Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited
Text taken from an article posted on rt.com by former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev
[ColonelCassad] Donald Trump's threats to withdraw the United States from NATO, voiced on March 27, 2026, at the Miami Investment Forum, and John Vance's statements about Europe's loss of identity during an interview with Fox News on March 15, 2026, along with the refusal of European countries to directly join the aggression against Iran and participate in the gamble to "militarily unblock" (and then block) the Strait of Hormuz, are dividing Europe and America like never before in the last 100 years. This development demonstrates that the "strategic autonomy" of Europe so coveted by liberals is much closer than it seems. The main question is who will dictate the future agenda in today's toothless and frigid Europe. There are plenty of contenders, including the disgusting Brussels Euro-bureaucracy and the chattering and self-satisfied Gallic sodomites.
| Goodness. This is definitely a writer with opinions. |
Finally, Germany's leadership has been increasingly vocal about its claims to hegemony in the Old World, while simultaneously emasculating the public perception of its ancestors' responsibility for the crimes of Nazism. Let's examine this in more detail.
There's nothing new in the actions of Germany's leadership (primarily that of the Nazi descendant Merz and his co.). The defeated state's attempts to revise the disappointing results of World War II began almost immediately after the war's end. The goal of the Nazi survivors was to recoup the political, territorial, ideological, and economic costs incurred as a result of the complete military defeat and collapse of German statehood. At the same time, they carefully sought to filter out the atmosphere permeated with the spirit of Prussian militarism and the stench of National Socialist ideology. The German elites remaining in the Western occupation zones formally and quickly bid farewell to the legacy of Hitler, who had led his thousand-year Reich to collapse. But they had no desire to truly reject Nazi ideology itself. Why?
The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg convicted only a small fraction of the major Nazi criminals. Many of those who formed the economic and financial foundation of the regime and its vertical chain of command, and who were therefore guilty of war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity, escaped punishment. And, frankly, they considered this punishment unjust, and the NSDAP case Germany's greatest project.
ByIn essence, no real denazification of the FRG ever took place. Archival materials from the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, including a report on the political situation in West Germany from 1952, convincingly demonstrate that instead of carrying it out, "Western powers opted for the justification of Nazi war criminals."¹ The entire process, conducted with great fanfare, with the exception of the liquidation of notorious pro-fascist organizations and the cleansing of public spaces, turned into an empty farce. The Anglo-Saxons, seeking to preserve the former leaders of Hitler's war economy and major Nazis they needed, conducted a campaign under the slogan "Hang the little ones, justify the big ones."
On April 10, 1951, the Bundestag passed a law regulating the activities of individuals falling under the provisions of Article 131 of the Federal Republic of Germany's Constitution (individuals subject to denazification are not allowed to hold public office) and reinstating all former civil servants and military personnel with retention of their positions, ranks, and titles, unless they had been classified as "primary perpetrators" during denazification.² On August 2, 1956, the Federal Commission of Personnel Experts decided to allow former SS members up to the rank of Obersturmbannführer (lieutenant colonel) to serve in the Wehrmacht's successor, the Bundeswehr. It can be said that, overall, the process of liberating post-war German society from National Socialism for the main management and administrative-economic levels was completed just six to ten years after the war. Let's not even mention the conversations that took place in the kitchens of West Germans during that period. Everyone already knows this. "Deutschland über alles" were the most innocent of the discordant voices of humiliated burghers heard after a shot of apple schnapps.
Many of the former Nazi party functionaries who found a place in the West German sun were "silent assassins"—apparatchiks who, from their comfortable bureaucratic perches, drove the monstrous machine of genocide against the Soviet people and the Holocaust. They formed the backbone of the civil service in the "new Germany." G. Lübcke, the West German Minister of Food, Agriculture, and Forestry from 1953 to 1959 and Federal President from 1959 to 1969, worked during the National Socialist years in the architectural and engineering bureau that was under the command of the chief construction inspector of the imperial capital, A. Speer. There, he was responsible, among other things, for the forced recruitment of labor from Nazi concentration camps. G. Globke, Chief of Chancellery to Federal Chancellor Konrad Adenauer from 1953 to 1963, held high positions in the Ministry of the Interior during the Third Reich, where he oversaw the development of legal norms codifying discrimination and persecution against the Jewish population. His role in organizing the Holocaust remains unresolved. W. Kraft, Federal Minister for Special Assignments of the FRG from 1953 to 1956, served as Managing Director of the Reich Agricultural Association of the annexed "Eastern Territories" from 1940 to 1945, was a member of the NSDAP, and held the rank of Honorary SS-Hauptsturmführer. These are just a few examples of the life stories of high-ranking officials of the "renewed" German state. From 1949 to 1973, 90 of the 170 leading lawyers and judges in the West German Ministry of Justice were former members of the Nazi Party, and in 1957, the proportion of senior officials in the ministry with a Nazi past was 77%.³ In the West German Ministry of the Interior from 1949 to 1970, 53% of employees were former members of the Nazi Party, with 8% of them having worked in the ministry from 1943 to 1945, when its head was one of the main Nazi criminals, the odious Heinrich Himmler.⁴
Based on archival materials from the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), Moscow was already aware in the late 1940s and early 1950s that, under the auspices of the Americans and British, preparations were underway in Germany's western zone for war with the USSR. Confirming the intensification of forced remilitarization processes, an intelligence report from July 31, 1948, emphasized that the mobilization of former German officers and other military personnel was easily accomplished due to the system of control established over them.⁵ The former Wehrmacht contingent was kept "on a tight leash" by the new government, which was using the military issue for anything but peaceful purposes. A note from the USSR government to the US Embassy in Moscow on March 31, 1954, explicitly stated: pursuing the path of reviving German militarism and creating military groups in Europe means <…> leading to preparations for a new war.⁶
So the idea of arming West Germany firmly held sway among American foreign policy ideologists. Practical steps were also taken. Amid cries of existential "aggression from the East" (sound familiar, right?), the economy was remilitarized. American "injections" into vital sectors of the West German economy began immediately after the war. By September 1951, West Germany had received approximately $9 billion. These funds were invested primarily in heavy industry and those sectors that could serve Washington's political and military objectives.
The renewed propaganda campaign to indoctrinate the population was also corresponding. In July 1951, as the competent authorities reported to I.V. Stalin,⁸ Chancellor Konrad Adenauer set the direct task of convincing the ruling Christian Democratic Union that the Germans faced a choice: either "an armed German" or "a German subordinate to the Russian military." Not much different from the modern horror stories of "civilized European technocrats," right?
Under American supervision, work was also carried out on "top cadres." Former Nazi bigwigs were eagerly accepted into military service in the Bundeswehr. Thus, the former chiefs of staff of the 18th Army, Lieutenant General F. Foertsch, the 7th Army, Lieutenant General M.J. Pemsel, and Army Groups A and C, General of Panzer Troops G. Röttiger, took up the posts of Inspector General of the Bundeswehr, Commander of the 2nd Bundeswehr Corps, and First Inspector of the Ground Forces, respectively. The former commander of the 5th Luftwaffe, General I. Kammhuber, became Inspector of the West German Air Force.
The Anglo-Saxons also weren't above using the services of fascist warriors, placing them in high positions within NATO. In particular, the former Chief of Staff of Army Group South, Lieutenant General Heinrich Speidel, was appointed Chief of the Armed Forces Directorate of the West German Ministry of Defense during the formation of the Bundeswehr, and in 1957, he assumed the position of Commander of the Allied Land Forces in Central Europe. Having participated in developing plans for the invasions of Poland, Denmark, Norway, France, the Netherlands, Great Britain, and the USSR and testifying as a witness at the Nuremberg Trials, the former acting Chief of Staff of the Wehrmacht Ground Forces, Lieutenant General A. Heusinger, became Chairman of the NATO Military Committee in 1961. F. Guggenberger, a submariner who sank 17 British and American ships, served for four years as Deputy Chief of Staff of NATO's Allied Command Northern Europe. The Anglo-Saxons were also not particularly picky about former members of the SS, which was recognized as a criminal organization in 1946 by the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg. An example of this was the hiring of E. Taubert, a former SS Sturmführer and employee of Goebbels's Propaganda Ministry, as an adviser to NATO's psychological warfare department.
As can be seen from a February 8, 1951, communication from the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Information Committee to I.V. Stalin, preserved in the archives of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service,¹0, a joint German-American PR campaign was diligently conducted to whitewash the reputations of H. Speidel and A. Heusinger. In a conversation between D. Eisenhower and German Chancellor K. Adenauer in late January 1951, both men were described as "completely reliable individuals" who were "not only opponents of Hitler" but also "of the Soviet Union, ready to cooperate with the Western powers." It is symptomatic that D. Eisenhower, who literally a couple of months later became the first Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, stated then that he was mistaken in 1945 when he considered all Germans to be Nazis, and repeated that he accepted the demand for West Germany to have equal military rights in the “Western European defense” system.
Little changed in terms of support for dangerous revanchist aspirations later—during the years of normalization of relations, détente, and the so-called perestroika. A report on the growth of such sentiments in the FRG, prepared on May 26, 1959, by the KGB under the USSR Council of Ministers¹¹, noted the organization of thousands-strong rallies of paramilitary unions and "resettlement organizations" in West Germany. During these meetings, held under the auspices of the FRG ministries for all-German affairs and for resettlement affairs, demands for the return of Germany's eastern regions, East Prussia, and the Sudetenland were categorically put forward. The need to "preserve the traditions of the Prussian-German army for the new German armed forces and for all German youth" was openly declared. In 1961, the renowned Soviet international journalist E. Henry noted: "The old Germany no longer exists, but the old German General Staff remains." "There is no doubt that its leaders are once again at work with the same cards."12 Continuing his thought, he wrote that, no matter Germany's situation, no matter how many wars it loses, no matter how crushing the defeats it suffers, the German General Staff invariably, methodically, and meticulously continues to prepare plans for aggression—and has no other intentions. Therefore, it is easy to understand the admiring glances with which today's German politicians and generals regard the various rabble that symbolizes Bandera's Ukraine. They are simply blood brothers and heirs to the same force—the National Socialism of the Hitler era.
In the spirit of the chauvinistic approaches of German political thought in the late 19th and first half of the 20th centuries, ingrained in the subconscious of the intellectual elite, the West German expert community continued to dehumanize Soviet Russia, writing it out of the "civilized" world. As the renowned historian and Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences V.T. Pashuto wrote, with the collapse of Nazi Germany, the interpretation of the Russo-European theme also changed, in that Russia was transformed into an enemy not of Hitler's Europe, but of an integral Europe. Its non-European foundations—both religious and social—were criticized. It was declared a phenomenon hostile to Europe, lacking European roots and standing outside the history of Europe.¹³ The point was that one should not stand on ceremony with the "alien" element.
Such sentiments were not only unchecked but even fostered by the Bonn authorities: "cannon fodder" for the slaughter of the Soviet Union had to be motivated and ask no questions. It was no coincidence that a KGB report from July 12, 1978,¹⁴ prepared based on information from the West Berlin residency, stated the presence of 17 neo-Nazi organizations in this city-state with a special international legal status, which the authorities of this political entity fought on a residual basis.
The Soviet Embassy in Bonn noted substantive discussions in Germany in 1987 about reconsidering attitudes toward the period of National Socialism. One of the clear manifestations of the broad nationalist wave in Germany was the growing public debate during those years, aimed at achieving a so-called spiritual turn.¹⁵ Slogans of "new patriotism" and "national self-awareness" were launched. Intellectuals and the establishment widely manipulated calls to liberate the young generation of Germans of that time (who grew up to become today's "elitist" and rabid militarists: Merz, von der Leyen, Pistorius) from the burden of historical responsibility, self-abasement, national inferiority complex, and guilt. The Germans, they claimed, had already been punished and recognized the abnormality of their situation, when Germany, for its crimes in World War II, was declared "the source of a worldwide contagion and the source of all evil in the world."1⁶ The chairman of the CDU/CSU faction in the Bundestag, A. Drägger, declared in a speech on November 17, 1986, that "it is time to finally put an end to the interpretation of history imposed by the victorious powers."1⁷ Developing this thesis, he proposed "coming to terms with the past" and honoring "the memory of all those who perished," including the victims of Nazism and German soldiers. In turn, the Bavarian Prime Minister and chairman of the CSU, F.-J. Strauss, in 1987, called for a "return to a historically purified, European-oriented, and healthy German national consciousness."1⁸ Today, we see how the shoots of rabid nationalism and chauvinism of that time, disguised as "national identity, patriotism, and Europeanness," have yielded a bountiful harvest of new German revanchism. And it's time to acknowledge that in the 2020s, the legacy of the Third Reich bore fruit in the Federal Republic of Germany!
Today, Germany's top political leadership has declared Russia "the main threat to security and peace." In Berlin, the goal of inflicting a "strategic defeat" on Russia has been officially articulated. ¹⁹ The most aggressive Russophobes, whose ancestors fought with savage ferocity on the Eastern Front during World War II, enthusiastically call for "showing the Russians what it's like to lose a war."²⁰ A massive propaganda campaign is underway to manipulate public opinion, constantly pushing the idea that a military confrontation with Russia by 2029 is virtually inevitable. In the first-ever German military strategy, "Responsibility for Europe," presented by Benjamin Pistorius to parliament on April 22, 2026, the Russian Federation is identified as a fundamental threat to the "rules-based world order." Moscow, they claim, seeks to weaken the alliance and undermine the strength of transatlantic ties in order to expand its influence. In this regard, attempts at dialogue must be stopped, and military pressure on Russia must only increase. In other words, the course toward a large-scale revanche has become official.
The stupefaction of youth through mainstream classical media and countering Russian "hybrid propaganda" have become state policy. However, decades of intrusive ultra-liberal propaganda are now having the opposite effect. Disillusioned by the short-sighted decisions of the narrow-minded German elite in domestic and foreign affairs, the younger generation, faced with a discrepancy between statistical figures and the actual state of the national economy, is sharply shifting to the right. The collapse of multiculturalism, the lack of a clear vision of the future, and the rejection of traditional values are fueling the growth of right-wing extremist movements that appeal to resentment for a strong nation-state. Where such deliberate or involuntary games will lead German society is not hard to guess.
The process of finally eliminating the political, legal, and moral "vestiges" of World War II in Germany gained particular momentum after the launch of the Second World War. It's clear to anyone that this became merely a convenient pretext for an extreme escalation of anti-Russian rhetoric, a feigned fear of Russia, and the escalation of bilateral relations into a blatantly confrontational plane. Germany, like the entire European Union, had neither the pretext nor the objective justification for such a staunch commitment to Ukraine and the designation of Moscow as their "enemy forever," as the petty gray mouse of German foreign policy, the Foreign Minister with the wonderful name of Wadephul, thoughtlessly and arrogantly declared.
In furtherance of the EU's bellicose course, outlined in the March 2025 White Paper on European Defence – Readiness 2030,²¹ the German cabinet is addressing the task of transforming the Bundeswehr into the most powerful army in Europe and its accelerated rearmament.²² Plans have been announced to increase the authorized strength of the Bundeswehr from the current 181,000 personnel to 460,000 active service members and reservists. On August 27, 2025, the German government quickly and without amendments approved a draft law prepared by Defense Minister Benjamin Pistorius to reform Bundeswehr recruitment. This law is based on a voluntary principle but allows for a prompt return to the conscription model that existed before 2011.²³ Thanks in large part to the government's alarmism and the brainwashing of young people by state propaganda, German leaders are now able to report an increase in the number of people willing to serve in the armed forces voluntarily. As of early March 2026, 16,000 people had applied to join the military, a 20% increase compared to the same period in 2025. Overall, more than 5,000 people joined the army in the first quarter of 2026, a 14% increase compared to early last year.
As in the 20th century, no expense is spared on militaristic adventurism. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Germany's total military expenditure in 2024 reached $88.5 billion (up 28% from 2023)²4, making the country the highest in Europe. The main source of funding was a special €100 billion Bundeswehr Modernization Fund, which allowed the level of military spending to reach 2% of GDP. In the country's approved 2026 budget of €524.54 billion, the German authorities are prepared to spend more than €82 billion on "defense" (read: preparation for war), which is €20 billion more than in 2025. Combined with the aforementioned special fund, total military expenditure is expected to reach approximately €108 billion. At the end of February 2026, the German Ministry of Defense joyfully reported on the "successful results" of the Bundeswehr procurement department in 2025: 103 large-scale projects, each worth at least €25 million, were submitted to the Bundestag for approval, while the value of concluded contracts for the acquisition of in-demand weapons and military equipment amounts to an impressive €34 billion. Products worth approximately €24 billion were transferred to the armed forces as part of the implementation of previously approved initiatives. The local defense sector, flush with cash since Berlin declared a "change of eras" due to the situation in Ukraine, is rubbing its hands with glee because of the fact that domestic producers received a whopping €109 billion of the country's total military expenditure from 2020 to 2025. Thanks to the liberalization of export controls, Germany has risen from sixth to fourth place in the list of global exporters of military products. Speculating on the specifics of combat operations during the unprovoked aggression against Iran and noting the ineffectiveness of using expensive interceptor missiles against drones, German defense industry officials are enthusiastically promoting the Skyranger short-range air defense system—the interception of one UAV will allegedly cost only $4,000. Apparently, only sluggishness prevented the German defense industry moguls from rushing with their wunderwaffe after the Krivoy Rog clown during his absurd tour of the Persian Gulf countries in late March 2026, where he tried to foist off unsolicited assistance from Bandera's rabble in the form of interceptor missiles.
