Connect with us

Europe

The “German Problem” returns

Published

on

Export champion, Europe’s largest economy, the engine of growth on the Old Continent, a classic industrial giant… Germany, once known by these titles, is now entering the public agenda associated with falling behind, deindustrialization, job losses, inflation, political infighting, and, in short, stagnation.

Everyone is talking about Germany’s weakness. The automotive sector, which showed signs of crisis even before the pandemic, is considered one of the most symbolic indicators of the country’s decline. The crisis in automotive is followed by energy costs stemming from the disruption of cheap gas flows due to sanctions following the Ukraine war, and the downturn experienced in sectors such as chemicals and machinery production.

Concerns about the future are growing due to the technical recession across the economy. The new CDU-SPD grand coalition set out with the goal of changing this mood but has not yet succeeded. The coalition narrowly avoided the pension package vote turning into a crisis that threatened the government’s existence. Many believe that the days of the government under Chancellor Friedrich Merz are numbered.

Bearing all this in mind, despite everything, I argue that the German state will re-emerge—and indeed has already emerged—as a problem in Europe. I state this not only in the context of the massive militarization trend in Germany but also within the scope of the international restructuring centered around the US.

Question marks regarding the US military presence in Europe are moving towards a plan where Germany is being pushed from behind by the Trump administration itself. Militarily, Germany is being forced, by the US itself, to take the leadership of the Continent. Merz is already preparing for this. Moreover, unlike Europeans who are panicking due to the new US National Security Strategy (NSS), he is able to display a self-confidence that says, “You may write off Europe, but at least establish your relationship through Germany.”

Handelsblatt writer Moritz Koch also draws attention to this point. According to him, precisely while these discussions of weakness are ongoing, the country is experiencing a “historic increase in power.” Koch writes, “It is not Germany’s decline that will shape the next decade politically. On the contrary, it is the Federal Republic becoming Europe’s dominant power.”

Koch reminds us of the “turning point” (Zeitenwende) announced by Olaf Scholz after the Ukraine war, believing that this has changed the balance of power on the continent and that the US departing from its role as “security guarantor” has accelerated this trend.

His answer to the question “Who will protect Europe in the future?” does not include the British or the French; these countries are “chronically cash-strapped.” The only country that can financially bear this burden is Germany; the resources necessary for significant rearmament are gathering here:

“The world has rarely looked so threatening, and Europe has never looked so lonely. In this extraordinary situation regarding security policy, Germany has been assigned the role of lead nation. In the long run, a well-equipped Bundeswehr [German Armed Forces] could make a significant contribution to deterring Russia and at least fill the conventional void left when America turns its back on Europe.”

In this context, debates on conscription(1), a giant rearmament budget of 108 billion euros (defense spending is expected to reach 153 billion euros annually by 2029), the mobilization of “civilian” sectors within the scope of state and military restructuring (with sounds of “planning” being heard here and there), the reorganization of the labor market in line with the needs of the defense industry, and the adoption of next-generation defense technologies and the venture capital involved in this package(2) are all part of the new government’s policy set.

It appears that Europe has also set its sights on Germany; at the very least, promotional activities for it to undertake this role are intensifying. The Financial Times conducted a poll of 88 economists. The result of the poll indicates that for Europe to enter a stable growth path, the Germans’ debt-fueled $1 trillion defense infrastructure investments must succeed.

Both the European Central Bank and the FT economists foresee growth in the Eurozone slowing down to 1.2 percent in 2026. They expect private consumption and defense spending to provide a surprise. There is no harm in predicting the “Americanization” of the Eurozone economy: A consumption boom driven by the richest 10 percent of the population and a production increase pumped by militarization. While “monetary policy,” one of the creeds of the neoliberal era, is sidelined, “fiscal policies” will come to the fore. And of course, there are the “structural reforms” to strengthen the German economy, the “sick man” of Europe.

It is worth remembering that support for this comes from the Americans, provided that Britain and France are added to the mix. The American Edward Luttwak, known for his books on coups d’état, argued in an article penned last May that “superpower” competition has returned and that Europe needs a new superpower:

“Whatever the differences between the three governments, they can act with much greater agility than NATO can as a whole. The tripartite agreement is clearly easier than dealing with dozens of European NATO members from Estonia to Norway and Spain.”

