Yves here. Wowsers. This post exemplifies the fevered anti-Russian hawkery that has taken hold in far too many power centers in Europe. I don’t want to pre-empt readers flexing their intellectual muscles by taking apart the factually and logically challenged positions presented below.
But we’ll highlight one paragraph to get the discussion going:
For Germany, and much of the rest of Europe, the investment in more defence capabilities does not simply require producing more ammunition or procuring more advanced defence systems. These are important – but what is also needed is a significant investment in developing manpower. This means either finding more volunteers or reintroducing conscription, which is now no longer a taboo in Germany.
Producing only ammo? That’s actually hard, but putting that aside, experts have raised eyebrows over one German weapons scheme, of converting auto factories to manufacture tanks. The platform, cladding, navigation systems and electronics systems are so different that the redo would be pretty close to starting afresh.
As for “procuring more advanced defence systems” the Patriot is the best the US has and it has not been terribly effective in the field, particularly against hypersonic missiles. The US is also woefully constrained in missile production capacity. Lockheed was awarded a new contract in late 2024 to increase production to 650 missiles a year. Do the math. The usual rule of thumb is that two air defense missiles are launched at an incoming attack asset. So 650 missiles is 325 responses to incoming nasties all over the world.
Iran is believed to have between 3,000 and 6,000 missiles. Russia’s output target for 2025 includes 750 Iskander missiles and 560 Kh-101s. So relying on “procurement” is not going to go very far.
Well, how about Europe producing them? Aside from the fact that Europe depends on the US (what is it going to do about intel from satellites?), to my knowledge, European manufacturers are not much of anywhere in making “advanced” equipment. Mind you, Russia has shown the merits of designing cheap, fault-tolerant, comparatively easy to train on and maintain weapons systems, and being selective in the application of gee-whizzery.
But the Germans face another impediment. Under NATO, member states often built their own kit. Leopard tanks. Leclerc tanks. Challenger tanks. Stridsvagn tanks. The idea of having your defense expenditures go to create jobs in another country is not an easy sell. Mind you, Europe overcame that with Airbus, where different countries make different parts of the planes, but I don’t see any recognition yet of the need to coordinate design and production across European states if they really do get serious about rearmament.
And there is the wee problem of high energy prices, which seems unlikely to go away any time soon.
Depicting a draft as now no longer in Hallin’s sphere of deviance is not an indicator of viability. German and European readers can opine on the odds of survival of a German party that was serious about re-introducing conscription.
By Stefan Wolff, Professor of International Security, University of Birmingham. Originally published at The Conversation
Two statements from world leaders this week bear closer examination. On May 27, the US president Donald Trump took to his Truth Social social media channel to proclaim that if it wasn’t for him, “lots of really bad things would have already happened to Russia”. The following day the German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, announced that his country would assist Ukraine in developing long-range missiles to deploy against targets inside Russia. Both statements are quite extraordinary.
Even by Trump’s own standards, the public declaration by a sitting US president that he is protecting the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, is unprecedented. Putin is under indictment for war crimes and has been waging a war of aggression against Ukraine for more than three years after having illegally annexed Crimea over a decade ago. There can now be no doubt left that the US has become an unreliable ally for Ukraine and its European partners.
This is the context in which Merz’s announcement of increasing defence cooperation with Ukraine becomes significant. While Trump continues to chase an impossible deal with Putin – even after threatening to abandon his mediation efforts less than ten days ago – Germany has doubled down on Ukraine’s defence.
Not only that, but as the EU’s largest and Nato’s second-largest economy, Germany is now also aiming to turn its Bundeswehr (the German army, navy and air force) into the “strongest conventional army in Europe”. Its most senior military officer and chief of defence, Carsten Breuer, has published plans for a rapid and wide-ranging expansion of defence capabilities.
Germany is finally beginning to pull its weight in European defence and security policy. This is absolutely critical to the credibility of the EU in the face of the threat from Russia. Berlin has the financial muscle and the technological and industrial potential to make Europe more of a peer to the US when it comes to defence spending and burden sharing. This will be important to salvage what remains of Nato in light of a highly probable American down-scaling – if not complete abandonment – of its past security commitments to the alliance.
After decades of failing to develop either a grand strategy to deal with Russia or the hard power capabilities that need to underpin it, achieving either will take some time. But it is important to acknowledge that some critical first steps have been taken by the new German government.
Facing a Growing Threat
For Germany, and much of the rest of Europe, the investment in more defence capabilities does not simply require producing more ammunition or procuring more advanced defence systems. These are important – but what is also needed is a significant investment in developing manpower. This means either finding more volunteers or reintroducing conscription, which is now no longer a taboo in Germany.
Sending a whole new brigade to Lithuania, in its first international deployment since the second world war, is an important signal to Nato allies about Germany’s commitment to the alliance. It is also a clear signal to Russia that Germany finally is putting its money where its mouth is when it comes to containing the threat from Russia. It’s a threat which has grown significantly since the beginning of the Kremlin’s full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
The three years of Russia’s war against its neighbour have also highlighted the threat that Russia poses beyond Ukraine’s borders. The war against Ukraine has exposed European vulnerabilities and its dependence on the US. And it has taught military planners important lessons about what a future confrontation with Russia might look like. This is why Germany’s military planners have identified air defence systems, precision strike capabilities, drones, and electronic and cyber warfare assets as procurement priorities.
