German security officials believe the Kremlin is laying the groundwork for a potential large-scale conventional war with NATO by the end of the decade, according to multiple reports cited by European Pravda and Bild.
The warning comes from an assessment jointly produced by Germanyās Federal Intelligence Service (BND) and the Bundeswehr. According to the documents, Russia increasingly views the West as a “systemic enemy” and is rebuilding its military capacity with long-term confrontation in mind.
Although three-quarters of Russian land forces based near the Baltic have been committed to Ukraine, German officials say the Russian navy and air force remain at high readiness. The BND warns that once the war in Ukraine concludes, those units could be quickly redeployed to threaten NATOās eastern flank.
German media outlets SĆ¼ddeutsche Zeitung, WDR, and NDR also cite the report, noting that Russian President Vladimir Putin appears intent on testing NATOās Article 5 guarantees. The allianceās mutual defence clause obliges member states to come to one anotherās aid if attacked. The assessment suggests Putin may seek to challenge how seriously that commitment would be honoured.
Despite ongoing heavy losses and international sanctions, Russia has accelerated its military production. The BND and Bundeswehr believe the Russian war economy is generating more output than is required solely for operations in Ukraine. Military spending has surged to an estimated ā¬120 billion in 2025āequivalent to over 6% of GDPānearly quadrupling its 2021 defence budget.
The expansion is not only economic. By 2026, Russia intends to grow its armed forces to 1.5 million personnel. Force levels and equipment stocks near NATO borders are also expected to rise by 30ā50% compared to 2022 levels, according to the German analysis.
While German authorities caution that Russia is not yet capable of waging a full-scale war against NATO in the near term, Lithuaniaās State Security Department (VSD) added that limited Russian military action against one or more NATO states is within the realm of possibility.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte recently reiterated the allianceās red lines, promising a ādevastating responseā to any Russian attack on member nations such as Poland.
That’s it, I’m moving to Greenland.
I am making a good sĀalĀary from home $4580-$5240/week , which is amazing undĀer a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now its my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
Here is I started_______ šĀĀĀšĀĀĀš.šĀĀšĀĀšĀĀĀĀššĀĀĀĀšĀĀĀĀšĀĀĀĀšĀĀĀĀš.ĀĀĀĀšĀĀĀĀšĀĀš
The Best opportunities To Earn $22,000/Month. We all spend a lot of time on social media every day ā Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter, and the list goes on. If youāre used to getting a lot of likes or comments, or if youāre great at motivating others through your posts, you might want to consider turning this into a profession. It appears unbelievable but you won’t forgive yourself if you do not check it…
HERE āāāā šĀš°Āš°.šĀš¢Āš Āš”ĀšĀš«ĀšØĀšĀš¢ĀšĀšĀ.šĀšØĀš¦
I make up to $220 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $100h to $220hā¦ Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now I am hoping I could help someone else out there by sharing this link.Try it, you wonāt regret it!.
HEREā šš°š°.ššØš«š¤š¬šš«šØšš¢šš.ššØš¦
This is why I think the U.S. MAGA position is Geostrategically a bit incompetent. Because Russia will try and take a bit out of the European democracies ( it already did infact) and china is going to without doubt plow into the U.S. in the western Pacific and it will bring the US to a devastating war
The ONLY thing stopping these two events were the DETERRENT of a UNIFIED western alliance that together claimed well over 50% of the worlds power and wealth. Essentially china was not sure it could in a long global war take on both the European powers and US aligned pacific powers and inflict enough of a balance of pain to winā¦ this is the same with Russia and Europe.
The core of this and the cause is that the west has forgotten how you win existential wars..it fell in love with the concept of the short war and that winning battles meant you win the warā¦when it comes to existential wars that is utter Bollox unfortunately, powers have and do win battle and campaign after campaign and still loss.. because in the end existential wars between major powers are won and lost between how much pain and suffering one side can inflict and if it overwhelms the other sides political willingness to take pain and fight.. and the west keeps on showing it does not have the political cohesion or will to take pain and win wars..infact the U.S. has show itās essentially a natural loser with its political activities over the last 25 years as has have the EU and EU nations with its unwillingness to spend large on Deterrent and core military industrial capabilities.
Essentially both the US and Europe have hung big come and get me baby signs on their backs.
Absolutely. And it’s not just come and get me. It’s take what you want from anywhere, because the West is no longer willing to protect the global order beyond doing a few token FONOPS.
I disagree, every serious country including china stays well away from existential wars and for good reason.
Russia is an outlier because itās a failed state run by an autocrat.
It is completely unable to wage major wars against even small countries like Ukraine.
We have always had small players like Russia who want to throw their non existent weight around, Saddam in Iraq being a perfect example from the recent past.
I think your probably miss understanding exactly where china is coming from where itās going and itās red lines..
To understand china you have to realise that it is utterly and completely controlled by the Chinese communist party, to an extent that is infact greater far far greater and more pervasive than the control exerted by the the communist party of the Soviet Union exerted over the soviet socialist republics.
