Follow us on social

2021-12-06t142001z_1638800396_dpaf211206x99x278320_rtrfipp_4_parties-federalgovernment-coalition-green

Are the hawks taking flight over Berlin?

The elevation of Green Party co-leaders Annalena Baerbock and Robert Habeck to key ministries should trouble restrainers.

Analysis | Europe

Two months after the German federal elections of September 26th, a governing coalition has been formed: Social Democrat Olaf Scholz will succeed Angela Merkel as Chancellor; Christian Lindner of the pro-business Free Democrats will take over the finance ministry; and Green Party co-leader Annalena Baerbock will become foreign minister.

Advocates of realism and restraint should greet this last appointment with dismay. Given Baerbock’s limited foreign policy experience and past statements, including support for arming Ukraine and for humanitarian interventions generally, she may become an obstacle to the policies of detente and strategic autonomy currently being pursued by French president Emmanuel Macron. She may also emerge as an opponent of U.S. president Joe Biden’s stated policy of “stability and predictability” with Russia.

Baerbock, a 40-year-old diplomatic novice, had been the Green Party candidate for chancellor in the German federal election. Worryingly, and in a break with recent German government policy, she has consistently espoused interventionist views that one leftist American magazine has described as a combination of “aloof complacency, ignorance and aggressiveness.”

This stands in contrast to the foreign policy of the outgoing Chancellor Angela Merkel who, back in 2015, helped put the brakes on president Obama’s brief flirtation with the idea of arming Kiev. Merkel has also been an instrumental player in the four-power Normandy format which resulted in the Minsk Protocol. 

In another troubling sign, Baerbock’s Green Party co-leader Robert Habeck, who will serve as German vice chancellor as well as manage the government’s climate and economic and energy ministries, has also been an outspoken supporter of sending arms to Ukraine.

Retired U.S. Army Col. Douglas Macgregor, an expert on U.S.-German relations, tells me that in his view, Baerbock is “a crusader, the type of person you see in Washington all the time, the type that proclaims, ‘I am changing the world. I'm going to make everything new and different.’ And this would be a big break from the past for the German foreign office.”

Macgregor, who was nominated by President Trump to be ambassador to Germany, but ultimately served as senior advisor to the secretary of defense in the final months of the administration, sees a lack of strategic empathy within Baerbock's liberal internationalism. 

According to Macgregor:

 “In the old foreign offices of Germany, people spent a great deal of time trying to understand the interests that shaped behavior in the international environment. They’d ask: What are Russia's interests? What are the interests in Prague? What are the interests in Paris, in London? That's a very different approach to foreign affairs that we've heard from Ms. Baerbock, who seems to have no sense of the interests that drive things in these major capitals. Everything is about reshaping the world to conform to some sort of ideologically pure and good and morally upright picture that always fails in the end, frankly.”

Given the high level of tension between Russia and the West, Baerbock’s moralizing approach seems ill-suited to the moment, not least because it discourages both sides from pursuing diplomacy. And not pursuing diplomacy would seem a grave mistake, given that the balance of power in the region overwhelmingly favors the Russian military. 

According to Macgregor, the Russians “are telling us that unless we are willing to sit down and come to arrangements that recognize the limits of our interests and theirs, which essentially means no more expansion of NATO beyond the current limits in the East, then they are going to take military action.”

This becomes all the more of a concern now that Germany has a new chief diplomat with seemingly little interest in diplomacy. 


Robert Habeck, (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen) designated Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Protection, and Annalena Baerbock, (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen) designated Foreign Minister, speak during the announcement of the results of the Green Party members' ballot on the coalition agreement with the SPD and FDP to form a federal government. With 86 percent of the 71,150 valid votes, the Green Party members were in favor of the joint government program and the appointment of the Green Party cabinet positions decided by the party executive.
Analysis | Europe
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.