Foreign Affairs Germany Considers Reinstating the Draft Amid War Fears Concerns about Russia and uncertainty over American commitment are pushing Berlin to rethink compulsory military service. Germany’s new coalition agreed earlier this month on a military service plan that, starting in 2026, would require all 18-year-old German men to complete a survey indicating whether they are willing and able to serve in the armed forces. Beginning in 2027, Germany will also require those surveyed to undergo a medical screening to evaluate their fitness for service. According to the governing parties, the aim is to first increase the number of voluntary soldiers. If the survey and benefits increases fail to draw enough voluntary enlistments, the Bundestag may implement a form of lottery-based compulsory service for young German men.  Lawmakers are expected to vote on the legislation in December.  This move is the latest step in a broader European shift toward rearmament that has accelerated since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war and the return of U.S. President Donald Trump to the White House. Trump has repeatedly pressured NATO allies to dramatically increase their military spending, arguing that the United States has shouldered too much of Europe’s defense burden for too long. The German armed forces, the Bundeswehr, currently has about 182,000 active soldiers. In order to reach their NATO-mandated requirements, they would need to reach 260,000 by 2035, including 200,000 reservists. At the 2025 NATO Summit in June, leaders agreed to a new goal of each member spending 5 percent of their GDP on “core defence requirements and defence– and security-related spending by 2035.” According to the agreement, at least 3.5 of the 5 percent should be allocated to NATO defense.  While some allies, including Poland and the Baltic states, have moved swiftly to expand defense spending, others have lagged behind. Germany, long criticized for underinvesting in its military despite being Europe’s largest economy, now appears to be changing course. European confidence in long-term American security guarantees is eroding. Many European leaders fear that Washington may reduce its military commitment to NATO in the coming years, as Trump has previously threatened to withdraw from the alliance altogether. This uncertainty has pushed Berlin toward a more assertive defense posture.  Soon after taking office in May, Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz said he wanted to transform the Bundeswehr into “the strongest conventional army in Europe.” “This is appropriate for Europe’s most populous and economically powerful country,” Merz said. “Our friends and partners also expect this from us. Indeed, they practically demand it.” This marks a sharp break from Germany’s postwar identity. Since the end of the Second World War, the Federal Republic of Germany has defined itself through restraint and skepticism towards militarization. There has been some domestic backlash to the plan. Germany’s youth have emerged as some of the most vocal critics. Many young activists argue that aging political leaders are once again shifting the burdens of their decisions onto a shrinking younger generation. The accusation is blunt—older politicians create the conditions for war, and younger Germans are then forced to fight it. This generational disconnect isn’t only seen in the opposition towards the possibility of conscription, but also in the ongoing youth resistance to pension reforms.  While younger Germans push back against domestic burdens, the country’s political leadership is preparing the public for the possibility of war. German officials increasingly describe the Russia–Ukraine war as an existential conflict for the European continent. Boris Pistorius, the German defense minister, has been direct about the perceived Russian threat. In a recent interview, Pistorius said, “Putin makes no secret of his imperial fantasies in which our freedom, our order, as we know it, have no meaning. We must respond quickly and clearly to this threat by strengthening our defense capabilities.” He suggested that Russia would be able to restore its forces enough by 2028 or 2029 so that it would be capable of attacking a NATO country. “Some military historians even think that we have already had a last summer in peace,” Pistorius said. At the same time, Washington is pursuing another path. The Trump administration has repeatedly floated proposals to negotiate an end to the Ukraine war, and a draft of a negotiated American–Russian peace framework was leaked last week. The 28-point plan was said to have been drafted without the involvement of Ukraine or Europe. After a call between European leaders on Friday, a spokesman for Merz said the German leader, along with France’s President Emmanuel Macron and the UK’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer, reaffirmed “full support on the path to a lasting and just peace” while stressing that any peace deal must protect European and Ukrainian interests.  