Beyond Germany, the signs have have been that Europe more broadly is beginning to learn to stand on its own feet when it comes to its security. For the continent, the challenge is threefold. It needs to beef up its defence spending in light of the ongoing war against Ukraine and Russian threats to expand it further. Europe also needs to come to termswith the dismantling of the transatlantic alliance by Trump. And, finally, there is a populist surge that threatens the very foundations of European democracy and risks undermining efforts to stand up to both Trump and Putin. This has been given extra fuel by the alignment of Trump’s “America-first” Maga movement with Putin’s Russia.
Major Challenges Ahead
These are enduring challenges with no quick fixes. The first test of this apparent new-found European mettle will be the war in Ukraine. Giving Ukraine permission to use long-range missiles against targets in Russia is not a new development. Such a move was first taken by the then US president, Joe Biden, in November 2024 when he authorised Ukraine to launch limited strikes into Russia using US-made long-range missiles, followed by similar authorisations from London and Paris at the time, but not Berlin.
Now, as then, how effective this will be depends not only on how many actual missiles Ukraine has but also on whether US intelligence sharing will continue. This is crucial for targeting. What’s more, effectiveness will also be difficult to measure. In a best-case scenario, Ukraine will now be able to stave off Russia’s reportedly impending summer offensive.
The Kremlin has already indicated its displeasure and ratcheted up its nuclear sabre rattling.
Regarding Trump's words about Putin "playing with fire" and "really bad things" happening to Russia. I only know of one REALLY BAD thing — WWIII.
I hope Trump understands this!— Dmitry Medvedev (@MedvedevRussiaE) May 27, 2025
Trump, meanwhile, remains all talk when it comes to putting any pressure on Russia. By contrast, the Europeans, for once, are much more action orientated, which is another indication of the increasing rift across the Atlantic.
This does not mean an end to transatlantic relations and pragmatic cooperation, as demonstrated by the meeting between the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, with his German counterpart, Johann Wadephul, which happened almost simultaneously with Trump’s and Merz’s statements.
What it does mean, however, is that Europe’s security now entirely depends on whether key players on the continent can muster the will to mobilise the resources required to defend the continent against an aggressive foe to the east. Berlin and other European capitals seem to have recognised at long last that this needs to happen. Now they need to demonstrate that they can follow through with swift and decisive action.
79 comments
Comments are closed.
>>>experts have raised eyebrows over one German weapons scheme, of converting auto factories to manufacture tanks….
OMG,can’t believe that this was even a serious thought from an “expert”.
it is not 1942. Building a modern tank, western-style is more like a Savile Row workshop crafting a morning suit. the only thing useable from an abandoned auto factory is the roof, loading docks, and utilities infrastructure
Perhaps that “expert” was thinking of the successful use of Toyota trucks as “technicals” in African wars? If so, that is far away from a tank and needs a whole different style of fighting — and military thinking.
Technicals and drones may very well be the present of warfare. The future of warfare? As somebody wise once said, it’s hard to predict, especially about the future.
You misread that comment.
Experts raised their eyebrows is a polite way of writing “Experts went WTF what were/are you thinking you morons, oh wait you weren’t”.
I think the Ukraine war has vividly demonstrated that tanks are a discredited and obsolete weapon system in modern warfare. Like naval ships, they just present an obvious and slow target for incoming drones and missiles and will presumably be destroyed in short order once they raise their heads.
The fact that this dude would propose building tank factories as a commitment to self-defense says all that needs to be said about his credentials in this field.
That was my first thought: Incinerated soldiers. The larger lesson is that most conventional warfare looks ludicrous in a period of advanced nuclear and airborne systems development and automated warfare, that the madness of contemporary war has never been more apparent.
The fact that Russia and Iran build their weapons with great urgency under the pressure of actually defending themselves while our systems are, too often, boondoggles born of corruption, (male) fantasies of a full-spectrum dominance that is also largely outmoded. . . leaves you with a lot of stuff that doesn’t work/doesn’t work very well. Thankfully, we have no shame, because the Pentagon and American arms manufacturers have had a lot of egg on their faces the last two years.
“(male) fantasies”
Did Ulrike von der Leyen served as de-facto disarmament minister, cunnigly weakening the military under the guise of ineptitude? Indeed, real mensch are needed.
I can’t read so many delusional statements from Wolff.
As if Russian Federation is dumb enough to fight at the end of long lines of communication to grab welfare states!
The French must be pleased that Germany is finally stepping up its military efforts – what took them so long?
The Polish, too.
Lots of good memories together.
disc_writes
Touché.
The reason I read this post Is that whenever the Germans get frisky, they invade Italy. Expect the Wehrmacht in Milano in a couple of years.
Al contrario, the Russians haven’t invaded lately.
Further, we have already seen the Germans at work. Check out the article about Serbia’s internal troubles by the esteemed Diana Johnstone, posted in Links by Conor Gallagher.
Newfound mettle!
And anyone with a German name bloviating about Crimea truly ought to be reminded of Germans and illegal seizures of Alsace Lorraine.
We’re busy planting more trees along the roadsides in Alsace Lorraine, so l’ami allemand can march in the shade.
Bugs
But are you making your famous recipe for choucroute garni to welcome the Prussians?
sure thing – but they’ll have to eat it on proper porcelain, instead of those hideous boards…
As Italian, I do not resent the Germans’ invasions all that much. Our traditional enemies are the Austrians, the French, and whoever happens to dominate the Balkans. When the Germans invade, it is usually our fault.
They invaded twice:
* in 1917 after Caporetto, but it took a lot of convincing from the Austrians: the Wehrmacht did not think Italy mattered enough to help Austria-Hungary.
* in 1943, but for somewhat understandable reasons. Mussolini’s arrest left a giant hole in the Nazi strategic architecture.
