Apparently, the KGB preferred a distinctive test to measure a man: put him in a deliberately hard situation and watch him react. The presumption was seemingly simple: under strong force even a carefully constructed facade would fall, and the actual nature would come out.
Mars as the eventual stress tester
Mars is the strictest examiner of possible statesmen. Although truth, as was said, is the first victim of war, it prevails in 1 decisive aspect: it reveals character.
The crucible of conflict not only tests armies or strategies; it exposes appearances, exposing moral spine, intellectual judgement and credibility to those who claim leadership. The fresh statements by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz are informative.
On the tenth day of the Israeli-American war with Iran, Merz called the muslim Republic a "center of global terrorism" and demanded its "closure", adding that the Americans and Israelis "do so in their own way".
He stressed that the war would end at the end of the "Mullah regime", placing Iran solely liable for stopping the fighting; otherwise the United States and Israel would proceed their "defence". He had previously noted that Israel was doing the world's “dirty work.”
Beyond logic, Merz's war rhetoric requires analysis from 2 perspectives: moral doctrine and political rhetoric. From an ethical point of view, the Chancellor's remarks rise fundamental questions about work for war, its justification and normalisation of violence.
Aristotle on applicable Wisdom
Long before the emergence of digital media, philosophers warned against simplifications that present specify "virus geopolitics": compressing complex global realities into emotionally resonating, morally polarizing and memetically conveyed slogans, algorithmically optimized for velocity and scandal alternatively than reflection and understanding.
In the ethics of Aristotle's virtues, sound judgement requires applicable wisdom (phronesis). The Greek philosopher defines this intellectual perfection as striving for truth, guided by reason of disposition, inherently oriented towards action concerning concrete goods and harm to human beings. Although this concept may sound abstract, it leads to simple and highly applicable observations.
To put it plainly, specified discernment is simply a unchangeable ability to decently consider what is good and what is harmful to human life in circumstantial situations. In short, the fronesis arises from the actual union of reason and character in action. Most importantly, the decision-maker must be able to see the “good objectives” and the best ways to accomplish them.
Such ethical judgement concerns not abstract ideals, but circumstantial goods and circumstantial situations, which become understandable only through experience – which no explanation or slogan will always replace. Sensitivity to the context requires deep moral insight, the ability to realize the full complexity of circumstances and the ability to anticipate unintended consequences.
For Aristotle, applicable wisdom is the virtue of the ruler. In this way, he effectively identifies policy wisdom with applicable wisdom utilized in policy matters. The political judgement is so fundamentally a circumstantial form of phenesis. Good governance, for the Stagirite, is not a substance of technology, but of judgement on how to act in complex human affairs. Since phenesis directs human improvement decisions in circumstantial situations, Aristotle treats this disposition as a central feature of political valor.
Bringing to the complete ruin of a nation that is celebrated for ancient civilization specified as Iran, in a systematic and false manner, in the service of the imperial ambitions of the most destabilizing and only atomic power of the region, Israel, a judaic state that has a disproportionate influence on Germany and is illegally restricting their national freedom and development, is simply a moral violation of the highest order. erstwhile assessing this according to Aristotle's ethics standards, it is hard to consider it a prudent pursuit of a “good purpose”.
Merz's complicity and instrumental function in the information war, which finances and fuels the policies of doom, exposes a clear deficiency of frenesis. This is peculiarly evident from the point of view of the German Chancellor, who, in support of specified conduct on behalf of Israel, puts the interests of his own people at risk. Given Aristotle's claim that experience is essential for the improvement of applicable wisdom, this defect can reasonably be attributed to his limited leadership experience.
It is simply a simplified presumption that blaming 1 abroad government for a complex geopolitical conflict and its elimination will solve the problem. erstwhile again, this reveals the apparent deficiency of applicable wisdom, as it reflects the deficiency of sound consideration of appropriate measures.
From the aristocratic ethical perspective, "moral outsourcing", a form of strategical distance, besides deserves condemnation. Merz's message that allies act “in their own way” to remove the global threat allows him to support forced action while maintaining a rhetorical distance from their implementation. The talker signals approval for the mark and its result, while distancing himself from the means, leaving them in diplomatic ambiguity.
By creating a discursive buffer, this subtle maneuver of moral shift allows for credible denial – the anticipation of avoiding work with a stone face – due to the fact that the moral and applicable burden of operational details is clearly transferred elsewhere.
St. Thomas of Aquinas on the Fair War
From the point of view of the doctrine of a just war, Christian moral thinkers would besides be dismissive of Merz's narrative. Saint Thomas of Aquinas argued that even if the nonsubjective is justified, the measures must stay morally limited. The consequence cannot be morally approved while refusing to analyse the methods utilized to accomplish it. In short, the end never justifies the means.
