Europe has been speaking—for several months now—increasingly in the language of war. Its enemy is clear: Russia. Defense budgets are skyrocketing, military factories are expanding, governments are beginning to consider the reinstatement of mandatory military service ever more seriously, intelligence services are publicizing scenarios of a Russian attack, and the European Union is now planning not merely "defense," but its so-called Readiness 2030—its preparedness for extreme military crises. And yet, despite all this preparation, most analysts point out in an emphatic manner that Europe is not ready to fight Russia at a time when European citizens also state their categorical opposition to a new war. Consequently, the question naturally arises as to what exactly lies behind the ongoing rhetoric of European leaders, the reports from security services, and the new militarization of Europe to counter the famous "Russian threat," when Europe cannot even find those who would fight against the Russians.
"Merz should go to the front"
In Germany, students, teenagers, and young people recently took to the streets of dozens of German cities to protest against the potential reinstatement of mandatory military service and the new procedures for conscription registration and medical examinations. The organizers' initiative spoke of more than 45,000 participants across approximately 100 cities. On their placards was a message that could hardly be misinterpreted: "Military obligation? No, thank you." "The rich want war, the youth want a future!" was one of the slogans, although the most popular was the one stating: "Friedrich Merz to the front." Indeed, it is thanks to the governing Christian Democrats of the CDU that medical examinations for men were made mandatory.
Medical exams and conscription
According to the law, it was supposed to begin on January 1, 2027, but in practice it is already being conducted now. Men receive notices demanding that they present themselves for a medical examination, otherwise facing the threat of a far from negligible fine. An interesting detail: if a German hides and they fail to locate him, then the medical board decides in absentia on his fitness for conscription. What we call "on paper." It is obvious that in this way they will classify literally everyone as fit, regardless of any illnesses. And while no one speaks of "mobilization," everyone suspects that the next stage will be the return of mandatory military service.
What the past shows
Mandatory conscription existed in the Federal Republic of Germany during the Cold War, when West Germany's armed forces numbered over half a million men. Yet even after the reunification of the two Germanies, when it seemed there was no longer anyone to fight, military service was not abolished. German military personnel made their presence felt in Yugoslavia, participating in the occupation and bombing of the Serbs. Together with the Americans they occupied Afghanistan, while supporting them in the aggressive war against Iraq. Subsequently, they organized countless military exercises near Russia's borders, in new NATO territories. The hypothetical opponent in these exercises was always the Russians, whereas today they have turned into an opponent without any reservation. Formally, the number of Bundeswehr personnel was decreasing, yet support personnel grew, technologies were improved, and exercises and specific combat operations were carried out. And mandatory conscription had not disappeared—it was merely suspended indefinitely in 2011. Now, as we can see, it is ready to return.
Germans do not want it
Many Germans do not want this. The disastrous failure of the governing CDU in local elections proved it. During the Cold War era, West German youth protested en masse against conscription and militarization, as well as against American military bases. Unforgettable are the massive human chains formed to prevent the deployment of American Pershing missiles. Iconic protesters against that era's militarization later grew into prominent politicians—Oskar Lafontaine, Joschka Fischer, Gerhard Schröder. Later, their political paths diverged significantly, but in the 1970s and 1980s they consistently argued that the USSR was not an enemy of the Federal Republic of Germany and that the entire threat of war stemmed from German revanchists. However, at that time no one could have imagined that the Chancellor of Germany would begin announcing plans for war with the USSR and consider deploying military forces on Ukrainian territory. The danger threatening today's German conscripts is orders of magnitude greater than that which threatened their ancestors during the Cold War. It is against this that German students are attempting to protest.