Luttwak says that in a military context, Germany will focus on armored forces, which is still its “area of expertise,” while the British and French will complement this with light infantry and commando units. This trio can counter Russia in the air and at sea; this is the author’s claim.

Let’s return to Koch. Koch claims that Germany’s European neighbors responded “with satisfaction” to the Chancellor’s announcement that he wanted to build “Europe’s strongest conventional army” and to Defense Minister Boris Pistorius’s call for “war-ready” armed forces. Yet he reminds us, “But will this remain so? The German question has shaped European history. Now this question is being asked again.” From the 19th-century debates on German unity to the Anschluss, from the problem of German-speaking communities on the Continent to the two camps of the Cold War, the “German Question” has always been a source of anxiety for non-Germans; Koch implies this.

The author calls on the current German government, and those to come, to behave humbly and attentively towards “large and small partner countries.” If Berlin does not act in line with “European interests” and displays a “stubborn or even nationalist attitude,” distrust will poison Europe, old conflict lines will re-emerge, and rivalries thought to be long overcome will flare up again.

Europe must learn to protect itself, and Germany’s military power can make a significant contribution to this; Koch sings this familiar tune of the German ruling class. But he adds: “This power must never again fall into the wrong hands.”

The wrong power, as can be guessed, is the Alternative for Germany (AfD). Backed by the support of the Trump administration, the AfD is closing 2025 with great progress. First place in the polls is added to electoral success. But more importantly, in a manner that is not exactly quiet, a fierce war of attrition is being waged against the “Easterner” (read: “pro-Russia”) wing of the party, led by Co-Chair Alice Weidel, who came out of financial giants like Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, and Allianz to enter politics. Weidel and her supporters in the party seem to have taken control and, by throwing the AfD into a new transatlantic alliance system, have articulated it into the “national-conservative” international centered on Trump and the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Close relations with “sister parties” in Hungary and Austria point to the formation of a new Central European sphere of influence.

This articulation means that holes are being opened in the “firewall” domestically as well. The AfD rightly believes that the CDU/CSU is pursuing policies inspired by its own program, and therefore, the time has come for an AfD-CDU coalition. The junior partner of the previous coalition, the Free Democrats (FDP), has almost melted away. It is worth remembering, though forgotten today, that the founders of the AfD were economists who broke away from the FDP during the Greek crisis, arguing that Germany should not bear the financial burden of the Eurozone.

In the economy, especially in what we call Mittelstand companies (family-owned SMEs), the tendency to cooperate with the AfD is increasing, and it is not surprising that the first shot in this regard was fired by the FDP’s Marie-Christine Ostermann. In the SME sector, for example in Saxony, one in every two entrepreneurs now sympathizes with the AfD; especially because it displays a friendly attitude towards the business world, just as the FDP once did.(3)

Therefore, the German Question in 2026 tends to take on much more frightening dimensions with the de facto division of the AfD. In the AfD, which clings ambitiously to the new transatlantic alliance, the voices of those advocating for their country to obtain the atomic bomb, arguing that one must stay in NATO “as long as it lasts,” and believing that relations with Russia should not be established as warmly as before, are becoming louder.

It is obvious that the AfD will also play a role in this “turning point” (Zeitenwende). But one should expect the process to be full of ups and downs. German militarism will penetrate society and Europe not in a sharp (“revolutionary”) way, but in a more spread-out, evolutionary manner that transforms the mood. The government, under increasing pressure to take on a greater security role in Europe, also has to struggle with the constraints of a strategic culture that has viewed military service as a risk since World War II.

