Did they drag this out of a filing cabinet from the late eighties?
And they can't get young people to join voluntarily. And they don't have the rare earth metals to build the weapons, nor the money, or credit, to pay for them.
Excellent analysis on the geopolitical drivers. However, there’s a third 'internal' engine at play: the strategic preservation of German industrial DNA. Transitioning from high-end combustion engineering to military hardware isn't just a security choice; it's a clever move to safeguard the immense know-how that the EV revolution threatens to leave stranded. In a sense, the rearmament is serving as a 'lifeboat' for a century of precision manufacturing expertise, preventing a catastrophic loss of systemic complexity.
Exactly. And threatened society may accept military spendings instead of social ones. I am not saying they have nothing to be scared of. We have it in Poland, too. But what will be the economical outcome in 10 years ? Well, who knows, who cares.
If Russia has a soldier left from the Ukraine campaign it will be a miracle, for which the Europeans will be grateful. Most of Europe has never been involved in a modern war, Spain, Italy, Scandinavia, the smaller countries like Ireland and Portugal, have all avoided wars for nearly a century. Spain had its civil war but that doesn’t count. France and Poland were overrun in weeks by the Wehrmacht, Denmark and Norway barely resisted except in the initial phases of WW2. Europe is unlikely to be ready at any stage if Russia invaded. A far better tactic for Britain, France and Germany is to help Ukraine beat Russia so totally that no prospect of a Russian incursion into Europe could possibly occur. Germany is reportedly building tanks, weapons which can be taken out over 20 miles range by drones. We don’t know what the British or French are doing because they are still talking and doing nothing.
The only question from a Polish perspective - irrespectively of who's in power in Warsaw - is WILL Germany in its new role be listening to allies or WILL it commit the same mistake all over again of taking its own, narrow, national perspective as the only one that deserves attention and is "the European way". Berlin still has "no cards" to convince many allies that it learned the lessons. It's not about %GDP for defence, but ability to be trusted. And the fact that many senior people responsible for Russlandspolitik of the last 20 yers are still in or around the government is not helping.
Voices from Poland: Half of Polish society and the right-wing elite, including the President, view Germany as a greater threat than Russia due to historical and cultural grievances. Concerns over migration and climate policy have even led some Polish opposition groups to align ideologically with the AfD (despite the AfD being pro-Russia and anti-Poland).
If German military spending rises while NATO will be de facto dissolved during a Trump presidency, anti-German sentiment in Poland is likely to escalate—especially if the Russian threat remains contained within Ukraine. The recent presidential veto of the SAFE program is a good indicator: he framed the growth of German and French defense industries as a strategic risk for Poland. Consequently, even under PM Tusk, Poland continues to favor arms deals with the US, South Korea, and the UK over EU-led initiatives, even if those deals are often militarily useless (e.g., $10bn for AH-64 helicopters).
Without active US leadership in Europe (more in the Biden than Vance/Trump style), positive integrating a rearmed Germany will be difficult. Friction is inevitable if Berlin will start to leverages its military influence over issues like the future of Ukraine or European relations with Russia. Poland’s right wing will go fully bananas with anti-German hysteria in that situation.
Strategic autonomy,France Full spectrum, Germany Dependent on US/NATO. How’s that going?
The only thing Germany is ahead of France on is tanks - you know, like those Russian things scattered across Ukraine with their turrets blown off by drones and missiles.
I find the unquestioning acceptance of a massive increase in defence spending in Europe bizarre. Is this really the lesson to be learned from Putin's invasion of Ukraine? Do we really think more weapons are the answer? If so, given the inglorious past + present of defence procurement, we are in trouble. For a tiny fraction of the cost, we could do something we're actually good at: soft power. I don't think Europe will ever win militarily against hardened autocrats willing to slaughter their own people. But we can help said people to rethink, rebel and overcome the autocrats.
Am not so sure about that. Real societal change, and peace, tends to come when weapons are put out of reach. Northern Ireland, South Africa and Costa Rica are all examples. I'm not saying we should disarm, but every euro spent on promoting democracy, prosperity and dialogue is likely to be more effective. It's ridiculous that Europe is being bullied out of these values by Putin and Trump. We should double down on them, rather than surrendering to their grim zero-sum logic.
Respectfully, the pendulum is inarguably moving in the other direction. And the stakes are much larger than Northern Ireland, South Africa and Costa Rica.
