Why is Germany's rearmament frightening?

The recent announcement of Germany's accelerated rearmament has brought back to the center of international debate a question that Europe preferred not to revisit: to what extent do more weapons produce more peace – and when do they begin to produce exactly the opposite? In the German case, this question takes on a historical, political, and symbolic weight that no other European country possesses.

Since 1945, Germany has built its international identity on three pillars: military restraint, multilateralism, and the primacy of diplomacy. The country that triggered two world wars has consciously transformed itself into an economic power reluctant to exercise military power. Angela Merkel, throughout her long years in government (2005 to 2021), did not even allow the subject to be discussed. Her two successors, Olaf Scholz (2021 to 2025) and Friedrich Merz (the current chancellor), are decidedly moving in the opposite direction: they want a well-armed Germany, as quickly as possible. The current rearmament breaks, albeit partially, this historical pact.

The news spread across Europe like wildfire, not only in governmental and diplomatic circles, but also among the general public. For centuries, the Bundesadler, the national symbol of Germany, a black eagle that appears on the German national coat of arms, has represented strength, sovereignty, and historical continuity since the Holy Roman Empire, being a traditional and official symbol of the country. With its hooked beak and claws clearly visible, always seeming ready to seize prey, the Bundesadler has flown across European roads like a sinister ghost for centuries.   

On the other hand, history weighs heavily. 20th-century Germany showed the world how military power combined with political crisis and exacerbated nationalism can result in global catastrophe. Therefore, when Germany decides to rearm rapidly, some warning signs appear:

Historical context: two world wars began in Europe, with Germany playing a leading role.

Domino effect: German rearmament could encourage other European countries to do the same.

Geopolitical escalation: more weapons do not automatically mean more security; often, they mean more tension.

Normalization of the logic of war: war is once again seen as an "acceptable" tool of foreign policy.

In that sense, yes: there is a risk to world peace if rearmament gets out of political and diplomatic control.

But why did Germany decide to rearm now? The turning point was Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Then-Chancellor Olaf Scholz declared a Zeitenwende – a "change of era." Germany then argued that:

Europe cannot depend on the US for its defense forever. NATO demands a greater German contribution. A central European country cannot have symbolically weak armed forces. The investment includes modernization of the Bundeswehr (German Armed Forces), purchase of advanced equipment, and increased military readiness.

But does this Zeitenwende constitute a rupture or an adaptation to the new reality of the continent? In February 2022, a few days after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Chancellor Olaf Scholz declared in the German Parliament this "change of era." The term was not rhetorical: it signified the creation of an extraordinary fund of 100 billion euros to modernize the Bundeswehr and a commitment to raise military spending to the level required by NATO.

The official argument is pragmatic: the European security architecture has collapsed; deterrence has become necessary again; Europe cannot depend indefinitely on the United States. All of this is factual. The problem begins when the logic of emergency transforms into permanent logic.

If arms races like this also spread to other countries in the European Union, we run the very risk of the normalization of war. Germany has always been a symbolic brake on European militarism. Its rearmament has an effect that goes beyond tanks, missiles, or fighter jets: it redefines what is considered "normal" on the continent.

When Berlin decides to invest massively in military power, other countries feel legitimized to do the same; the public debate shifts from diplomacy to military readiness; war ceases to be the "last resort" and becomes a structural possibility.

This process is particularly dangerous in an international scenario marked by polarization, resurgent nationalisms, and economic crises. European history shows that rearmaments rarely remain isolated or purely defensive for very long.