand the realist concept of relative power. According to my reading of both classical realism and neo-realism, it doesn't matter if the people think there is no threat. A threat could emerge in the future.

A typical country, pursing realism or neo-realism, might decide to commit X percent of current GDP to counter a current threat. A typical country, pursuing realism but faced with no current threat, might decide to commit Y% of GDP, in order to guard against future threats, where Y < X. Under a free rider situation, Germany only has to commit Z% of today's GDP to guard against future threats, where Z < Y. Therefore, the mere fact that the security guarantee exists, enhances Germany's power relative to other states.

A core assumption of realism is, threats always exist on some level, and nations (or "agents", as the theorists prefer to call them) spend resources to guard against those threats. The main difference between realism and neo-realism is, under neo-realism, nations have an additional option of allocating resources (in the form of promises, if not actual funds or equipment) to international "structures", in addition to or instead of traditional security methods.

You ask, why should Germany abandon NATO before the Russian deal is concluded. I though the structural constraint on Germany was supposed to be the EU? Is Germany pursuing a bilateral agreement with Russia outside of the EU framework? That would be big news! Perhaps the Trumpet wasn't so wrong :-)

Perhaps you meant to ask, why should Germany abandon NATO until after the EUFOR or whatever is fully in place? The realist would respond that not just Germany but all of the EU is subject to the free rider problem. Under realism, Russia can't (or shouldn't) attempt to balance Germany or the EU, until the free rider problem is resolved. This is bad news for the US and NATO, but not really a problem for the German classical realist. However, for the neo-realist, Germany's failure to either withdraw from NATO or fully honor its commitments presents an impossible dilemma.

I am a pragmatist, not a realist. I am dwelling on all this because others here claim to be realists, but do not seem to be fully applying the principles of realism or appreciating the implications. I would be happy to be shown the errors in my reasoning.