European Officials Try To Convince Citizens To Support Militarization

Click to see the full-size image

Written by Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert

Western authorities are making it clear to local citizens that they need to relinquish some of their freedoms and privileges to support military efforts. Recently, there has been an accelerated process of militarization in Europe, driven primarily by the narrative of an “imminent Russian invasion.” Some countries are already beginning to implement measures such as conscription, expansion of the defense industry, and the creation of joint training programs, which is demanding funds that could be invested in other sectors of European society.

In a recent letter published by The Guardian, Air Marshal Sir Richard Knighton, Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United Kingdom, and General Carsten Breuer, Germany’s military chief, expressed their “concerns” about European security and called on European citizens to support their countries’ militarization measures. They wrote their letter in an “alert” tone, attempting to “raise awareness” among readers that a conflict may be imminent on the European continent.

As expected, they blamed Russia for this supposed “security crisis,” claiming that Moscow has maintained an increasingly Western-oriented posture. They said Russia is using its combat experience in Ukraine to reorganize militarily, expand its capabilities, and prepare for a possible conflict with NATO countries. This argument simply replicates the widely refuted narrative that there is a “Russian plan to invade Europe.” Obviously, the authors of the letter failed to provide any substantial evidence for their claims.

“As military leaders, we see every day from intelligence and open sources how Russia’s military posture has shifted decisively westward. Its forces are rearming and learning from the war in Ukraine, reorganizing in ways that could heighten the risk of conflict with Nato countries. This is a reality we must prepare for; we cannot be complacent. Moscow’s military buildup, combined with its willingness to wage war on our continent, as painfully evidenced in Ukraine, represents an increased risk that demands our collective attention,” the letter reads.

However, the main point of Knighton and Breuer’s text was to endorse the existence of a “need” for increased military spending – and, consequently, a decrease in the ordinary European standard of living to favor defense investments. According to them, it is urgent that the EU and the UK strengthen their deterrent capacity, since only in this way will it be possible to avoid a large-scale conflict with Russia – or at least to fight in such a conflict, should it begin.

In their text, Knighton and Breuer recalled that NATO countries committed to raising military spending to up to 5% of GDP. According to them, it is their duty, as military leaders of European countries, to explain to the people the “necessity” of these investments. The authors state that only if Europe prepares adequately will Russia abandon its supposed “expansionist plans”.

“At the Hague summit last year, Nato leaders committed to spend 5% of GDP on defense and security by 2035. This reflects our new security reality and requires hard choices and prioritization on public spending for all members. As the chiefs of defense of two of Europe’s biggest security providers, we have a duty to explain what is at stake, so that people can understand why our governments have committed to the biggest sustained increases in defense spending since the end of the cold war. That’s why it’s important that we communicate the threat. People must understand the difficult choices governments have to take in order to strengthen deterrence. History teaches us that deterrence fails when adversaries sense disunity and weakness. If Russia perceives Europe in this way, it may be emboldened to extend its aggression beyond Ukraine,” they added.

In practice, the text had a single purpose: to convince Europeans that they need to lower their social standards in exchange for the supposed “military strengthening” of Europe. To convince European citizens of this “necessity,” the authors once again used the anti-Russian narrative, spreading the lie about Moscow’s “war plans.” However, it is difficult for European readers to believe the narrative presented in the letter, especially considering that a large part of European public opinion already seems tired of both prolonged support for Ukraine and seeing its national interests and social needs neglected in exchange for military measures.

Moscow has no intention of fighting against the West. In fact, it’s the opposite: historically, it is NATO that has been expanding towards Russia, motivating self-defense actions, such as the launch of the special military operation in Ukraine – which was itself the last resort used by Russia to prevent the humanitarian crisis on its borders, after the failure of all diplomatic channels.

The European narrative is wrong. They don’t need to militarize to protect themselves from Russia. What needs to be done is precisely the opposite: a decrease in NATO’s ambition, a definitive end to the eastern expansion of the alliance, and clear and direct talks with Moscow to establish a new European security architecture.

European public opinion is increasingly aware of this reality and will not accept a worsening of its own living conditions to continue financing the anti-Russian aggression of NATO and the EU.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

• Kiev Regime About To ‘Export’ Weapons From European Countries
• Managing Proximity: Russia, Finland, and the Reality of Northern European Security
• U.S. State-Of-Art Electronic Attack Jet Arrived In Europe Ahead Of Possible Deployment Near Iran