Though the statement welcomed U.S. efforts to end the war, it made clear that Europe expects a say in any agreement affecting NATO or European security. Whether Europe ultimately accepts an American-brokered peace or not, Germany is moving on the assumption that war remains a real possibility. A government that increases defense spending and seeks to boost enlistments in the armed forces is not acting as though peace is guaranteed. Germany is no longer betting on diplomacy alone, but on the willingness of its next generation to fight if it must. The post Germany Considers Reinstating the Draft Amid War Fears appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs The Dangerous, Unhinged Reaction to Trump’s Ukraine Peace Plan Russia hawks could spoil diplomacy and doom Ukrainians. President Donald Trump has magicked up some unexpected momentum in Russia–Ukraine peace talks by proposing a 28-point settlement to the war. You might think Ukraine’s Western supporters would welcome the chance for peace, considering how dreadfully the war is going for Ukrainians. You might be wrong. Blowhards on both sides of the Atlantic reacted with moral outrage, depicting the proposal as a forced capitulation for Volodymyr Zelensky and a wish list for Vladimir Putin. A rumor even spread that the plan was literally Russian, authored by the Kremlin and transmitted to Washington for delivery to Kiev (a rumor swiftly batted down by Axios and the White House). Thomas Friedman of The New York Times wrote that, if the “surrender” plan is imposed on Zelensky by Thanksgiving, then Turkey Day “will become a Russian holiday.” This is laughable stuff. But it’s also maddeningly counterproductive. Trump’s peace plan is about as balanced as Ukraine could realistically hope, given Russia’s momentum on the battlefield. Even so, Zelensky may not have the political leeway to accept it, since doing so would risk a revolt by hardline nationalists. One idea that I heard while in Kiev last month is that Zelensky needs Trump to play the bad guy and force him to accept a deal. If that’s right, then the Thomas Friedmans of the world—the people insisting that Trump’s plan surrenders Ukraine’s freedom, so Zelensky cannot possibly accept it—are acting as peace-spoilers, not democracy-defenders.  They are reducing the political cover the White House is providing Zelensky to “reluctantly” make a deal. Unwittingly (I hope), they are raising the pressure on Zelensky to continue a war that Ukraine is losing, and on Trump to insert poison pills into the agreement that Moscow cannot accept. They just might succeed. As always, the ones who will pay the costs are the Ukrainians themselves. If the Trump deal really was a giveaway to Putin, then the critics would have a stronger case. But it’s not. The very first point—Ukraine’s sovereignty will be confirmed—alone makes it a good deal for Kiev. Under the agreement, Ukraine would remain a sovereign nation-state free to join the European Union and become the Western-style democracy that so many Ukrainians want their nation to be. As Anatol Lieven of the Quincy Institute writes, “An agreement that leaves three quarters of Ukraine independent and with a path to EU membership would in fact be a Ukrainian victory, albeit a qualified one.” So, what are the critics carping about?  One common objection is that the plan requires Ukrainian forces to withdraw from parts of the Donetsk province that Kiev still controls. To be sure, that’s a bitter pill for Ukrainians to swallow. But Russia is gobbling up that territory anyway and will capture all of it sooner or later if the war continues. The Trump plan offers Ukraine something better, turning this territory into a “neutral demilitarized buffer zone” that Russian forces may not enter. Critics have also objected to point number 6: “The size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces will be limited to 600,000 personnel.” On CNN, Josh Rogin of the Washington Post depicted the plan as forcing Ukrainians to give up “their right to have a military.”  That characterization is absurd. The plan allows Ukraine to maintain a military more than twice as large as when Russia invaded in early 2022—and probably larger than Ukraine would field in peacetime anyway. By the way, does anyone actually believe that Putin—whose war aims include the “demilitarization” of Ukraine—authored this provision or was happy to learn of it? Europe’s “Big Three”—Britain, France, and Germany—have drafted a “counterproposal” that amounts to nothing more than edits to the U.S. proposal, all of which make the deal less attractive to Moscow or Washington or both. One wonders why they haven’t created a proposal of their own or established diplomatic channels with Moscow—and whether their true aim is to sabotage U.S. diplomacy and fight Russia “to the last Ukrainian,” as antiwar voices have alleged. Happily, the past few days have also brought fair assessments of the Trump deal, including from surprising sources. Damir Marusic of the Washington Post writes that “the plan is not necessarily the disaster depicted in much Western media.” He reports that an “adviser close to Zelensky” saw the proposal as an “opportunity” and “starting point” for negotiation. The adviser “insisted that Ukraine must face reality and stop the bloodshed.” More surprisingly still, the pro-Ukraine historian Niall Ferguson wrote on X, “Contrary to recent press speculation, the draft 28-point plan for peace in Ukraine is in fact a reasonable basis for negotiations.” Zelensky’s former press secretary, Iuliia Mendel, offered the most poignant defense of the proposal. “Every subsequent deal for Ukraine will only be worse—because we are losing,” she wrote. “We are losing people, territory, and the economy.” This is a crucial, and perilous, moment for Ukraine. But sanity is dawning on the Western world, and not a moment too soon. Trump just might get Ukraine out of its current mess—unless its “supporters” find a way to screw everything up. The post The Dangerous, Unhinged Reaction to Trump’s Ukraine Peace Plan appeared first on The American Conservative.

"I had never seen anything like it..." The post The artist who turned Monterey Pop Festival into a living room: “That’s what you want to do” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

'Happy Thanksgiving' to the Nations Living Off America’s Drug Prices

The Unsung Hero of Rolling Thunder Mine

'She Is She' and 'He Is He' Children’s Books Deemed 'Hostile' in Oregon: Case Appealed to 9th Circuit

COP30 Unveils the Climate Speech Police

Reclaiming America’s Story, Before Her 250th Birthday