RUeconomics — Germans tell NATO that a war with Russia is “suicide” – they would know

by
Mike Norman
My articles My siteAbout meMy booksMy videos
Follow on:TwitterFacebook

The German Contra Magazin called on NATO to understand that a war against Russia is "suicide". Readers of the publication noted that Germany remembers this especially well....
In NATO, there are forces that are convinced of the correctness of a "military solution" of confrontation with Russia. However, anyone who attacks the Russians "actually commits suicide" because of the strength of Russian weapons and Moscow's readiness to use them in case of a threat to its security. An author of Contra Magazin, Ernst Planner, singles out the Iskander-M complexes, capable of "flying to Warsaw in two minutes, and four to Berlin."

In addition, NATO defense equipment is obsolete when it comes to the Iskanders, as they can fly in the mesosphere.
According to the journalist, NATO should have no doubts that the Russians, whose patriotism has increased against the backdrop of confrontation with the West, will "press the button" to defend their homeland.

In this case, the "madmen" who started the war, whether the US or the "nuclear dwarfs" Britain and France, will not stand a chance. Russia can destroy any external threat, and realist politicians (Planner places Trump and his associates among them) are well aware of this.

In a happy coincidence of timing, the head of the British Army (of which once, a long time ago, I was a member), General Sir Nick Carter, has provided us with a relevant case study to chew upon in our class. The BBC reports that in a speech tonight to the Royal United Services Institute, General Carter will argue that, ‘Britain’s armed forces risk falling behind Russia without more investment.’ According to the BBC, General Carter ‘will say the Army’s ability to respond to threats “will be eroded if we don’t keep up with our adversaries” … He will add that Russia is building an increasingly aggressive expeditionary force, which already boasts capabilities the British Army would struggle to match.’

And this is where Russia comes in useful. By exaggerating the Russian threat, the British army can make a claim to an increased share of the the country’s resources. The connection between the two – exaggerating threats and claiming resources – is quite explicit in this case.

We see here how the military industrial complex works. The army makes wild claims to justify its budget; the defence minister and his bureaucracy support the claims; institutions such as RUSI spread the word further among those who influence public opinion; and the press does its bit by giving space to the exaggerations. This isn’t a conspiracy – no doubt all these people believe in what they are doing. Long exposure to a given set of institutions tends to make people identify the national interest with those institutions’ interests. But the two aren’t the same. The British nation – that is to say its people – don’t benefit from conflictual relations with Russia; nor do they benefit from spending extra money on defence rather than on more productive activities (or alternative getting their money back in the form of tax cuts).