Then, sure, if you count the 1527 Sack of Rome and the various Germanic invasions, the numbers add up. But modern Germany only invaded Italy half-heartedly and as a last resort.
Ooops. My comment slipped down below.
I also demand the return of Savoia.
What about Corsica?
if you don’t count in tourism
Elsaß and Lothringen were historically more Germanic than French, so your comment about “illegal seizures” is amusing.
Ukraine is a convenient ploy by the Germans to keep the far larger Polish army distracted from rolling across the Oder to collect reparations.
The Western EU powers can barely police their own streets. I suspect their “armies” will spend more time imposing EU will on its own populations rather than taking on the dastardly Bear.
👍😂
p.s. This German guy Wolfgang Büscher is famous for crossing countries by foot. His first “victim” was the US, when he walked 3500miles.
The next he did was Berlin-Moscow.
When he got to a fork he didn’t know which road to choose and asked a Russian dude repairing a car. The Russian laughed:
-You Nemetzki?
-Yep.
-Normally you always know which road to take as you always end up in Moscow.
This was funny in 2003.
https://www.amazon.de/Berlin-Moskau-Eine-Reise-Fu%C3%9F/dp/3498006312
I wondered if I had met him, as I did meet (a few years ago) a German walking from Kiev to Palermo.But the picture is someone else.
BTW, not from want of trying, the Germans never ended up in Moscow.
I was about to say “Catherine II?” but she was in St Petersburg…
To disentangle the false claims in this article is almost impossible. The premises of the authour are completely wrong. To put it with an Irish colloquialism: the author has got it “arsewise”.
The powers that be in Germany are scared shitless. But not of the Russians. They are scared of their own citizens. About ten years ago the EU (with German connivance) made the decision to phase out the production of fossil fuel motor engines. This was the one area were Germany had undisputed technological leadership. Blackrock (which controls Mercedes) and the SPD (thru the State government of Niedersachsen which holds the deciding vote) controls VW concurred. Huge Gas and Diesel engineering compartments were closed and all R&D went into electrical engines. Unfortunately the part of an electrical car with the greatest cost happens to be the battery. Here China holds an unsurmountable lead and furthermore controls the supply of rare earth metals which you need in huge amounts.
Now the disaster is starting to unfold. The car makers have lost their biggest selling point, people don´t want electrical engines and furthermore there are no battery makers in Europe let alone Germany. The leadership in fossile technology has been lost and all they can do is postpone and drag out the inevitable carnage. China of course hasn´t ditched fossile fuel engines. In fact the latest Mercedes gasoline engine is now being developed in China. Especially the SPD through its control of VW is staring into an abyss. Niedersachsen is their last major stronghold. They need to do something. And that something is converting car factories into tank factories and as quickly as possible expand anything made of metal that can be used in a war. There are hundreds of thousands of heretofore very well paid metal workers who are about to lose their jobs. Of course they also postponed the end of fossile fuel engines but you can´t resurrect the engineering departments. Huge know how has been lost for good.
The other reason why they need to keep the war going is the fact that now they can blame all economic pain on Russia. The minute the war is over (and lost) there will be a terrible hangover. Relations with Russia ruined, energy tripled in price and then there’s the small matter of Nordstream. Not to mention the Vaccine disaster which is also being overshadowed by the war. It is no exaggeration to say that Putin is the best doctor. The day that the war started Covid was all but forgotten.
To hang onto power Merz and his coalition need the war to continue. Just like Selensky.
New study propagating to expand EV production in East Germany
German article on this suggestion in BERLINER ZEITUNG
https://archive.is/634zS
“(…)
Saxony, Thuringia, and Brandenburg are home to the most modern car factories.
First, the most modern factories for the production of electric cars from BMW, VW, Opel, and Tesla are already located in Saxony, Thuringia, and Brandenburg. Our figures show: If policymakers stay the course and only allow new registrations of zero-emission vehicles from 2035 onwards, electric car production in eastern German factories could increase by 140 percent. This would create 2,800 new jobs for manufacturers alone by 2035.
Second, the vision of the car of the future as a “smartphone on wheels” is becoming a reality. This will increase the number and quality of semiconductors per vehicle. Even today, the value of the chips in an electric car is more than twice that of a combustion engine. Saxony is the center of the European semiconductor industry and is responsible for one-third of European chip production. In the Silicon Saxony business cluster, home to German companies such as Bosch and Infineon and the global market leader TSMC from Taiwan, more and more companies are settling here whose chips are manufactured specifically for the automotive industry. Forecasts predict an increase of 5,500 jobs by 2027 alone.
6,500 new jobs could be created at East German suppliers.
Thirdly, a large network of suppliers has developed around the manufacturers. Even if certain parts of the value chain for electric cars are no longer needed, the Chemnitz T&E study shows that these could theoretically be compensated for by other areas. For example, almost 6,500 new jobs would be created at East German suppliers by 2035. This is particularly true for the new heart of the car: what used to be the engine will in the future be the most innovative battery. The chemical industry has a long history in East Germany. This is one of the reasons why the world’s largest battery manufacturer, CATL, and Tesla, already produce in the region.
Fourthly, because electric cars no longer emit harmful greenhouse gases, production emissions are becoming more of a focus. No other German state has a higher share of renewable energy in electricity generation than Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. Saxony-Anhalt and Thuringia follow in second and third place. Thus, eastern Germany already generates electricity surpluses from renewable energy sources, which are often curtailed due to a lack of transmission capacity. The capacity to attract additional energy-intensive industries, such as automotive or battery manufacturing, would thus be available, assuming the already planned expansion of the electricity grid.
(…)”
fwiw: pdf with the original 10 page study in German (the summary can be quickly translated)
https://www.transportenvironment.org/te-deutschland/articles/autoindustrie-in-ostdeutschland-tausende-jobs-von-eu-flottengrenzwerten-abhaengig
oddly the guy who wrote the article for BZ is also head of the NGO that devised the study…
p.s. as far as I remember BMW wasn´t into giving up combustion engine either, at least 2 years ago when I checked
I checked the article. About Batteries: hopium. Nothing else. Yeah, East Germany might have the lead in EV’s in Germany. But that is utterly ridiculous as we are talking about world markets. The numbers of employees cited are in the low thousands. But hundreds of thousands of people work in the car sector in Germany and it is the most important foreign exchange earner.
I know engineers working for Mercedes in Stuttgart. They are despondent and leaving for China. In Stuttgart they are getting 150 000€. In China 500 000€. Same with chemical engineering. They keep the plants working in Germany until they fall apart. They won´t invest a penny anymore. All the money (if the US still allows – here I am curious) goes to China. German top engineers are building top notch chemical plants in China. Maybe it is all for the good… Who knows. At least it is good for the German environment if Germany deindustrialises. Not so much for world environment as German plants are ultra energy efficient and pretty clean by world standards.
… which is why I assume the article was eventually nothing but a PR piece…that is not journalism for sure, the guy leading the NGO writing about the NGO. Go figure…
EVs might not emite “harmful” greenhouse gasses, but some part of the power generation chain does. Then there’s that little problem of disposing of the toxic waste at the end of the EV’s life.
EVs are anything but environmentally friendly.
“We had to poison the planet to save the planet.”
Well, Merz and his lot are in lockstep (what an apt word) with our own UK War Party, now headed by Dim Kier.
BBC has been bloviating the last couple days, once every hour, 24 hours a day, very important “news” that the old Dimbo has decided that “we (UK) have to get ready for war”. BBC is “most trusted news purveyor” here in UK.
My son is 15 now. I sure as hell won’t be hanging around to see how again the members of “chosen people” sacrify the rest of us, any my kid gets frogmarched into the futile bloodbath.
Of course, in our Society, there is Only One Right Course, so nobody peeped a squeak about Dimbo setting us on the path to self-destruction.
I think, euroNazis have figured that Trumpski is too volatile to be taken into the Great Scheme. They will sabotage him and water him down and ignore him but not tell him that lest he gets uppity. In the meantime they are getting ready for replacement that is coming 3 years down the line. Timetable: Identity Known and Adopted, 2028. Inauguration, 2029. War, 2030, just as the Ladies, KK and VdL requested.
War?? Of course, get USA and Russia to nuke each other.
Indeed, Brandolini’s Law fully applies to the article.
The challenge Yves presents is Herculean (Augian Stables). It is not fair. And so far there is no AI capable to run as a river and clean all this bullshit.
Oh dear. It’s hard to know where to start.
I’ve written several times about the impossibility of restarting conscription in Europe, and, that being so, the rest of the argument is pretty moot. And as usual, the idea of a Russian “threat” is handwaving detached from reality, by people who haven’t looked at a map recently.
Europe has a decent military capability, but on a small scale, deliberately so since the end of the Cold War. The massive armies and defence industries of forty years ago are long gone and cannot be replaced. It can make aircraft, tanks, guns, ships etc, often collaboratively, but it can’t make them in the quantities needed for a major European war, assuming somehow there were to be one. Europe has its own satellite capability and advanced intelligence gathering capabilities, but without the forces to make use of them on the ground, their value is limited. Meanwhile, the US is not much good either: its land combat power in Europe is intended for use elsewhere, and it’s roughly comparable to the Belgian Army. Nor does the US have heavy forces that could quickly reinforce Europe.
So the issue is how to live with Russian power after the current war is over, and whether the Russians themselves can actually find a solution from their side. Just to cheer everybody up, I’m finishing an essay on that now.
elites’ left hand: migration > social-economic assimilation capacity;
elites’ right hand: why aren’t there 18 – 23 y.o. willing to die for my Establishment?
Oh, absolutely. Imagine going up to a bearded male with Franco-Algerian citizenship coming out of a hard-line mosque, and telling him that his son is to be drafted into the Army which his Imam says is a satanic institution, and his daughter as well, and she can’t wear a veil and there are no women-only units. And that’s before you ask them to die for anything.
“Oh dear. It’s hard to know where to start.”
😂
With a good laugh. The historical ironies, rank hypocrisy, and pathetic posturing – the tragi-comedy material is already written for us.
Yes it merits a laugh, but a nervous one. So this question of what to do with the Russians when the war is over. Realistically the Europeans would need to handle this with gloved hands and do a 180º or may be 360º (if one follows Baerbock) turn on it’s current stance and start some kind of dialogue with Russia. Difficult to stand that for European PMC types. Just waiting to read what Aurelien writes about it.
Unless they really see no other solution than RU energy there won’t be any change. With or without so-called peace in Ukraine in whatever form. They will waste money on arms, use the war as scaremongering distraction against any opposition. And no there won´t be any uprising.
C´est finie l´ Europe.
So indeed it´s merely the laughter of Molière dying on stage…
What I never see discussed in EU is the possibility that Russians, who definitely don’t want a war and more than that not one on their territory, would use hazelnuts and other more potent nuts to impose deternce if attacked directly.
NATO has four main points:
1. kaliningrad, but that is a direct attack on Russia.
2. Russian merchant ships in the Baltic, again direct attack on Russia
3. Ukraine. But as soon as Russia occupies all the other four Oblasts, it will be an attack on Russia.
4. Transdnistria: here is the only weak point for Russia. Transdnistria is a Moldovan territory and away from Russia. The most legally feasible solution would be to encourage/allow reunification of Moldova with Romania. At that point the whole thing would become a Romanian internal problem. Any Russian action would be an attack on NATO and in the big balance of things, this would not be worth the pain, especially if Odessa will be still in Ukrainain hands… But once resolved, Russian posture will be defensive towards NATO, and there will be a sort of attrition “cold war” but this time with EU in the position of Soviet Union…
Looking forward to the essay!
Whenever I read stuff like this, I interpret it in the frame that european leaders has in the current relationship with the US the right to motivate why they need to do what the US needs, but that is pretty much it.
The US wants 5% military spending, primarily on US weapons? European leaders delivers, but officially it is because Trump can’t be trusted.
disc_writes: living as I do in Piemonte I know the French are a touchy bunch. I demand the return of Nizza.
But forgiving 1527, the Snack of Roma, and the lansquenet, you certainly are generous today.
And I note that the Russians still haven’t invaded.
What is an (American?) doing in Turin? I am half-Piedmontese myself and have lived in various parts of Piedmont, including Turin, in the past, but have spent most of my life in the Netherlands.
The Russians never invaded Italy, with the partial exception of the Napoleonic Wars (but then they were after the French, not the Italians). Italy invaded Russia three times: in the Crimean War, in WWI, and in WWII. I guess you can add the current war and, in part, the Napoleonic War (the French Army in Russia was mostly composed of Polish, Germans, and Italians).
So the Russians have more reasons to worry about an Italian invasion, then viceversa.
(not that the Italians ever got far into Russian territory. Stalin joked that the Italians were mostly running away. Still, we always end up attacking Russia in exchange for whatever bones our richer “friends” are willing to throw at us.
Italian unification is itself due to anti-Russian feelings in Piedmont, as opposed to the pro-Russian Bourbons in the Kingdom of Sicily. So the French and the British were willing to help the Savoia a hand in 1861. And here we are.)
They made it all the way to Stalingrad, despite the abuse of their Nazi allies and the steady attrition inflicted upon them by the Red Army. Practically every town in Italy has a street named “Via dei Dispersi nella Russia” or some small monument to that effect.
My father-in-law narrowly missed being shipped off to the Eastern Front when he was called up in July 1943. The Mussolini government fell and Italy requested an armistice and FIL’s trip to the Don front was canceled. My FIL returned to his farm, where the locals were regularly harassed by occupying German troops (there was lots of partisan activity in the area and firing squads and public hangings were regular occurrences).
The film Italiani, brava gente all the way from 1964 gives a humane treatment of the Italian participation in the brutality of Operation Barbarossa. (Interesting note: mostly filmed near Poltava in Ukraine).
Let us consider this statement:
“[…] what is also needed is a significant investment in developing manpower. This means either finding more volunteers or reintroducing conscription”
The war in Ukraine has show that, as the saying goes, “as a rule God is on the side of the big squadrons against the small ones.” The dwindling manpower on the Ukrainian side because of mounting battle casualties confirms the statement by Mr. Stefan Wolff. The problem is how to fill those big squadrons.
Plan A: conscription.
In one of his essays, Aurelien described in excruciating detail the sheer organizational difficulties to re-introduce conscription on a large scale in any European country: the old caserns have been sold to real-estate developers; there are not enough instructors to train the recruits; the administrative apparatus has been downsized and cannot cope with managing large numbers of conscripts; and so on, and so forth.
Let me add another element that will thwart any attempt to re-introduce the “levée en masse” of centuries past: demographic aging. Here is the median age for large European NATO countries:
48.1 Italy
46.7 Germany
46.3 Spain
42.4 France
42.4 Poland
40.6 UK
And for some recent members:
45.2 Latvia
45.1 Romania
45.0 Lithuania
44.7 Estonia
43.2 Finland
41.0 Sweden
All the young people necessary to man the “big squadrons” are not to be found, and there will be less and less of them in the future. Russia’s median age is at 41.5, which means that its capacity to engage in large-scale wars in the future is also doubtful.
Plan B: Specialists.
If it is impossible to field lots of riflemen and grenadiers, then let us have a reduced number of specialists operating very advanced weaponry that multiplies the destructive power of each soldier.
We know that Europe has let its competences wither since the end of the Cold War, so that it is highly doubtful that it can design and build those very advanced armaments that could give it an edge on the battlefield.
But even assuming everything would be in order on that side, there is the wee problem that Europe is on a path to dismantle its education system. States a bit everywhere are cutting the item “education” on their budgets in favour of the item “defence” (for instance, Germany). In other words: not only is the population aging, but instead of investing as much as possible on the shrinking cohorts of young people, European countries are increasingly neglecting them. All those electronicians and other specialists for advanced weapons? There will be a dearth of them. Plan B is unworkable.
Plan C: mercenaries.
As the war in Ukraine (among other conflicts) has shown, there are plenty of Columbians, Brazilians, etc, ready to fight for a pay. So why not fill the sparse ranks of national units with mercenaries?
Apart from the organizational problems (language, background training, cadres, etc) there is the fact that mercenaries fight for a living, not to die for a foreign cause. In large numbers, they also tend to be a bit unruly (see what happened with the Wagner group). Finally, it is doubtful whether one can enroll the number of mercenaries required to beef up national armies to the desired level (by many, many divisions, if Ukraine is the yardstick): how many third-world gunmen are really available to fight in a modern war?
Plan D: robots.
No big squadrons, not enough mercenaries, too few specialists: let us go the way of autonomous, robotic killing machines replacing soldiers on the battlefield.
The problem is that Europe is not leading in autonomous vehicles, advanced robotics, or automated weapons — or in all the components necessary to build such systems: electronics, batteries, mecatronics, AI. China, the USA, and to some extent Russia and Israel are. So plan D looks unrealistic.
There is no plan E.
It will take perhaps 5 years before Europe has a very painful reckoning: militarily, it simply does not count. It has lost the know-how regarding the design of state-of-the-art equipment; it has lost the industrial capacity to produce it; it has no actual experience of modern war against a top-of-the-line adversary; it lacks the manpower to raise big armies for big conflicts; its economy can no longer sustain the corresponding war effort. On the international geopolitical chessboard, Europe will have become what gamers call a “Non Playing Character” — for the first time since the 10th century.
>Plan C: mercenaries. pre-2022, there was a global surplus of mercenaries in large part because of the “unemployed” from the settlement of the Colombia v. FARC insurgency/narco-war.
To be blunt, “Zed’s dead” in Ukraine or wised up and went home.
And US SpecOps/Blackwater-type alumni are overqualified to be a standard mercenary…..and have much better employment opportunities that do not involve industrialized peer-warfare
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmEnoCfNzJU&t=9
“Clones can think creatively. You will find that they are immensely superior to droids.”
Not in any foreseeable future.
If you do not have enough young people, then you do not have enough wombs for clones. Not enough mercenary wombs either. Artificial wombs do not exist. 20 years to grow up a clone.
The big squadrons Europe needs in the next 5 to 25 years will not come from clones.
You forgot Plan F: Pray!
The Patriot Missile situations is worse than most people think.
While traditionally, it’s said that you launch two interceptors per one incoming missile, Ukraine has been shooting a lot more than that. I remember reading somewhere, probably from Simplicius the Thinker, that the Ukrainians had to launch up 32 Patriot missiles to have any hope of stopping one hypersonic missile. There was a successful hit of a Patriot missile battery in Ukraine in the past couple of weeks. You could see a dozen or so missiles launched from the Patriot system and it still failing to intercept the incoming missile.
This while it looks true I believe this is a misinterpretation.
When a Patriot battery faces imminent destruction, it fires off all its missiles to prevent a massive explosion. So you see a lot of missiles go up right before the incoming missile hit. My understanding that this is not a call made by the operators but happens automagically.
And there is no way a Patriot can stop a hypersonic missile, so this last minute firing off of everything left is inevitable.
So yes, the you are correct in making the good point that the average will be markedly greater than 2 Patriots per targeted missile assumption. But the causality is a bit different.
This seems like a serious, exploitable weakness.
If you can make the Patriot battery think it’s about to be hit, it will essentially destroy all the missiles at the site on its own. Given the worldwide shortage of Patriot missiles and the long manufacturing time, it sounds “easy” for an opponent to nullify the whole weapon system.
Patriots are mobile.
Russia has been hunting the weapons launchers and taking them out whenever they find one, but yes, this is an added bennie.
And all those Patriots are magically transformed into “Russisn bombs” when they fall on civilians…
I don’t think it’s meaningful to throw out the term “Patriot”. From what I’ve read, they have received firing batteries from various sources (might be cast-offs) in different configurations. Reports of PAC-2, PAC-3 CRI and PAC-3 MSE. I believe there are differences in the radar and engagement control stations (ECS) as well. Without specifying the exact configuration it isn’t possible to make a claim about effectiveness against any particular threat.
I haven’t found in some admittedly quick searches any good description of the tactical dispersion of units of the battery, other than the 8 launchers have to be in radio line of sight from the ECS antenna mast group. So I’m not sure about the “salvo every missile on every launcher” concept.
“This does not mean an end to transatlantic relations and pragmatic cooperation, as demonstrated by the meeting between the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, with his German counterpart, Johann Wadephul, which happened almost simultaneously with Trump’s and Merz’s statements.”
The funny thing is that the meeting between Rubio and Wadephul lasted 15 minutes in private, and 30 further minutes with the entire delegation. That was it.
I wonder what kind of “pragmatic cooperation” such a brief meeting demonstrates.
Rubio giving orders and Wadephul taking notes.
Rather depressing to see yet another professor of international security buying the propaganda line and not doing a proper analysis. It’s all well and good to say that Germany will be beefing up its defence industry, but with what?
Last week Andrei Martyanov featured an article in Bild about ThyssenKrupp being dismantled. I doubt I need to point out the company’s importance in the German defence sector.
https://m-bild-de.translate.goog/geld/wirtschaft/thyssenkrupp-vor-zerschlagung-lopez-plant-drastischen-umbau-682c2e76308d433b5abe37c8?t_ref=https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/&_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Defence production is energy intensive. Will the Germans restart their nuclear or coal-fired plants?
And simply throwing more money at defence guarantees nothing without a strategy. There appears to be no strategy.
yes, it is exceedingly discouraging that “randos” on Twitter (in real life, ex-military officers, “war nerds,” retired subject matter professionals) can be more effective, level-headed, and ahead of the curve than “experts”
How pathetic: the “hawkish” pencil-necked cowards are willing to fight til the last drop of Ukrainian blood, and are willing to sacrifice the blood of other Germans. It is hard to take seriously. Sending more missiles to Ukrainian proxies will only escalate the situation. But it seems the politricksters want big media distractions, while political choice remains narrow at best.