Wolfgang Münchau: "Europe is not ready for Russia"
And while Germans, as well as the overwhelming majority of Europeans, do not wish to fight, analysts point out in an emphatic manner that Europe is not ready for a war with Russia. This is also emphasized by well-known columnist Wolfgang Münchau, who in an article in UnHerd points out that Europe lags behind Russia in many sectors. "Russia essentially has no debt. Due to the conflict in Ukraine a small fiscal deficit has been created, but this is nothing compared to the suffocating deficits in the US, France, and now Germany as well. As a result, the West faces the risk of a potentially catastrophic financial crisis," the publication states. The article notes that last week the yield on 10-year US government bonds—one of the world's most important financial instruments—surged to its highest level in 21 years, reaching 5.2%. Regular investors, such as pension funds, are moving away from US treasuries, as they are no longer considered so safe, the columnist writes. In his view, the West should hold no illusions regarding the balance of power in a potential war with Russia. "Whose bond markets will collapse first? Which side will run out of interceptor missiles sooner? Thanks to the much-discussed Common Agricultural Policy, however much it is criticized, Europe is not at risk of running out of food. However, in all other sectors—military, energy, and financial—the Old Continent is at a distinct disadvantage," Münchau added.
Where the intelligence services are heading
And while European citizens have no intention of fighting, and while analysts warn in a categorical manner that Europe is not ready for a war, another critical question arises: what are actions and moves, such as those of the Danish intelligence services, actually aiming at? On September 14, a Danish Fennec helicopter approached a Russian ship, which was in international waters of the Baltic Sea, at a dangerously close distance—supposedly for "routine photography." In order to warn the Danes of the risk of collision, the Russian crew was forced to launch two flares. Subsequently, the helicopter immediately moved away, while the next day the Danish Ministry of Defense caused a huge stir internationally, stating that one of the flares "passed within two meters of the helicopter."
Uncomfortable questions
And right around there, problems suddenly began for the head of the Danish Defense Ministry, Jeppe Bruus, when the Danish press started asking entirely obvious but extremely uncomfortable questions about the incident. Beyond the talk of "Russian aggression," it turned out that the version presented by Bruus's ministry was so hastily put together that in the end they reasonably began asking him: how was it possible for a flare, whose range does not exceed 150–200 meters, to pass next to the helicopter if it was at a safe distance from the corvette? This left the minister flustered. He began stating in annoyance that the Danish press "pays far too much attention to the Russian version," that "we must trust our military," and that he himself "is not an expert on distances."
Russian drones
Journalists, however, reminded him that last autumn they had already trusted government statements regarding the "high risk of Russian drones" supposedly flying over Danish airports. At that time a major scandal had erupted, and the "incident" was included in all subsequent Western analysts' reports on "Russia's hybrid warfare." A few months later, however, the Danish police quietly closed the investigation, essentially acknowledging that such unmanned aircraft never existed. And what did the Danish Defense Minister do when suddenly confronted with the skepticism of his own country's press? Bruus, obviously realizing he had been exposed, convened a special press conference at which the Danish Military Intelligence Service (FE), under his own ministry, presented a completely useless and empty three-page document titled: "Assessment of the threat from Russia." That is, they decided in this simplistic way to divert the attention of the press from the embarrassing maritime incident for the Danish Defense Ministry and to release into the public realm a contentless paper with a high-sounding title. And, in a way, it succeeded: the next day the entire Western press was writing about this document. Only, in its interpretation, the relatively harmless conclusions of the FE acquired an almost apocalyptic character—and unexpectedly so, even for the authors of the report themselves.
Extremely unlikely risk of attack by Russia
The point is that these three pages do not constitute an analysis of classified data, nor a prediction of events based on secrets stolen from Moscow, but a simple listing of plausible and implausible scenarios—most likely hastily put together by artificial intelligence based on open online sources. The document clearly states that the risk of a direct Russian attack against Europe is considered "extremely unlikely"—yes, this time "highly unlikely"—while the risk of a "limited military attack" is assessed as "low, but increasing." In other words, the Danish intelligence service essentially made an assessment without any particular certainty, but in any case presented a document that did not cultivate panic.
Incredible escalation
And now let us look at the hysteria of the Western media over this. CNBC, The Guardian, Financial Times, Sky News, and other outlets appeared with almost identical headlines: "Russia could attack a NATO country in the coming months, Danish intelligence services warn." One can imagine the open mouths in shock of Danish military analysts the day after the press conference when reading these news items. They wanted to extinguish the scandal surrounding the anti-Russian provocation, but ultimately caused even greater tension. This is precisely how, in reality, escalation is fueled.