Then you need to understand that the CCP party is itself utterly controlled by the central committee of the CCP which is in turn under the complete control of the politburo and finally the standing committee of the politburoā¦ at the top of all of this and in complete control of the standing committee, politburo, central committee and all the armed forces and security forces of china is the general secretary of the Chinese communist party, chairman of the central military committee, president of the peopleās republic of China and paramount leader. Xi Jinping..
Essentially china as a state does not exist in the way we in the west think of a state Xi holds absolute and complete power in a way no other leader in history ever has.. he personally controls every facet of the the CPP and military, he chairs every major committee.
āXiās hold on the Peopleās Liberation Army (PLA) is even more complete than his hold on the CCP and the government. As Tai Ming Cheung has observed, āNo other Chinese Communist Party leader, not even Mao Zedong, has controlled the military to the same extent as Xi does today. Mao had to share power with powerful revolutionary-era marshalsā
As Xi has essentially moved to control every facet of the CCP, military security services so he has made sure the CCP and security services control every facet of china as a whole..every company has a shadow board of CCP members who will take control as needed, the 100 million strong CCP act as a priesthood for the cult of Xi the 5 million strong intern security forces are everywhere, the 3 million political warfare operatives exert control of nationals not living in China..
So this mean if Xi decides china is going to war tomorrow china goes to war tomorrow, no if no but and what does Xi want
First and foremost under that controlled exterior is an extremist who has been brutalised and brainwashed to utterly believe in the CCP Maoist movement, he is one of the toughest most ruthless leaders on the planet.. Putin is quite frankly a fucking puppy dog compared to Xi and the only mitigating factor that stops china just going full Tonto on the world is the fact that the CCP is not an international communist movement itās a nationalist communist movement..so it does not believe in making the world communist, just making China communism and great.
Xis parents were generals in the revolution, but were arrested for treason against Mao, as a child Xi and is siblings were threatened with death then cast out onto the streets alone..his sister killed herself..he was then collected by the cultural revolution ( the event that killed 10million of Chinese) and made a child serf in a village he escaped and was found and arrested, he was then sent to a hard Labour reeducation camp in which he spent years of hard Labour being ā re-educated by a regime that has imprisoned his family and killed untold millions.. he left the Labour camp returned to the village with nothing but a box of books on Maoism..he then kept trying to join the communist party was refused over and over until someone relented..after that he went to universal to study Maoist theory.. and started his steady rise to becoming supreme leaderā¦
Xi believes totally in the Maoist beliefs around Chinese destiny..he believes in the romance of the three kingdoms, he believes that only through immense suffering can china be reunited and take its place as the preeminent power.. when xi tells china to prepare for all out war by 2027 the CCP believe him..when xi says heās will reunite china and take rightful control of the china seasā¦ no matter the consequences or suffering he and china mean it.. this is a nation in which Mao killed 80 million Chinese people in the cultural revolution..and they actually accept that as required sufferingā¦
Anyone who does not believe china will attack the US to drive it out of the western pacific the moment it thinks it can successfully do so does not understand the utter drive behind Xi and Chinese beliefs in the destiny of there nation and what they are willing and able to pay for that destiny to be fulfilled.. this is the third Reich and the Soviet Union rite large.
“Let China sleep for when China awakes the whole world shall tremble.”
China may not want to conquer the world but I bet they want the Northern and Southern Resource areas.
That puts Russia and Australia firmly in their sights either for political domination or military occupation. Which, along with the desire to drive the US out of the Western Pacific, means pretty much every country bordering the nine dashed line is in the firing line plus any country between China and Australia…
Kinda underlines why the Aussies want SSN’s and Japan is on board with Tempest.
Times they are getting very very scary.
CR
CR,
Totally on-target, as per usual. š¤šš
Jonathan,
Excellent exposition re history and future intent of Xi Jinping/CCP. History is moving almost inexorably and immutably toward a near-term existential conflict between Xhina (š) and the US. Almost, as a qualifier, because the off-ramp for the current tranactionalist US administration, may be the on-shore US duplication of Taiwanese (TSMC) manufacturing capabilities/facilities. Could readily envision current administration abandoning Taiwan under those circumstances, this delaying the inevitable until another day. Not certain where a real US red line would be redrawn: SK? Japan? Australia/NZ? Quam? Hawai’i? Blue border states of CONUS (i.e., CA, OR, WA)? Extrapolating current trends, US would probably be decisively and comprehensively defeated in an existential conventional condlict. Remaining question would be whether US would ultimately execute its own version of the Israeli Samson Option/Doctrine? “May you live during interesting times.” š¤š³
… conflict. š
Guam…š
TSMC facilities in the USA are currently a decade behind what can be produced in Taiwan. Thatās a huge gap in processing power, density, power consumption, etc.
Why would China want to go to war with the US or Europe ? Do they really want to destroy their own wealth , which comes from manufacturing and selling goods to the West ?
China WILL go to war with the US because the U.S. exerts dominance in what china considers to be Chinese territory, simple as,
the only way the U.S. and china are not going to war is if the US makes it clear itās not going to contest any Chinese actions in the china seas and first chain islands..if china thinks for a second the U.S. is going to contend then china is going to attack the US, because for china controlling the china seas and reunification is the single most important goal and everything else including collecting wealth is only there to serve that purposeā¦these are true believers in Maoist communism, they donāt give a shite about markets and profits beyond them being a tool that can be used for the core goals of Chinese reunification.
