No Strategy, Please, We’re German – The Eight Elements That Shaped German Strategic Culture | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

{
  "authors": [
    "Jan Techau"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Europe"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Europe"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

In The Media

Carnegie Europe

No Strategy, Please, We’re German – The Eight Elements That Shaped German Strategic Culture

While the German government's policies on foreign and security issues may seem inconsistent, a closer look at the country’s strategic culture may shed light on its role as a foreign policy player.

By Jan Techau

Published on May 1, 2011

Source: NATO Defense College

No Strategy, Please, We’re German – The Eight ElemAs Germany has entered its third post-unification decade, questions about where it stands as a foreign policy player and as a leader in Europe abound. German government policies on foreign and security issues seem to be inconsistent and hard to classify. Most observers seem to agree that the foreign policy posture of the country has changed since 1990. Some say it has only changed fairly recently. But into what it has changed to seems to be less clear. Studies and articles trying to assess the country’s courses are numerous. Almost all of them focus on German positions, actions and the motivations of the government’s leading personnel.

Another way, however, of assessing a country as a foreign policy player is to look at its strategic culture, i.e. the long-term “soft” factors shaping foreign policy, defense and strategic decisions. This article will attempt to define, if not “the” strategic culture as such, at least some of the decisive factors shaping this culture as it currently prevails in Germany. It will attempt to provide an additional tool for analysts and political practitioners to better understand the positions and the behaviour of a country with a very special past and a crucial role for the future of Europe.

About the Author

Jan Techau

Director, Europe Team, Eurasia Group

Techau is director with Eurasia Group's Europe team, covering Germany and European security from Berlin. Previously, he was director of Carnegie Europe.

Recent Work

Commentary
Can Europe Trust the United States Again?
- Nathalie Tocci, Jan Techau
Commentary
Pre-Reformation Europe and the Coming Schism
- Jan Techau

Foreign Policy Europe

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Article
Continental Asia and the Rise of Portfolio Politics
“Central Asia” as an analytical category is itself part of the problem. The term is a Soviet administrative inheritance, drawn along lines that served the convenience of Moscow. The Central Asian states the Soviets named no longer see themselves through this category alone and are not aligning across political blocs but are instead building external partnerships sector by sector, assigning different partners to different functions.
Jennifer B. Murtazashvili
Commentary
Emissary
Trump and Xi Should Tackle a Previously Impossible AI Conversation
Previous dialogues ended in failure. This time could be different.
Scott Singer
Commentary
Emissary
“China Doesn’t Do Anything for Free”
Why the outcomes of the U.S.-China meetings may be limited.

Aaron David Miller, David Rennie
Commentary
Carnegie Politika
As Trump Threatens to Quit NATO, the Baltic States Are Playing for Time
Governments in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania want to ensure that a U.S. military withdrawal would not leave them dangerously exposed to a Russian attack.
Sergejs Potapkins
Commentary
Strategic Europe
How the EU Can Become Energy Independent
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has triggered a global energy crisis, but Europe is stuck in reaction mode. Without more strategic foresight, the EU will remain dependent on fossil fuels and will never be truly secure.
Milo McBride, Pauline Gerard

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Article

Continental Asia and the Rise of Portfolio Politics

“Central Asia” as an analytical category is itself part of the problem. The term is a Soviet administrative inheritance, drawn along lines that served the convenience of Moscow. The Central Asian states the Soviets named no longer see themselves through this category alone and are not aligning across political blocs but are instead building external partnerships sector by sector, assigning different partners to different functions.

Jennifer B. Murtazashvili

Tiananmen Gate with US and Chinese flags

Commentary

Emissary

Trump and Xi Should Tackle a Previously Impossible AI Conversation

Previous dialogues ended in failure. This time could be different.

Scott Singer

Trump and others walking down a red carpet, with Air Force One in the background

Commentary

Emissary

“China Doesn’t Do Anything for Free”

Why the outcomes of the U.S.-China meetings may be limited.

Aaron David Miller, David Rennie

Commentary

Carnegie Politika

As Trump Threatens to Quit NATO, the Baltic States Are Playing for Time

Governments in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania want to ensure that a U.S. military withdrawal would not leave them dangerously exposed to a Russian attack.

Sergejs Potapkins

Commentary

Strategic Europe

How the EU Can Become Energy Independent

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has triggered a global energy crisis, but Europe is stuck in reaction mode. Without more strategic foresight, the EU will remain dependent on fossil fuels and will never be truly secure.

Milo McBride, Pauline Gerard