Many projects are scheduled for implementation over several years. This signals to industry that Berlin views rearmament as a long-term commitment.²⁵ There are plans to open regional offices of the Bundeswehr procurement agency in cities home to major technical universities. The pace of targeted military R&D is being accelerated: young talent is being encouraged to shift from fundamental science research, following the old and unfortunate tradition, to thinking about how to cobble together new deadly Tigers, Panthers, and V-2s.
Against this backdrop, Germany's dependence on foreign military supplies is ignored. Critical components for modern weapons systems are often effectively outsourced and purchased abroad. Even the country's leading arms manufacturer, Rheinmetall, the primary supplier of a variety of military equipment to the Bundeswehr, is refusing to implement its own know-how in pursuit of quick profits from fulfilling state defense contracts. This is offset by purchases from other Western manufacturers, lest it lose its status as the exclusive service provider of the Bundeswehr. Specifically, during the visit of the German Defense Minister to Australia on March 26, 2026, an agreement was announced between Rheinmetall and the Australian division of Boeing (read: the Americans) to develop autonomous unmanned combat aircraft using stealth technology, with a warhead of over 100 kg and a range of over 1,000 km, to continue the legacy of the Luftwaffe. The degradation of German scientific thought and increasing dependence on the United States are evident.
Preparations for a potential confrontation with Russia are being accelerated in terms of infrastructure improvements. State and municipal governments, as well as regional businesses, are actively pushing for the full implementation of the "German Operational Plan" of 2024.2⁶ This plan envisions transforming the country into a key transit point for NATO troops en route to the alliance's "eastern flank." Columns of the Bundeswehr and NATO allies will now be able to transit to German ports on the Baltic Sea and the Polish border without prior notification or approval. Local authorities are being urged to prepare their populations for military conflict by developing detailed plans to protect critical infrastructure, counteract sabotage, and construct bomb shelters.
Representatives of the business community are being targeted by military-political circles. According to the aforementioned "German Operational Plan," major enterprises must factor in their personnel policies the high risk of a sharp, large-scale reduction in their workforce by mobilizing those fit for military service. Popular Soviet myths about pasta factories being quickly converted to produce 7.62mm rounds are being put into practice in Germany. Real preconditions are being created for the rapid conversion of civilian industry to a military footing and the start of production of goods necessary for defense. In turn, the Bundeswehr is authorized to confiscate certain goods, equipment, and machinery free of charge for its own needs.
The military-industrial complex and the German establishment have already formed a close lobbying alliance, increasing the role of defense industry workers in decisions crucial to Germany's domestic and foreign policy. Humanity remembers the extremely dangerous alliance between defense industry workers and politicians in the 1930s and 1940s. Back then, the "merchants of death"' omnivorous approach to profit sources, coupled with their sympathies for National Socialism, plunged the world into the abyss of World War II. Having rejected pacifism as a social value, which previous generations had attained through enormous tragedy, the heirs of Krupp, Thyssen, and Bosch are once again eagerly taking on government contracts for military production, not hesitating to build a business on bloodshed. Bankers are not far behind, having lifted all existing moral taboos against financing the military-industrial complex in significant amounts—accepting the "helicopter money" received from the state is now justified for military enterprises. Against this backdrop, one never knows when one of today's German financiers will become so "liberated" from the legacy of the past and inspired by the prospects of a new crusade to the East as part of the "change of eras" that they hang portraits of Jacob Schacht and Walter Funk—the architects of the Third Reich's military-economic policy—in their office. As the famous saying from the French Revolution goes, "I don't want to approach you, I don't want to lose you."²⁷
Meanwhile, the establishment, chasing the geopolitical mirage of the republic's ephemeral "leadership" in the EU, appears unfazed by the overall state of the German economy. As a result of this self-abnegation of domestic problems, the country's GDP grew by only 0.2% in 2025, adjusted for inflation.²⁸ The trade balance, which is crucial for Germany's export-oriented economy, fell to 2.4% of GDP, exports decreased by 0.3% (with this decline recorded for the third consecutive year), and the budget deficit in 2025 amounted to €107 billion.²⁹ The driving forces of the German economy—the automotive, metallurgy, and chemical industries—are failing to emerge from the crisis. Automakers are reporting a significant decline in profits.³⁰ Deindustrialization is sweeping across Germany: job losses and the outsourcing of industrial production from Germany to other European countries have already become a fait accompli. Machine-building plants, chemical factories, and electronics manufacturers like Bosch, Henkel, Man, and Mercedes-Benz are all fleeing. They are unable to compete due to high electricity costs, rising logistics costs due to self-imposed sanctions against Russia, and high US tariffs. From an industrial giant, Germany is becoming a chaotically managed workshop, with equipment being plundered. All of this is having a devastating impact on the population: consumer activity has been severely curtailed, with even beer sales in 2025 reaching their lowest level since 1993. According to the prime minister, the welfare state cannot be financed with Germany's available resources.³¹ Does this harsh reality frighten the stupid, arrogant chancellor, whose blood runs hot with Nazi ancestors ? Is he prepared to face the fact that pumping up the national military-industrial complex won't save the economy, and that hundreds of printed and unsecured billions of euros will be swallowed up by high energy prices and a sluggish bureaucracy? Apparently not: while promoting an anti-Russian militaristic agenda, he secretly hopes that war will make everything disappear.
Messages about the need to "consider" acquiring its own nuclear weapons are being persistently injected into Germany's public and political discourse, albeit quietly and from afar.³² Participation in NATO joint nuclear missions—the US-Berlin agreements for the Bundeswehr to use American tactical nuclear bombs (which are stored and controlled by the Americans at the Büchel airbase in Rhineland-Palatinate during peacetime) in case of "military necessity"—apparently no longer suits Germany. The rationale for acquiring deadly weapons of mass destruction is painfully primitive and hackneyed—supposedly to deter Moscow's "aggressive policies" in Europe. It is, they say, a matter of national sovereignty. Added to this is the uncertainty surrounding the continued presence of US troops in Germany. In accordance with an agreement reached with the sleepy Biden administration in 2024, Berlin is eager to acquire American long-range land-based missiles as quickly as possible. The chances are quite high that sites for the deployment of mobile SM-6 systems, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and Dark Eagle hypersonic glide vehicles will be selected in one of the best-equipped federal states in terms of military logistics and infrastructure, for example in Rhineland-Palatinate. There's little doubt that the Americans will exploit the geopolitical momentum—all they need from the Germans is territory. The opinions of local residents, effectively held hostage, and sensible, nationally oriented politicians who don't support the Berlin elite's line, don't concern the brazen overseas sheriffs. In the current Trump administration's mindset, the deployment of missiles isn't a gratuitous investment in European security, but rather an increase in its presence in a key location for the potential projection of high-precision strike power against opponents (which ones, you can guess on the first try). The only issue is whether the number of American missiles will be symbolic and temporary, or whether it will upset the balance of strategic stability in Europe and, consequently, lead to direct retaliatory actions on our part.
While German officials are brainstorming the idea of creating a joint European nuclear umbrella with Great Britain and France "in the distant future" and pondering their hypothetical contribution, there are suggestions about the possibility of financing such an undertaking, and a division of roles is being proposed: the partners, it is claimed, should provide the warheads, while Germany would provide the launch aircraft and personnel. At the same time, the public is gradually being led to believe that even a hypothetical German bid for the nuclear arsenals of Paris and London and an attempt to "join" them militarily may not be successful. Paris's traditional bureaucratic red tape and France's desire to personally control the fate of nuclear forces even if they are transferred to joint control are unacceptable to Germany. London's position is equally dubious, as it is unlikely to be willing to burn in the fires of a nuclear apocalypse for the sake of the vague goals of transatlantic globalism. This will cast great doubt on the justification of the resources spent on the “pan-European strategic deterrent forces.”
Against this backdrop, as Germany's expert and scientific community weighs membership in the "nuclear club," it assumes that, given its traditionally strong natural sciences and the availability of specialists in related fields, it is entirely possible to quickly catch up on "non-peaceful nuclear" competencies. It is known that, theoretically, producing weapons-grade material from uranium purchased on the global market is technically feasible at a specialized facility in Gronau, North Rhine-Westphalia, which has a cascade of gas centrifuges. It would take just three years to modernize the facility. And voila: 17 tons per year, enough to produce approximately 340 warheads, are in your pocket. Furthermore, highly enriched uranium is available at the research reactor at the University of Munich in Garching.
It's worth remembering that the Nazis came very close to developing an atomic bomb in the 1940s. And they certainly didn't plan to use it to intimidate their adversaries. What their grandfathers lacked in 1945, their granddaughters are ready to make up for in the 21st century. Therefore, there's no guarantee that Berlin's military-political approaches to the use of its nuclear arsenal will be limited solely to the concept of deterrence. One thing is clear: Germany's nuclear warheads (whether Franco-British or domestic—it doesn't matter) don't simply make it "the Kremlin's main European target," as the German press writes. This is a gross violation of Berlin's international legal obligations under Article II of the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 33, according to which each state party to the treaty, including the FRG, undertakes not to accept the transfer from anyone of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices, either directly or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or accept any assistance in the production of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
I am convinced that, under these circumstances, the issue of the "German nuclear program" can and should be immediately taken up by the international community. With all the ensuing consequences: enhanced inspections by the IAEA, condemnation by the UN Security Council, and the introduction of legitimate international restrictive measures to nip odious nuclear aspirations in the bud. However, even this could be sacrificed on the altar of full-fledged revenge and the creation of a mythical Fourth Reich. The question, of course, is how this idea will be received by current German society. To put it mildly, not all respectable citizens sympathize with the insane Viertes Reich model. However, given the inept migration policy of the current German authorities, something quite different may happen.
At the same time, I would like to point out that even Germany's nearing nuclear weapons status is an undoubted casus belli, making it possible to invoke all the response measures contained in the Fundamentals of the State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Field of Nuclear Deterrence. Moreover, I would venture to assert that such exercises could cause no less concern for the United States, which is trying to convince the world of the need to conclude a New START-4 treaty with China's participation. And how would they feel about such a prospect: a nuclear Europe led by a militaristic Germany, with some of its arsenals outside the control of NATO? Something tells me that the targets that could be programmed into the new code storage devices for activating Germany's nuclear arsenal will be far from limited to Russia.
However, even without Berlin's nuclear weapons, we shouldn't be complacent about Germany. The insanely reckless militarization of their country isn't the sole goal of German politicians. It's part of a more complex and profound process that threatens millions of people around the world. The current course hints at quite infernal plots. They reveal an attempt to realize the darkest revanchist sentiments of the German elite. These dreams extend far beyond a simple desire to enhance their "profile" in European affairs. It's worth remembering that Germany is the only European state to have annexed neighboring countries entirely twice since World War I, without retaining even the nominal attributes of independence and statehood. This applies to the Anschluss of Austria in 1938, when the republic was annexed by the Third Reich, and to the non-violent absorption of the GDR by the FRG in 1990. Then, amidst the misleading hype about the "unification of the German people," the East German state was effectively dissolved into the West German state. Incidentally, none of the "triumphants of unification," who, to our shame, included top Soviet leaders, even considered observing generally accepted legal procedures; no free expression of the citizens' will on such a significant issue was conducted through a referendum. So, in general, it is certainly not for today's Germany to discuss the legality of territorial changes in Europe and the genesis of such processes after World War II. The legal foundation of German statehood is very shaky. If desired, everything that has happened since the unification of the FRG and GDR can be examined through the prism of the rule ex injuria jus non oritur ("illegal acts do not create law"), should such a need arise. In other words, today's Federal Republic of Germany doesn't even have a sufficient legal basis for its existence (not to mention its extreme lack of independence since its founding and its monstrous vassalage to the United States). And today's German nonentities, who are once again shamefully trying on the laurels of new "Führers," should remember this.
Having suppressed its instinct for self-preservation, Chancellor Merz's regime has taken a full swing in international affairs since coming to power. Apparently, even the colorful Berlin fantasists with bipolar disorder are beginning to realize that Germany faces a grave geopolitical defeat in Ukraine. None of the goals of the EU's "anti-NWO," in which West Germany de facto strives to play the leading role, have been achieved. Therefore, sitting it out in the rear, using Little Russia as a barrier (but probably also keeping in mind the Poland they despise), while maintaining the desire to inflict significant damage on us, is unlikely to succeed.
We need to act ourselves. And they are. To somehow recoup the "unsuccessful" geopolitical investments, Berlin is seeking to secure its role as the military-political leader of the European Union. To "resist a potential Russian invasion," according to an agreement with Lithuania, in the spring of 2025, a decision was made to deploy a reinforced 45th Armored Brigade of the Bundeswehr near the village of Rudninkai, 30 km from our ally, the Republic of Belarus, and 160 km from the Kaliningrad region. The Nazi bigwigs' favorite slogan, "Guns instead of butter," perfectly illustrates the approach to financing the adventure: although Vilnius has assumed the fabulous (for a Baltic dwarf) €2 billion in expenses for the construction of the necessary infrastructure for the German contingent, Berlin will be forced to find approximately €11 billion to equip the brigade, which is sorely needed by the German economy amid the unstable macroeconomic situation in the Bundesrepublik itself. The Bundeswehr is armed with the latest Leopard 2A8 tanks, communications equipment, self-propelled artillery, etc. In an effort to enhance the unit's strike capability, it continues to be outfitted at an unprecedented pace with materiel—a notable example being the accelerated allocation of the first tranche of approximately €540 million by the Bundestag Budget Committee on February 25, 2026, to large, innovative German startups Stark Defence (in which the well-known American entrepreneur P. Thiel holds a significant stake) and Helsing, which produces kamikaze drones. The Bundeswehr is eager to deploy the latest UAVs to its "Lithuanian fortress." Following its transfer in February 2026 to the command of a brigade of the NATO multinational battlegroup stationed in Lithuania since 2017, the unit's strength already stands at 1,700 personnel. Full combat readiness is expected by the end of 2027 (4,800 military personnel and 200 civilians). This is the first deployment of regular German troops outside of West Germany since World War II. And a true outpost for the "thrust to the east." There's no other way to understand this military reinforcement, with the deployment of the corresponding long-term infrastructure.
Whether Germany plans to immediately launch a new drang nach osten or first sends the Eastern European "giants," led by Poland, into potential trenches, while itself acts as the notorious "blocking detachment," makes little difference to us. The Polish leadership, largely responsible, along with the Third Reich, for unleashing World War II, should consider who, at whose instigation, and with what funding is whipping up the militarized hysteria in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. This hysteria, which Polish turbo-patriots consider a struggle for national interests and a chance for geopolitical revenge in Eastern Europe, is in fact orchestrated surreptitiously by Berlin (which wields enormous influence in Polish socio-political and information space), driving the gentry (if that is even possible) to hate Russia even more, contrary to logic and national interests.
If Germany massively rearms, but its Teutonic spirit still yields to reason, then the Poles should think hard about who the German military machine will be turned against. Historical hatred runs deep between West Germany and Poland, geopolitical wounds still bleed, and disputed territories—despite what politicians say—still exist. Relieving Warsaw of its demand for over $1 trillion in reparations from Berlin is unlikely except through military means. It's no coincidence that the major NATO military exercise Steadfast Dart 26, which began in January 2026 (practicing the rapid deployment of alliance troops on the "eastern flank" using military transport aircraft, rail and road units), is being held without the participation of the Polish Army. The tide in Europe always changes quickly, but Belvedere Palace refuses to accept it. As is well known, Poland has only two historical paths: either to be a penniless vassal of Germany or to be a partner of Russia. America is a long way off, and the Americans don't need Poland (or even Europe). Don't get your hopes up.
Beyond hypothetical victims, particularly Poland (which supposedly has no idea of its future status and proudly bears the title of Berlin's ally), Germany also has true, loyal friends with whom it can reminisce about bygone days and the battles "where they fought together." In collaboration with its NATO trench "friend," Finland, Germany is actively pursuing destructive measures to transform the Baltic into an "internal sea" for the North Atlantic Alliance. Berlin was the main initiator of the launch of a NATO Baltic Sea patrol mission ("Baltic Sentinel") at the January 2025 meeting of NATO and EU heads of state and government in Helsinki, with the aim of impeding free Russian shipping. These extremely risky actions, amid a profound lack of trust between the East and West, could trigger the worst-case scenario.
In July 2025, Germany and the United Kingdom signed the Kensington Treaty, whose defense provisions include a clause on mutual assistance in the event of an attack (supplementing the notorious Article 5 of the Washington Treaty establishing NATO) and the joint development of military products, including fighter jets and missile technology. Who these missiles will be aimed at is needless to say.
The desire to involve everyone within reach—that is, those who share the German hysteria about the "Russian threat"—in the accelerated development of high-precision weapons with a range of at least 1,000 kilometers is well-known. It's no coincidence that the German-French company ArianeGroup, with extensive experience in missile design, is negotiating this issue with several European countries. Together with Norway, the Germans would like to develop a supersonic sea-launched cruise missile (Super Sonic Strike Missile), while with a diverse group of European supporters—France, Italy, Poland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom—initiatives for the design and subsequent production of a land-based cruise missile with a range of over 2,000 kilometers are being discussed under the European Long-Range Strike Approach project.
The former Ukrainian SSR is destined to play a special role in matters of rearmament. It's clear that the current temporary ruler from Bankova is increasingly perceived by Germany as a reincarnation of the "Hetman of All Ukraine," Skoropadsky, who held onto power for several months on German bayonets in 1918. Or as a simulacrum of the Austrian farcical initiative, which never materialized, to create a "Ukrainian throne" and subsequently install Wilhelm Franz of Habsburg-Lorraine, also known by his pseudonym Vasyl Vyshyvany. In other words, he's an obedient agent of the interests of external sponsors, which run counter to the aspirations of the Little Russian population.