China killed about 80 million of its own people just for a social experiment, that is essentially now says was a slight error of judgementā¦they firmly believe that they have to suffer and they are willing to suffer for reunification and the goals of the CCP.
Xi and the senior leaders have told the CCP and country to prepare for war by 2027ā¦this is no posturing or posing, that is how the CCP spread the world across a country that is very rural. xi has sacrificed around 2% growth per year to harden the Chinese economy against war shocks, they have stockpiled vast levels of rare elements. They have built mock ups of most of the major U.S. western pacific bases and practice firing missiles at them, they have mock ups of all the major government buildings in Taiwan and practice assaulting them, every year they practice core parts of their war plans against Taiwan, they mobilise entire provinces the size of countries as part of that practice and put them on a war footing, every 18 months they launch the equivalent in warship tonnage of the entire RN. Taiwan has made it very clear that China is planning at some point to move from its annual practice of invading Taiwan to actually invading Taiwan and when they do if they believe the U.S. will intervene they will day one attempt to smash the U.S. western pacific defence infrastructure.. they have build well over 2500 ballistic missiles essentially for this purpose.
China is actually quite open about its war plan
1) massive political warfare to sap the will of the enemy and create division in political systems as a politically divided nation is a weak nation.
2) sub kinetic infrastructure strikes followed by a strategic surprise move exercise to invasion
3) smash the standing US western Pacific military assess
4) when the USN try and break the hold on Taiwan enter into a mutual blood bath and decimated the USN..they donāt even expect to win the campaign they just expect to make the US bleed like itās not done in 80 years.
5)engage in massive political warfare to break the will of the U.S. electorate
6) engage in the long war with the U.S. across the globe hurt the US electorate in any and every way it can over years. China assumes this may take years and it will loss many battles, but essentially its plan is to bleed the US and make it suffer..because china essentially believes its culturally strong enough to politically survive any suffering were as any US political leaders that allow the U.S. to keep suffering will be topped and a leader willing to come to terms will be put in.
Essentially they plan to replay the writings of Maos āon protracted warā its essentially considered the Chinese primer on how to win by mutual sufferingā¦.and for unification they will suffer almost any cost below the complete destruction of china.
Jonathon,
Mad Vlad, a f*#king puppy dog? š¤£šššNot certain Vlad would greatly appreciate the characterization, no matter the degree of appropriateness. Hmmm…there may be validity to the order of despots w/in CRINK alliance. š¤
There certainly is mate.
Xi is top dog in that grouping and he is playing a blinder keeping is powder dry while is number two, Putin, uses up much of his country’s wealth and latent power stirring up the west with enough success to open the door for Xi’s big move when it comes.
This is where I think Trump is making his big miscalculation. His anti-globalisation policies could yet work out, and his words have moved Europe into acting on their self defence, both positives. However, his rhetoric action regarding Ukraine has emboldened his enemies. Rightly or wrongly they see him as someone they can play. Putin is certainly trying it on. If he gets away with it Putin and his CRINK friends will think they can get away with anything and I suspect that is just not true. No one knows where the new red lines are, quite possibly not even the Trump administration – yet. When they all find out it will be too late for us all.
As for the CRINK I wouldn’t say they are allies as such, rather partners of convenience. Putin in turn is playing Kim and both China and Russia see Iran as a partner of convenience distracting the US from the real threat. The Middle East draws US Secretaries of State to it, like moths to a flame, to paraphrase what Condoleezza Rice recently said to the BBC…
The CRINK nations are opportunists and we are handing them opportunities left right and center. Would be hilarious if it wasn’t so damned scary. If our politicians aren’t scared by what is going on they have no right to be in post, frankly.
Cheers CR
Good post Jonathan, a good read. It does seem that China’s controlling CCP is very much an overloaded top heavy spinning top. Aren’t they still very dependent, maybe overlly dependent, on overseas inestments, industry, markets, technology not only strengthen themselves industrially but just to keep moving, keep their masses employed, even fed? Are they really going to have the freedom to do what they may want to do without getting some serious push back? I think the same for the US and Russia also. The world’s growing up, its too intertwined, nearly all the goings on are viewable. It’s not just the big three who want to assert themselves. I hope to God the democratic countries of all shades maintain their decency, humanity and freedoms and the strength to defend it against at all the bullying big brothers in the room.
A very good example of Xi needing to keep the masses happy, is via their usurping of the South China Sea (SCS). For the majority of people in China, fish and other sea food products make up over 60% of their diet. As such the Yellow Sea is all but fished out. Hence their “need” to take over and control the SCS. The gas and oil under the sea is a secondary requirement, its what is in the sea is their key goal. This has driven the Chinese to liberate shoals and to build fortified military bases, so that they can police the area and if need be deny it to “trespassers”.
This has develop into a pseudo war between the Chinese huge fishing fleets and the other SCS countries such as the Malaysia, Vietnam and in particular the Philippines. Where the militant fishing fleets are being backed up by the Chinese Coastguard. Which through force has pushed out other Countries fishing vessels.
