The Perilous Shift: Why Diplomacy Must Return to a World Embracing Militarization

As conflicts erupt across the globe, a dangerous reliance on military force is overshadowing diplomatic solutions. Professor Johannes Varwick, an expert in international security, warns that this trend represents the most precarious international situation since World War II, demanding a return to rational security policies and a renewed commitment to diplomacy and arms control.

The Decline of Diplomacy

Professor Varwick observes a concerning trend: the prioritization of military intervention over diplomatic negotiation. “We are living through a phase of international politics in which there is a very one-sided reliance on military force, as if political problems could be solved with bombs and missiles,” he states. While acknowledging the importance of defense capabilities, he cautions against the normalization of war as the primary means of resolving political conflicts.

A World on the Brink?

The current geopolitical landscape is characterized by interconnected crises, from the ongoing conflicts in Iran and Ukraine to the looming potential for conflict between China and the United States. Varwick refrains from alarmism but asserts that the situation is “undoubtedly…the most dangerous international situation since the end of the Second World War.” He emphasizes that wars are not inevitable, but rather are “made – and therefore they can and must be ended.”

Questionable Justifications for Military Action

Examining the lead-up to potential military action against Iran, Varwick points to inconsistencies in official narratives. He highlights the contradiction between claims in the summer of 2025 that Iran’s nuclear program had been disabled by “Operation Midnight Hammer” and subsequent assertions that military action was necessary due to the renewed threat. This discrepancy suggests a potential lack of genuine commitment to exhausting all diplomatic avenues, with Israel, supported by the US, potentially seeking to reshape the Middle East through force.

The Risks of Escalation and Proliferation

Varwick warns that military intervention in Iran carries significant risks, including the potential for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons, prompting a regional arms race involving Turkey and Saudi Arabia. He argues that continued militarization will not lead to a stable order, but rather push the world “on the brink.”

Germany’s Misguided Security Policy

Professor Varwick criticizes Germany’s current security policy trajectory, describing it as a “disastrous wrong path.” While acknowledging the legitimacy of condemning Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, he believes Germany’s response has been excessive and alarmist. The pursuit of “war capability,” he argues, has abandoned the crucial middle ground of a rational security policy.

The Case for Restraint and Arms Control

Varwick advocates for a return to a more moderate and rational security policy, emphasizing defense capability rather than a relentless pursuit of war readiness. He cautions against the notion that Germany must become a “predator” to survive in a world perceived as dangerous. He suggests that the proposed increase in military spending to 5% of GDP is an “armaments orgy” that would divert resources from essential infrastructure and social programs.

Reassessing the Threat from Russia

Varwick challenges the prevailing narrative of an imminent Russian attack on NATO territory, noting the disparity between claims of Russia’s aggressive intentions and its limited military successes in Ukraine. He argues that security policy should focus on assessing both capabilities and intentions, and that NATO’s significant military superiority over Russia is often downplayed.

A New Strategy for Ukraine

Varwick proposes a shift in the approach to the Ukraine war, advocating for a more realistic assessment of the situation and a willingness to explore compromise. He suggests that a potential solution could involve Ukraine relinquishing its NATO membership aspirations in exchange for security guarantees and limited territorial concessions. He believes the Americans understand this, and Russia would likely engage in negotiations.

The Importance of Antagonistic Cooperation

Drawing lessons from the Cold War, Varwick emphasizes the principle of “antagonistic cooperation,” arguing that even adversaries must maintain a minimum level of stability and communication. He acknowledges that a stable relationship with Russia is unlikely in the foreseeable future, but stresses the need to avoid escalation and prevent a potential nuclear conflict.

The Future of European Security

Varwick believes that Europe must take greater responsibility for its own security, recognizing that the United States is no longer a reliable guarantor. He envisions a future where a unified European security and defense policy could leverage the continent’s economic strength to create a significant military force.

Professor Varwick’s analysis serves as a stark warning against the dangers of unchecked militarization and a compelling call for a renewed commitment to diplomacy, arms control, and rational security policies. The path forward, he argues, lies not in escalating conflicts, but in seeking pragmatic solutions that prioritize stability and prevent a descent into a wider, more devastating war.