New European Union member states face probationary periods exceeding 15 years, during which they will lose their national veto rights under new “safeguard” clauses in accession treaties, EU Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos said following the formal launch of accession negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova.

The long duration of the proposed safeguards follows anger over Budapest’s refusal earlier this year to back a €90 billion loan package for Ukraine, as well as persistent criticism that Hungary, which joined the EU in 2004, has repeatedly violated rule-of-law conditions established by Brussels.

Describing the decision to launch the first “cluster” of membership negotiations with both nations as “Mega Monday,” Kos appeared to endorse proposals supported by France, Germany, and other member states to restrict new members from voting on budget, security, and foreign policy decisions.

The decision to initiate a new formal round of accession talks with Ukraine and Moldova comes amid demands from a growing number of national governments for protective measures should new member states roll back reforms related to democracy, the rule of law, or press freedom.

“This will be a new generation of accession treaties, in the sense that we will have new safeguards,” Kos said.

Kos added that the objective of the provisions concerning the new probationary periods is “to ensure that when new members are admitted, they will comply with European rules for 5, 10, or 15 years after joining.”

Last week, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg demanded new clauses to ensure that future EU members “do not undermine the EU’s capacity to act.”

Kos stressed that despite the introduction of these new clauses, the accession of any candidate country to the EU would not result in a second-tier or associate status.

“Full membership will only be possible when member states meet all requirements; there is no such thing as half-membership or quarter-membership. There is only full membership,” Kos said.

From fire departments to disaster relief organizations, Germany’s civil institutions are actively preparing for a potential military conflict with Russia, establishing a highly integrated civil-military defense architecture.

According to a report by German Foreign Policy, in the event of war, conscientious objectors will be deployed in civilian roles specifically designed to support troop movements and other military operations.

This development is aligned with demands outlined in a position paper by the German Firefighters Association, which states that the public must be empowered to independently manage “extreme or prolonged disaster situations.”

Concurrently, the federal government plans to integrate civilian disaster and civil protection organizations more closely into future planning for a potential military conflict with Russia.

This strategy is detailed in a recently disclosed policy document on civil protection issued by the Federal Ministry of the Interior.

According to Defense Minister Boris Pistorius and Interior Minister Nancy Faeser, the document represents “nothing less than the greatest modernization drive for civil protection and civil defense in recent decades.”

The federal government has allocated €10 billion for its implementation. Under this framework, civilian disaster response teams must prepare for the high probability of being called upon to provide operational support to the German Armed Forces (Bundeswehr).

Federal government to establish “Civil Defense Command”

According to the Interior Ministry’s new policy document on civil defense during times of crisis and war, Germany will require “greater integration between civilian and military planning” moving forward.

To achieve this, the Interior Ministry will establish its own steering committee, the “Civil Defense Command,” specifically tasked with executing the “Operational Plan Germany.”

This comprehensive operational plan regulates all activities to be carried out within Germany during a state of war, ranging from the transit of foreign Allied troops to a new eastern front, to securing critical infrastructure and managing mass casualty care.

Interior Minister Faeser emphasized that military and civil defense must be “tightly interconnected,” describing the Bundeswehr and civil protection services as “two sides of the same coin.”

According to the minister, any effort to expand Germany’s “comprehensive defense” must not only strengthen the armed forces but, above all, reinforce civil protection and civil defense capabilities.

The new policy document, titled the “Civil Protection Pact,” is being presented as a “new, fundamental pillar” of the Federal Republic’s security architecture.

According to the Federal Ministry of Defense, the Bundeswehr will no longer be available to assist in domestic civil protection during an emergency, as military forces “will be occupied with entirely different tasks on NATO’s northeastern flank.”

Consequently, the ministry stresses that “Germany must prepare itself for this scenario.”

The militarization of civil protection

Under this framework, officially civilian aid organizations—such as the Federal Agency for Technical Relief (THW), fire departments, and the German Life Saving Society (DLRG)—alongside military reserve forces, are being systematically integrated into civil protection planning.

In addition to allocating new funds, the defense and interior ministries have agreed on structural support measures.

For example, the framework conditions for voluntary service, upon which German civil protection heavily relies, will be upgraded.

The federal government’s emergency warning mobile application, NINA (“Emergency Information and News App”), will be expanded to include nationwide guidelines and recommendations regarding public shelters.

Furthermore, a specialized medical task force is being established to handle “mass casualty events” in the event of “heightened tensions or a state of defense.”

The federal government plans to equip this task force not only with “tens of thousands of modern protective suits for chemical, biological, and radioactive scenarios,” but also with a sufficient supply of tourniquets to stop severe arterial bleeding from blast injuries.

To ensure that “children learn how to behave in emergencies at an early age, facilitate the transfer of this knowledge within families, and stimulate interest in volunteer work,” Berlin plans to integrate civil defense topics directly into school curricula.

Finally, a “new draft legal framework” has been announced. This legislation will empower all relevant institutions to prepare and streamline emergency operations during peacetime crises—such as “hybrid attacks”—well ahead of an official declaration of a state of defense.

Firefighters demand tighter cooperation with the military

The impetus for these measures and the integration of civil defense into war preparations does not originate solely from the state apparatus.

As early as March, the German Firefighters Association published a position paper calling for civil defense structures to prepare for a military conflict with Russia, explicitly citing “current insights from Ukraine.”

The association’s paper calls for the promotion of voluntary service, warning that the mobilization of military reservists for “national defense” is expected to cause “significant personnel shortages that will directly impact the operational readiness of fire departments and aid organizations.”

Additionally, the German healthcare system is projected to face immense pressure due to the “increased transport and treatment of personnel wounded in military operations.”

These challenges will be compounded by the demanding logistics of supporting the transit of NATO forces moving through Germany toward the Eastern Flank.

Beyond peace, before war: Hybrid warfare seeks legal codification

To mitigate these anticipated shortages, the association advocates for the “reintroduction of a service model to replace compulsory military service,” which would integrate future conscientious objectors directly into the militarized civil defense network.

Furthermore, the domestic population is to be trained to “act independently, meet their own basic needs, and implement primary protective measures” during “extreme or prolonged disaster situations.”

Among other measures, civilians will be expected to maintain self-sufficiency for several days. Citizens must acquire basic self-protection and first-aid skills, and develop “risk competence in dealing with natural disasters, technical failures, and armed conflict scenarios.”

According to the association, a “resilient and capable population” is a prerequisite for maintaining the functionality of German society in a crisis or war.

The Firefighters Association is also demanding a distinct legal status for “hybrid threat situations” to bridge the transitional phase between peace and war.

This proposal implies expanding the state’s legal and coercive authority well before a formal state of emergency is declared.

Civilian support for the armed forces

The demands of the German Firefighters Association closely mirror the provisions of the Civil Protection Pact. Both documents align with the previously published Green Paper on “Civil-Military Cooperation 4.0.”

In that report, an expert panel comprising representatives from the military, domestic intelligence, the Interior Ministry, the Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance (BBK), and the consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers called for the systematic integration of civil society into war preparations.

The authors of the Green Paper asserted that while Germany is “not yet at war” with Russia, it already operates within a geopolitical “gray zone.”

Consequently, they proposed concrete measures to ensure “effective cooperation in a military crisis.”

The core focus of these proposals is “civilian support for the armed forces in wartime or at potential escalation thresholds during peacetime,” which has now been formally addressed through the implementation of the “Operational Plan Germany.”

Peacetime martial law

The authors of the “Civil-Military Cooperation 4.0” Green Paper argued that a threat from the East necessitates a national “closing of the ranks.”

Under their proposal, all citizens and institutions must understand their designated roles. National and collective Allied defense must not only be rehearsed but actively implemented in the near future.

The paper also emphasized the necessity of new legislation tailored to “hybrid threat” scenarios. Under these proposals, military police would be granted the authority to enforce coercive policing measures domestically during peacetime, prior to the declaration of a state of emergency.

Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the Bundeswehr’s relatively new homeland security forces would be clarified and distinguished from civilian police authority.

Within the framework of military and national service, the authors suggest establishing a multi-year service model dedicated entirely to civilian and disaster relief duties, scaled to match the duration of standard military service.

Ultimately, these proposals aim to extend “emergency laws” into peacetime to mobilize the broadest possible range of civilian capabilities for wartime readiness.

Retired Brigadier General Erich Vad, a prominent military and strategic analyst in the Federal Republic of Germany and former military policy advisor to former Chancellor Angela Merkel, has delivered a stark assessment of the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine.

In an extensive interview with the Berliner Zeitung newspaper, marked by the publication of his book Peace – How Does It Work? (Frieden – Wie geht das?), co-authored with Klaus von Dohnanyi, Vad highlighted the futility of current military strategies and criticized the international community for completely shutting down diplomatic channels.

Vad, who is also a historian and served as a department head within the Federal Chancellery, secretary of the Federal Security Council, and military advisor between 2006 and 2013, stated that contemporary geopolitical tensions cannot be resolved through military means alone.

“The current attrition strategy is a blood mill like Verdun”

Likening the current situation on the ground in Ukraine to one of the bloodiest engagements in military history, Vad said:

“A military solution in Ukraine in favor of Ukraine does not appear possible in the near future. The method currently applied is an attrition strategy, where the parties target each other’s rear lines and wait for the opposing side to give up or sit at the negotiating table. This attrition strategy is a virtual blood mill, akin to the 1916 Battle of Verdun. Hundreds of thousands of young Ukrainians and Russians have lost their lives, and an entire country has been reduced to ruins.”

Noting that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s maximalist demands, which envision a total Russian withdrawal from the Donbas and Crimea, are unrealistic, Vad remarked: “To assume that the Russians will withdraw from these regions and make peace is an illusion. This situation is completely contrary to Russia’s vital strategic interests in the region. Because the parties cannot step back from these positions, the weapons continue to speak. However, the risk of this war evolving into an all-out European war is extremely high, and if things continue in this manner, I have the impression that the trajectory is in that direction.”

Addressing the limits of military solutions, Vad noted that a similar picture applies not only to Ukraine but also to other crisis regions, such as Iran.

He stated that aerial campaigns against Iran cannot bring about regime change, while a ground intervention to control a coastline exceeding 1,500 kilometers and the Strait of Hormuz would require a military cost that even the US military would not undertake today.

“Ukraine’s NATO goal was a red line for Russia”

Evaluating NATO’s eastward expansion process, Vad stated that this move was perceived by Russia as an attempt to shift the boundaries of Western spheres of influence eastward.

Recalling that the demands of Poland and the Baltic states to exit Russian hegemony were initially understandable, and that this process was balanced through diplomatic mechanisms such as the NATO-Russia Founding Act and the NATO-Russia Council, the former military advisor emphasized that the West later abandoned this balanced path.

In his interview, Vad shared the following analysis:

“The West subsequently deviated from this balanced line, and the process completely turned into the eastward expansion of the American sphere of influence. Yet, the Americans would never tolerate a similar situation in their own sphere of influence. If Mexico were to attempt joint military exercises with Russia and China on the Rio Grande border tomorrow, the Americans would calmly invade the country. Russia is a global power and the world’s largest nuclear power. One must neither underestimate nor overestimate the resilience of the Russians. The same applies to China. If the Americans had attempted to establish an airbase in Taiwan, World War III would have broken out the next day. The biggest problem in Germany is that the effort to understand the Russian perspective has completely vanished. Trying to understand them does not mean approving of what they do; it is simply a requirement of situational analysis.”

Relating the debates surrounding the membership perspective offered to Ukraine at the 2008 Bucharest NATO Summit, where he was personally present in Chancellor Merkel’s delegation, Vad noted:

“The general assessment at the time was that Ukrainian public opinion was deeply divided on NATO membership, and the majority actually opposed it. William Burns, then the US Ambassador to Moscow, had clearly reported that this step was a dark red line for Russia and would lead to war. Everyone who knew the subject was aware of the situation. Therefore, the decision not to grant Ukraine a Membership Action Plan at that time was correct. However, the major error was keeping this membership goal suspended rather than canceling it entirely. Pre-Trump US administrations tried every avenue to draw Ukraine in this direction, including extensive weapons deliveries, military advisors, intelligence activities, and massive financial support for pro-Western non-governmental organizations. This process culminated in the Maidan protests. The entry of NATO membership into the Ukrainian constitution in 2019 was the final straw for Russia.”

Arguing that the US strategy of global competition played a role in the development of this process, Vad stated: “Ukraine is legitimately defending its sovereignty, and the Russian attack is undoubtedly a violation of international law. However, when we look at how global powers generally utilize international law, this situation unfortunately does not constitute an exceptional case. The US prepared the ground for this war within the framework of its competition with Russia; this is why I have called it a proxy war from the very beginning.”

“We are silent against a terrorist attack on our own infrastructure”

Criticizing Germany’s current security and foreign policy decisions, Vad stated that Berlin has lost its strategic autonomy and remains inadequate in protecting its national interests.

The retired general remarked that the federal government has returned to its reflex of entirely devolving responsibility for security policies to Washington, recalling that past German chancellors always sought to balance defense investments with arms control and détente diplomacy.

Touching upon the attack on Germany’s critical energy infrastructure, Vad made the following assessment:

“Germany is currently the largest supporter of Ukraine. However, at the same time, according to existing data, it has also received the largest state-sponsored terrorist attack on its own national infrastructure from Ukraine. The deep silence exhibited by German politics and the media in the face of the sabotage blowing up the Nord Stream natural gas pipeline is highly thought-provoking and disturbing. A potential European war occurring on our own territory cannot be a rational option for Germany. Therefore, I expect German politicians to pursue a policy more focused on national interests. Current politics have become completely focused on Ukraine, and this is a major error.”

Vad asserted that the domestic political weaknesses of governments in European countries fuel aggressive postures in foreign policy. He cited the political weakening of French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s low public support, and the domestic political pressures on the coalition government in Germany as causes of this situation.

According to Vad, keeping the perception of external threats alive provides a convenient ground to cover up domestic political failures and justify large-budget defense spending.

“Social hatred is manufactured to sustain the war”

Referencing the “trinity” concept used by military theorist Carl von Clausewitz when defining war, Erich Vad explained that wars are sustained not only by military decisions but also through the management of collective social psychology.

Emphasizing the importance of the relationship between politics, the military-industrial complex, and society, Vad criticized the role assumed by the media and political elites during wartime:

“Wars must always be fed emotionally; war requires hatred. Today, we are witnessing an intense information war conducted in both the West and Russia. In this mutually executed process, the enemy is demonized, criminalized, and morally devalued. Without this hatred taking root in the minds of people, it is not possible for societies to support a prolonged war, tolerate losses, and risk killing other human beings. Politics thinking solely in military categories and completely excluding diplomacy is dragging our country toward a major catastrophe. This concept of total military support, which could lead to the destruction of our own country, is a manifestation of the detached, black-and-white German approach that has led us to disaster in the past.”

Warning of future risks, the retired Brigadier General stated that long-range unmanned aerial vehicles and missile systems provided to the Ukrainian army, which can strike military targets deep inside Russia, could lead to an uncontrolled escalation.

Recalling that European and German companies are involved in the production processes of the long-range combat drones supplied by the United Kingdom to Ukraine, Vad stated that this “deep strike” strategy could transform the regional conflict into a global war at any moment.

Finally, stating that peace can only be built by talking to the enemy, Vad cited the negotiations that former Israeli officials Moshe Dayan and Yitzhak Rabin conducted in the past with Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat.

Arguing that there are no political leaders in Europe today capable of showing this level of courage, Vad concluded: “If we continue in this way, we will one day find ourselves in a direct war with Russia behind Ukraine. Germany urgently needs to undergo a radical foreign policy shift and combine military aid with constructive diplomatic mediation initiatives.”