Victory, Aftermath, and the Endless Game: Reflections from WWII to Ukraine
May 8, a day in history, marks the end of WWII in Europe with the surrender of Germany , but was it really an ending? As with many wars, especially the ongoing Ukraine and Gaza conflicts, and the renewed animosities between India and Pakistan, one might wonder: have enough people died in wars? Perhaps some wars are justified, but often only after provocation. If you consider the basics of relationship building, communication is a key concept, but there is a difference between communication and simply talking. Perhaps we need more communicators and unified voices in government, whether rooted in realism or liberalism. Are these better choices, or in the end, are NGOs and individual voices the problem after all? We hope that reason will prevail—the only lasting fundamental principle—but is it really, or is it just another cause or excuse?
Reason, the cause of an event or situation , or something that provides an excuse or explanation : War forever, according to this lawyer, yes. The UN Security Council is another voice that only speaks after the war, sometimes fueling the fire. Consider the Oxford Guide to Treaties —are these more sources of conflict than resolution? And historians—well, some of them are just presenting a version of their own vision of the world.
How was Germany rebuilt after WWII ? Was it help on one side, and taking what you can on the other? The USSR suffered greatly and had to rebuild on its own, but why was the offer of the Marshall Plan rejected—was it due to mistrust, as we see today? Perhaps the reset button requires talks among all, but please, let the haters and ideologues out of the room—only communicators and stakeholders should be present, haters out, which probably means no Selinsky.
Beginning immediately after the German surrender and continuing for the next two years, the United States pursued a vigorous program to harvest all technological and scientific know-how, as well as all patents in Germany. John Gimbel comes to the conclusion in his book, Science Technology and Reparations: Exploitation and Plunder in Post-war Germany, that the "intellectual reparations" taken by the U.S. and the UK amounted to close to $10 billion, equivalent to around $150 billion in 2024, [3] [4] concurrent to Operation Paperclip .
The plea for a two-party political system (translation needed) stands in contrast to the idea of a global one-party or multi-party system as seen in European countries. Attempts at a global one-party system were made by the Romans and some other early cultures , but none proved sustainable by force or government—though that was before the advent of modern communications. Would things be different today? There are still forces hoping that may be realized, for global peace or power, as reflected in Elon Musk’s warnings about a single world government, Einstein’s global perspective , and people attempting to establish it, such as government by AI and supercomputer. Compare that to today’s European coalition building —for example, in Germany, Black/Blue coalitions seem politically unfeasible. In multi-party systems, the need to form coalitions to gain power may end in stalemates and concessions to the detriment of the people. Here is an overview of global systems and drivers of globalization.
The ongoing cat-and-mouse game between advocates for peace and war continues as representatives try to negotiate an end to the Ukraine conflict. Does it matter that Europe seems unified in the effort to defeat Russia with sanctions and arms, while the US seems to favor a negotiated peace? You can argue endlessly that Putin is the aggressor and invaded, but he will counter that with claims about NATO expansion and broken treaties by the West.
Is Germany evolving into the powerhouse of Europe, as it should be? After the election and the ousting of Chancellor Scholz, Friedrich Merz has somehow managed to establish himself as the new leader and has immediately begun to exert influence over Europe—at least, that’s what the German “Democrats” are hoping for.
So, when Trump appoints loyalists, it's called a dictatorship, but when Germany does it, it's considered democratic? Also worth noting: another Carnegie piece—and apparently every member of the German Cabinet favors war? Expect
Germany's defense Minister to keep Kaja Kallas as informant, hating in politics is never a good start. Imagine, 5 years to build up the military and then eliminate the hate, for good, using the Ukraine invasion as a reason.
Merz has deliberately centralized foreign and security policy coordination in the chancellery. To start, he has done away with the long-standing tradition of giving the Foreign Office to the main coalition partner, a practice that baked in foreign-policy dysfunction by setting up a separate power base held by a different political party. Now, for the first time since 1966, the chancellor and foreign minister will be from the same party—in this case, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU). New Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul is a party loyalist who will ensure alignment rather than competition with the chancellor.
Within the chancellery—where all important foreign-policy decisions are made—Merz has appointed close confidants to key posts: Jacob Schrot, a trusted trans-Atlanticist, as head of the newly created German National Security Council; veteran diplomat Günter Sautter as foreign-policy lead; and Michael Clauss to handle European Union affairs, which Merz wants to make a core strategic portfolio and to which Clauss brings credibility and experience, including significant work on China.