If Xi has that much power, it also means severall weaknesses. What happens if he dies? What happens to him if Chineese people die in a war he ordered? How can people change the course of politics without killing him?
Terrible weaknesses of such a rƩgime. Though, I think the control he has is far less, unfortunatly. I think the wish for war is more largely shared.
One of the great destroyers of empires has been internal conflict between claimants to the throne. People like Xi have been ruthlessly destroying all opposition, to the point that there is no-one to fill the void should anything happen. But equally there is no-one on his team capable of stepping up, because they were always considered potential opposition & eliminated if they showed any initiative. We are one stroke away from WW3 (if Xi doesnāt move first).
By stroke, I was referring medically, heart attack or similar in meaning.
Jim,
Russia is a slightly different case, possessing ~6K nukes. Only a small percentage need to prove to be functional for NATO to have a bad decade or perhaps century?
Yes, the 6000ās nukes theory is overplayed. How many are operational? It is unatteignable for Russia to have them all operational, they donāt have enough ressources. Same with US by the way. The only countries who donāt overplay the real numbers are France, UK and China. If disarmed warhead are taken into consideration, then why not include plutonium reserves? At this point, the story starts to be more balanced. Their is no real advantage held by Russia. Which does not mean their arsenal is not strong.
Mutual destruction is a real thing. Russia is not capable of defeating Europe with or without North America (ok USA), without resorting to nukes, which is a dead end. No-one wins a nuclear war if both sides have nukes. Russia has nukes. UK & France have nukes. US has even more nukes. End of story. Conventional warfare is a different equation. EU has had a kick in the behind it drastically needed. Hopefully it is enough, but EU is not a USA equivalent. Brexit may have not have been everything everyone wanted, but winding the clock back may have given more room to move & the old alliances may actually have been a better bet all along.
Jon, if China engineers a war with the USA, or simply blunders into one, they would fall victim to sanctions and loss of trading partners. Their economy would be affected and perhaps ruined, especially if it were a long war. Why would they risk that?
Jon does have a point. China is not a Country but more of a ruling party governed by Xi. The masses don’t get as say in how things are run. If xi says jump, the country as whole will jump. Again if that means the Country’s economy is destroyed in the process, then so be it. The Party see the economy as a means to an end, not the be all and end all that we see it.
Agree 100% with all you have written Jonathan. I wonder what is wrong with all the Governments that they seem so reluctant to get their Act together and prepare for an event such as you describe.
I don’t think there’s sufficiently good reason to believe it’s nonsense, so I also can’t understand why Western political leaders are so willing to chance it. Macron is still trying to get Germany to pay for France’s defence industry, and UK leaders despite talking the talk, still feel a couple of billion here or there is going to make a difference, when we all know it’s fiddling while Rome has an arsonist problem.
Jon,
Completely agree. Many hope HMG will engage in serious rearmament, sooner rather than later. Apparent small measures planned/underway. Enough, cumulatively, may have an impact. š¤
FUSAF, it has been confirmed for a month or so that our Defence spend goes from 2.3% of GDP to 2.5% in FY 2027/28. Not enough to allow very significant rearmament across all three services, but a fairly good sticking plaster. Spend will go up to 3.0% in the next Parliamentary session, if Labour is still in power.
For a good reason. In France, the situation is the same as the US with Germany. Trade deficit. The other thing is we have weapons and people to manufacture them. So we would greatly appreciate that people buy them. I perfectly understand Mr Trumps arguments. We face the same situation. We have to balance our trade with Germany and the Nerthermands, weapons are a way to achieve this. Countrarily to Mr Trump, France share the fate of Europeanās.
Reasons are complex and some have been mentioned on here a plenty. Some are so deeply entwined in our current national condition that they will take decades to correct.
Long Term Issues:
Lack of investment in onshore industrial capacity. Worse than that we have been investing on our enemy’s industrial base. In this regard there is some limited evidence that Trumps tariffs are changing investment calculations in big business – may be glabalisation was good for the CEO’s and big investors in big business but it hasn’t been that good to the rest us. Which means our homefront is seriously weakened. After all you don’t fight a war of national survival with professional troops, sadly they tend not to survive the opening phases, you fight it with a citizens army and a robust and steadfast homefront willing to suffer all kinds of hardship for the troops on the frontline. Right now there are many who feel left behind and disenchanted with their lot. They don’t just want jobs, they want jobs and careers that enable them to create a better life for their families;
Shortages of trained and crucially experienced people. More home front stuff. The without experienced engineers and engineering crafts people building effective kit becomes hugely challenging, just look at the Astute SSN program. It’s been like starting from scratch. Experience takes time, lots of it, experience and time are directly related. Looking at the time it has taken to reestablish our SSN building capability you are looking at generational timescales. It is no accident that China has been building to this point for 40 years. We are only just starting to respond..! this point alone should scare everyone witless;
Productivity investment. Productivity is not about flogging workers to ‘work harder’ it is about investment in training and automation that give them the advantage. Another side effect of globalisation is that big business has focused not just on profit but on quick profit with a single mindedness that is only possible because of the disconnect between manufacturers and their market that globalisation as made possible. So the money that would have been invested in training and machinery in the post war world has instead been taken as profit and dividends while the factories have moved to low wage countries. This has pinned back wages in developed countries as our industries have moved out of their homelands so our economies and tax take have stagnated. Hence national debt…;
Long story short. 40 years of globalisation have disarmed us, and stunted our national growth per capita (I actual find my self agreeing with Farage on the per capita GDP point, and trust me when I say that chills me). The gap between rich and poor is unsustainable, there are even billionaires telling the government to introduce a wealth tax but the Treasury can’t see past its establish orthodoxy, and politicians wonder why people are getting stressed and angry with the system..!;
Short Term Issues:
Some of the points above drive the short term limitations of what can be achieved. Lack of industrial capacity being the biggest of the lot;
Then there is recruitment. Why would anyone want to defend a country and way of life that has left them behind? We need real leadership to give back a sense of belonging to our country and communities. Those communities that have been left behind need to be brought back into the national family. Leadership. What leadership? We haven’t had decent leadership in this country for decades and I don’t see anybody capable of pulling the country together now. They just don’t get it and they don’t listen or answer the questions put to them.
