Stay vigilant! The new European war rhetoric E-Book

Hermann Selchow

• Herausgeber: tredition
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 129

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2025

Beschreibung

Stay Vigilant! – The New War Rhetoric in Europe How Enemy Images Emerge, Who Benefits from Them – and How We Can Maintain the Path to Peace In a time of geopolitical tensions and ongoing media crises, a dangerous language dominates our political landscape: war rhetoric. But how do these narratives emerge? Who constructs enemy images – and for what interest? "Stay Vigilant!" takes you on a well-founded, unsparing analysis of current political communication in Europe and reveals the economic and strategic forces behind the EU's aggressive course. - Who are the real beneficiaries of war rhetoric? - What role do the media, business, and transatlantic networks play? - How do fear and propaganda influence our perceptions? - Why are some people more susceptible to these narratives than others? - What alternatives are there for a more peaceful, diplomatic future? This book combines political science analysis with gripping storytelling and not only reveals the mechanisms behind the current escalatory rhetoric, but also offers solutions: How can Europe return to a policy of dialogue, diplomacy, and cooperation? And what role can we as citizens play in this? For all those who want to understand the world behind the headlines and not be guided by simple enemy images. Read now and join the conversation – because peace begins with knowledge!

Leseprobe

Stay vigilant!

The new European war rhetoric

© 2025 Hermann Selchow

Druck und Distribution im Auftrag des Autors:

tredition GmbH, Heinz-Beusen-Stieg 5, 22926 Ahrensburg, Germany

Das Werk, einschließlich seiner Teile, ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Für die Inhalte ist der Autor verantwortlich. Jede Verwertung ist ohne seine Zustimmung unzulässig. Die Publikation und Verbreitung erfolgen im Auftrag des Autors, zu erreichen unter: tredition GmbH, Abteilung "Impressumservice", Heinz-Beusen-Stieg 5, 22926

Table of Content

Introduction

The language of war and the phase of rapprochement

The EU as a peace project? Contradictions in foreign policy

The EU and the construction of enemy images – who benefits?

The USA under Trump – New rhetoric towards the United States

The EU and the construction of enemy images – who benefits?

The involvement of German and EU politicians in geopolitical dealings

Enemy rhetoric and the population: How narratives fuel fears

Causes of internal political restrictions

We are not defenseless!

The future of war rhetoric in Europe – a return to cooperation?

On the prerequisites for change

Alternative proposals for cooperation instead of opposition

The price of deterrence from a political and economic perspective

Resistance and consent – reactions among the civilian population

NATO Connection: Where does the EU end and where does the transatlantic relationship begin

The global perception of the EU

Future scenarios for a return to the spirit of the EEC

De-ideologization as a new strategy in Europe: facts instead of emotions?

A new pacifism? Opportunities for more peaceful communication

The contribution of the individual and society

Final appeal - Stay vigilant!

Also published by me:

Stay vigilant!

The new European war rhetoric

Introduction

Europe has long prided itself on its peaceful integration and the overcoming of historical hostilities. But a closer look at current political debates, media coverage, and foreign policy strategies reveals a deep-rooted war rhetoric that is re-emerging despite the diplomatic facade. This language not only serves to justify military interventions but also influences public consciousness and shapes the image of "friends" and "enemies."

During the Cold War, terms like the "Iron Curtain" and the "communist threat" dominated Western perceptions. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, one might have expected Europe to usher in a long era of peaceful rhetoric. Instead, the narratives simply shifted—from fear of communism to the threat of terrorism, Russia, or other geopolitical rivals. The language became warlike again, albeit more subtly and cloaked in modern terms.

The media plays a central role in this. Reporting on conflicts is rarely neutral – it often follows a predetermined agenda that portrays certain actors as aggressors or defenders. Terms like "humanitarian intervention," "preventive defense," or "stabilization operations" are euphemisms that make military actions appear less harmful than they actually are.

For several years, politicians have deliberately used language to create a readiness for war among the population. Enemy images are constructed or exaggerated by portraying states or political movements as existential threats. This steers public opinion in a direction intended to legitimize military action.

The language of war has increasingly crept back into our everyday lives. Phrases like "strengthening defense readiness," "war capability," "strategic autonomy," and "deterrent potential" are no longer limited to specialist security policy literature but have found their way into the morning reading of millions of Europeans.

"Stay Vigilant!" is not a polemic. Nor is it a plea for naive pacifism. Rather, this book is intended as a wake-up call for critical reflection on the way we in Europe talk about security, conflict, and international relations. The language we use is no longer characterized by neutrality. It shapes our thinking, influences our perceptions, and prepares the ground for political action.

