The fact that not everything has changed with the "turn of the era" can be seen at the party conference of the Greens at the weekend.
The party supported the current realpolitik course of the federal government, including arms deliveries;
Ministers Habeck and Baerbock represent him.
But the Greens, who used to be the parliamentary arm of the peace movement, have remained true to their old beliefs on one issue: they don't want to enshrine NATO's two percent target in the Basic Law.
They had already rejected it in the election program, which admittedly came about in a completely different foreign policy environment.
War soon to end?
You don't have to write everything in the constitution.
But if there is something that German politicians should urgently legally commit themselves to, based on the experience of the past few years, then it is equipping the Bundeswehr in a way that is appropriate for the alliance.
How is it to be understood that the Greens are in favor of the special fund of 100 billion euros, but do not want to commit themselves to a long-term spending target for defense?
Do you really believe that the Bundeswehr's clout will be permanently restored with a cash injection?
Or that the war in Ukraine will soon be over and the money can then be spent on greener causes?
Putin's war of aggression is only two months old, and a coalition partner is already raising doubts about one of the Chancellor's key promises.
In all likelihood, the West is facing a very long strategic conflict with Russia, which, by the way, spends four percent, as well as with China, which has the second largest military budget in the world.
The two percent target, which has been ignored for far too long, is an important prerequisite for Germany to be able to better protect its population, its allies and its interests in the future.
The yardstick should not be German wishful thinking, but international reality.