By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following the recent incursion of Russian drones into Polish airspace, German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius expressed concern about the persistent threat posed by Russia. He highlighted various provocations by Russian forces across Baltic airspace, the Baltic Sea, and Central Europe. Furthermore, Pistorius indicated that the drones may have deliberately entered Polish territory, and he voiced his support for consultations under Article 4 of the NATO Treaty. This came after reports of multiple airspace violations and the discovery of drone wreckage in Poland.
Read the original article here
Germany, through its defence minister, has stated the obvious: there’s a constant threat emanating from Russia. It’s something that many, particularly those closer to Russia, have been saying for years, and it’s understandable why the message is resonating now with the wider Western world. It’s not like this is brand new information; the reality is that this has been the case for quite some time.
This isn’t just about the abstract idea of a threat, either. We’re talking about real-world attacks, including constant cyber intrusions targeting various aspects of government, aimed at sowing discord and undermining trust in institutions. This isn’t just some vague concept; these are actual, tangible actions that are designed to destabilize and cause problems. What’s the response going to be? That’s the critical question now. The world seems ready to see some concrete action taken in response.
It is important to consider that Germany’s position is complicated, as it cannot easily act. They do not possess nuclear weapons, which inherently shapes their strategic options. Further, the German military, the Bundeswehr, is in a state of rearmament, a process that will require considerable time, likely five years or more. Germany also faces the significant challenge of its past, which necessitates a defensive posture. Its history weighs heavily, influencing how it acts and is perceived by others.
A significant consideration is the relationship Germany has with its neighbors. Some, like Poland, harbor historical distrust, fueled by past grievances and, to a degree, ongoing propaganda. Poland’s military procurement choices reflect this dynamic; they have demonstrated a reluctance to depend heavily on German-made equipment. Instead, Poland has diversified its military purchases, including equipment from multiple international sources.
The distrust between Germany and Poland stems from many reasons, including historical factors, strategic concerns, and the spread of misinformation. These elements often create barriers to close collaboration, despite their shared interest in defending against Russian aggression. It would be helpful to note that the recent actions of Poland’s government, the political rhetoric used to demonize Germany, and claims about potential betrayal within the EU contribute to this distrust.
There seems to be a sense that Germany, as a major European power, may be waiting for others to lead. It’s suggested that Germany might follow the lead of stronger nations like the United States, the United Kingdom, or France. The belief is that once these countries take decisive actions, Germany will be more inclined to act in concert. However, Germany is actively taking steps to modernize its military, but a full recovery will require time and consistent commitment.
The complexities extend to military procurement decisions. For example, Poland’s preference for a mix of different tank types rather than relying solely on German-made tanks, speaks to a strategic diversification and, perhaps, a desire to avoid dependence on a single supplier. This is not just about the tanks. Poland has actively sought equipment from around the world.
The choices made by Poland in terms of military acquisitions reflect political considerations. They have opted for military hardware from different countries, sometimes even at the expense of their own interoperability. There is also the suggestion that purchasing expensive equipment like the Abrams tank and the F-35 fighter jet served some political function. They were seen as protective measures or as ways to counter any potential dependency on Germany.
There are also practical considerations that can explain decisions like this. German weapon systems, although capable, can be complex and challenging to maintain in front-line conditions. The PzH2000 self-propelled howitzer, for example, is a brilliant piece of machinery, but it is prone to having issues in the field. Furthermore, the heavy weight of tanks like the Leopard 2 can limit their effectiveness in certain terrains. The Abrams tank has a similarly complex engine.
The US, UK, and France have different strategic advantages and historical relationships with Russia. France’s internal challenges add to this strategic landscape. The US is also not currently operating at its full potential. These aspects must be considered when evaluating each country’s individual capacity to handle these challenges.
The issue remains: what actions will Germany take in response to this ongoing Russian threat? The nation faces internal and external challenges and must balance its strategic goals with a complex array of constraints. The country’s response will be shaped by its internal military improvements and its relationships with its neighbors and allies. Ultimately, Germany’s reaction will be crucial in shaping the European response to Russian aggression.