History has taught us that words often precede weapons. Before borders are crossed by tanks, they are redrawn in people's minds. Before bombs fall, enemy images are constructed. The rhetoric of hostility, demarcation, and incompatibility paves the way for the logic of war. Europe, a continent that experienced and caused the most devastating conflicts in human history in the 20th century, developed a political culture after 1945 that emphasized reconciliation, dialogue, and integration. This culture was reflected in a language that emphasized common ground and sought compromise.

In recent years, however, we have observed an increasing militarization of our language and our thinking. This change isn't taking place in a vacuum. It is embedded in profound geopolitical shifts, in the erosion of international order structures, in a growing sense of insecurity. The new war rhetoric is a symptom of these changes – but it also reinforces them and can become a self-fulfilling prophecy if we don't all remain vigilant.

I find the historical dimension of current developments in the world particularly fascinating. On the one hand, the parallels to earlier periods of European history are striking – on the other, the differences are at least as revealing. Especially in Germany, where the memory of two world wars is deeply anchored in the collective memory, the rhetorical change is taking place more rapidly and aggressively than in other parts of Europe.

With this book, I don't aim to promote a particular security policy position. Rather, I want to open up a space for a more conscious engagement with our language and the worldviews it conveys. Readers of this book are invited to listen and look more closely – to the words chosen by politicians, experts, and the media, but also to their own linguistic habits.

The following chapters offer a glimpse into the expanding landscapes of European war rhetoric. We will examine how language has changed within the European Union, the role the media plays in disseminating and normalizing certain language patterns, and how public opinion is changing under the influence of this rhetoric.

I will pay particular attention to the narratives and language forms that make it possible to talk about war preparations without following the logic of peacekeeping and diplomacy. Because it exists: the language of cooperation, of common security, of preventive diplomacy. It is not a naive utopia, but has repeatedly demonstrated practical effectiveness throughout European history.

This book arose from a deep concern for the future of Europe – but also from the conviction that we as citizens are not powerless against the currents of our times. By becoming aware of the power of language, we regain some of that power. Critical thinking begins with critical listening and reading.

"Stay Vigilant!" is therefore more than a book title – it is a call for intellectual vigilance in times when thinking in black-and-white categories is regaining ground. It is an invitation to stand firm against the complexity of the world and to distrust simple explanations. And it is a plea to recognize language for what it is: not just a mirror of reality, but a powerful but not insurmountable tool for shaping it.

I thank everyone who accompanied and supported me on the path to this book – the interlocutors who shared their knowledge with me and, above all, the critical readers of my previously published books. Special thanks go to those voices in politics, academia, and civil society who tirelessly advocate for a nuanced security debate—recently, once again against the tide of the times. May this book contribute to more conscious, reflective communication about this reemerging challenge in our time. Because the way we think and speak about the world will help determine the world we will live in.

Hermann Selchow

The language of war and the phase of rapprochement

After the end of the Cold War, the world seemed to be at a historic turning point. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the reunification of Germany in 1990, a new era of international relations ushered in. Instead of confrontation between East and West, the focus was suddenly on partnership, economic cooperation, and a common security architecture. The war rhetoric of the previous decades gave way – at least superficially – to a new, hopeful discourse of understanding.

Europe, in particular, played a crucial role in this development. The European Union expanded eastward, former Eastern Bloc states joined NATO and later the EU, and in Russia itself, reform politicians attempted to lead the country toward democracy and a market economy. A key phase of this rapprochement was the late 1990s to the early 2000s – a time in which Vladimir Putin, as the new Russian president, also embarked on a diplomatic offensive.

On September 25, 2001, Vladimir Putin delivered a historic speech to the German Bundestag – in German. It was the first and so far only time a Russian head of state received this privilege. The context of the speech was remarkable: just a few weeks earlier, the terrorist attacks of September 11 had shaken the geopolitical landscape. The world faced new uncertainties, and Putin used this moment to encourage close cooperation between Russia and Europe.

His speech was characterized by reconciliation, respect, and the prospect of a shared future. He emphasized the historical ties between Russia and Germany and spoke of a movement toward unification in Europe that should not stop at Russia's borders. Russia, Putin said, wanted to be a reliable partner of the West and deepen its relations with the European Union.

Putin's words were met with broad approval. German politicians and media praised his speech as historic and groundbreaking. It seemed to embody the spirit of a new era in which the decades-long blockades of the past could be overcome. There was even speculation about Russia's potential rapprochement with the EU.

The close relationship between Germany and Russia had historical roots. Already under Chancellor Helmut Kohl and later under Gerhard Schröder, there was intensive economic cooperation, particularly in the energy sector. Russia became one of Germany's most important gas suppliers, and projects like Nord Stream were a symbol of the close ties between the two countries.

There were also close relations with Austria. Putin visited Vienna several times, and economic ties between Russia and Austria remained strong even after the end of the Cold War. Austria traditionally sought to act as a bridge between East and West – an approach that was particularly emphasized in the 1990s and early 2000s.

