The chief of Germany’s foreign intelligence service warned that his agency has “concrete” evidence that Russia is planning an attack on Nato territory.
Bruno Kahl, the outgoing head of Germany’s federal intelligence service (BND), said in a rare interview that Russian leadership no longer believes Nato’s article 5 guarantee of mutual assistance will be honoured — and may seek to test it.
“We are very sure, and we have intelligence evidence to back this up, that [Russia’s full-scale invasion of] Ukraine is only one step on Russia’s path towards the west,” he told a podcast of German outlet Table Briefings.
Kahl qualified that “this doesn’t mean that we expect large tank battalions to roll from the east to the west.”
Kahl said: “We see that Nato is supposed to be tested in its mutual assistance promise. There are people in Moscow who don’t believe that Nato’s article 5 still works.”
[…]
While the war is still confined to Ukrainian territory, the German internal secret service, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), has warned that Moscow is increasingly extending the conflict to western countries through cyberwarfare and espionage.
Russia has in particular taken to deploying so-called low-level agents to commit acts of sabotage, according to the BfV annual report, which was presented in Berlin on Wednesday. They are believed to have been deployed to plant incendiary devices in parcels, which caused a series of fires in European logistics hubs last year.
“We have noticed that Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine has led to our cyber and espionage defences being increasingly tested,” Sinan Selim, vice-president of the BfV, said.
So, say that Russia tests article 5. This has one of two possible outcomes.
My point is that this is a MASSIVE risk for Russia if they are wrong, with little concrete and currently achievable upsides if they are indeed right, mainly because they’re stuck and bleeding in Ukraine and a logical fallback plan for European nations if NATO turns out to be toothless is to increase support of Ukraine even more, and specifically for the attacked nation it might even make sense to become a military ally of Ukraine since that’s an ongoing fight in somebody else’s territory.
So to me this sounds like bullshit or this “attack” Kahl is talking about is more of the same which they have already been doing: cyberwar, cutting submarine cables, financing extremist parties. social media disinfo and so on.
It sounds like what most (including me) have said before the conflict in Ukraine. I would personnaly not repeat that mistake and take the words of the BND head very seriously.
Putin will do a small attack that involves plausible deniability or doesn’t trigger an Article 5 response, then push that a little more later on. He might even deny that it was Russia or he might even use foreign troops to muddy the attack. He is testing NATO.
Still, what exactly does a game of ever increasing “poke the bear” achieve, given the massive risk that the bear gets angry and properly fucks them up?
Russia getting away with it … until they don’t … is a pretty likely outcome, but the point were they stop getting away with it is almost certainly at or short of territorial invasion, which means that all their getting away with it until reaching that point will have delivered them no concrete gains - it would all be provocation for the sake of provocation until the moment they get mauled.
US forces have already been shot at by Wagner group in Syria
and they got pulverized in response
I have a hard time believing that was anything more than complete incompetence on Russia’s part. Wagner starts a firefight with mixed American and Syrian resistance fighters, to which the US responds by calling the Kremlin to ask if Wagner are acting on orders from them. Russia tells the US that Wagner are not under direct orders from them and to deal with them as they see fit, and Wagner proceeds to get their ass kicked like they usually do. To me that reads a lot more like the usual Kremlin incompetence than any sort of planned provocation
If Russia goes for the Baltic countries, it’s possible that they have a chance. They have tiny militaries and really depend on Nato.
However, given the current status of the Union, I’m not sure I would be completely confident on Nato. Committing would be politically risky for any politician in the current context.
So while I hope Both unions stand strong (the EU also has a common defence clause), I’m not super confident. Because politicians are extremely short-sighted. And short-sightedness is pretty much what defines our species (that and greed, and stupidity).
And to add upon that, Russia (or more precisely the Russian Federation) has been attacking us for ten years now, maybe more. Article 5 ought to have been invoked before. They should have been dismantled by force years ago. I’ve said it before, but I’m saying it again: The Russian Federation has to be broken up into its member states, with Russia possibly getting a special treatment. They have to get a government that’s under international surveilance for at least 20 years.
I really don’t see Russia having a chance against us (Finland), in any short term conflict. We’re currently closing in to 900 000 troops in reserve.
Other Baltic countries withdrew from the Ottawa deal too, which means mines, mines, mines.
If the Russians can’t breach Ukraine, they sure as hell won’t breach the Baltics while simultaneously fighting Ukraine.
Edit: I just realized we aren’t considered Baltic these days, even though we were referred as such historically (ww1&2 times).
I was really thinking more of Estonia, Lituania and Latvia. That’s what people usually mean by Baltic countries. Finland has already shown Russia that it’s probably not a good idea to invade. And I think both the Finns and the Russians haven’t forgotten each other.
I think your breakdown is spot on. It makes no sense for Russia to do this.
One of the less comfortable aspects of supporting Ukraine is that we are supporting the military-industrial complex as a necessary consequence. To be clear, helping a nation fight off an invader is one of the better things NATO has done. However, it can’t be disentangled from all the money the MIL is getting.
Take it one step further, and US withdrawal from NATO (official or otherwise) necessitates the EU strengthening its own MIL. Which means that within a generation, they’re likely to have the same overreaching MIL influence on their politics that the US does.
I think this statement should be seen in that context. The existing MIL in the EU sees a big opportunity, and is taking notes from their US counterpart.
I honestly don’t know what to do about that. Withdrawal of support to Ukraine is not an option, and if the US is backing off, the EU needs to step up. But that gives strength to an industry that doesn’t deserve a higher position at the table than they already have. Putin lost the war in many ways the day he invaded, but forcing the EU’s actions might be one last big fuck you while he jumps into his grave.
Europe produced a lot of equipment during WW2 as well and seemed to manage scaling it back in peace time
I mean, a lot of that was bombed away, and then there was a metal shortage. They didn’t have much choice.
And they do still have some. Germany and Austria both produce weapons. The Abrahms main gun is a German design. France makes a lot and sells it to whomever, too. The Exocet is an anti-ship missile of theirs, and they haven’t always been discriminating in who they sell it to. The times they’ve been fired in anger has been mostly at the ships of other NATO members.
Isn’t it normal for countries to produce some of their military gear though? Surely you don’t think they should have bought everything from the US
As I said, I have no idea where to go with this. Every option goes down an unacceptable path.