On the other hand, the most important output of the US asking Germany to assume the leadership role in the event of its withdrawal from the Continent should be expected to be the intertwining of German-American defense industry connections rather than the sudden expansion of the German army. While the German arms sector is experiencing a major revival, transatlantic cooperation, especially regarding new technology drones, maritime, and air defense, is growing increasingly. Partnerships intensifying in 2025 between Anduril and Rheinmetall, Lockheed and Diehl, and Northrop Grumman and MBDA provide a significant signal.(4)

More critically, the Mittelstand companies, which were cut off from Russia’s cheap energy after the Ukraine war, are recovering through this cooperation: The German defense industry includes approximately 1,350 medium-sized companies that frequently serve as suppliers to US defense industry manufacturers. Research by INSS on the German defense industry determines that for some of these specialized firms (in 2023), 50 percent of sales consisted of exports to the US military; sales to the Bundeswehr were only around 7 percent. Indeed, Germany’s National Security and Defense Industry Strategy admits that the domestic market is insufficient to protect and expand value chains and to encourage innovation in the long term.(5)

On the other hand, militarization certainly encourages a kind of “domestic consumption”: The 100-billion-euro special fund (Sondervermögen) shifted the focus of many firms to domestic contracts. For example, the electronics firm Rohde & Schwarz, whose products were 90 percent export-based, sees its domestic business rising to 30-35 percent following the Zeitenwende. This capital flow also supports domestic infrastructure, such as the new ammunition factory Rheinmetall opened in Unterlüß at a cost of 300 million euros.

Therefore, the withdrawal of the American shadow from Europe and Germany being pushed from behind to lead are two parallel processes; the greatest proof is that the cooperation between the German defense industry and the US increases German domestic consumption. Consequently, those looking forward to the day American boots leave the Continent need to be alert about whether they will get German panzers in return. Europeans, and we on the edge of Europe, face the risk of waking up to the German Question once again on New Year’s morning.


(1) The new bill aims to close the personnel gap in the German Armed Forces through a “selective service framework”: All 18-year-old men will complete a questionnaire and medical screening to assess their willingness and suitability for service, while women can participate voluntarily. The registration process will begin on January 1, 2026, for men born in 2008 and later. The law also envisages better pay and social rights for volunteers, as well as incentives for long-term service. Initially focusing on voluntary recruitment, the law leaves open the option of reintroducing compulsory service if the number of volunteers remains insufficient.

(2) According to a report published on CNBC this month, the United Kingdom and Germany stand out as key hubs for a new wave of artificial intelligence defense startups. German AI drone manufacturers Helsing and Quantum Systems reached valuations of 12 billion and 3 billion euros respectively this year following investment rounds worth hundreds of millions of euros. Stark, founded in 2024, produces drones for attack and reconnaissance purposes and has secured $100 million in funding from investors including Sequoia Capital, Peter Thiel’s Thiel Capital, and the NATO Innovation Fund. According to recent market research by the Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action, more than 6,600 AI startups employing 149,000 people have been founded in Germany since 1995.

(3) German thinker Wolfgang Streeck argues that most AfD members are “middle-class Poujadists,” adopting an anti-state and pro-neoliberal stance. The movement (UDCA) founded by Pierre Poujade in France in the 1950s mobilized mainly the lower middle classes, shopkeepers, artisans, and peasants in the south.

(4) The Anduril-Rheinmetall partnership will produce military drones for Europe. While Lockheed and Diehl cooperate on maritime air defense systems, Northrop Grumman and MBDA have signed a memorandum of understanding to develop air defense systems connected to Germany’s Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System (IBCS). To this, the Patriot production cooperation between Raytheon (RTX) and MBDA should be added.

(5) More than 135,000 skilled workers are employed in the German defense sector. These positions usually require high-level technical expertise, such as specialized welding and the production of complex systems like tank gun barrels. In terms of financial impact, German defense companies generate approximately $30 billion in annual revenue. Germany’s arms export licenses have also reached record levels recently: They were worth 12.2 billion euros in 2023 and 13.2 billion euros in 2024.

Europe

Bundeswehr troop figures mask severe structural imbalances

Published

on

The German Ministry of Defence has set a series of priority targets for the second half of the year. Led by Boris Pistorius (SPD), the ministerial leadership is satisfied with the government’s draft federal budget, which is scheduled for adoption by the Bundestag at the end of November.

According to a report by the newspaper Welt, the fundamental issue that officials do not openly voice in public is the necessity of converting resources allocated from tax revenues and loans into military capabilities as efficiently as possible, given that disruptions continue to occur in this area.

Regarding new infrastructure construction, the process is generally assessed to be proceeding as planned.

The objective this year is to add approximately 9,000 new bed spaces to barracks, with the initial allocations to these beds having begun in recent days.

Over the next four years, plans envisage incorporating roughly 54,000 additional beds into the system alongside new buildings.