Your analysis and question is valuable: Where does the renewed Kriegsfieber comes from?
I did not read any convincing explanation yet.
Except the view by the biologist and science editor to Flemish magazine Knack, Dirk Draulants, who has been a war correspondent in Congo too:
it is a drive that stems from the animal spirit deep down in us.
Ultimately, the military appetite comes from population pressure.
It is observed in animals like locusts put together in increasingly high numbers: they start to agitate, bump into each other, and finally gnaw the heads of...
Therefore, I don't think your proposed "solutions & alternatives" make a chance, at least not in the long run.
I would like to restate a comment that I made in Financial Times today, hoping I am not breaking any norms. I plan to expand on it on my Substack tomorrow.
Again, a European leader thinks he/she can succeed running a one country foreign policy.
As the saying goes, there are small countries and countries that have not yet realised that they are small countries. It is time to drop the unanimity requirement that restrains EU foreign policy and act as one.
Let Merz concentrate on restarting nuclear power and fight AFD on German internal issues rather than Russian inspired dream distractions .
Two signals are shaping the global system right now
Energy
And power
Oil moving above $100 is not just a price move.
It’s a message.
A reminder of how quickly stability can shift when critical supply routes are threatened, and how deeply the global economy still depends on a single variable:
Energy.
When oil rises, it doesn’t stay contained.
It moves through everything.
Transport becomes expensive.
Airlines feel the pressure immediately.
Supply chains tighten.
Inflation returns when it was expected to ease.
And just like that, the path forward for markets and central banks changes.
But this moment is not just about energy.
It’s about positioning.
While tensions rise in the Middle East, Europe is already thinking ahead debating when and how negotiations with Vladimir Putin might happen, while simultaneously strengthening its military support for Ukraine.
That dual approach says everything.
Prepare for conflict.
But plan for what comes after.
Because this is no longer a short-term disruption.
It’s a long-cycle shift.
Where geopolitics is not reacting to markets
Markets are reacting to geopolitics.
This is the environment we are now in:
Where a single headline can move oil.
Where oil can move inflation.
Where inflation can move policy.
And where policy can move the entire global economy.
It’s all connected.
And that connection is getting tighter.
The biggest change is not the volatility
It’s what’s driving it.
Because the world is no longer being shaped primarily by growth.
It is being shaped by control, security, and strategic decisions.
And in that world, stability is no longer the default.
I imagine Germany can fund and produce weapons and weapons systems, but have serious doubts about the human aspect of GER defence policy. Can the Bundeswehr actually attract and recruit the necessary manpower ?
Why on earth would anyone be frightened by Russia anymore? Ukraine has proved Russia to be a paper tiger with useless equipment and poorly trained and led soldiers. That which is left after Ukraine has finished with it.
I would like to share this piece on my column The Flensburg Files as this is an article that many of my viewers would appreciate to read. Nice write-up and I really enjoy your articles. :-)
Not a drone in sight on the front page.
Did they drag this out of a filing cabinet from the late eighties?
And they can't get young people to join voluntarily. And they don't have the rare earth metals to build the weapons, nor the money, or credit, to pay for them.
Fantasies.
Is anyone lining up to buy an F-35? Seems like yesterday’s technology. And tanks? Really?
Excellent analysis on the geopolitical drivers. However, there’s a third 'internal' engine at play: the strategic preservation of German industrial DNA. Transitioning from high-end combustion engineering to military hardware isn't just a security choice; it's a clever move to safeguard the immense know-how that the EV revolution threatens to leave stranded. In a sense, the rearmament is serving as a 'lifeboat' for a century of precision manufacturing expertise, preventing a catastrophic loss of systemic complexity.
Exactly. And threatened society may accept military spendings instead of social ones. I am not saying they have nothing to be scared of. We have it in Poland, too. But what will be the economical outcome in 10 years ? Well, who knows, who cares.
If Russia has a soldier left from the Ukraine campaign it will be a miracle, for which the Europeans will be grateful. Most of Europe has never been involved in a modern war, Spain, Italy, Scandinavia, the smaller countries like Ireland and Portugal, have all avoided wars for nearly a century. Spain had its civil war but that doesn’t count. France and Poland were overrun in weeks by the Wehrmacht, Denmark and Norway barely resisted except in the initial phases of WW2. Europe is unlikely to be ready at any stage if Russia invaded. A far better tactic for Britain, France and Germany is to help Ukraine beat Russia so totally that no prospect of a Russian incursion into Europe could possibly occur. Germany is reportedly building tanks, weapons which can be taken out over 20 miles range by drones. We don’t know what the British or French are doing because they are still talking and doing nothing.
