Defense politician Strack-Zimmermann (FDP) says what he would do differently when it comes to military training for the Bundeswehr – and why Germany should set up a “military academy based on an international model”. He sees one of Pistorius’ main personality traits as the “going to the gardener” mistake.
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, 67, is chair of the Security and Defense Committee in the European Parliament. There he became a board member of the liberal group Renew. In Germany he is a member of the FDP presidium.
WORLD: The Chancellor has ambitions to expand the Bundeswehr into the most powerful conventional army in the EU. How is this goal viewed in Europe – with approval or concern?
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann: Basically, Europeans appreciate Germany spending more money. Neighbors also watched with interest as security policy debates finally took place in the country – about conscription, about volunteer work, about the state of the Bundeswehr. But our partners are still waiting to see if the announcement will be followed by action. The expectation was clear: Germany should take the lead. This was intended as a compliment – but it has not been fulfilled.
WORLD: Is there a uniform perception of the threat from Russia in the EU?
Zimmermann Line: Most people see this threat clearly. The differences occur along party-political lines: right-wing forces consider all this excessive, and some on the left also consider no need for action. But the political center, the Commission, the Parliament – they take this danger very seriously. Currently we have the European Union Commissioner for Defense and Space, the Vice President for Cyberspace and Border Protection, and the High Representative for Foreign Policy. All three come from countries bordering Russia. So the topic has reached the center of Europe. However: Security is still in national hands. Cooperation only emerges if member states trust Brussels and bring to life the military training programs created in the EU.
WORLD: Is Europe currently in a sufficient position to deter Russia militarily?
Zimmermann Line: In any case, Russia is well aware that something is changing here. The mere discussion of collective defense has a dire impact. But the EU is not NATO 2.0. The Alliance remains the backbone of our defense – and is made even stronger by the presence of Finland and Sweden. Both are real assets, Sweden is a team with full defense. Of course, Moscow continues to try to exert its influence – on Hungary, Slovakia and the types of politicians who are more likely to follow Putin’s vote. This shows how much Russia hopes for Europe’s internal weaknesses.
WORLD: There have been calls for better coordination of arms policy in Europe for years. Will this finally happen – or will each country continue to create its own leaders?
Zimmermann Line: The dangers are there, no doubt. In Germany, for example, we are now spending a lot of money without reforming the procurement structure. If we don’t address this at the same time, the impact will be lost. This should not be about serving the national interest, but rather about using the best deals and the best technology. This is exactly what the “European Defense Industrial Programme” is supposed to do, among other things – joint procurement under the supervision of the European Defense Agency, run by the Germans. But this can only work if there is a clear pressure of love and control.
WORLD: The German-French armament project FCAS, a future fighter aircraft, is faltering. Will it fail – and France might be replaced by Sweden?
Zimmermann Line: This is basically an industrial project, but of course we as politicians are paying close attention because it involves a lot of state money. French industry claims a very dominant leadership role, so all parties must follow in its footsteps. This won’t work in the long run. If FCAS fails, there is another alternative: cooperation with Sweden, the UK and Spain. The basic concept is correct, but such a project can only be successful if it is equal. French President Macron is applying pressure, but appears to be losing influence as parts of the industry there politically lean to Le Pen’s right wing. This is dangerous.
WORLD: Defense Minister Boris Pistorius (SPD) has entrusted diplomat Jens Plötner as Foreign Minister to rearm Germany. A good choice?
Zimmermann Line: Answer undiplomatically: I think that’s a mistake. Jens Plötner was one of the people who slowed down tank deliveries to Ukraine in the past and prevented the delivery of Taurus cruise missiles. Making him head of procurement now is like promoting a goat to a gardener. If someone supports Russia’s policy of appeasing and downplaying it for decades, then he is not the right person to lead our arsenal to protect us from Russia. With the best will in the world, I can’t imagine Boris Pistorius being very excited about that.
WORLD: The Union and the SPD have agreed on a new voluntary military service – with the option to reintroduce mandatory military service. As a liberal, can you accept this course?
Zimmermann Line: This plan was prepared at the traffic lights and was initially voluntary. Anyone who should defend Germany should do so out of conviction and not under compulsion. With around 400,000 young men per year, minus those who do not have German passports or have health restrictions, there are about 250,000 young people who are still eligible for military service. If we earn 10 to 15 percent of that revenue, annual increases can be achieved. Currently there is a lot of interest – but the structure is very slow or non-existent. We must be faster, without new bureaucracy.
I also think that it is constitutionally possible to include women on the list of participants. There is no reason to give up half the population. However, the questionnaire that will now be sent is useless.
WORLD: Why is this?
Zimmermann Line: Because it lengthens the process unnecessarily. Instead, data collection should be carried out immediately in schools, vocational schools and training centers. The younger generation must be addressed directly. The attraction doesn’t come from paper, but from a clear offer: scholarships, grants, real prospects.
WORLD: The government is counting on higher salaries and subsidies for driving permits.
Zimmermann Line: But that’s not enough. We need incentives that have long-term effects. For example, a scholarship program or – a proposal from the FDP – a military academy based on an international model. The military must be seen as a professional field that has added value to society.
WORLD: Military academy – what exactly do you mean by that? There are already two Bundeswehr universities.
Zimmermann Line: In many countries – the United States, Israel – there are academies where young people study and at the same time assume military responsibilities. There you can earn a bachelor’s degree in computer science, engineering or economics, apply your knowledge to military research and then apply it to the civilian field. Without military research there would be no GPS, no internet, no microwaves. Germany must invest in human resources and technology, not just equipment. Anyone who commits will receive a practice-oriented study program and can then start their own projects – for example in the field of cyber security, drone technology or AI.
This creates innovation that strengthens defense and the economy. It’s about applied research, technology and economic added value. We must return to framing the military positively – as part of scientific and social development. This also includes German universities which are finally rethinking civil clauses. Anyone who completely separates research from the military will slow down technical innovation.
WORLD: Are voluntary measures truly adequate given the need for personnel? The Bundeswehr has clearly missed its old target of 203,000 troops; now it takes up to 270,000.
Zimmermann Line: Right now I think volunteerism is the way to go. Germany does not have enough young people to enter the job market – we actually have to attract them to the Bundeswehr. But it’s true: it’s not enough to just recruit more people, we also have to rebuild the structure. Too many soldiers spent too much time in barracks and administration.
We need a Bundeswehr that is more mobile, more networked and more visible in society. Maybe in a year we will see that the performance is not as bad as it could be. Then all of us – including us as liberals – must discuss other models given the acute threat.
Political correspondent Thorsten Jungholt has written about the Bundeswehr and security policy for many years.