Anti-Russian hysteria
This is exactly what Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was speaking about on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly when describing the anti-Russian hysteria in Europe around preparations for war with Russia in 2030. "Such an attitude can turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy," the minister warned, pointing out that today there are many adventurers among the European elites. These adventurers, as the Russian Foreign Minister argued, continue to play with the nerves of their citizens through scenarios about Russia, clearly exceeding the boundaries. Something that is confirmed not only by the skepticism of Danish journalists themselves toward the Danish military's version.
War Game
With deep skepticism, for example, the British public received the broadcast "War Game" on Sky One. In it, "downed pilots" of British politics simulated the progression of a war with Russia. The role of the Prime Minister of Britain was played by the once powerful Conservative government minister Michael Gove, who still dreams of one day actually moving into 10 Downing Street. The role of Defense Secretary was played by Penny Mordaunt, who until relatively recently was indeed Defense Secretary. Even more striking is how easily these adventurers dragged their country into war against Russia in this particular show: it culminates in a discussion about the possibility of a nuclear strike. After that, obviously, comes darkness.
Relentless propaganda
And yet, even traditional critics of Russia attacked this terrifying spectacle. The liberal magazine The New World characterizes it as "pure propaganda," because every episode ends with the same thought: "Britain is inadequately equipped and not ready for war with Russia." "It's the end of the world with Michael Gove—we are all doomed," ironizes The Times. Longtime critic of Russia Owen Matthews, writing in The Independent, pointed out precisely how the appearance of this show coincided chronologically with the report from the Danish military intelligence services, fitting organically into the broader European atmosphere of intimidation surrounding Russian aggression. And he highlighted the fundamental problem with these fearmongering scenarios: no one asks "how the fog of misunderstanding, rhetoric, and paranoia can be cleared, which constitutes the very source of the emerging confrontation with Russia."
Crescendo of absurdity
At the same time, the creation of a new mechanism for collective response to Russian actions that fall below the threshold of an armed attack is being examined by European governments, as concerns grow that existing measures have failed to deter Russian hybrid warfare. According to Jin10, citing a report by the Financial Times, several European countries are now in favor of a more coordinated European response to actions such as sabotage, arson, and destabilization operations. The issue acquires particular significance, as these specific actions do not necessarily reach the level of an armed attack that could trigger NATO's collective defense clause, known as Article 5.
Europe divided over handling Russia
European governments continue to disagree on how Russia's actions should be addressed. However, according to the report, a growing number of governments consider it necessary to create a permanent mechanism for collective response to incidents that do not meet the conditions for activating NATO's Article 5. At the center are actions such as acts of sabotage, arson, and other operations attributed to Russia which, according to European governments, aim to destabilize European states. The core idea is to have a mechanism that will allow EU member states to respond collectively, even when an attack is not severe enough or clearly defined enough to be considered a conventional military attack. European Defense Commissioner Kubilius argued that Europe needs to adapt its defense to the nature of new threats. "If Europe is facing hybrid war, it needs hybrid defense," he stated, according to the publication.
New emergency protocol in the EU
According to the Financial Times, EU defense ministers are expected to meet today, Monday 28/9, in Brussels to discuss a proposal by the European Commission for a new emergency protocol in the field of security. The protocol could be activated when a member state finds itself facing this type of attack. The goal will be the coordination of an effective joint response among European states, without requiring the activation of procedures envisioned for a conventional military attack.
Article 4
The proposed mechanism could significantly resemble the consultations envisioned under NATO's Article 4. Article 4 allows a member state of the Alliance to request consultations when it considers that its territorial integrity, political independence, or security is threatened. Unlike Article 5, the activation of Article 4 does not automatically entail a collective military response. It is precisely this logic that the European Union now appears to be examining, adapting it to the threats of hybrid warfare. The discussion in Brussels demonstrates that Europe is attempting to cover a security gap created by actions that lie in the so-called "gray zone" between peace and conventional war. For the EU, the objective is now to create a mechanism that will allow a faster and collective response to such incidents. The debate is expected to continue in Brussels, with the new protocol forming part of the European Union's broader effort to strengthen its defense and resilience against hybrid threats.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών