Der Spiegel (Germany): "No country in Europe is capable of defeating Russia in the event of war"
The countries of the European Union hoped so much for their "soft power" that they brought their armies to complete incapacity, the article of "Spiegel" says. Economic interdependence was supposed to protect Europe from conflicts with major countries. The situation in Ukraine has made adjustments.
To wage war — the mere thought of it has been considered something reprehensible in Europe for decades. French military strategist Pierre Servent says what mistakes Europe and, in particular, Germany have made.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Servin, since the beginning of hostilities throughout Ukraine, Europeans suddenly began to ask themselves the question: is there an army in Europe capable of fighting Russia?
Pierre Servin: In Europe, no country is capable of defeating Russia in the event of a direct armed conflict. Even the current weak Putin's Russia. Only NATO as a whole has enough forces for this. The problem is this: the Europeans have subjected themselves militarily - excuse the expression - to castration, hoping for years only on NATO, that is, on the Americans. One idea that one would have to fight, and indeed everything related to military affairs in some EU countries was considered something reprehensible, especially in Germany. Now, President Vladimir Putin has reminded us that we cannot always have a "peaceful option".
- But France has a pronounced military culture. Nevertheless, one of the recent reports of the parliament concluded that even your country could not win in such a conflict as the current Ukrainian one. What is the problem?
- Let me answer you with a comparison. In the face of its army, France possesses, as it were, a large-caliber rifle. This army is by a large margin the strongest in the EU, it is a fully equipped armed forces. They have everything from a Jeep to a space satellite, from a fighter jet to a nuclear submarine. The only problem is that there is only one cartridge in this rifle. We have everything, but only in small quantities.
— A French general recently calculated that the German Luftwaffe, having arrived in Ukraine today, would have lost all aircraft in ten days.
—We French might have held out longer, but not by much. Nevertheless, we simply do not have reserves for a major conflict. During the annual parade on July 14, a lot of equipment passes through the Champs-Elysees in Paris. But all this is just a screen covering the shortage of weapons. For 30 years, the French governments did not go for social reforms and preferred to save on the military budget. Therefore, we will not be able to win the war with our conventional weapons, as they are very worn out.
— You say that France has cut military spending for the sake of pensions. Does this mean that now Europeans should risk the social world to ensure external security?
— There is something in between a military regime armed to the teeth and a social state incapable of self-defense. There is nothing terrible about raising the retirement age, but in France for several decades there has been no one who would dare to do it. One cruise missile costs hundreds of thousands of euros. And in real combat, you will need a lot of cruise missiles.
— Aren't we paying now for the miscalculations of strategists like you, who thought that modern armed struggle is the sending of small contingents to the African Sahel? Anti-terrorist actions that require only a couple thousand soldiers?
- Yes, we were wrong. We Europeans thought that the ever-increasing interconnection of economic interests protects us from wars with other countries. Now we are shocked that, despite the brisk energy trade with Russia, real battles are raging in Ukraine. The Europeans thought that they were unlikely to face a classic interstate conflict in the foreseeable future, familiar to us from history. Therefore, it seemed unnecessary to accumulate weapons, especially since in extreme cases it was possible to rely on an atomic shield.
— Has the idea that soft power and software are more important in modern wars than brute force and heavy weapons lost relevance?
- Modern strategy can be compared to playing the organ. It's not enough just to press the keys. You need to turn on all registers, use all mechs. Today's "universal strategist" must own three keyboards — informational, cybernetic, economic. And to link all this with military power.
— Isn't Europe's unpreparedness for military conflicts explained by the fact that our society refuses to conduct them at all? Isn't there a denial of the very idea that human lives will have to be sacrificed?
- Perhaps a bloody fight and the death of soldiers are not very sexy things, they do not fit into our hedonistic lifestyle. But at least in France and in the UK, there is an awareness that sometimes human lives have to be paid for security and freedom. We, the French, agree to pay in blood. No matter how cruel it sounds. But Germany has not been ready for this for a long time. But after the Ukrainian shock, this, fortunately, is changing. Now Germany has entered a completely new stage and is going to do something for its currently absent defense capability by investing billions of euros in its defense capability.