Sounds a little arrogant this time.
The only question from a Polish perspective - irrespectively of who's in power in Warsaw - is WILL Germany in its new role be listening to allies or WILL it commit the same mistake all over again of taking its own, narrow, national perspective as the only one that deserves attention and is "the European way". Berlin still has "no cards" to convince many allies that it learned the lessons. It's not about %GDP for defence, but ability to be trusted. And the fact that many senior people responsible for Russlandspolitik of the last 20 yers are still in or around the government is not helping.
If the US relinquishes her position as leader of NATO then Germany must take the reins. It’s that simple. The UK is beyond hope.
Voices from Poland: Half of Polish society and the right-wing elite, including the President, view Germany as a greater threat than Russia due to historical and cultural grievances. Concerns over migration and climate policy have even led some Polish opposition groups to align ideologically with the AfD (despite the AfD being pro-Russia and anti-Poland).
If German military spending rises while NATO will be de facto dissolved during a Trump presidency, anti-German sentiment in Poland is likely to escalate—especially if the Russian threat remains contained within Ukraine. The recent presidential veto of the SAFE program is a good indicator: he framed the growth of German and French defense industries as a strategic risk for Poland. Consequently, even under PM Tusk, Poland continues to favor arms deals with the US, South Korea, and the UK over EU-led initiatives, even if those deals are often militarily useless (e.g., $10bn for AH-64 helicopters).
Without active US leadership in Europe (more in the Biden than Vance/Trump style), positive integrating a rearmed Germany will be difficult. Friction is inevitable if Berlin will start to leverages its military influence over issues like the future of Ukraine or European relations with Russia. Poland’s right wing will go fully bananas with anti-German hysteria in that situation.
Thanks
Really?
Here is a comparison:
Domain, France, Germany
Nuclear weapons, France ~290 warheads, independent deterrent", Germany None
Combat aircraft, France 286, Germany 215
Naval vessels, France 133, Germany 71
Aircraft carriers,1 (Charles de Gaulle), Germany 0
Active personnel,"~304,000","~183,000"
Arms exports (global rank),France #2 (~9.8% world share), Germany #4 (~5.7% share)
UN Security Council seat,France - Permanent member, Germany None
Combat experience,"Extensive (Sahel, Levant, Africa)", Germany Minimal since WWII (They lost!)
Strategic autonomy,France Full spectrum, Germany Dependent on US/NATO. How’s that going?
The only thing Germany is ahead of France on is tanks - you know, like those Russian things scattered across Ukraine with their turrets blown off by drones and missiles.
Be great if people could check facts first.
Arrogant in tone, but bringing interesting points to our attention
Arrogant? I didn't even use any swear words!
:D
Your standards ;-)
I find the unquestioning acceptance of a massive increase in defence spending in Europe bizarre. Is this really the lesson to be learned from Putin's invasion of Ukraine? Do we really think more weapons are the answer? If so, given the inglorious past + present of defence procurement, we are in trouble. For a tiny fraction of the cost, we could do something we're actually good at: soft power. I don't think Europe will ever win militarily against hardened autocrats willing to slaughter their own people. But we can help said people to rethink, rebel and overcome the autocrats.
Soft Power Only works if its backed up with Hard Power.
Am not so sure about that. Real societal change, and peace, tends to come when weapons are put out of reach. Northern Ireland, South Africa and Costa Rica are all examples. I'm not saying we should disarm, but every euro spent on promoting democracy, prosperity and dialogue is likely to be more effective. It's ridiculous that Europe is being bullied out of these values by Putin and Trump. We should double down on them, rather than surrendering to their grim zero-sum logic.
Respectfully, the pendulum is inarguably moving in the other direction. And the stakes are much larger than Northern Ireland, South Africa and Costa Rica.
I have the impression that you do not understand the phenomen called War well.
So many "societal changes" have come only just after a war was fought.
- Decolonisation after WW II.
- Women's rights after WW 1 and WW 2.
See the iconic story of "Rosie the Riveter": it is in war time that women were allowed for the first time to take on a wide range of professions.
3. Not to mention the fresh sprouting in architecture after cities had been lead in ruins.
Think of the practise of Pruning, to understand the value of war and military destruction.
