War scare – getting society ready for war

Have we gone mad, are we seriously preparing for war against not only Russia, but China North Korea, Iran and … while the West itself may be falling apart from within.
It is becoming clear abundantly clear that there is a rising wave of dire warnings to prepare for war with Russia, and China, North Korea, Iran and what not.
Voices arguing that the West must get ready for war and be able to fight a war. Striving to become “Kriegstüchtig.”
To understand what is happening, take a look at these topics:
 
NATO – preparing society for war
 
Making Germany “Kriegstüchtig”
 
UK – a 1930’s moment today
 
Scandinavian countries caught in war scare
 
Lithuania and Finland anxiously keeping their cool?
 
The Trump scare in Europe
 
U.S. – facing war on too many fronts
 
Red lines slipping in Ukraine?
 
A hopeless whack-a-mole strategy?
 
NATO – preparing society for war
Take a speech by the Chair of the NATO Military Committee, The Dutch admiral Rob Bauer, in a security conference in Berlin: “For NATO, Russia’s pattern of aggressive and ruthlessly destructive behaviour has ushered in a new era of collective defence … We have developed several military strategies and plans that outline how we will protect ourselves - now and in the future - against the two main threats listed in the new Strategic Concept: Russia and Terrorist Groups.” This means that NATO now is putting more troops at higher readiness and that NATO its readiness and capabilities in other areas too.
What is new, and certainly scary, is that in order to strengthen collective defence and support Ukraine in its existential fight “we need a whole of society approach … We need public and private actors to change their mind-set, from an era in which everything was plannable… foreseeable… controllable… to an era where anything can happen at any time … Ready for war. Fit to fight.” 
Involving all of society in the preparations for war to deter war means “we need all Allied societies to change their mind-set and become more resilient. Not only our armed forces, but our whole societies need to become Kriegstüchtig.”
The admiral also argued that “preparing for war is not aggressive. It is the only way to maintain peace.”
Well, he did not go as far as saying “war is peace like the Oceania motto in Orwell’s “1984.” But perhaps we are getting there, with recent clamouring for involving all of society in preparations for war to avoid war. We saw how this worked in years before 1914 and in the late 1930s.
 
Making Germany “Kriegstüchtig”
“The Bundeswehr has five to eight years to be prepared against the Russian threat”
the German “Verteidigungsminister” Boris Pistorius warned in December 2023 in the newspaper “Welt am Sonntag.” The armed forces must become “Kriegstüchtig.” Pistorius also argued that not only the armed forces must undergo a change of mentality or mindset. The whole of society must realise that there is threat of war, if this does not happen, one will not be prepared.
The German “Bundeswehr” may already be planning for war with Russia. Although for the moment it must mostly be in the form of scenario writing, due the present rather desolate condition of Germany’s armed forces. According to the “Bild” newspaper the Bundeswehr has a secret “Übungsszenario” that assumes that Russia may be preparing an attack in the Suwalki gap. The area between the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad and Belarus located along the Polish – Lithuanian border. If Russia were to attack here and were to be successful it would cut off the Baltic states from Poland and Western Europe.
According to the “Bild” story the scenario would assume “that NATO would station 300,000 soldiers on its eastern borders to deter Russian aggression.” Not that they would be ready before sometime in or presumably after 2025.
If this scenario were to be realised it would of cause mean war between Russia and NATO. A really scary outlook for Europe. When asked about this scenario, a spokesperson for the German Ministry of Defence just said: “considering different scenarios, even if they are extremely unlikely, is part of everyday military life, especially in training" (Euronews, January 17, 2024). Nothing scary there, just business as usual, playing with scenarios then.
On the other hand, the new German Defence Policy Guidelines from 2023, have also undergone a major shift in emphasis.
“War has returned to Europe. Germany and its allies must once again confront a military threat. The international order is being attacked in Europe and around the world. We are experiencing a turning point, or Zeitenwende, as it is called in Germany … We must be the backbone of deterrence and collective defence in Europe … as a nation and as a society, we have neglected the Bundeswehr for decades. For too long, we were unable to imagine the scenario of a war on European soil and a direct threat to our country.” (Verteidigungspolitische Richtlinien 2023).
Shortly after the Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the recently deceased grand old man of German politics, Wolfgang Schäuble, saw a need for even stronger deterrence, arguing:
"Now that Putin's accomplices are threatening a nuclear strike every day, one thing is clear to me: we need nuclear deterrence at the European level as well, … In our own interest, we Germans must make a financial contribution to the French nuclear force in return for a joint nuclear deterrent." (Welt am Sonntag, July 23, 2022).
 
