Vyacheslav Filippov — about the possibilities of militarization of Germany
At the end of May, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz made a loud statement that "Germany may soon have the largest conventional army in Europe within the framework of NATO." In his opinion, this will significantly strengthen the security of the country and its allies. At the same time, a few days after Russia launched a special operation in Ukraine, the Social Democrat promised that his country would invest at least 2% of national GDP per year on defense, and announced the creation of a special fund of € 100 billion to strengthen the armed forces.
To understand, spending 2% of Germany's GDP per year on the Bundeswehr (German armed forces) is more than €70 billion. Last Friday, the Bundestag gave the green light to create the fund, and even earlier, parliamentarians approved the military budget for the current year — the largest in almost 30 years — in the amount of €50.4 billion, in order, according to German Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht, to "fill in the gaps" of former times.
But last year, representatives of the Social Democratic Party of Germany and the Greens did not agree, for example, even to increase the number of Bundeswehr from about 183 thousand to 203 thousand soldiers. Such plans were made by the then Minister of Defense Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer.
Dominant aspirations?
A country that once caused incredible suffering to the population of the continent and destroyed many cities to the ground, is going to create the largest army in Europe? Such statements "should be heard by other EU members and should be the subject of a serious conversation," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said at a press conference following his visit to Saudi Arabia. According to the Russian minister, Scholz's words indicate the revival of "dominant aspirations" in Germany.
It is doubtful whether Germany's closest neighbors will like such aspirations, first of all France with the ambitious Emmanuel Macron in power and Poland with its desire to assume the role of a new US center in Europe. It is not entirely clear, however, what Scholz meant by the "largest" army in Europe within the framework of NATO. It is obvious that he probably did not include Turkey here, since with a little more than 180 thousand soldiers in the Bundeswehr, the number of active military personnel in the Turkish army — the largest in NATO after the United States — is more than 355 thousand, not taking into account about 380 thousand reservists.
Nevertheless, if we imagine that the Bundeswehr will become the third largest armed forces in NATO, then Germany will play a dominant role in Europe not only from an economic point of view, but also in military terms. The German army will also be the most modern on the continent: it is planned to spend about €40 billion from the special fund, including on the purchase of new Eurofighter and F-35 fighters, Chinook CH-47F heavy transport helicopters, as well as weapons for attack drones. More than €19 billion will be allocated for the needs of the Navy: the modernization of existing corvettes and the purchase of the frigate F126, a new submarine. The list also includes purchases of the most advanced anti-ship missiles, weapons for submarines, and so on. About €20 billion is expected to be spent only on the digital transformation of the Bundeswehr.
If the plans of the German government are implemented, Germany may soon take the third place in military spending in the world. It should be understood that the creation of a special fund in support of the Bundeswehr, if approved in the House of Representatives of the Federal States (Bundesrat, voting is scheduled for June 10), will be enshrined in the Basic Law and it will be extremely difficult for future governments to adjust this.
The image of the enemy is defined
In this context, it is important to highlight the statement of the head of the German Parliament's Defense Committee, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmerman (Free Democratic Party). She called for a reorientation of the Bundeswehr ideologically — with an emphasis on creating an enemy, apparently in the person of Russia. "What you need — and this may sound intimidating — in order to act from the point of view of the Bundeswehr is in the image of the enemy. Now we know what the enemy may look like, what it looks like in this case. That is why NATO must adapt as far as China is concerned, what is happening with Iran, how we should proceed with Russia," the parliamentarian said in an interview with the RND editorial group.
"This means that you need an image of a possible enemy who seeks to eliminate our freedom and democracy. And right now we see him," Strack—Zimmerman claimed.
Discussions about permanent underfunding of the Bundeswehr have been going on for a long time and were part of the coalition talks last autumn. It is no secret that Germany has generally relied on the United States for defense in recent years, where it has been constantly criticized for its unwillingness to invest in NATO's defensive capabilities. In Germany, with its history, initiatives in the military sphere were extremely unpopular, especially given other problems — including the shortage and low salaries of teachers and kindergarten teachers, large spending on refugees. The situation in Ukraine, which the German authorities called almost "the beginning of a new era," suddenly made everyone seem to forget about it.