Defence spending is not rising fast enough in response to the growing threat. In the worst case scenario the US could end pulling away from her allies all together, either by design or accident. As such Europe will be on its own and in a tight spot. UK defence spending needs to rise much more quickly than it is, as does much of the rest of Eureop’s. Much of defence spending could be classified as capital spending so should be outside of Reeves spending limits. That should have been the first signal, after all Germany is in the process of doing the every same thing so if they can do it so can we;
We need to commit to boasting our equipment procurement in the short (please note I say ‘commit to’ in the short term), stuff that is already in the pipeline. More frigates would be a good place to start. The MoD could take out options on additional T31 and T26 to signal that the industry is going to be busy long into the future. I would also indicate that the frigates will need to stay in production along side the T83, so solutions to that production capacity problem will be part of the procurement strategy. In other words, big business must invest in the UK if it wants contracts and that means shareholders and CEO’s can take a b****y haircut for a change;
Infrastructure. Where to start. Everything from defence housing to water infrastructure is going or has gone down the pan. Fighting a major war with crumbling infrastructure isn’t a good place to start from. In the case of water it wouldn’t take much for a waterborne bug to hit the home front given where we are. If it happened while the home front was trying to support the armed forces fighting a major war the result could defeat. Again companies need to be forced the step up and asset stripping hedge funds dealt with… Defence infrastructure is getting a half hearted boast. We need more good quality housing across the board, more storage facilities for spares and ammunition, etc. The list is enormous.
I could go on and on.
What I will say is that globalisation has worked for the rich but not for the rest of us. Goldsmith in the UK and Trump in the US warned against it back in the ’90’s… China has exploited western corporate greed brilliantly. We have in effect paid our enemy to prepare for a war against us. Now we must pay again to catch up and defend ourselves and I believe western big business owe us. A wealth tax is the way to go and if they try to run and take their wealth with them, take their nationhood status of them i.e.no RN running around to rescue them when the poop hits the fan.
Just for the record I do not support Trump or Farage. I believe them to be dangerous, but that does not mean I cannot recognise that they have made some valid points.
Cheers CR
PS. Sorry a bit of a rant there.
a very good rant though – interesting insights CR.
Human nature is to deny or think impossible those things that are completely unacceptable. Governments are made up of humans š¤·š»āāļø
Plus no government wants to be the bearer of such bad news to its votersā¦
(Thatās why you get people denying climate change, because they canāt accept the inevitable lifestyle changes.)
It is not possible to furn on a tap and see instant results. A lot of work is going on already in preparation. Quietly upping missile and drone production. Also munitions. A lot hinges on either getting recruitment resolved or national service.
Richard, we have only ever initiated conscription at the start of or during a world war.
There will be a marked increase in UK spending by 2030, and I suspect it will be more than 2.5%. Unless there is a marked change in Russian policy in the next few years, the buildup of European defence will create its own momentum and will be difficult to slow down. However, the thought of a powerful German military is a worry in its own right!
I never understood people worrying about Germany rearming.
Germany is easily the most peaceful of major nations. Iām far more concerned by an unarmed Germany.
Your ludicrous comments here have been repeatedly discredited by dozens of posters on this blog – because you post complete crap. Nobody gives a kippers dick what you are concerned about, you are too stupid to understand the need to check facts before you post.
I just had to fact check whether Kippers actually had dicks !
And???
Agree they are essentially generationally and culturally traumatising into essentially having a pacific stance.. actually getting the Germans to defend themselves is more the challenge.
What increase? The current idea is that we reach 2.5 % by 2027/28. This takes no account of inflation, nor does it take account of a virtually zero rate in the economy so 2.5 % of what. In real terms defence may well be getting less in real terms than it is now. All increases are welcome but most of the current spend is going, probably rightly, on infrastructure for the defence base and housing. No additional equipment orders have been forthcoming.
Unconcerned re German conventional weapon systems rearmament. Actually beneficial for ENATO to have a strong Teutonic warrior class, able, armed and willing. A separate, independent, sovereign German nuclear capability? Hmmm…let us all deliberate…ever so slowly and thoroughly… š¤š
Maurice, Germany was permitted to rearm in 1956 and was very strong during the Cold War. Its army alone had three Corps and many thousands of tanks.