UK – a 1930’s moment today
“This is our 1937 moment. We are not at war - but we must act rapidly so that we aren’t drawn into one through a failure to contain territorial expansion. So surely it is beholden on each of us to ensure that we never find ourselves asking that futile question – should we have done more? I will do everything in my power to ensure that the British Army plays its part in averting war; I will have an answer to my grandchildren should they ever ask what I did in 2022.” Warned the new British Chief of the General Staff, Sir Patrick Sanders, in a speech on June 28, 2023. (army.mod.uk).
He argued “In all my years in uniform, I haven’t known such a clear threat to the principles of sovereignty and democracy, and the freedom to live without fear of violence, as the brutal aggression of President Putin and his expansionist ambitions. I believe we are living through a period in history as profound as the one that our forebears did over 80 years ago. Now, as then, our choices will have a disproportionate effect on our future.” (army.mod.uk).
The General warned that it would be dangerous to assume that Putin and thus Russia would only have Ukraine in its sight. Meaning that war in Ukraine must not be seen as a limited conflict. Although Russia’ capabilities may have declined as a result of the war in Ukraine, Russia has previously proved it resilience, and Putin may still have greater plans: “Putin’s declared intent recently to restore the lands of ‘historic Russia’ makes any respite temporary and the threat will become even more acute. We don’t yet know how the war in Ukraine will end, but in most scenarios, Russia will be an even greater threat to European security after Ukraine than it was before. The Russian invasion has reminded us of the time-honoured maxim that if you want to avert conflict, you better be prepared to fight.” (army.mod.uk). To the General this means that the British army will now have a singular focus “to mobilise to meet today’s threat and thereby prevent war in Europe.”
The proxy war in Ukraine has shown that the attempt to punish Russia after it has invaded Ukraine has shown the limitations of that approach. It does not work. To the General this mean the West “must reinforce the importance of deterrence through denial – we must stop Russia seizing territory – rather than expecting to respond to a land grab with a delayed counteroffensive.”
On January 15, 2024, the UK Defence Secretary, Grant Shapps, followed up on the General’s warnings in a long speech at the historical Lancaster House.
Belligerent states are making a comeback and new ones are making their presence felt.
“The era of the peace dividend is over. In five years’ time we could be looking at multiple theatres involving Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. Ask yourselves – looking at today’s conflicts across the world - is it more likely that the number grows, or reduces?
I suspect we all know the answer – it’s likely to grow. So, 2024 must mark an inflexion point.” (Grant Shapps, January 15, 2024). His talk of an inflexion point is likely meant to mean the same as the German Zeitenwende. For the moment at least Shapps was not talking about the UK taking on all of these belligerent states, but concentrated on Russia.
In his grandstanding speech, which sometimes may have reminded one of the grander times for the British Empire, he also said: “We stand at this crossroads – whether to surrender to a sea of troubles, or do everything we can to deter the danger.
I believe that, in reality, it’s no choice at all.
To guarantee our freedoms, we must be prepared.
Prepared to deter – the enemies who are gathering all around us. Lead our allies in whatever conflicts are to come.
Defend our nation whatever threat should arise. This is what Britain has always done.”
 Shapps saw a huge opportunity here for British industry, which its history of brilliant military and technological innovations, “just imagine what we could do if we managed to better harness that latent inspiration, ingenuity and invention for the Defence of our nation?”
Recently The Daily Telegraph (January 24, 2024) carried an article referring to General Sanders call to “mobilise the nation”, as not meaning conscription, but a call for a mindshift in the British people. Later the general even talked of the need for a “citizen army.” Like NATO’s admiral Bauer, the general apparently wants the whole society to become “Kriegstüchtig.”
 
