The global scene seems to be changing at dizzying speed. States in Europe are significantly increasing their military budgets, re-examining their defense, and revising every strategic plan, which includes the reinstatement of mandatory military service. At the heart of the new Cold War scenario are the borders with Russia: plans for moving tens of thousands of soldiers and tanks from Western Europe to the East are in full swing. The EU and NATO are not limited to preparations "for any eventuality"—Europe seems to be preparing for a conflict that may come much sooner than we imagine.
War is approaching
"We always said that this, a direct conflict with Russia, could happen in 2029. However, now there are some who argue that it is possible as early as 2028, while some military historians believe that we lived the last peaceful summer," German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said in mid-November.
The estimate of three to four years is the most frequent among European politicians. In fact, sometimes it doesn't change: even in February 2024, Pistorius himself mentioned roughly the same numbers.
Even tomorrow
However, his subordinates give much gloomier predictions. "If one looks at the current situation, Russia is capable of launching a limited strike on NATO territory even tomorrow," said the head of NATO's Joint Support and Enabling Command (JSEC), Lieutenant General Alexander Zolfrank, in an interview with Reuters. For now, in his words, the conflict may remain local. But there is a possibility that with the completion of the conflict in Ukraine, the situation will change.
Military spending
In the background, the largest European countries are increasing their military spending. By the end of next year, the Merz government wants to pass defense contracts worth 83 billion euros through the Bundestag. And already by 2029, spending on the Bundeswehr—the German army—will reach 153 billion euros. The Germans are working on a total of 320 procurement programs for various weapons, with a total cost of 377 billion euros.
In France, the situation is similar—only the dimensions differ. By 2030, Paris intends to spend 413 billion euros on the defense industry and the military. In London, the most radical military reform of the last fifty years has begun: the army will be restructured with an emphasis on unmanned vehicles, and already by 2029, spending will reach 3% of GDP.
With a collective effort
However, the efforts of individual countries in Europe are not enough. Preparation for conflict is taking place at the NATO and EU level. At the Madrid Summit in 2022, NATO members agreed to reform the NATO Response Force (NRF) and created in its place the Allied Response Force (ARF). Not only is the name changing: the number of troops in a state of increased operational readiness increased more than sevenfold—from 40,000 to 300,000. If the concept of the NRF provided for the transfer of these 40,000 soldiers anywhere in Europe within 15 days, the ARF provided for the deployment of 100,000 soldiers in 10 days and an increase in their number to 300,000 within the first month.
Even more ambitious plans
Now the plans—for example, in Berlin—are even more ambitious. "In case of conflict, Germany will become NATO's central base. In the shortest possible time, up to 800,000 soldiers and their equipment from various NATO countries can be transferred through Germany to the eastern front," Zolfrank states. But for such a movement to be possible, developed and bureaucratically simplified logistical support is required. And in this, as the Europeans admit, there are serious problems.
Logistics are critical
In each EU country, different rules apply for the movement of troops across borders. On average, an application is processed for about ten days. In some member countries, even more is required. "Currently, the transfer of an army from strategic Western ports to countries bordering Russia or Ukraine takes about 45 days," the Financial Times reports, citing EU representatives.
Military Schengen
In this context, the EU wants to create a "Military Schengen," a mechanism that would simplify the transfer of troops. The European Commission has developed a unified plan for the entire union that aims to reduce the time for this procedure to five or even three days. Legal procedures should last a maximum of six hours. As the FT notes, during this time NATO plans to transfer approximately 200 thousand soldiers, 1,500 tanks, and 2,500 units of other types of armored vehicles from the US and Canada through continental Europe.
Huge spending
The plan to increase military mobility was presented by the EC on Wednesday. To implement it, the Europeans will have to significantly increase spending—financing for military mobility must increase at least tenfold. In March, Defense Commissioner Anders Kubilius complained that the total budget for these purposes reached 1.7 billion euros and had already been spent. Now the European Commission intends to allocate 17.65 billion euros for the period 2028-2034. And this is only the tip of the iceberg.
500 problematic points
Four possible transport corridors have been selected in the EU, through which troops would be transferred in case of conflict. On these routes, 500 problematic points (bridges, tunnels, and ports) were identified, where a "bottleneck" problem might occur. To avoid this, it is proposed to invest an additional 100 billion euros in infrastructure.
The preparation for direct conflict with Russia in Europe is intensifying. The potential adversary is not limited to strengthening its military capabilities but is also working on coordination, so that the new version of the "army of twelve languages" functions as a unified body. That is why, in Brussels and other European capitals, they are ready to tighten the reins considerably.
Why does Europe want to prolong the war in Ukraine?
On the night of November 23, the content of the plan of the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom for resolving the conflict in Ukraine became known. The European plan was drafted in response to the proposal of US President Donald Trump and differs from it in a number of points important to Russia, such as the number of troops of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU), the accession of Ukraine to NATO, and territorial issues.
Typically, most European countries remain allies of Ukraine, but disagreements are increasing within the EU: some states are increasing support for the AFU, while others—such as Hungary, Slovakia, and Italy—are blocking restrictions against Russia and hoping for the subsequent restoration of cooperation.
Igor Pellicciari, Professor of History of Institutions and International Relations at the University of Urbino Carlo Bo, argues that "the EU's actions are a symptom of a deeper cognitive shock in the West."
"The leadership confuses pressure with deterrence and punishment with strategy. Instead of pursuing real peace, European bureaucrats have turned sanctions into a moral ritual and for many years continue to believe that increased pressure can contain Russia. In reality, this merely reinforces its determination," Pellicciari says, mentioning that what Europe primarily seeks in Ukraine is to gain time.
They want to gain time
"The EU, at this stage, primarily aims to gain time. It aims at freezing the conflict, so that markets stabilize and difficult decisions are postponed," the Italian professor argues, stating that "the EU only seeks the continuation of the conflict and not its resolution" and that it "maintains the illusion of unity."
The EU cannot exert pressure
"The EU is trying to convince Trump of a compromise ceasefire and is ready to offer him a greater role in defense and reconstruction. However, the EU lacks real levers of pressure and internal unity, so the success of this effort remains limited. The positions differ: Trump prefers clear and visible results, while European politicians seek uncertainty—two opposing logics," the Italian expert states, pointing out that the joint EU-Ukraine plan "is an attempt by the EU to maintain its moral superiority, offering, essentially, a dead-end solution for resolving the conflict in Ukraine."
"The plan confirms the consistency of the previous policy more than it shows an intention for real peace. Its implementation will only stabilize a 'frozen balance', convenient for European politics and the budget. The belief that new sanctions will force Russia into greater concession remains problematic and empirically wrong," Pellicciari says, emphasizing that "the European Union is divided between the pragmatic Eastern core and the morally populist Western core."
"The victory of Andrej Babiš in the Czech Republic reinforces the concept of 'selective solidarity': he agrees to support Ukraine only if it benefits European countries," the Italian analyst concludes.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών