The title is clearly provocative. I am not a patriot, I am not a nationalist, but it’s not only about Germany. I wouldn’t die for so-called Western values or for Germany.

The question is: How open-minded are readers? There certainly are people who from time to time are willing to have their opinions upended or who are ready to question divinely ordained facts. The Germany of today, for example, is not a union of free people. That’s just not the way nations come together. Nations are, as a rule, the product of historical wars. I believe that other people could open up to arguments along these lines.

No, I’m not afraid of that, because I think a Russian attack is unrealistic. I certainly think it would make my standard of living worse. The question, though, is whether we should be ready to give our lives to prevent that. And I have to honestly say: no, I’d rather be alive than dead.

A world order is currently being called into question. That’s frightening, of course. But that world order was based on violence that the US and its allies were allowed to carry out. It’s not clear right now how the US will behave in the future, but I think it’s unrealistic to anticipate an end to the postwar world order. At most, there will be a greater focus on China.

I can understand to some extent when people say that they are not ready to accept a decline in their standard of living at the hands of another regime. That they are ready to fight for that — I understand that in the abstract. This isn’t really the question, however, because the state doesn’t give them any choice in the matter.

In Ukraine, the right to conscientious refusal of military service has been suspended since the beginning of the war. Anyone who insists on that right will end up in prison — if they’re lucky. If they’re unfortunate, they’re just hauled into the army regardless and a few weeks later they’re on the front lines.

And that’s not something that’s particularly Ukrainian. I don’t think any state can behave differently. Every state must be prepared to sacrifice the lives of its citizens, otherwise it’s not a state and cannot continue to exist as a state in this world. And that gives rise to a question that we, as citizens, can ask ourselves: Is that actually a sensible way to organize society?

I don’t believe that I belong to one collective, distinct from the rest of the world, and made up of people who happen to have been born into the same nation-state as me. There’s nothing that separates me from the rest of the world and unites me with all other Germans.

In fact, in each nation there’s an enormous mass of opposing opinions that clash with one another, especially when it comes to the economy. The idea that the people of a nation share something special in common apart from the fact that they are subject to the same state is, in my opinion, wrong.

The question is: What kind of sovereignty is that? The sovereignty of the state is the sovereignty of a ruling force over the people who live in the state. And the only reason people are pitted against one another in wars is because these sovereigns, called “states,” are constantly redefining what they claim for themselves, constantly trying to expand their claim to power. I’d say that these claims to sovereignty of competing nation-states are the cause of the miserable conditions that most of the people in the world live in. That’s true not only with regard to military matters but also economic ones.

States only engage in military conflict in exceptional cases. As a rule, the competition plays out in economics. If the German state wants to ensure its competitiveness — we could also say, ensure its economic sovereignty — then it has to be ready to reduce unemployment benefits for people. Then Volkswagen cuts pay for its employees again, because production is cheaper somewhere else in the world. So I don’t believe that this world of competing sovereigns is good for the people who live in it.

And to say, “I have my sovereignty if I’m ruled by someone from my own people” is to me nonsense. I don’t feel like I have sovereignty when German chancellor Friedrich Merz dismantles the welfare state. I also don’t feel like I have sovereignty when the government builds up the military, and the economy is turned into a war economy — quite the opposite.

Some journalists flaunt their post-Soviet identity, but they’re silent when it comes to the actual conditions in those countries. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men are hiding in their homes, afraid of being forcibly recruited on the street and dragged away to the front lines. They seem to see things similarly to how I see them — and certainly not because they want to live under Vladimir Putin’s regime. But at the end of the day, they also say: “Rather alive than dead.” And their state won’t allow them that freedom.

Firstly, it’s noteworthy that what for years we were told was impossible is now possible. The state is taking on debt on a massive scale. But the purpose is to produce things that, in the best case, won’t be used. In the worst case, there’s war, and then those things will be used to kill people.

That means they’re using state credit to create something that’s not useful for society. They’re also very ready to accept certain inflationary policies to achieve this goal. In previous years that was unthinkable. Investment in climate policies, on the other hand, would have actually reduced inflation and helped people.

Previously those plants were used to build cars that ordinary people bought. If they produce tanks now, ordinary people won’t benefit at all. I think it’s obvious that those are two completely different things in terms of how sensible they are.

Rearmament may cause an increase in GDP, but the pool of resources that can be used by society will not grow at all. It’s insane that competing states waste human labor and natural resources in such a senseless way — and only for the production of tools of murder, which the politicians themselves certainly won’t be using to beat each other’s heads in.

Years ago, [German president Frank-Walter] Steinmeier wanted a year of social service, meaning men and women would have to work for the federal government or in other civil jobs. And I consider that a realistic possibility. It would certainly be successful as a temporary solution. Because the military is not able to train many people yet. And especially now, in times of so much political tension around security, hardly anyone will want to comply with this military conscription anyway. So everyone will go into civil work, and then the state can, to an extent, use cheap labor to fill jobs it might otherwise have had to cut back on.

Well, if we’re talking about party-affiliated youth organizations, the Young Liberals, along with the Left Youth, are probably the ones most likely to mobilize against military conscription. The head of the Green Youth, Jakob Blasel, has publicly said that anyone who is not willing to defend Europe with weapons is lacking in solidarity. And I haven’t heard much against military conscription from the Social Democratic Party so far. Probably because they’re afraid of exposing themselves to the accusation that they are unpatriotic and have unrealistic ideas. I mean, there’s certainly a lot of people there who want to rise up the ranks of the party.

There is a peace movement in Germany, but there aren’t many young people involved in it. Because people have the feeling that war is a long way off, no new antiwar movement has been built. There are still many people from the older generations in the movement, because they’ve experienced what war means. But the further away you get from it, the fewer new recruits there are among the younger generations. That is, of course, a problem for any social movement.

First and foremost, every young man can prepare an application for conscientious refusal of military service — even if they shouldn’t send it off yet. In the current moment, it’s better to stay off the authorities’ radar. As of now, the Basic Law [i.e., the German constitution] at least ensures the right to refuse military service. That means that even in moments of high tension or aggression, you would only be called up for civilian purposes. Working near the front lines as a paramedic is very, very dangerous. But it’s still better than being in the trenches. And that way you send a very clear signal to the state: I won’t stand for it!

And there are civil-society organizations and resistance groups. Last year, I attended a conference for students campaigning against the overturning of the civilian clause for universities. That clause has so far ensured that universities do not have to serve military purposes. There are levers that you can set up and that you can use to make clear to the state that you are determined not to fight.

They may only be many drops in a bucket, but it’s certainly better than doing nothing. And it makes it clear that you’re not going to stand for it. For all I can say to young people is: you only live once!