 Scandinavian countries caught in war scare
“There could be war in Sweden. It isn’t my primary intention to appeal to your fear, but rather to your situational awareness. I’m looking to open a door: a door that is frequently blocked and cluttered up with the demands and challenges of everyday life. A door that many Swedes may have kept closed their whole lives. A door to a space where we are confronted with an important question: who are you if war comes?” (Minister for Civil Defence Carl-Oskar Bohlin).
He is not alone. “An armed attack against Sweden cannot be ruled out. War can also come to us,” the Swedish Minister of Defence warned. The Supreme Commander of the Swedish Armed Forces, Michael Bydén, also warned “Alla svenskar måste vara redo för krig” (Alle Swedes must be ready for war). Of cause talking about the threat from Russia.
Eirik Kristoffersen, Norwegian Chief of Defence has a similar warning. We are short on time he argued, referring of cause to the aggressiveness of Russia. “It is important for us to face an uncertain and unpredictable world with a strong national defence, … There is a window now that will perhaps last for one, two, maybe three years, where we have to invest even more in a secure defence. (Dagbladet; January 21, 2024).
 
Lithuania and Finland anxiously keeping their cool?
 “This year, next year, the possibility or the probability of a war between Russia and NATO is very low, extremely low,” Lithuanian General Valdemars Rupšys told Lithuanian Radio a few days ago. Arguing that at least for now that Russia had enough on its plate in Ukraine. His cool is not shared by foreign minister Landsbergis, who is convinced that war is a possibility. Provoking the general to reply: “cobbler, stick to your last.”
In Finland at least some politicians give the impression that there is nothing to fear from Russia. Alexander Stubb, former prime minister, told the Financial Times “Finland is in one of the safest positions that it has been in throughout its history.” Finland is safe because of the triple lock of a strong military, the new membership of NATO and defence cooperation with the U.S.
 
The Trump scare in Europe
The possibility that Trump might become U.S. president in 2025 make European allies, fearing the Russian bear, even more anxious in their effort to prepare for war in order to avoid war. A Trump presidency would be expected to focus on the U.S. and its MAGA-policy and would strive to avoid waring confrontations abroad. This might mean that Russia, China, Iran and North Korea could become more belligerent.
In the European Parliament Manfred Weber, leader of the centre-right Europeans People’s Party has recently argued that Europe must engage an immediate and dramatic effort to strengthen Europe’s defence, to avoid being left defenceless should a President Trump decide to scale down U.S. engagement in NATO.“The EU’s ability to protect itself without U.S. support is the fundamental question that will be on our minds in 2024,” Weber has argued (Politico, January 25, 2024).
 Weber calls for a kind of European defence union, and lists some of the pillars necessary to support an independent European defence. Like air defence, to “fend off drones and missiles.” A cyber shield to be able to defend Europe against cyberattacks from Russia and China and presumably everyone else. Not really much new in these demands. They are in line with what we have seen before. A real break with the past is his insistence on an independent nuclear umbrella. “We all know that when push comes to shove, the nuclear option is the really decisive one.” (Politico, January 25, 2024).
Weber wants to cooperate closely with Britain, seeing perhaps that a European nuclear deterrence must rest on both France’s Force de Frappe, and Britain’s nuclear forces.
No wonder that people in Europe are starting to get advice about how they should prepare for war in Europe. Professional preppers, or should one call them weirdos, are showing the way. Amazon is already offering prepper kits, and it is not alone, China’s TEMU is also eyeing a possibility, offering cheap survival kits and family prepper kits over the internet.
It is beginning to look like an oncoming war hysteria accompanied by irrational emotions and behaviours, sure to make war more likely.
 
