A specter haunts our countries: the specter of alarmism. The chairman of the NATO Military Committee, Dutch Admiral Rob Bauer, advocated a “wartime transformation” of the alliance and civil society. The German Defense Minister warns of a future Russian attack and urges us to be prepared. In Sweden, the government and commander-in-chief also used strong words: we have found ourselves in the most serious security situation since the Second World War.
Rein Bijkerk in Christ Klep are military historians.
The top military officers and politicians in question emphasize that they are not alarmists – but how else should we interpret their statements? Of course, a healthy distrust of the Putin regime is justified. But the wave of alarmism that is now sweeping the NATO countries in particular is striking. The reason for the turnaround is partly due to the stalling of the Ukrainian offensive. While many hoped a year ago that the Ukrainians would technically knock out the Russians thanks to ‘our’ weaponry, pessimism now prevails. This is because of the stalemate at the front, the rapid increase in weapons production in Russia and Putin’s continued unconscionable waste of human lives.
The chance that Russian marines will dare to land on the coast near Stockholm is fairly limited in the coming years
But does this justify a radical ‘war transformation’? After all, that is a transformation with far-reaching and disruptive consequences. It would make our economy a war-oriented economy. Society would have to deal with the reintroduction of (forms of) conscription. This would at least double the costs of the armed forces. So not 2 percent of our national income, the current NATO target percentage, but 4 percent or more.
Waste of lives
However, it is highly questionable whether Russia will still be an existential military-strategic threat to NATO. Putin knows very well that he cannot continue carelessly with costly war production, because Russian citizens want sufficient consumer goods. The waste of lives at the front will hopefully go too far even for the Russian military leadership. And the military quality of the Russian armed forces remains limited. Even with half a million men, the armed forces are only able to occupy just under 20 percent of the territory of Ukraine, the much weaker opponent on paper. The chance that Russian marines will dare to land on the coast near Stockholm is fairly limited in the coming years.
We opt for a down-to-earth and more targeted strategic route forward. In the shorter term, two choices are obvious. Firstly, continued support to Ukraine (including the targeted increase in production of specific weapon systems and ammunition). Secondly, permanently undoing the frivolous defense cuts in the Netherlands and other NATO states.
Also read
90,000 troops, 50 ships, 166 tanks: the largest NATO exercise since the Cold War is a signal to Moscow
But thirdly, the crux lies in more effective use of the already available resources that the European NATO countries also have at their disposal: millions of soldiers (ready and mobilisable), more than a thousand naval ships and almost ten thousand tanks. Combining European military forces is especially desirable in view of the American elections. Consider, for example, decisive merging of the air defenses of regional groups of NATO countries.
If the gaps created by ill-considered cuts are filled, there will be no shortage of manpower, equipment and support among European NATO members. What matters is that we ensure that our armed forces have sufficient strength and perseverance in the fight. In other words: political-military sobriety is always a better guide than loud alarmism.
Share Email the editor
2024-01-30 19:14:29
#Opinion #Distrust #Putin #justified #guard #misplaced #alarmism