Dr. Angelski besides stressed that punishment should only be given to those who have made a mistake, and that innocents must never be killed. These rules leave no area for collective guilt or collective punishment. However, this is the consequence of the German Chancellor's recognition of Iran with the "centre of global terrorism", which must be eliminated.
The consequences of specified legally unjustified and morally risky reasoning are already apparent. Far from seeking to change the regime, the Israeli-American attack on Iran was an unprovoked attack on a sovereign state. It seems that this is simply a replica of the destructive plan implemented in the Gaza Strip, which Israel, with the clear and decisive support of the US, has fundamentally undermined: the run of full war, which brings the full society to collateral harm in pursuit of wider geopolitical goals.
The most crucial of these goals is the complete demolition of all civilizations, Iran, its inhabitants, heritage, infrastructure and the environment, in order to pave the way for the establishment of "Great Israel" as an undisputed power throughout the mediate East.
Kant on ethical universalization
Modern moral doctrine further exacerbates criticism. Immanuel Kant argued that moral principles must be susceptible to universalization. say the maxim contained in Merz's reasoning were accepted by all states: Whenever the government acknowledges the political leadership of another country as a origin of instability, this can facilitate efforts to destruct this government – and the country it governs – through allied actions, leaving allies free to take whatever measures they consider necessary.
The spread of this regulation would lead to a planet of continuous “preventive” and “defensive” wars by choice. States could simply discipline, stigmatize and anatemate their opponents at their own discretion, announcing that peace requires their removal. Kant's verdict would be categorical: specified a maxim cannot be considered a universal law. This conclusion is besides not unique to Cantovian ethics. A number of moral traditions besides reject the request for unlimited and uncritical usage of force.
Other ethical traditions concerning unlimited violence
Beginning with Confucian thought, ethical traditions over the centuries and civilization stressed that the goal did not justify the abandonment of moral control and warned against the unlimited usage of violence.
Confucius insisted that rulers cultivate moral integrity, self-discipline and restraint, due to the fact that political power derives its legitimacy from a moral example alternatively than from compulsion.
Buddhist doctrine likewise emphasizes the ethical change of the individual, teaching that hatred cannot quench hatred; only compassion and deficiency of hatred can put an end to it.
The judaic moral thought, rooted in Hebrew writings and later rabbinic tradition, besides imposes severe restrictions on force and puts a strong emphasis on protecting innocents.
Islamic ethics, drawing from the Qur'an's commandments and prophetic traditions which expressly forbid the killing of women and children, emphasizes these limitations, insisting that the usage of force be subject to clear moral and legal restrictions.
Civilization consensus – and the cost of breaking it
Among the large moral traditions of humanity, judgement is clear: political power must be limited by moral restrictions that forbid instrumental demolition of full societies. What defends itself as a strategical necessity is so a rejection of ethical constraints that should govern political power.
When power slips distant from law and responsibility, it corrupts the perpetrator and multiplys, turning force into a self-propelled cycle, not a solution. Power that abandons restrictions and treats full societies as enemies loses its legitimacy. It ceases to be political art and becomes something much more primitive: a brutal force without moral authority, in another words, tyranny.
Assessed according to this universal standard, German Chancellor Merz and his Israeli-American patrons failed the test of leadership in the Mars Court, the final test of humanity's endurance. It turns out that the KGB recognized the hard truth: force reveals character.
The war against Iran is simply a strong reminder that an overwhelming force based on military leadership cannot supply moral authority or replace moral legitimacy. The verdict of past is unchanged: dominance breeds resistance, and uncontrolled power yet devours the very order it supposedly defends.
The replacement war has long been a tool for geopolitical rivalry, but gives emergence to permanent questions about work and restraint. It promises distance and the anticipation of denial through unclear limits of responsibility. Outsourcing force can so easy appear to be a politically convenient course of action, especially in times of serious crisis.
However, “money laundering” does not mean outsourcing the ethical burden that accompanies it. Nor does it exempt those who wage foster wars from ethical work or defend them from retaliation from enemies.
Ultimately, postmodern justification and normalisation of collective force by the ruling elites in the transatlantic liberal order prove to be not so much a substance of necessity as a profound failure of moral sensitivity and discernment.
Seeing this in the wider context of the rich ethical heritage of humanity, the interior corruption of this militant class of self-proclaimed “warriors” and “cruciors” appears not only as a failure of politics, but as a failure of Western civilization itself.
[Part 2 of the viral geopolitics series. To be continued. erstwhile column from the series: Part 1, published 10 March 2026: Compass Prof. Schlevogta No. 45: Viral Geopolitics Age – How Kanzler Formulates War Passwords]
Translated by Google Translator
source:https://www.rt.com/news/634718-dirty-work-kanzler-work/