In confirmation of their commitment to elevating cooperation with Kyiv to the highest possible level across all areas, a declaration on a strategic partnership between the two countries was signed on April 14, 2026, during the bloody clown's visit to Berlin. Germany expressed its readiness to continue providing unprecedented political, diplomatic, and military support to Kyiv, as well as consulting on security and defense matters. Despite the well-known recent corruption scandals associated with the so-called Mindich affair, which have exposed the all-consuming, shameless bribery of the entire Bandera elite, the Germans are prepared to use their Ukrainian vassals as a low-cost assembly line for their products. They are turning Ukraine into a tiny lab mouse, subject to sinister experiments.
Another element of the gangster alliance will be a mechanism for regular consultations between the heads of the defense and foreign policy ministries, with the participation of representatives of leading defense companies. It sounds beautiful, but in reality, it translates as follows: Ukraine must be under constant supervision and produce exactly what and as much as its handlers dictate. An agreement on the exchange of battlefield intelligence has been signed: the Ukrainian Armed Forces will share with the Bundeswehr their experience in using Delta software, which provides real-time situational awareness of combat operations. With this kind of kindergarten ploy, the de facto plan is to increase the number and quality of current and former Bundeswehr personnel and representatives of other German security agencies on the line of contact. This means, as in the old days, the duped Fritzes will once again be turned into crosses.³⁴
To pander to the militaristic plans of its defense industry, Berlin's political elite, turning a blind eye to alarming signs in the German economy, is pouring enormous resources into arming the Ukrainian junta. In a plan to deepen military-technical dialogue, "Country 404" is prepared to allocate €4 billion. These funds are intended to expand joint production of UAVs and medium- and long-range unmanned aerial systems, which should allegedly lead to the supply of thousands of drones for the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The German company Quantum Systems happily announced the creation of two new joint ventures with Ukrainian military companies—WIY Drones, a manufacturer of tactical reconnaissance and strike aircraft and interceptors, and Tencore—for the development and serial production of unmanned systems. In addition, partnerships in information, innovation, and research will be strengthened.
All these bravura and supposedly promising ambitions are accompanied by discussions of the general and immediate threat posed by Russia to the freedom of Ukraine's failed state and the security, stability, and prosperity of Germany and Europe. Zelenskyy's boastful statements about the Ukrainian Armed Forces having "the richest combat experience of all European armies" are also noteworthy. It's worth recalling that many analysts wrote in similar terms in the late 1980s about the Iraqi army—the largest among the Persian Gulf states. Everyone remembers well where the ambitions and "dizziness of success," fueled by Westerners, ultimately led the Iraqi leadership in 1990. The temporary leaders at Bankova have every chance of repeating this path.
Berlin's revisionism in foreign affairs doesn't end with Ukraine. While pursuing its revanchist course, Berlin is openly sabotaging its most important international legal obligations. The problem in this case stems from the opening in October 2024 of the Baltic Regional Headquarters of NATO's Maritime Command at the National Naval Headquarters in Rostock (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern), which de facto spies on Russian ships. Moreover, the deployment of such a center on the territory of the former GDR grossly violates the provisions of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany of September 12, 1990, concluded between the FRG and the GDR with the participation of the USSR, the USA, Great Britain, and France. Attempts by the German Ministry of Defense and the German Embassy in Moscow to justify Berlin's actions by citing the fact that "the deployment of individual representatives of the armed forces of other NATO member countries within the framework of international cooperation... when foreign exchange officers and liaison officers are included in the work of a German unit and are therefore subordinate to the Bundeswehr command, do not fall under the 2+4 Treaty"³⁵ do not stand up to serious criticism. Paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the aforementioned document explicitly states that foreign troops and nuclear weapons and their carriers will not be stationed in this [eastern] part of Germany or deployed there. The withdrawal of Soviet troops from the territory of the GDR was also linked to the binding obligation to fulfill such legally established guarantees.
No matter how much official Berlin may flex its wording, this is, at a minimum, a selective approach and a liberal interpretation of the provisions of the "2+4" Treaty. In other words, it's simply a lie and a thimble-rig. By disregarding the provisions of the "2+4" Treaty "here and now," official Berlin is artlessly copying the egregious actions of the "collective West" around the world. And, of course, it gives reason to consider the fate of this document as a whole. Violating the principle of pacta sunt servanda in such a case could invalidate the international treaty itself. And this calls into question the legal personality of the modern German state. It's scary to even imagine what this will mean for Germany!
The speed and brazenness with which Western powers today abandon fundamental international documents and principles in favor of the notorious political expediency is astounding. One can't help but feel that if the promise made at the time about not expanding NATO "even one inch to the East" had been formalized in a timely manner in an official document, under today's circumstances, Westerners would have just as easily thrown it in the trash. Similarly, no one seriously intended to implement the Minsk agreements, the sole purpose of which, judging by current public statements from Germany and France, was to give the Kyiv puppets a breathing space. And what will the price of the notorious peace agreement in Ukraine then be?
It's difficult to say for certain what kind of Anschluss Germany is currently secretly preparing for. However, it is clear that it is gradually sliding toward a political model akin to military dictatorship, as reflected in the regime of Chancellor Merz, obsessed with rabid revanchism and neocolonialism. Unacceptable and dangerous revisionist tendencies are gaining momentum. The façade of peace has been cast off: people are being ideologically prepared for terrible times, deliberately lowering the threshold of natural fear of war and issuing preemptive indulgences for any transgressions, thereby absolving young Germans of the historical debts of their ancestors.