How many volunteers have signed up in Germany for Barbarossa 2.0? Comedians could have a field day with this stuff. Looks like many Germans in high places are still bitter that the Reichstag was trashed by the Red Army in 1945. Do they want to see Moscow in ruins, like Berlin was?
I would guess that this is all a political distraction, to distract from the deteriorating economy, deteriorating society and more privatization/kleptocracy.
Meanwhile, the political comedy just keeps coming, we can take the piss all day long.
Meanwhile, US policy has not changed: sanctions against Russia, support for the puppet govt. in Kiev, more weapons, logistics, intelligence support etc.
A very good question: “How many volunteers have signed up in Germany for Barbarossa 2.0?”
There are three different strata in german youth: the first are the youngsters of the ruling party cartel (members and voters) which are favorable of Barbarossa 2.0 but do not want to fight themselves but rather send the hated guys from the working class (even if they were willing to join the army not even Gunnery Sergeant Hartman would be able to make proper “ministers of death praying for war” out of the decadent young russophobes); the second stratum are the youngsters voting for AfD (sometimes via their parents with russian background) who would be able to fight but won’t do that because the german party cartel fights them in the first place; and then there is the growing group of young migrants (some of them living in the third generation in Germany) which is presumably not too keen of going to war and die for a conflict they have no stakes in.
Maybe the ruling party cartel is going to try to re-institute conscription despite the existing constraints but they will fail with that as well with the Great Green Transformation a lot of cartel ideologues are talking about.
The idea that Russia wants to attack Europe is typical European(especially British) silliness. What does Europe have that Russia needs or wants? Land? Ridiculous, Russia has a relatively small population living in the largest country on earth. Resources? Europe has none and Russia has it all in abundance. Does Russia want to try to rule a large land mass with a miserable, angry population? Why bother? The Europeans are doing an excellent job destroying themselves. May they succeed in their endeavors before they hurt anyone else.
Europe has nice wine, though with global warming, that industry will probably migrate to Russia.
Interesting, that is, revolting, to see what is becoming the unvarnished “thinking,” or rather the total lack thereof, of the EU’s political elite. Merz of course is a former “master of the universe” from Blackrock thus he is compelled to think and act like a junkyard dog in search of a fire-hydrant. That is all the depth he has.
As Mercouris has pointed out, Europe as a trade union was successful and promised a bright future. As it has embraced its vassalage to the US, however, and replaced its vision of a European trade and peace project with that of a geopolitical and military project, it has declined in every respect, economically, culturally and intellectually.
You can easily follow the trajectory of the EU’s decline as it has moved from working to improve the quality of life of its citizens in Europe and the world in general, to that of serving the narcissism of its petty and incompetent political elite. The bane of humanity and the source of most human suffering lies with incompetent leaders. Europe has now become a shining example of this.
Europe as a trade union was successful and promised a bright future … the trajectory of the EU’s decline as it has moved from working to improve the quality of life of its citizens in Europe …
I’m sorry. High-level members of von Hayek’s Mont Pelerin Society designed the EU to promote neoliberal goals — above all, to restrict the economic policy space available to democratic governments against the market and reduce social protections — from its very beginnings as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and then the EC back in the 1950s.
Wilhelm Röpke, personal advisor to Konrad Adenauer, West German Chancellor, and his Minister of Economics in the late 1950s, supervised the creation of the ECSC/EC on the German end, before leaving to literally become president of the Mont Pelerin Society in 1961-62.
Ludwig Erhard, the second Chancellor from 1963-66, had been a member of the Mont Pelerin Society since 1950.There were many others.
As the EU began, it continued. Robert Mundell, chief designer of the Euro, introduced in 1999, was also the father of ‘Reaganomics’ and went on record boasting about how the Euro would work to ‘discipline’ — immiserate — the European working classes.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/26/robert-mundell-evil-genius-euro
…The euro would really do its work when crises hit, Mundell explained. Removing a government’s control over currency would prevent nasty little elected officials from using Keynesian monetary and fiscal juice to pull a nation out of recession.
“It puts monetary policy out of the reach of politicians,” he said. “[And] without fiscal policy, the only way nations can keep jobs is by the competitive reduction of rules on business.”
All this was laid out by von Hayek back in the 1940s in his “The Economic Conditions of Interstate Federalism,” explicitly framing the free movement of capital, goods, and labour – a “single market,” in von Hayek’s own words – among a federation of nations as the most promising means to subordinate employment and social protection to goals of low inflation, debt reduction, and increased competitiveness.
And that’s what you see in the modern day EU. Article 107 TFEU allows for state aid, for instance, only if it’s “compatible with the internal market” and doesn’t “distort competition.” Merz of Blackrock is completely in the tradition of the EU’s neoliberal founders.
I just saw this one from “Euronews” that has a few knee-slapping howlers.
https://www.euronews.com/2025/06/01/operation-spiderweb-how-ukraine-destroyed-over-a-third-of-russian-military-aircraft?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us
We have this awful dynamics by which a bad prime minister is replaced with a worse one, only to check a few years later that the next makes the two previous look good by comparison. Or you can see a Macron as a constant but transforming himself with time from (however you like to define him) to the same but in an increasingly idiotic fashion.
Merz will make Scholz look wise and efficient. This is inevitable as long as each new individual is forced to follow and feed The Narrative and with each passing year getting closer to it’s dead end.
Wolff’s article equally feeds and follows on the narrative and with that everything is said. Unsurprisingly ends with the fantasy that Europe can turn into a military power able to stand on her own though without the resources to do that. Following with this fantasy Europe will increasingly turn into a US-dependent excrescence.Excrescences at some point must be removed. Europe has learnt that it cannot depend on the US but has still to learn how to eat her own pride and try to find solutions that can be realistically reached with what Europe has. The learning curve is getting stepper each year.