But despite these rapprochements, there were also discordant notes. NATO's eastward expansion was viewed increasingly critically by Moscow. While the West argued that this expansion was a natural consequence of the democratization of Eastern Europe, Russia perceived it as a strategic threat. Putin himself later stated that Russia felt increasingly marginalized by the US and NATO.

The early 2000s were a period of transition. The positive signals from Putin's speech to the Bundestag gradually faded, and geopolitical realities overtook the grand visions. Tensions between Russia and the West began to escalate again, at the latest with the NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1999, the Iraq invasion in 2003, and the color revolution in Ukraine in 2004.

The language of diplomacy, which had still been characterized by rapprochement in the 1990s, changed. Russia now spoke of Western interference, while the West described Russia as an increasingly authoritarian state. The rhetoric of war slowly returned, albeit in new forms—no longer as the Cold War, but as geopolitical competition, increasingly expressed in economic and military tensions.

During the Cold War, Western rhetoric was characterized by the juxtaposition of democracy and communism. The free West stood in opposition to the Soviet dictatorship, and this ideological enemy image was an integral part of political communication in the United States and Europe. After 1991, this dichotomy initially became superfluous – but soon a new linguistic strategy emerged that presented the West as the guardian of a rules-based world order.

The terms changed: instead of the "fight against communism," people now spoke of the "defense of democracy" or the "promotion of human rights." Military interventions were no longer portrayed as confrontational acts of war, but as "humanitarian operations" or "stabilization missions." This rhetorical shift was crucial for legitimizing military action in the post-Cold War world.

A striking example of this new war rhetoric was NATO's 1999 intervention in Kosovo. For the first time in its history, NATO conducted a military operation without a UN mandate—under the argument that it was aimed at preventing a humanitarian catastrophe. The terms "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) and "humanitarian intervention" were introduced into political discourse and served as a new justification for military intervention.

This trend continued after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The "war on terror" definitively replaced the previous conflict between East and West. The war in Afghanistan (2001) and the invasion of Iraq (2003) were justified by the need to combat international terrorism and overthrow authoritarian regimes. The language of this period was characterized by terms such as the "axis of evil," "rogue states," and the "war on terror" – a rhetoric that once again created a dichotomy between "good" and "evil" and presented military action as morally justified.

In the 1990s, Russia was still striving to integrate into the Western-dominated world order. But with NATO's eastward expansion, the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, and growing geopolitical differences, the rhetoric in Moscow also changed. While in the early 2000s, there was still talk of "partnership" and "common security," a noticeable change began in the middle of the decade. Russia began to criticize Western interventions as "destabilization strategies." The color revolutions in Georgia (2003), Ukraine (2004), and Kyrgyzstan (2005) were portrayed in Russian media as "Western-orchestrated coups."

Putin's speech at the 2007 Munich Security Conference marked a turning point in Russian rhetoric. He accused the United States and NATO of seeking to create a "unipolar world" in which they disregard international law. In doing so, Russia introduced a new narrative: the image of an aggressive, expansionist NATO seeking to encircle and weaken Russia. This shift was particularly evident in the reporting on the 2008 Georgia War and later on the 2014 Ukraine crisis. Russia increasingly began to justify its own military measures as protecting Russian-speaking minorities or as a defense against Western expansion. The language of Russian foreign policy became increasingly confrontational – a development that continues to this day.

A decisive factor in the changing war rhetoric was the role of the media. While the Cold War was still characterized by relatively clear ideological fronts, an increasingly fragmented information landscape emerged after 1991, in which narratives were deliberately controlled.

In the West, major news channels such as CNN, BBC, and Fox News became important disseminators of the new war rhetoric. While the 2003 Iraq War was officially sold as the liberation of Iraq, Western media often adopted government narratives without question. Critical voices were portrayed as anti-American or naive.

On the other hand, Russia built its own media channels, RT (Russia Today) and Sputnik, which deliberately spread counter-narratives. Here, the West was portrayed as a hypocrite waging wars under the pretext of exporting democracy, while Russia was portrayed as the defender of a multipolar world order.

This development intensified with the rise of social media. Platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube enabled narratives to be spread more quickly and directly – often without journalistic scrutiny. The information wars that escalated in the 2010s led to war rhetoric no longer being controlled solely by governments or traditional media, but also by individuals, troll factories, and propaganda channels.

While the Cold War was characterized by a relatively stable, albeit dangerous, rhetoric, today's war rhetoric is more flexible, diffuse, and often emotionally charged. The old ideological fronts have disappeared, but new narratives have emerged in their place, favoring a constant escalation of language.

In the West, Russia is increasingly portrayed as a revisionist threat, while Moscow describes the West as hegemonic. Military interventions continue to be provided with moral justifications, and the population is prepared for confrontation through targeted rhetoric.