NATO has worked all these years as a strong deterrent. Now if usa pull out of article 5 during an incursion on a nato country that would be quite a massive act of betrayal even for maga. Who would trust America again. Agree we factor in that usa is not going to play such a big role in European defence and really they should not have to. We do need them until we are more up to speed in Europe.
That is what Putin is counting on, because the USA not abiding by Article 5 essentially marks the end of NATO as a credible alliance. Which is why Putin will move against a NATO state while Trump is in office. So expect Putin to move in 2028.
Unfortunately I think you are correct.. personally I think as China is essentially aiming for a 2027+ move on Taiwan you may just see both moves at or close to the same time..
Spock, I doubt Putin, if he is still in power in 3 years time, will have fully reconstituted his armed forces to take on further major combat deployment. If he did attack a NATO country, then 31 nations would respond to Article 5, even if the US did not. More than enough to deal with a depleted Russian army.
Germany is my amateur talking point. Who appeased the Russians after crimea invasion with development of Nord stream 2 gas pipeline. Who wanted cheap Russian fuel for their industrial exports. Closed down new German nuclear power stations, did not maintain or contribute a proportional military defence to nato. They thought they were green and peaceful and they burnt brown coal and hugged Putin quite awful period of history waiting for historians to reflect on.
They definitely were not appeasing Russia, unless appeasement is moving all your military might to a countries border for peaceful intentions. Like russia moving their nukes to Cuba for peaceful intentions. If they had actually appeased Russia, stopped threatening them or discrimating against Russians in Ukraine, making it illegal to speak Russian in Ukraine in introducing yourself, there would be no war.
So you are a Russian agent spouting lies like that.
Was Ukraine persecuting Russians when it elected a Russian speaking Jew who spent a lot of his life working in Russia as president?
I thought restrictions on speaking Russian followed the invasions
All lies manufactured by Russian disinformation units.
A national 1 tenth of the power of another does not provide a realistic threat by moving troops closer to a border.. it would be like France invading Belgium because it moved a battalion of troopsā¦total propaganda nothing more.
Apologies in advance for the long post but I have an hour to kill and a bit of a rant to get off my chestā¦
For the past 110 years, US foreign policy was dictated by a Mackinderian view of geopolitics which aims at preventing hegemony on the Eurasian continent by ensuring disputed control of the North European āheartlandā. Itās why they intervened in the 20th century wars and why NATO was formed and controlled by them – to prevent German and then Soviet hegemony. Iād argue that America First is the beginning of a revised world view starting to play out; itās still not in their interest to have a Eurasian hegemon but supporting Europe as a means to prevent that is no longer their chosen path. If you look past the slightly absurd characters currently fronting it, a pretty clear policy shift emerges. There are perhaps 4 big ideas (in no particular order and all highly related):
Firstly, Russia:
The brutal realpolitik of preventing Chinese hegemony means that America wants to remove Russia from its increasingly close embrace with China, and achieving justice for all recent and past crimes are therefore subordinated to this goal. The Russians for their part are well aware that they would ultimately be dominated by China in an increasingly close relationship of unequal partners, and are therefore in fact desperate for an alternative. This point has been reached now though a series of relatively recent miscalculations on both sides that led to the Ukraine war which, as horrific as it is, itās only the catalyst for this bigger realignment taking place (or not). Again, the bottom line is that it is strongly in Americaās interest to bring Russia back in from the cold and the hard truth is that almost all other matters in Europe will be subordinate to this.
Secondly, Europe and NATO:
If you re-read a history of the Falklands conflict, one of the main things which will stand out is just how much of a role the UN played in the story some 40 years ago. The UN is now effectively completely overshadowed by a return to pre-20th century power politics, because the so-called rules-based order which it represents has gone. Itās likely that for this reason, as well the American desire to bring Russia in from the cold, NATO in its current form is no longer a credible organisation. The Americans have decided that it is no longer in their long-term interest to unconditionally backstop European security and are taking a much more transactional approach. Depending on your viewpoint, itās either an overdue reckoning or they have descended into something not much more than a protection racket but either way, itās clear that NATO as it was is over – it simply isnāt viewed as being value for American money any more.
Thirdly, China:
America First is essentially a de-globalisation agenda where the US is seeking to re-industrialise, and in doing so, formalise the competition with China as being the primary axis around which all other elements of geopolitics will revolve. If itās true, this will have huge consequences for the way the world evolves in the second half of the century: For example, itās possible that once they have re-shored / near-shored enough manufacturing, they will effectively allow China to have their way with Taiwan. Said another way, why would America risk war over an island that manufactures things that Americans themselves want to manufacture in their poverty-stricken rust belt? Itās evident that moral and historical arguments for alliances count for little in the new administration. The question will be where America and China draw the line. Nobody knows but itās likely that SE Asia becomes a grey zone where America will seek to prevent Chinese hegemony by influencing regional players like India, the Philippines and Australia and China will seek to counter.
Fourthly, The Americas
The USA has clearly made a decision that their near-abroad needs to be consolidated and brought under their direct control. Itās actually very similar to Russiaās views on Ukraine or Georgia, or Chinaās view on Tibet or Taiwan (to name but a few). It will be interesting to see how much this American near-abroad extends South of Panama but it would potentially extend a very considerable way to prevent anyone else (Read: China) achieving a foothold close to them. Itās doubtful whether full annexation of Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia etc is being seriously considered but itās not beyond the realms that a kind of commonwealth may be in mind.
So what does all this mean for us?
For Europe, it should now be very clear. The individual European states are too small by themselves to meaningfully influence major world events and will therefore always be āPrice takersā. This has of course been the case since WW2 but the gamekeeper across the pond who kept everyone safe was quite benevolent so all was well. Unfortunately they have recently hinted that they wonāt do it any more – they unlocked the gate and now we have to face the scary people on the outside ourselves. The choice appears stark: either muddle-on with a hilariously dysfunctional EU, fully break into sub-scale nation-states or finally move towards becoming the Churchillian āUnited States of Europeā. To have any kind of real say; a move towards the later seems inevitable sooner or later – and all that comes with it – including an integrated EU military.
And for the UK? In a way, itās still our age-old dilemma: To look west or east. Until recently, this author was a consistent ālook Westā kind of guy but is now for the first time seriously questioning this. The idea of a properly functioning US of E seems very remote indeed – the key question though is whether or not itās now in our interest to try to bring it about.
Given that itās now clear we have to fend for ourselves, it seems like this is the least-worst choice.
Good, thought provoking post…
You and Jonathan have painted a grim picture between you, but frankly two well written posts summing up the threats we face. Europe really needs to pull its fingers out the UK will have to make a very difficult choice soon enough. Given what is being said about Greenland, I’d take Europe every day squabbles an’ all.
CR
OOA,
Excellent post. Sorry, indulged in presenting a variation of your third thesis re China/US geostrategy, w/out benefit of reading your contribution.
OOA.
Thanks for this. Great read, on the Jonathan level.
Really nice post, cannot disagree with anything you have said there.. the key questions are
1) china and the US..will the US back away from chinas red lines or will they go to war ? Because china will be reunified one way or the other.
2) china Russian relations can the U.S. pull Russia out of chinas orbit ?
3) can Europe pull itself together to become the 3rd superpower or will it for ever be a wealthier 21c version of Africa ( a continent picked over by other powers
4) does the UK look to the the new European power or to the US or does it steer into splend Isolation ( not sure that one would be sustained ).
5) will the New European super power stabilise relations with Russia or will Russia try something and get itself eaten alive.
Uk has multiple options, including EU & CANZUK (look at the numbers, CANZUK is a sizeable number & way less arguments) or go it alone. The Denmark-Norway-Sweden-Finland-Iceland grouping is another that will likely hang together regardless of EU/NATO & is generally pro UK. Italy will likely be pro UK but doesnāt know why. Netherlands would prefer UK & Germany to France. Belgium doesnāt know what way to look. EU is a mess.
Indeed I actually think that the way thinks have panned out around brexit may just have played to the UK having far far more choices, but also forcing the EU into a more realistic mindset.. because if the UK had still been a member I think a lot of EU nations would be more cavalier with a let France and the UK sort it outā¦ now the UK is more of a will they wonāt they factor..
Yes, hear, hear. Good post and read.
Nice one OOR, that does sum things up nicely. Though I think there could also be another power play, where China looks North to Siberia etc. However, that play will be decided upon how China views Russia’s strength. As Russia will more likely use nukes on the border areas, due to the significantly smaller “Russian” populations. But at some point in the future, Russia will have to do something, due to massive influx of Chinese migrant workers in the Southern Siberian region. Where new Chinese towns have emerged and are run by Chinese administrations.
There is one thing to bear in mind when dealing with those from the USA – meaning no disrespect to FormerUSAF. In that a lot of them still have a 19th Century mindset. Where back in the day, they were encouraged to “take” land and develop it for the good on the New Nation. But also imbued them with an ethos of law that is built from strength, i.e. my stick is bigger than yours, so I must be right and you must be wrong. I saw this exemplified when working with the US Army in particular and I’m seeing this a lot in business as well. This mindset is something you have to keep in mind when trying to broker a deal. Business is war after all!
Well then stop funding the Russian war machine by buying Russian energy. Or does that make too much sense? lol
Dan, who was that aimed at? Western Europe has reduced its spend on Russian fossil fuels dramatically in the last 3 years. Turkey is a major importer though and 5 other countries are minor importers.
I wondered if European rearmament would trigger some kind of response in Moscow. If Putin really does want to rebuild the Russian empire then the Baltic States and possibly even Finland could be on his target list. As such Western European forces sitting in Estonia, for example, probably really pees him off. If he wants to rebuild the European sphere of influence / domination that Russia / USSR once controlled then have a rapidly rearming Poland calling for more effort from its allies must be driving him bonkers.
So I would not be at all surprised if they are not preparing for some sort of incursion. So it is up to Western Europe to deter Russia effectively. So more of everything will be need to deter them, note I say deter not fight… as I think deterrence is some ways requires a bigger stick if you want to be absolutely clear and leave absolutely no doubt in your enemy’s mind.