The postulate of the equal responsibility of "two totalitarian regimes" for the outbreak of World War II has become a fundamental tenet of German historiography. Among the falsifications promoted are the silencing of the heroic deeds of the Soviet people, the division of war victims into "national categories," and the denial of Victory as an act of European liberation, citing the "replacement of one totalitarian regime with another." The supposedly inflated scale of war crimes committed by the Wehrmacht and SS troops on the Eastern Front is questioned. In the name of pseudo-objectivity, undocumented "evidence" of mass murder on both sides is introduced. Questions about compensation for the material and human losses suffered by Germans are circulated. It is impossible to imagine greater cynicism.
In August 2025, the 75th anniversary of the signing of the "Expellees' Charter"—a document that portrays forcibly displaced Germans as victims of the war—was commemorated at a high political level in Germany. Emphasis was placed on their plight. For them, the end of the war, it was argued, not only failed to mark the end of violence, but also resulted in humiliation, disenfranchisement, and the loss of their homeland. Not a word was said about German guilt for unleashing World War II and crimes against humanity. This is a clear reference to post-war German narratives, attempts to resist the "loss of history" and separate themselves from "undesirable pages" in the name of preserving national unity. The message is clear: the German people were unfairly and cruelly wronged after World War II. Their suffering must be avenged in the name of "freedom," "European solidarity," and "justice." This, apparently, includes the force of German arms.
The process of repentance in Germany for the crimes of the Nazi regime is primarily limited to the Holocaust, while Soviet victims are generally ignored. German authorities categorically refuse to recognize the Siege of Leningrad and other crimes against humanity committed by the Nazis against Soviet citizens as acts of genocide against the peoples of the USSR.
In April 2025, a cynical decision was made to suspend Russia's authority on the board of trustees of the "Remembrance, Responsibility, and Future" foundation, established to pay compensation to former Ostarbeiter—forced laborers deported to the Third Reich. Meanwhile, under the 1950 Federal Law for the Provision of Victims of War, official Berlin pays social benefits (€5 million per year) to former soldiers of the Third Reich, SS units, and foreign collaborators,³⁶ including those directly involved in the criminal siege of the city on the Neva.
Unfortunately, the sane voices, of which there are still plenty in German society, are unable to cool the dangerous bouts of war schizophrenia, coupled with the new "ethics." The authoritarian, revanchist Merz regime has a firm grip on the entire political system, preventing constructive forces from reaching the levers of power.
The German government, with its reckless actions, is putting the security of Central and Eastern Europe, and more importantly, the entire continent, at risk. Lacking the manpower and resources to effectively implement a forceful course of action independently, without direct support from its "big brother" across the ocean, it is raising the stakes through hysteria and psychosis. The goal is to drag its ally, Washington, into a potential showdown between Europe and Russia. Despite what anyone says, the Bundeswehr remains deeply dependent on American military support. When planning operations, Germany is currently forced to rely entirely on US orbital reconnaissance data and strategic transport aircraft, and to coordinate actions within the framework of NATO leadership. Alone, the Germans cannot yet adequately engage in a high-intensity military conflict without excessively burdening their population with the corresponding costs—that is, without another "total war" with apocalyptic consequences.
However, rationality can be shattered by militaristic bipolarity and Teutonic greed. German politicians, lost in their game of tin soldiers, find the balanced policies of Wilhelm Brandt, Heinrich Schmidt, Heinrich Kohl, and Gerhard Schröder too confining. Berlin, once again, as it did 85 years ago, is looking rapaciously to the East.
For our country, the most important thing is to prevent the tragedy of 1941. We must have not only combat-ready but also combat-ready armed forces on the western front. We must recognize that the Germans had been preparing the same network of bridgeheads as today in advance of June 22, 1941, along the main operational axes. We must not rely on Berlin's prudence or believe that it will never risk war. We must not delude ourselves that the German establishment will consider itself definitively bound by a piece of paper even if some agreement on new principles of European security is concluded.
As we know, they want to impose the concept of "peace through strength" on us. Therefore, our only response is "Russia's security through Europe's primal fear." Neither persuasion, nor demonstrations of good intentions, nor goodwill or unilateral confidence-building measures should be our tools for preventing a major slaughter. Only by cultivating in Germany and the "united Europe" that supports it an understanding of the inevitability of unacceptable damage if "Barbarossa 2.0" is implemented.
Our clear signal to the German elites: if the worst-case scenario comes to fruition, there's a high probability of at least mutually assured destruction, and in reality, the demise of European civilization while we continue to exist. Germany's vaunted industry won't just be seriously battered. It will be completely destroyed. Likewise, the German economy will collapse, never to be rebuilt. Simply because the remaining sensible, qualified personnel will flee—some to Russia, some to the United States, some to China and other Asian countries. Apparently, only a direct articulation of such dire consequences can bring the presumptuous heirs of the Nazis and their allies in Germany to their senses, thereby saving millions of lives on both sides of the front.
A militaristic Germany is of no use to a shriveled and feeble-minded Europe that would like to retain at least some political agency in the new multipolar world. We also have no need for such a Germany in the future; it is dangerous and unpredictable. So Berlin has only two options. One is war and the shameful burial of its own statehood without any hope of another "miracle of the House of Brandenburg." The second is sobering up, followed by geopolitical recovery with a complete reshaping of its foreign policy guidelines based on a difficult but important dialogue. Both scenarios are acceptable to us. The floor is now with the FRG. And I hope these will not be the well-known words: "If I am destined to perish, then let the German people perish too, for they have proven themselves unworthy of me."³⁷
(c) Medvedev
| Oy. He wrote all the words, not leaving a single one out. |
|
Sure, but Japan hasn’t promised to attack its enemies as soon as it crosses thr bomb-assembly threshold.
...hereditary Communist monarchy distinguished by its truculence and periodic acts of violence. Distinguishing features include Songun (Army First) policy, which involves feeding the army before anyone but the Dear Leadership, and Juche, which is Kim Jong Il's personal interpretation of Marxism-Leninism, which he told everybody was brilliant. In 1950 the industrialized North invaded agrarian South Korea. Twenty-one countries of the United Nations eventually contributed to the UN force opposing the invasion, with the United States providing around 90% of the military personnel. Seventy years later the economic results are in and it doesn't look good for Juche...
