This is the kind of deranged nonsense which appears in the mainstream Western press and which everyone or nearly everyone seems to think is perfectly normal. The author is a ex-Reuters journalist and think-tank member at the European Policy Centre. (This organisation has a web page about where they get their funding from which is, while trying to look transparent, rather coy. They mention a few large grants and then “The remaining funds (45.78%) came mainly from contributions from a wide range of organisations for its programmes in the form of support for events and publications.” – The EU is listed as one major funder. 23% came from “membership fees”; corporates pay up to €12,500.00). [1]
Some military commanders and intelligence services have said Europe may have as little as three to five years to prepare for a potential Russian attack on a Nato country. Others see a longer timeline of perhaps eight years as a result of Moscow’s heavy casualties in Ukraine. But given the way that Vladimir Putin has hardened his revisionist ideology, built a war economy and forged strategic partnerships with China, Iran and North Korea, the risk of confrontation is clearly rising unless he can be pushed back in Ukraine.
The article is all about how the EU should borrow to rapidly ramp up its weapons production. They should also redirect the EU regional fund to military related infrastructure projects. And France’s objection to spending outside the EU should be overcome. This message, of rapid increase in military spending is the same message that Rutte, the figurehead at the top of NATO has been emitting recently. A good day for US arms companies then.
But. Does anyone even ask the question; why would Russia just up and attack a NATO country? It is beyond belief. Do these people really believe this? Of course; Russia might attack a NATO country for the same reason that they launched their operation in Ukraine; if they felt their critical national security depended on it and there was absolutely no other choice. They would do so knowing (obviously) that they would be fighting a block with vastly more military firepower than them. Almost certainly, then, such a conflict would go nuclear. (I am not an expert in the theory of the nuclear escalation ladder but this could be quite rapid I think). But this is not what the author is suggesting. The suggestion is that Russia is some kind of irrational, purely aggressive, and malign actor who will attack a NATO country just for sake of it; as an expression of this aggression and malignity, despite the fact that the best outcome in such a case for them would be mutual destruction. Even the most deranged psycho in the most secure mental hospital would probably hold back in such a case.
I really don’t know what to make of this kind of nonsense. It is really hard to believe that these people believe it. It is hard because there is no evidence for the idea, all the evidence goes in the other direction, (namely that Russia engages in military action for strategic defensive reasons and then only as an absolute last resort), and it in no way stands up to any kind of reason. As John Mearsheimer might say; what is the theory on which this prediction is made? How does Paul Taylor think the Russians are thinking? Why would Russia attack a NATO country? Has he even asked himself these questions? Maybe these people don’t believe it but just want to have a massive raid on the tax-payer for the benefit of the arms industry and its shareholders (plus the investors and financial consultancies who will benefit from making the loans)? This is just another episode in the wholesale transfer of wealth from the people to the financial elites and centres of corporate power which characterise modern Western societies. Of course; a massive build-up of military force creates risks which did not exist before – the other side cannot know what you plan to do with all this military power. Have they thought about these risks? Do they want war? Maybe they do. I just find it hard to get my head round the fact that these people, this journalist is just one example, have degrees and often MAs from prestigious Universities, even in relevant subjects like history; and still they come up with these ‘hallucinations’ about Russia. Do they know they are hallucinating?
Notes