U.S. – facing war on too many fronts
“The United States is a heartbeat away from a world war that it could lose. There are serious conflicts requiring U.S. attention in two of the world’s three most strategically important regions. Should China decide to launch an attack on Taiwan, the situation could quickly escalate into a global war on three fronts, directly or indirectly involving the United States. The hour is late, and while there are options for improving the U.S. position, they all require serious effort and inevitable trade-offs. It’s time to move with real urgency to mobilize the United States, its defenses, and its allies for what could become the world crisis of our time.” (Foreign Policy, November 16, 2023).
 In the “Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community,” dated February 2023, there is detailed threat assessment and warning in relation to China, seen as the most serious threat, followed by Russia, Iran and a North Korea, which is making itself heard with its firework of missile tests.
The recent report “America’s Strategic Posture” argues that U.S. strategy “must include effective deterrence and defeat of simultaneous Russian and Chinese aggression in Europe and Asia using conventional forces. If the United States and its Allies and partners do not field sufficient conventional forces to achieve this objective, U.S. strategy would need to be altered to increase reliance on nuclear weapons to deter or counter opportunistic or collaborative aggression in the other theater.”
Today there is also the clear and present danger for a war looming in Middle East. For the moment mostly involving pinpricks attacks initiated by Iran and its allies in Lebanon, Iraq and the Yemen. While the U.S. may be trying to keep a lid on conflict, with their often
misguided attempts at diplomacy and by limiting their military response to the pinpricks, it is evident that there is the risk of a much bigger war in the Middle East, indirectly perhaps even involving Russia. And what will happen when Iran gets nuclear warheads for their ballistic missiles?
 
Red lines slipping in Ukraine?
Like the European voices President Biden is trying to warn about Putin’s intentions: “If Putin takes Ukraine, he won’t stop there. It’s important to see the long run here. He’s going to keep going. He’s made that pretty clear. If Putin attacks a NATO Ally — if he keeps going and then he attacks a NATO Ally — well, we’ve committed as a NATO member that we’d defend every inch of NATO territory. Then we’ll have something that we don’t seek and that we don’t have today: American troops fighting Russian troops — American troops fighting Russian troops if he moves into other parts of NATO.” (The White House, December 6, 2023).
“The bear is coming” warning has also been used by U.S. defence Secretary Lloyd Austin in a secret briefing in Congress. Lloyd Austin is said to have argued that if Ukraine did not get the $61 billion in support that Biden is seeking from Congress, it would be very likely that U.S. GIs in Europe would be fighting Russia. (Stephen Bryen in Asia times).
It evident that the U.S. does not dare to fight Russia directly in Ukraine, with President Biden seeing such a scenario as leading to a World war. “We will not fight a war against Russia in Ukraine. Direct conflict between NATO and Russia is World War III, something we must strive to prevent.” (The Hill, March 11, 2022).
But then, what about the dangers of the seemingly reluctant, but continuing escalation of the U.S. and Europe’s support for Ukraine.
Since the war began the U.S. and Europe have time after time transgressed their own red lines in what has become a continuous escalation of military support for Ukraine. A constant anxious probing of Russia’s red lines. An apparently unending sequence of western leaders first rejecting Ukraine demands, then realising that Ukraine might be in dire straits, and therefore persuading themselves to dare escalate after all. Fearing evidently that the U.S. led proxy war might be lost, and that all previous help would have been in vain.
This escalating vortex of material support for Ukraine leads to a risk of a more direct confrontation between Russia and the West, as result of mistake, accident or aggressive hubris on part of Ukraine.
We have to fear the reciprocal escalations on both sides. With the West playing a major role in this escalation, stationing more and more troops and equipment closer to Russia’s borders. In Poland, in the Baltic region, in Romania, In Italy, In Spain and in the United Kingdom. For 2024 NATO is preparing to engage in large exercises like NATO’s “Steadfast Defender” with upwards of 90,000 soldiers involved and running for months.
Or take the announcement that the U.S. is planning to place nuclear warheads at the RAF Lakenheath Airbase in the UK, in addition modernizing the nuclear arsenal placed in Belgium, Germany and elsewhere.
 