Scholz's speech in the Bundestag, during which he proudly announced a change of course, was interrupted by applause, and in the leading newspapers, which are usually rich in review analytical articles, it was impossible to find, perhaps, a single critical comment on the consequences of such a "militarization" of Germany. Instead, politicians and the press enthusiastically talked about increasing interest in the Bundeswehr, counted the number of Internet page views related to the armed forces and visits to Bundeswehr accounts on social networks.
"Now a lot of residents who used to be indifferent to the troops understand why we need the Bundeswehr and what we should do more for it," said Eva Hoegl, Commissioner of the Bundestag for Defense. And the Union of Reservists of the Bundeswehr noted an increase in the number of requests for membership in the organization by half compared to previous years.
Will the arms buildup lead to peace?
By themselves, the supply of weapons to the zone of any conflict was, until recently, a taboo for German politics, which official Berlin said goodbye to after February of this year. But the German authorities went even further. Will these plans of the German authorities lead to greater security in Europe or, on the contrary, will aggravate the situation on the continent? And in general, what are they changing in the current situation in Ukraine? Obviously, nothing.
It will take years to supply the latest weapons that Berlin will buy, for example, the F35. The new FCAS aviation combat system within the framework of the European defense project will enter service at the earliest in 2040. However, statements about an unprecedented build-up of weapons, which in Germany is now called strengthening of defense capability, lead to a rhetorical escalation and ultimately to an aggravation of the situation as a whole.
The COVID-19 pandemic and global health issues, climate change and the Fridays For Future protests, social injustice, hunger — problems that cannot be solved without international cooperation and resources — are left somewhere behind. Even the German "greens" suddenly forgot that the loading of defense industry enterprises actually leads to additional carbon dioxide emissions and that fracking American gas is dirtier than Russian pipe gas. However, all politicians and experts who do not consider the build-up of weapons and their supplies to Ukraine a genuine act of solidarity with Kiev and call for the intensification of the negotiation process and a diplomatic solution automatically immediately risk being known as "persons who understand [Vladimir] Putin (Putin-Versteher)". This is inexcusable in Germany now.
The imbalance in Europe?
The Americans themselves have long demanded an increase in military spending from Germany, called it a "brake" in building up NATO's defense capabilities, and therefore now, especially against the background of events in Ukraine, they are unlikely to be able to say anything against a radical change in Berlin's course. Nevertheless, Germany's decision may lead to an imbalance in Europe, contrary to their wishes.
Recently, Poland has been the main stronghold of the United States on the continent. It is from Warsaw that Berlin is often criticized on many issues, be it energy cooperation with Moscow or arms supplies to Ukraine. Polish Deputy Prime Minister, Chairman of the National Security and Defense Affairs Committee Jaroslaw Kaczynski said earlier that his country was even open to the deployment of American nuclear weapons on its territory, and called for the creation of a new NATO command center in Poland. Poland, obviously, plays a strategic role for the United States as a kind of competitor to Germany in Europe.
Scholz's indecision, including on the issue of arms supplies to Kiev, has so far been in the hands of Warsaw, which has accepted a huge number of refugees from Ukraine and generally positions itself as a country that provides it with the most active support in the EU. If Germany creates the most powerful army on the continent, Poland's "brilliance" will fade, and its desire to strengthen its role in the EU to a certain extent will encounter a serious obstacle.
France, which, along with Germany and Poland, participates in the so-called Weimar Triangle (a trilateral regional group of Germany, France and Poland), is also unlikely to ignore the chancellor's statement about the "largest" army. Paris, in principle, did not hide its ambitions for leadership in the EU, and President Macron was many times more active than his German counterpart in terms of attempts to resolve the crisis in Ukraine. But the presidential elections, changes in the government and the upcoming parliamentary elections in France — all this, perhaps, is still more important for the leader of the country. It is possible that after some stabilization of the situation, the President of the Fifth Republic will still declare its role in Europe.
It is curious that on March 17, Macron made the statement that the French armed forces are "the only full-fledged army on the European continent." The Head of State then said that if he was re—elected in the presidential elections (held in April 2022 - approx. TASS) will instruct the chiefs of military staff to "reassess all the needs" of the armed forces in the light of the conflict in Ukraine.
Isn't the race between France and Germany to create the most "full-fledged" army in Europe beginning? Anyway, it is difficult to predict how benevolent the atmosphere in the Weimar Triangle will be behind the scenes in the coming years due to Berlin's "dominant aspirations".
Filippov Vyacheslav
Head of the TASS Representative Office in Germany