It’s absurd that Germany is trying to build an army to protect other countries when its own citizens won’t even fight for their own country.
“These are important – but what is also needed is a significant investment in developing manpower. This means either finding more volunteers or reintroducing conscription, which is now no longer a taboo in Germany.”
Drone fodder. 🤣
Put them in trenches, send them over the top, and run across a field with drones flying overhead?
WWI part III.
“Sleepwalkers” my a – -. The establishment is planning and running headlong into the same old mess – as always.
More like “Custodians of Nightmares”.
Because everyone can agree the Germany re-arming is a Great Idea…
Well, I suppose UK can now start using Lord Ismay as a new power source, at least….
(Lord Ismay is the source of the quote aboit the purpose of NATO: keep Russians out, Americans in, Germans down.)
FWIW, France generally preferred bringing the Russians (or Turks) in rather than traffic with the Germans, no? (Is it stretch to call the Habsburgs Germans?)
File this as: Reply to the historically illiterate
Ok. Any person who has a longer term memory than 20 years knows it was Germany who thought it was their business to contain Russia during the 20th century. And if you don’t know how that turned out, short version: the Germans lost – by a lot, twice! – and Western European culture was pretty near completely destroyed (by the Germans) over that time as well. But hey, let’s arm the Germans, give them a moral reason to fight (land for German living, wipe out the barbaric Slav, do as the American overlords want…), and send them on their way…thru Poland and the eastern portion of Central Europe…until they reach Russia.
Given the poor performance (actually atrocious) of European weapons, its also clear that the particular manufacturing and engineering skills to make effective field weapons is lost in Europe (as in the US – the wonder of neo-liberalism) – plus one needs good sources of a lot of rare earths and key metals like titanium, that Europe does not have and will be competing with (and losing against) the US for…
Aside from the impracticality of Europe tooling up its defense industries (it’s been trying for years to increase shell production and still is falling behind), there is the question of whether the Donald would let them. They are 1. vassals, and 2. the US has very highly featured (e.g., profitable) weapons for procurement (true, on decadal time-scales). I do not believe the Don suggested Europe should invest the increased defense spending in Europe, versus the big beautiful US MIC.
And will the US allow Europe an independent voice on China? If not, Europe will lose access to a world of key components and materials that are critical for defense industries.
“After decades of failing to develop either a grand strategy to deal with Russia or the hard power capabilities that need to underpin it, achieving either will take some time.”
The simplest least cost solution in a rational world would be to for the European nations, including Russia, to negotiate a new security architecture which recognises every country’s legitimate security interests, including the interests of national and religious minorities. Or does this mean my mind has been taken over by alien forces and that I am but a mere Putin Puppet?
Sung to the tune of 1999 by Prince:
“Tonight we’re gonna party like its 1648”
??
Great minds. I wouldn’t go that far back, as they all have to agree first… I.e. remove the von der leyen types, which is unlikely in the short-term.
And, finally, there is a populist surge that threatens the very foundations of European democracy
We will look to Brussels to invalidate any elections which are influenced by this populist surge.
A while back there was an NC post that I forgot to save a link to, about why western pols have hated Russia since like forever. Meanwhile here is another one, blaming Israel’s violent temperament on Russian immigration:
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-05-09/ty-article-opinion/.highlight/zionism-wasnt-always-racist-trouble-began-when-russians-took-over/00000196-b32b-d9bf-a1b6-fbab7f260000
What should Germany do, if not try? As it stands it seems they are incapable of even a meager defense. Seems a worthy goal to at least make it harder for the imaginary Russians, or whoever might see a weakened Germany as a snack. Putin doesn’t want to invade Europe? Good. Gives Germany time to gain what ground they can.
Something tells me Putin holds back, partly, out of concern for what his people could become if they ever did march to Paris.
Perhaps we should view these announcements as the death knell for the organization of NATO and a return to an older Europe.
“What should Germany do, if not try? As it stands it seems they are incapable of even a meager defense.”
Do they need the Russian boogeyman to make that case?
Not long ago, Germany financed and was prepared to enjoy a new gas pipeline to Russia. Did they blow up their own pipeline?
Still, tales of the Russian boogeyman keep restless children (the younger EU Member States) in line. If you lose sleep over them that’s your own fault.
I can’t take the public statements of Merz, Trump or some other EU leaders seriously. Europe has good reasons to establish better relations with Russia once the war is over. Thus, I think the shape of the peace deal will be crucial and Europe should be involved. After all, the US provoked the war, it shouldn’t dominate the peace.
Russia is a vital source of energy, natural resources, a high tech sector especially within its military, and it knows its way around the arctic and space. Europe has high tech commercial manufacturing, especially aviation and autos, recognized consumer products, an educated population, and elite universities.
While Germany doesn’t want to alienate the US now, it makes no sense to me that they and the EU should maintain hostile relations with Russia and embrace Ukraine when the war ends; Ukraine, a money pit for the foreseeable future, has little to offer Europe.
Since entering politics Putin’s top priority is being remembered as the president who modernized Russia. Putin is not a military threat to Europe and everyone knows it; even Merz.
It also seems if you’re friends with Russia, or at least trading with Russia, then you’re friends with China, too. Moreover, with the entire Eurasian continent at peace, it will provide greater prosperity and security for Europe.
Trump wants to pivot from Europe. The Europeans should realize it’s not just Trump, and come 2028, they’ll likely see a JD Vance or some other EU hating politician become president.