By Katharina Discount
The more we talk about the war against Ukraine, the more we hear words like “nuclear war”, “atomic bomb”, “nuclear weapons”, “World War III” † The “use of nuclear weapons” – to say the least – treacherously betrays the semblance of normality. And almost everyone participates. This gradually creates the impression that a nuclear war is ‘controllable’. Politicians thus penetrate the Third World War into the minds of the people – and prepare for it as an acceptable option.
For example, the FDP man [Parti libéral au gouvernement]Michael Theurer [vice-président du groupe parlementaire du FDP au Bundestag]asked about criticism of Chancellor Olaf Scholz on heavy weapons admitted on April 23 on the radio Deutschlandfunk that “the risk of nuclear escalation” also existed. An “escalation”? It sounds even better than ‘Special Op’. As if it was an explanation between roommates about the not cleaned kitchen. Or did the FDP want to refer to the formula “dare more progress” [slogan de la coalition gouvernementale lors de son installation] by this advancing trivialization that claims to be obvious? [L’auteure renvoie à l’analogie entre les termes escalade et progrès.] While such a dialectic of clarification gives itself the appearance of being reasonable, it drags reason into the abyss: always forward, never backward!
Anton Hofreiter’s argument [coprésident de la fraction d’Alliance 90/Les Verts au Bundestag] is also exciting. With typical German self-centeredness, the Olive Green exclaims: If Germany does not immediately supply heavy weapons, it risks a “de facto Third World War”. Note that there are world wars that are simply world wars; and there is the reinforcement of Anton Hofreiter’s real war policy, the “de facto third world war”, which could not be avoided by careful consideration and restraint in the supply of heavy weapons, but only by more weapons. With his bellicose statements, this de facto military expert increases his chances of a post of European Commissioner.
The urge to climb climbs
the public position [voir son entretien dans Der Tagesspiegel du 22 avril] by Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann [présidente de la Commission de la Défense au Bundestag, membre du FPD] for arms deliveries seems equally marked by a neurosis of positioning: “We must not allow ourselves to be permanently influenced by military scenarios”, demands for its part, with all serenity, the falcon of the FDP, after he placed on the wall the military horror scenario of a victorious Russia. Translation: “You wimps should finally stop thinking about the risk of nuclear war”! Faced with such recklessness, shielded by the utmost certainty, it is only a matter of time before the Defense Committee turns into a de facto war committee.
The urge for escalation is also increasing on the internet. We cheerfully set the formulas on fire. The Russian commander-in-chief will “detonate a tactical nuclear bomb anyway,” claims one of them, “as a show of force,” no matter what. It’s written there, on a colored background – like display of power – in bold. And it spreads like those guys who turn down the most reserved people on the subway. Yes, “tactical atomic bomb”, it makes noise! You have to be tough in these times of change, you have to master the conditions! If you want to have your say, you need to talk about war! Anyone who hesitates or worries is a friend of Putin! Fear is just a feeling.
This is how tactical nuclear lanterns obscure discourse and ridicule thinking about security policy, even in language. An arms embargo is more difficult to impose on the people than delivering ‘heavy weapons’, but thinking only in military terms, with ‘human equipment’ spreading strategically, is actually behaving grossly irresponsibly. He who enjoys tactical bombs and slanders any idea of compromise, negotiation and dialogue, fires the atomic bomb more effectively than the most deranged autocrat. (Article published by the weekly magazine the Freitag, Apr 24, 2022; write translation HAS the meeting†
 The author emphasizes a political-discursive process that she qualifies as follows: “How linguistic nuclear weapons are destroying the debate and preparing for a world war”.
 According to The Tagesspiegel of April 21: “The German government currently excludes any direct supply of heavy weapons to Ukraine. This should work through Slovenia, a NATO partner. The German government is preparing a combined exchange for the supply of heavy weapons to Ukraine. According to information published by the German news agency (dpa) on Thursday, April 21, Slovenia, NATO’s eastern partner, is expected to transfer a large number of its T-72 battle tanks to Ukraine and, in exchange, give Germany the Marder armored infantry will receive. vehicle and the Fuchs wheeled main battle tank. The T-72 weapon system, which dates back to Soviet times, is already in use by the Ukrainian army and does not require any significant additional training. According to information from the dpa agency, coming from government circles, Slovenia has also asked Germany for more modern equipment as compensation, including the German Leopard 2 main battle tank, the Boxer wheel tank and the armored vehicle of infantry combat Puma, which will be introduced in Germany. army to replace the Marder, which has been in use for 50 years. (ed.) On this subject, see the article that was published on this site on April 22, 2022.