When asked about a new nuclear strategy for the USA and NATO, former General Domrose said

„In my opinion, the 2% will be reached because the German government includes EVERYTHING. Even the systems for Ukraine. Argument: these are defense costs. Counter-argument: does NOT advance Bw.

But: FRA & UK achieve their percentages through huge costs for Nuks. Brings no conventional added value.

In short: „Outsiders cannot verify details exactly“

That used to be called creative accounting. It would be interesting to know how high the proportion of costs for nuclear weapons actually is? Are they expensive or are they not included in the costs? Also in the direction of the discussion about German nuclear weapons. Apart from whether this would still be technologically feasible after the phase-out of nuclear power and without the construction of a centrifuge and enrichment system (can spent fuel rods and nuclear waste also be used for this or do you have to import it „fresh“ or reopen the Wismuth mine in the former GDR ( it was the 4th largest uranium mine in the world during the Cold War)? Do we need nuclear power plants or can we do without them, or are France, the UK and others sticking to nuclear power primarily for military reasons and not just because it is supposedly „cheap“?

The decisive factor, however, is whether the USA interprets the German defense statistics in the same way. Biden apparently does, but Trump?

We don’t know what is actually „in their heads“ with regard to nuclear deterrence. Either they don’t have a new nuclear strategy yet and would rather hide it, or they do have one and don’t want to make it public in order to keep the enemy in the unknown dark, perhaps also to avoid worrying the population, as the 3rd Nucjear Age is much more complex and unstable (see CSBA study „Rethinking Armaggedon“ and Peter Pry on the nuclear triad China-Russia-North Korea or CRINK) and thus also deterred again by a certain unpredictability (which could also be misinterpreted and at best interpreted as strategic ambiguity).and even if NATO had a strategy, it would not be valid in the event of the election, as the commander in chief Trump and his „daily moods“ would then become the real strategy. Perhaps this could at best be interpreted as a grandiose revitalization of Kissinger’s „Madman theory“, but no one would be interested. Perhaps it would be worth watching Stanley Kubrick’s „Dr. Strangelove – When I Learned to Love the Bomb“ again.

It is also quite possible that Trump wants to let his allies pay for US nuclear protection. It would remain unclear whether this would then be am „exchange“ for more purchases of US armaments, whether it would ultimately be an“exchange“against foreign trade, tariffs on US exports to the EU or whether a direct payment would be agreed. In the first case, this would be a kind of mix-and-swap mechanism, in the second case a fixed amount that would have to be fixed in the German defense budget as a kind of protection money. However, there would be a risk that this would lead to protection money extortion, in which Trump or his successor could then drive up the price, there would be constant renegotiations, which would then become a kind of bazaar protection money for nuclear protection, which could also be terminated at any time, i.e. not a stable basis either, especially as it would almost be a kind of blackmail mechanism. Up to now, the benign hegemony spared the Europeans because of the Cold War and the boom years of the globalization boom decade and was generous, especially since with peace dividends, until the 2008 financial crisis, the globalization wars and „war of choices“ criticized by Trump and the Asian pivot as a result of the Sino-American conflict that broke out openly with Trump, the US is now cashing in.

There is also the question of when the break-even and tipping point would be reached in terms of costs, at which German or European nuclear weapons would be „worthwhile“, although this is not just an economic question and it is not just a question of who orders their use in an emergency and how technological and political restrictions play into it, be it non-proliferation and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which the steel-winged CDU/CSU around Strauß and Dregger once called „a nuclear Versailles (FJS)“.

A British think tank once calculated what a European alliance would cost if NATO were dissolved, but I can’t remember whether they were only thinking of a conventional EU power or also one with nuclear weapons

I first heard about the idea of turning the US military into a sounding coin when I met Thomas Barnett, a Pentagon strategist under the Bush Jr. administration and author of the book „Blueprint for the Pentagon“, who also wanted to create a kind of Pax Chimerica in the slipstream of Brzezinsli’s G2. An absolute globalization fanatic who wanted to create a kind of globalization army in which the US military, VBA and others would jointly wage globalization wars as core states against so-called gap states that were not connected to the world market in order to complete globalization. States such as Iraq or North Korea would have to be opened up and liberated due to a lack of connectivity. Multinational corporations and interested states could then hire the partially privatized US military and others for this purpose. This went too far for some generals and he was then fired and now discovered a life as a „pop strategist“ with TED influencers.

Well, some of these ideas became reality in the form of PMCs like Blackwater. Perhaps also in the direction of the East India Company, which at the time had its own army of 250,000 soldiers before it was taken over by the British state after its bankruptcy and became the core of the British army.

But for now, as for the first time on Maybrit Illner, Germany and Europe are dominated by the question „With Trump – Europe and Germany defenseless?“ Some panic at the Titnic and Strack- Zimmermann and Manfred weber seemed quite helpless and helpless in the face of the German and European substitute solutions. Strack-Zmmermann said that „if you don’t understand the seriousness of the situation now, you probably won’t“. Especially without US nuclear protection and the replacement of NATO by another security alliance or bilateral security agreements between the USA and some core states such as in Asia, although there is already the Quad with the USA, India, Japan and Australia and the AUKUS, although the former is not an Asian NATO and the latter is an exclusively Anglo-Saxon alliance system, also with the Five Eyes.

Professor van Ess advises a little more composure amidst all the panic. Even if many things were to be dissolved, the question would still be whether a Trump would abandon or replace Rammstein. For one thing, Rammstein is so central to the USA in Europe, Africa and the Greater Middle East that if it were to be dissolved without replacement, this would effectively mean the withdrawal of the USA from the entire area. Many years would have to pass before a replacement Rammstein was decided on and built, and then there would also be the question of where it should be built. For example, in Poland, on the front line, as a nuclear stumbling block and without a hinterland, especially as which area this New Rammstein should then cover and whether a relocation to the north, south or west would also offer a better option, even the expansion of the US mini „Rammstein“ in Kosovo Camp Bondsteele would be a questionable matter in all respects. Maybe this woul become in a military sense more a New Schwanstein than a real New Rammstein. In addition, as a businessman, Trump would also face enormous costs, which, if he wanted everything to be cheaper, would make him think again – despite all the full-bodied and cheeky rhetoric. And if Rammstein were to remain despite all the transatlantic bickering and Germany, it would be unlikely that the USA, even under Trump, would leave it without US nuclear protection.

This is an enormous bargaining chip for Germany, even if many people apart from insiders are not so aware of it, and in extreme cases could also be the core of a new transatlantism. Professor van Ess therefore advises a little more composure, even though he understands the scaremongering, as it is still necessary to somehow create a mood in order to re-equip the disarmed Bundeswehr and NATO and perhaps move towards a turning point beyond the purely verbal or to loosen up what General Vad calls „structural pacifism“.

Now Professor van Ess is not a military expert either, perhaps he also overestimates the role of the functional rationalism of egomaniacal-erratic GröFaZ narcissists or Islamists and ideologues, as well as the cost calculation and possible 180-degree turns, should Putin or Xi drive up the price or confront him with the threat of nuclear war, which then also hits the USA or is too annoying for Trump in the defense of Europe or Germany, whether he does not buckle or prefers partial or complete isolationism. especially as China and Russia have a somewhat different nuclear position than North Korea, which can be threatened with „fury and fire“ against the „little fat man on a suicide mission“, which is why Kim would now like to have ICBMs and hopes to get them from Putin, just like Höcke would hope to get German nuclear weapons after seizing power, if he ever gets them.

So is the vaunted businessman Trump also the sober homo economicus and „rational actor“? Perhaps he is to the extent that he calculates that a life in safety and a leisurely game of golf in Al Magoo is preferable to nuclear fire in the event of a threat from enemy nuclear weapons, and apparently some psycho-profilers from the Chinese Communist Party or Putin’s FSB/GRU are counting on this, who have known Trump and his for a long time since Moscow times and have also known how to influence him to some extent and who knew how to exploit the weak points of American exceptionalism, hybirism, individualism, materialism and liberalism and fanned the flames, with Fox News, Breitbart News and others doing the same, so Trump was a kind of hybrid of a homegrown with Russian catalysis. It is in this context that Karaganov’s advances of a new Russian nuclear strategy, which also include a global nuclear war, not only against Europe or NATO, but also the USA, are to be understood, which Kissinger’s and Reagan’s Madman theory and Colin S. Gray’s „Victory is possible“ want to resurrect in Russian guise. China is still a little more cautious and is once again letting Russia take the lead as the battering ram for a new multipolar world order, as it did in the Ukraine war, especially as it still seems to be aware of the possibility of an unintended escalation and catastrophe, but even the former editor-in-chief of the Global Times under „Letter from Xi“ has already called for China’s drastic rearmament of ICBMs in his last „own“ remaining column Hus Voice as a Chinese Karaganov… Not yet in the People’s Daily, but if red alert.

But at first glance these arguments seem quite plausible, and even such decidedly anti-American German bands as Lindemann’s Rammstein or an Oskar Lafontaine in his book „Ami go home“ are aware of the importance of Rammstein, as are Wagenknecht, Höcke and Putin, even if the now-influential Gauland would like to maintain this and would consider Germany’s withdrawal from NATO to be „un-Bismarkian“(unbismarkisch).. Rammstein undoubtedly has the highest symbolic significance in a kind of new domino theory, which reads: If Rammstein falls, Europe falls. Not just symbolically! Putin and Xi have known this for a long time.

We want to discuss the military evaluation of Rammstein again with military experts and the evaluation by Trump or other successors, if he has not established a dictatorship by then and should successors still exist, is then another and ultimately the decisive question. On the other side, it is clear and certain.

Finally, the Rammstein song „Amerika“ as a relaxer:

Rammstein – Amerika (Official Video) (

Kommentare sind geschlossen.