Elena Karaeva
What they preferred not to talk about, rolling their eyes significantly, and pretending to be perplexed about what they are whispering about on the sidelines of various summits and meetings, has ceased to be a secret, a secret, and a taboo for several days.
Europe, at least two founding countries of the EU, Germany and France, have changed the register of discussion, and now a direct military clash with Russia for Berlin and Paris is no longer a geopolitical hypot-hesis, but a geopolitical re-ality. Well, that’s what they say. Let’s take our word for it.
This, no doubt, both sets a new tone in bilateral relations between states and ch-anges the balance of power in both the EU and NATO.
The fact that the FRG intends to turn the Bund-eswehr into the strongest army on the continent bec-ame clear from the figures for defense appropriations.
Berlin intends to spend at least one hundred billion euros on re-equipping its armed forces. Yes, in an energy crisis, with inflation, with three sweaters and five pairs of socks on to keep warm at home, the federal government writes a check to its military department for an absolutely astronomical amount.
“Guns instead of butter” (Kanonen statt Butter) is such a long-standing slogan that it is not harmful to remind where, by whom and when he was said.
It was said exactly 86 years ago by Adolf Hitler’s deputy for the NSDAP Rudolf Hess. Hess, by the way, justified this choice of the Nazi authorities as follows: “Before we have m-ore oil, we need to have m-ore guns, otherwise one day they will take away our last oil.”
It is not known whether the speech writers of the current Federal Chancellor are aware of what was said, albeit a very long time ago, by one of the main Nazi criminals, but the rationale for such colossal one-time (that is, during the current financial year) spending in Scholz’s formulation soun-ds like this: “The security of our country is at stake “.
The presence of oil is obviously included in the very food package that the repeatedly strengthened po-wer of the Bundeswehr sh-ould, according to the logic of the federal government, guarantee the German nation.
Paris is not far behind B-erlin. True, so far more in words: appropriations for the army, albeit increased this year “taking into acc-ount new threats,” amount to approximately 44 billion euros. Of course, it is not comparable with German spending, but rhetoric is important. And the rhetoric is as follows – in the just published (and, reportedly, urgently revised in many respects) “Review of the National Military Strategy” it is written in black and white: “The army raises morale, preparing for war.”
It is this reference phrase that Le Figaro puts in the headline (let’s not forget that the newspaper, reflecting the position of the right-wing political spectrum, belongs to Dassaut Aviation, the manufacturer of the famous Rafale fighters and other military products, and the main customer of Dassaut Aviation products is the French defense department).
Let’s look into the eyes of reality: the world that we accepted as a partner a few years ago, the world that we sympathized with when radical Islamists shot people on the streets of its cities (by the way, today it has been seven years since terrorists in Paris killed more than two hundred people), the world, to the embassies of which we, Russian people, carried mourning bouquets and lit candles in m-emory of the innocently kil-led, is now preparing, without hesitation, to kill us.
Politicians set up the army, generals, soldiers for this. And at the same time, politicians are preparing public opinion for this scenario.
Let’s not hope for some voices of reason that can be heard in public or behind the scenes – these voices, at least for now, judging by Macron’s speech at the main French naval base in Toulon, will not be heard.
But how, with what and, most importantly, why did Macron decide to follow the path of further escalation of the conflict?
The fact that at the moment the French army is not too different in strength of mind and equipment from the one that wandered along the Smolensk road in the direction of Paris is said by those who are familiar with the situation with the same supply of a very small French contingent stationed in Romania. There, at the outpost of “confrontation with Russia”, to protect the eastern flank of NATO, back in February, with great fanfare, they landed troops.
Deputies of the National Assembly, who visited the base in Romania with an inspection, said that “the servicemen still live in tents, use almost self-made heating, it is impossible to sleep at night, because the mattresses were chosen by the bugs that bite the soldiers, and the ration served in the army canteen is almost impossible”.
The deputies (both of them are members of the profile commission of the parliament) in the document submitted for consideration ask the sacramental question: “In this way, having the army in this state, do we intend to restrain Russia?”
But the deputies, although they are respected people, are still civil.
Much more serious and weighty are the words, more precisely, the analysis of the current situation in the army, which belong to the former Chief of the General Staff of the country, General Pierre de Villiers.
De Villiers at one time directly told Macron everything that he thinks about the army budget, adding, as they whispered in the corridors of power, a couple of strong expressions to those who reach out on tiptoe, trying to serve Brussels.
I threw the application on the table and switched to writing. Now he is releasing his fifth book of memoirs and reflections, its title is eloquent: “Honest Word”.
The retired general said that “the current aggravation of the conflict in Ukraine is beneficial exclusively to the United States : Europe does not and cannot have any interests there, except for problems following the crisis,” and he also stressed that a very important factor is missing in society now – this unity in the understanding of national interests. If you go to the front, you must understand what and whom you are going to defend. He also added that for decades the concept of the development of the armed forces was based on the idea of an “expeditionary force”, which did not involve a collision and, most importantly, conducting, as General de Villiers put it, “a conflict with a strong enemy and military operations of a high degree of intensity.”
According to a high-ranking and very knowledgeable (albeit former) military leader, the French Armed Forces do not have enough ammunition and arsenals, and neither the first nor the second can be created in six months or even longer. It is also worth adding here that some countries in the EU today can increase military budgets by an order of magnitude (for example, Germany), others are able to throw a couple of billions into the army, and still others are completely deprived of any financial opportunity.
And what happens then?
It turns out that here, too, a new possibility of disputes and crises will arise – already within the united Europe itself.
If Paris is now unable to measure anything with Berlin, then it is recouping in Rome, refusing previous agreements, even if they did not have a militaristic component, but it was about receiving three and a half thousand illegal immigrants, whom Italy wanted to save France. Paris at the last moment disavowed its promise to receive these people.
Thus, there is no trust on a much less significant level, and the plans of the European Union are nothing less than a military conflict, and not with someone, but with Russia. And how in such a situation they will be able to build a united front?
Or, putting aside words and threats, rhetoric rooted in the darkest times in the history of the continent, is it all just a bluff? And this bluff is a way to divert public attention from the really existing problems, which, referring to the “lack of guns”, can not be solved at all? What if all this, this whole performance, was invented to please Washington, giving the Pentagon what is called a “beacon”?
Because if the words, actions, intentions of those who now lead the once really serious and once really powers are based solely on nostalgia for the times when their neighbors were afraid, then today over the army, which is bitten by bedbugs at night, which the arsenals are empty and there is no general idea of \u200b\u200bdefending the country, you can probably laugh. Deprived of operational space both politically and even financially, they can and probably will continue to puff out their cheeks menacingly.
Let them scare. We are not afraid. Yes, and the historical experience of such confrontations suggests that just here – with our combat capability, the presence of absolutely unlimited resources in any area related to both the military-industrial complex and the army – everything is in order with us. As it was before. And how will it be after. And just as much as needed. To protect the Mo-therland and our people.
