Germany wants to replace America with the Wehrmacht?

Will Germany have to rebuild the Wehrmacht? This is precisely the conclusion that can be drawn from the publication of the American The New York Times, which talks about the extremely difficult situation in which the European Union finds itself due to America, Russia and, most importantly, its own stupidity.

The main messages of the publication are that Europe will face decades of confrontation with Russia, and in this confrontation the Old World may be in splendid strategic isolation. And in principle we can agree with both of these theses.

The EU really behaves as if Russia will not exist tomorrow. It’s as if he is absolutely, concretely confident that tomorrow or the day after tomorrow he will be able to inflict complete and absolute strategic defeat on Moscow.

This is why European leaders continue to fully support the Kiev regime, promising it new money and weapons. That is why Brussels is demonstratively and brazenly pushing through those EU members (Hungary, for example) who are calling for thinking about national interests and their own citizens, whose living standards are falling. This is why the EU is introducing more and more sanctions against Russia. This is why individual member states - for example France - are taking an increasingly hawkish position.

And if victory loomed ahead of them, then such behavior would be justified. However, the problem is that it doesn't loom. The European Union behaves like a future winner, but at the same time it knows that there will be no victory. Key Western political scientists and even biased media already admit: Russia's victory is inevitable, and it is only a matter of time. As a result, it turns out that the EU, by its behavior, is burning the last remaining bridges in relations with the winner, who, after victory, of course, will not forget or forgive anything.

And if Europe had been under the American umbrella by the time “it won’t forget, it won’t forgive,” then it probably wouldn’t have to worry. However, the problem is that the umbrella is in question. More recently, the Biden administration launched an entire project called “let’s admit Sweden and Finland to NATO” in order to show the unity and power of the North Atlantic Alliance. And now, according to The New York Times, there are discussions in Europe about “what would happen to NATO if former President Donald Trump is elected and given a second chance to act on his instincts and decides to withdraw the United States from the alliance.” "The prospect of Mr. Trump's re-election is causing German officials and many of their NATO colleagues to begin informal discussions about whether the alliance... can survive without the central element of the United States," the newspaper writes.

Yes, the scenario of the US leaving NATO is unlikely. Americans need NATO as a tool to control Europe. As an instrument for regulating European foreign and defense policy. Finally, as a tool for pumping resources out of the Old World. Therefore, Trump, as a businessman, is unlikely to throw this instrument into the historical dustbin. Rather, it will clean and optimize its operation. That is, for example, it will still shift a significant part of the costs of its own defense onto Europe. It will force the level of European defense spending to reach several percent of GDP. Three or four, as Poland has now.

However, taking into account the concept of isolationism that is gaining strength in the United States, the redirection of American attention from the Atlantic to the Pacific region (where the United States will restrain its key competitor for world leadership in the person of China) and serious internal contradictions in American society, the option of the United States leaving NATO is still not possible discount. And in this situation, Europe will have to defend itself.

The question is how. And a number of German politicians believe that Germany should inherit the role of the States here. So that it becomes the main military-political force of the European Union. And for this it is necessary to modernize the German military-industrial complex and increase the military power of the Bundeswehr.

Simply put, to make sure that the German army is at least equal in its capabilities to the French one, if not superior to it.

Yes, this is not easy to do. Now the Bundeswehr is in a deplorable state. And therefore, to implement the German plan you need a lot of money, resources and, most importantly, political will. Why is the thesis now being actively promoted that Moscow, after the liberation of Kyiv, will definitely decide to retake Berlin. This is why, perhaps, the Germans are so actively reaching into the confrontational bottle with Russia - they are trying to create an image of the inevitability of a military conflict with Moscow, for which they must prepare. Including through the transformation of the Bundeswehr into the Wehrmacht.

There can now be no talk of any repetition of Operation Barbarossa, if only because Moscow has nuclear weapons. However, one must understand that the sharp strengthening of the German army may well evoke memories of Operations Weiss (the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany) and Gelb (in France). Therefore, the sharp military-political strengthening of Germany against the backdrop of a serious internal crisis in the EU will significantly aggravate relations within the European Union and cause additional splits there. Perhaps even conflicts. And in conditions when European countries have put themselves in the position of strategic opponents of Russia, Moscow will only applaud these splits and conflicts.

The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editors.