A hopeless whack-a-mole strategy?
How does the U.S. manage to face clear and present dangers on so many fronts? Remember President Biden actually wanted to end the never-ending war in Afghanistan, the only major military involvement apart from the fight against Daesh. The withdrawal from Afghanistan did not go well, became more like a flight, like the flight from Hanoi ending the Vietnam War.
Apparently, the Afghanistan disaster did not cool the Biden administration’s conviction that the U.S.’s almighty power was destined to uphold and spread “Rules-based order.” Not realising that the U.S. might no longer be the hegemonic power able to intervene decisively in affairs all over the World.
Perhaps that may explain their support for a strong NATO, in contrast to former President Trump. Their hubris may also explain why they could not see, that their support for Ukraine’s wish to join NATO, was a step too far for Russia. When the U.S. Senate in 1998 overwhelmingly approved the eastward expansion of NATO to include Poland, Hungary and the Czech, Republican Senator Joseph Biden Jr. said: “…this, in fact, is the beginning of another 50 years of peace, … "In a larger sense." Extremely naive as we can see now.
The Biden administration’s supreme self-confidence led it to dismiss Putin’s demands, that Ukraine should not become a member of NATO, with an arrogant and delayed rejection. This lead to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Biden administration and its allies met the invasion with unprecedented sanctions and constantly escalating military support for Ukraine’s proxy war against Russia. Ending in the quagmire of a stalemate.
In a quiet volte-face the U.S. now just tries to prop up Ukraine’s ability to defend the stalemate, meaning there is no end in sight. With a hapless Biden administration caught in the quagmire of a proxy war, and Ukraine is stuck in a stalemate with no hope of achieving Zelensky’s utopian goals.
As late as July 2022, National Security advisor, Jake Sullivan, was convinced that the U.S. proxy war in Ukraine would demonstrate the strength of the U.S. hegemony. In a lengthy interview in “The Atlantic” he saw the war in Ukraine as testing U.S. credibility, adding “…do I think it would have an impact? Yes. And I do think that part of our objective in Ukraine has to be to show strength, resilience, staying power, canniness, capability, because this will have some impact on our ability to effectively deter others elsewhere.”
Precisely the imagined show of “strength, resilience, staying power, canniness, capability” may also have lead President Biden and his advisors to become more belligerent in their attitude towards China over the Taiwan question.
But “Times they are a-changin” to paraphrase Bob Dylan. Now it would seem that the Biden administration is slowly coming to the realization that U.S. hegemony may be in danger.
This may explain a subtle change in the U.S. support for Ukraine, just trying to allow Ukraine to stay in the fight, with no hope of getting back the areas occupied by Russia.
It may explain their hurried attempts to keep the lid on Israel’s war in Gaza. Exerting pressure on Israel to scale down their aspirations.
Explain the U.S. attempt to almost ignore Iran’s evident involvement in supporting the semi-circle of Israel’s enemies and their attacks. Not really to wanting confront Iran directly, and risk an expanding Middle East war. Not really daring to dare, just to staying on the doorstep, ambivalent about their next step
The present ambivalence is a result of scary realisation that the U.S. will not be able to fight on all fronts simultaneously. Instead promoting an approach, where the U.S. just attempts to contain some of the potential threats, in order to be ready to confront others.
Playing what might become an impossible whack-a-mole game.
Striving to involve the rest of the West in the game. Demanding greater “commitments from European allies [to] give U.S. decision makers the flexibility they need to meet their global security obligations.” (defensenews.com).
In the East by attempts to warn against Chinese designs, and to get allies like Japan, South Korea, and Australia to strengthen their offensive military capabilities. Also trying to persuade the Philippines and India to get involved in containing China.
In the Middle East attempting to strike a kind compromise solution, by attempting to pressure Israel to accept an imaginary and impossible two state proposal, that no one seems to believe in.