This news just makes it more real for those who have been kidding themselves otherwise.
The US administration isn’t exactly playing a good game as far as Russia is concerned which is probably fueling a sense of opportunity in Moscow.
Plus the CRINK nations seem to be pulling together even as the West seems to be fracturing.
All in all an increasingly dangerous geopolitical situation.
I just hope someone in Whitehall is paying proper attention as I am not yet convinced that the politicians are up to speed.
CR
CR,
Again, on-target post. Even positing credible ENATO rearmament (including nuclear capabilities), France and UK will need to determine whether Paris and London would actually be exchanged to protect Tallinn, Riga and Vilnius. š¤š³
It does not work this way. Nuclear weapons avoid nuclear blackmail. If you want to imply they are used in operations, then it is a story not backed up by French or British strategy.
Nukes are a no win situation. Yes there a few minors, but the majors can kill everyone in the world multiple times over. Basically no power with access to nukes can afford to use them. If you are a minor, you will no longer will exist. If a major, how are you at starting a fire by rubbing two sticks together?
Maybe not British, but French Doctrine absolutely includes the use of Tactical Nuclear Weapons, including the use of tactical nukes used against low priority targets as a “warning” shot before going to all out Strategic Nuclear Attacks.
A bigger stick & also necessary to demonstrate the will to use it rather than leaving Putin in the conciet that we are too weak to do anything kenetic. A demonstration of force sooner rather than later could pay dividends.
Kinetic! Oh for that edit button.
I am making a real GOOD MONEY (200$ to 400$ / hr )online from my laptop. Last month I GOT check of nearly 33,000$, this online work is simple and straight forward, don’t have to go OFFICE, Its home online job.Everybody must try this home online job now by just use this Following Website.
Open Thisāā šš°š°.ššØš«š¤š¬šš«šØšš¢šš.ššØš¦
CR,
“Speak softly and carry a big stick, you will go far.” Aphorism of one Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt, 26th POTUS, and a personal hero. Unfortunately all the giants who once walked among us are historical figures. Can’t imagine leaders such as W.S. Churchill, D.D. Eisenhower, R. W. Reagan not having Mad Vlad and his Merry Band of Orcs, the Crazy Mullahs, and Kim Jong Nutbag sorted by lunch, or at the latest. afternoon tea. Admittedly, ChiComs could require additional time and effort, but one way or another it would happen.
Yes I do find it a sad situation.. especially with US presidents.. you lost your way in great leaders.
A lack of quality leadership in the west is a major problem and has been for decades. Without it we are in deep trouble. In the UK the Starmer government seems more afraid of making mistakes than actually getting on and providing leadership. Leadership means motivating people and that means giving them hope and opportunity. A joint purpose. Instead we have uncertainty and hopelessness in many communities across the country. A sense of them and us.
If the country is to rally and face the threats head, which it needs to do, people need to have something to buy into. In post war Britain living standards improved and the gap between rich and poor narrowed. Two world wars in which rich and poor fought side by side in the trenches and coal mines made a difference and did much to change Britain. Since the big bank and globalisation poverty has risen and the gap between rich and poor has expanded massively. People have had enough, but the politicians don’t get it and until they do they will not have the authority or the standing to lead. The same goes for the wealthy classes, they are seen as asset strippers by many.
And that leaves a vacuum. It is a dangerous place to be in the current global context. The CRINK nations are rapidly evolving into a new 21c Axis. They don’t trust each other and they will never form an alliance as NATO once was, they will act to support reach when it suits themselves and therein lies the threat for opportunities for the CRINK nations are opening up and if they act together they could all come out of it well a head of the west.
The UK can speak softly and often has to some effect, but we need a much much bigger stick in the current context and most of all we need a leader capable of speaking to the people as well as world leaders…
Cheers CR
of course it it, we’re seeing an unprecedented level of beliggerance from the west, unparralled since the end of the cold war
Belligerence from the West? š
Russia has invaded and occupied parts of Georgia, Moldova, and now Ukraineā¦
NATO has invadedā¦, nobody.
š Again, putin troll?
For āend of decadeā, read ā2028ā – Trumpās final full year in office. Putinās attack on a NATO state depends on Trump being in power AND not honouring Article 5.
Although not backing NATO, Trump may well use such an international crisis to impose martial law and cancel the presidential election to extend his term of office.
What state will our forces by in by then? A great deal of our purchases wonāt be operational before 2030ā¦.
Such is the problem with an elected King. There is no one person to say get on your bike, itās not happening (even if that is all they can do) . The US constitutional solution is unworkable. Americans appear blissfully unaware of this fact. If you have a leader out of control, you need to be able to remove them in 5 minutes, otherwise said leader can take steps to neutralise you instead or continue unabated for months. Once a US President (king) is elected, itās very hard & time consuming to remove them. Elected Prime Ministerās have been removed within minutes by parliamentarians or by the monarch (or their representative) or president (in parliamentary republics).
some excellent analysis and commentary on this post, very insightful. Thanks for the contributions CR, Jonathan and others.