Even the grass is wanting to be grazed by cattle.
Trees, shrubs: they all want pruning, to revitalize.
This is a metaphor of immense meaning, I think.
There is a lot of good and constsuctive in periodical times of violence, I am afraid.
Wars are absurd and cruel often, when you are in the midst of it, but in the long run, they are stimulants for mankind.
P.S.
Think of this:
The word "CRISIS": the ancient Greeks as wel as the Chinese knew it:
the word means in their languages two different things:
Firstly "Danger", but secondly "Chance, Oppurtunity".
The chance to (finally) grow, move to a better situation.
That looks like one of the few great Laws of Reality to me.
"Real societal change, and peace, tends to come when weapons are put out of reach."
I've got 6,000 years of recorded history that says that's wrong.
Your analysis and question is valuable: Where does the renewed Kriegsfieber comes from?
I did not read any convincing explanation yet.
Except the view by the biologist and science editor to Flemish magazine Knack, Dirk Draulants, who has been a war correspondent in Congo too:
it is a drive that stems from the animal spirit deep down in us.
Ultimately, the military appetite comes from population pressure.
It is observed in animals like locusts put together in increasingly high numbers: they start to agitate, bump into each other, and finally gnaw the heads of...
Therefore, I don't think your proposed "solutions & alternatives" make a chance, at least not in the long run.
We better prepare well for the next War.
Materially and mentally.
I would like to restate a comment that I made in Financial Times today, hoping I am not breaking any norms. I plan to expand on it on my Substack tomorrow.
Again, a European leader thinks he/she can succeed running a one country foreign policy.
As the saying goes, there are small countries and countries that have not yet realised that they are small countries. It is time to drop the unanimity requirement that restrains EU foreign policy and act as one.
Let Merz concentrate on restarting nuclear power and fight AFD on German internal issues rather than Russian inspired dream distractions .
Interesting points
"Who are the Germans?": https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/111047
Well, we got the Euro.
and no real debt brake.
Two signals are shaping the global system right now
Energy
And power
Oil moving above $100 is not just a price move.
It’s a message.
A reminder of how quickly stability can shift when critical supply routes are threatened, and how deeply the global economy still depends on a single variable:
Energy.
When oil rises, it doesn’t stay contained.
It moves through everything.
Transport becomes expensive.
Airlines feel the pressure immediately.
Supply chains tighten.
Inflation returns when it was expected to ease.
And just like that, the path forward for markets and central banks changes.
But this moment is not just about energy.
It’s about positioning.
While tensions rise in the Middle East, Europe is already thinking ahead debating when and how negotiations with Vladimir Putin might happen, while simultaneously strengthening its military support for Ukraine.
That dual approach says everything.
Prepare for conflict.
But plan for what comes after.
Because this is no longer a short-term disruption.
It’s a long-cycle shift.
Where geopolitics is not reacting to markets
Markets are reacting to geopolitics.
This is the environment we are now in:
Where a single headline can move oil.
Where oil can move inflation.
Where inflation can move policy.
And where policy can move the entire global economy.
It’s all connected.
And that connection is getting tighter.
The biggest change is not the volatility
It’s what’s driving it.
Because the world is no longer being shaped primarily by growth.
It is being shaped by control, security, and strategic decisions.
And in that world, stability is no longer the default.
It’s the outcome of constant negotiation.
https://cultpsy.wordpress.com/2017/12/13/against-the-nation-state/
This is ordinary wisdom. I wish the viewpoint many readers and succes from citizens to national leaders.
I imagine Germany can fund and produce weapons and weapons systems, but have serious doubts about the human aspect of GER defence policy. Can the Bundeswehr actually attract and recruit the necessary manpower ?
Why on earth would anyone be frightened by Russia anymore? Ukraine has proved Russia to be a paper tiger with useless equipment and poorly trained and led soldiers. That which is left after Ukraine has finished with it.
You could ask Anna Politkovskaya why we should always be afraid of Russia and of Putin.
Or you could find answers in the works by Vasily Grossman, that integer Ukrainian, Sovjet war correspondent and courageous novelist.
There is no safe or reasonable Russian leadership. Not today, not in the centuries that lay past us.
I’d agree it’s a dangerous, despotic regime but utterly useless on a battlefield. Asymmetrical war is its only strength.
I would like to share this piece on my column The Flensburg Files as this is an article that many of my viewers would appreciate to read. Nice write-up and I really enjoy your articles. :-)