We are experiencing an epoch-making break with the past. The former rules-based international order is eroding as the basis for cooperation among nations. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the increasing pressure exerted by authoritarian regimes and actors with authoritarian tendencies, assorted global crises, and the aftereffects of the coronavirus pandemic all have acted as accelerants intensifying the drift toward a multipolar order with all of its attendant insecurities and untimeliness. Thus, it makes perfect sense that the more intensive interconnectedness of foreign, security, and development policies should provide a strategic triad for Germany’s relations with other countries. At the same time, international expectations concerning Germany are on the rise.

We can and must defend and secure our freedom against the economic and social consequences of climate change. The social democratic signature on environmental and climate policy becomes clearest when ecology and economics are viewed as two sides of the same coin and when we place our hopes on what binds us together as we try to overcome social divisions.

Is there a European culture? Can there be one at all? And: what would it even mean to want to forge a European identity based on culture? Today and in the future such questions are more than simply fodder for bored salon chatter. After all, Europe can participate in the geopolitical circle dance only if Europe really exists. The burden of proof for that is not trivial.

What has been lacking in the debate about the threat to our liberal democratic society: a different idea. True, everybody is dissatisfied with the status quo in one way or another. And although many are anxious about the future, only a minority thinks that something can be done about it. And only those who would like to go back to the 50s or the 30s have proposed any alternatives. The defenders of democracy haven’t offered a different idea that might stimulate people to desire a better future. They are simply standing on the sidelines saying »no.«

On August 1 – and for the fiftieth time – the final documents of the Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) were signed in Helsinki. Convened just a few years after the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) and the armed invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Warsaw Pact (1968), the CSCE marked a significant turning point in the history of the Cold War.

The confusing flip-flopping in Trump’s »tariff policy« over the past few weeks and months has set off alarms bells in Europe and other parts of the world. At the same time, it has aroused a host of economic experts, whether alleged or real, who know what should be done to save »free world trade,« and take the wind out of the sails of the arch-isolationist in the White House.

Progressives have some open questions that they too will need to clarify. In an age skeptical of progress, what does »progressive« mean? To what extent did supposedly progressive politics contribute to the negative mood swing in this country? What should its goals be in the future, and how will those goals translate into specific contents and preferences? What paths can be imagined and which of those are realistic? How can the power of society be mobilized once again outside of existing institutions? It is time to begin those debates

»What’s in a name?« as Juliet asks in the most famous of Shakespeare’s plays. The playwright lets her answer her own question: »A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.The water in the Gulf will not be any clearer or more turbid, warmer or colder, rougher or calmer. Nor will boundaries in the coastal waters be shifted (barring negotiations or war) depending on whether we call it the »Gulf of Mexico« or the »Gulf of America.« Presumably, most citizens know that too. Nevertheless, in the long run naming can exert influence on the way we see things.

The international order, created in the aftermath of the Second World War and undergirded by the Law of Nations, is falling apart. In its place the old-fashioned law of the jungle has been gaining ground. Might makes right, and the strong take whatever they like.

Unquestionably, the surrender of the German military on May 8, 1945 (known as V-E Day) marks one of the most critical turning points in recent −especially German − history. This holds true even though various kinds of historical caesuras, whether political, cultural, economic, or social, are not necessarily synchronized. The very next day, May 9, the new sovereigns, the victorious Allied powers, legally extinguished all traces of German rule in order to accomplish their jointly proclaimed goal of completely destroying National Socialism and preventing its revival.

No, because the cohesion of society itself has become an enormous challenge, and many people feel that concepts like left and right no longer make sense to them.

Yes, because the categories of left and right are the only ones that enable us to label, understand, and contextualize political processes.

Recently, however, the head offices of German industrial firms have been sending mostly messages of gloom and doom. The specter of deindustrialization is haunting Germany! And these are not just swan songs in the media. There are real dangers afoot for what is still the world’s third-largest economy. Since 2017, we have witnessed continuing weakness in industrial production. By now many people have recognized the seriousness of the situation and are urging resolute action. There is hardly any dissension when it comes to the goal; nevertheless, two controversial topics remain: what concrete steps to take to counter the risks of deindustrialization and which instruments might be best suited to accomplish that.

»The numbers have to come down.« This is the mantra we have been hearing for over a year now in response to the persistently high numbers of new arrivals in Germany seeking asylum. Nearly all political actors from one end of the country to the other have joined in the chorus. The EU-wide agreement on the reform of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), reached in May of 2024, promised quick relief from the perceived migration problem. Nevertheless, political actors – and not just those in Germany – have been falling all over themselves to offer ever more new proposals for tightening and regimenting the entry system.

In just a few weeks Donald Trump will be inaugurated as the 47th president of the United States of America. What will the consequences be? How do we make sense of and respond to what is happening in the USA right now? At the moment, it feels like we are on board a train headed at breakneck speed toward a black hole without knowing what is inside it, even though we may hazard a lot of guesses. A personal experience report.

The nation-state represents a special kind of correspondence between the state and the people it governs. Moreover, it is based on a clearly demarcated territory that both actors – the state aThat is, they function within an intended, practiced, and experiential context in which historical tales, myths, and memories as well as (usually) a common language, shared culture, and norms are central.nd its people – claim as their own. Furthermore, state and nation are linked by a national culture. Our author gives an outline of the concept of the nation from the internal formation of nations in the 19th century to the present day.