Despite all these areas, personnel continues to be the single largest problem area in the armed forces.

In a statement issued at the beginning of the week, the ministry reported that the number of active-duty soldiers reached 186,700 as of 31 July, marking the highest level in approximately 13 years.

Although this figure falls considerably short of the ultimate target of 260,000 troops to be reached by 2035 at the latest, the ministry argues that the current figure lies “within the projected target corridor for personnel growth”.

This stems from an agreement initially reached with the Bundestag on a relatively slow trajectory of expansion. The planning in question projects an active strength of between 186,000 and 190,000 personnel by the end of the year.

The ministry projects that, “in line with general positive developments in the recruitment process, the Bundeswehr’s personnel growth will maintain its positive trajectory until the end of the year, despite the impact of seasonal fluctuations”.

However, not all observers share this assessment. In a post published on LinkedIn, the former Chief of the German Army, Lieutenant General Alfons Mais, made the following evaluations:

“Looking at these announcements, one could easily get the impression that the constitutional mission of the Bundeswehr is to employ as many people as possible. The key question is: Where does this additional strength, including personnel whose service has been extended, contribute to the defence mission? In administrative posts? In territorial defence? In the reserve elements of operational units? In closing existing personnel gaps in active units? In augmenting new capabilities aimed at NATO planning targets? In Lithuania?”

Pointing out that the issue is not merely one of quantity but of quality—namely deploying the right personnel in the right places—Mais indicates that personnel must not be stationed solely in headquarters, but in artillery battalions, naval surface units, fighter aircraft squadrons, or the electronic warfare domain.

Indeed, the ministry is also aware of the structural problems highlighted by the retired lieutenant general.

Even as politically desired record figures are made public, officials in the Bendlerblock acknowledge that the Bundeswehr’s personnel structure must be returned to a pyramid form to adopt a defence posture suitable for potential crises and wartime situations.

In ministry corridors, there is talk that the military in its current structure has “accumulated too much fat” and that its administrative middle has grown cumbersome.

In the pyramid model considered ideal for the armed forces, generals and staff officers form the apex, while junior enlisted personnel and privates constitute the broad base; officers and non-commissioned officers occupy the space between these two tiers.

A large base combined with a small number of command positions guarantees both a young and physically resilient force and the steady advancement of the most capable personnel to higher ranks through continuous selection.

This model also provides cost efficiency and delivers high mobilisation capacity through personnel who transition into the reserves upon completing their service.

Today, however, the Bundeswehr possesses not only a bloated upper echelon but also a disproportionately broad middle tier, resulting in a cumbersome institutional torso.

The ranks of young enlisted personnel remain insufficient, while older officers are present in surplus. A major who lacks sufficient troops to command produces no military added value; moreover, the prolonged retention of senior personnel prevents the promotion of younger soldiers.

Consequently, defence expenditures are absorbed by high salaries for mid- and senior-level staff rather than being channelled into combat strength, equipment, or the next generation of personnel.

Despite the ministry’s recognition of this dynamic, no concrete transformative steps have yet been taken in practice.

An ageing force with no gain in deterrence

To sustain positive personnel statistics alongside new recruitment, the Pistorius leadership is resorting to “retention measures” aimed at keeping contract and regular personnel in the armed forces beyond the conclusion of their service terms.

Since April, the minister has been sending personalised letters to non-commissioned officers and officers.

Opening with an expression of gratitude for their service, the letters state:

“Your final days in active service coincide with a period of profound upheaval. Our country and our continent face immense challenges. In this process, the Bundeswehr’s mission is becoming even more critical. Personnel growth is therefore our primary focus. This growth can only be achieved with qualified, high-performing, and above all dedicated soldiers—experienced comrades like you. Let us look at your professional future together. Your contribution matters every single day.”

The ministry defends these and similar retention measures solely on the basis of quantitative targets. According to its statement, “targeted individual advisory measures” conducted in 2025 alone prompted thousands of service members across all statuses and branches to extend their terms of service.

Yet this method resonates primarily among older regular personnel. As of the end of July 2026, the strength of regular and contract soldiers rose by approximately 3,000 compared to the previous year, reaching 174,700.

The primary driver of this increase was the rise in regular soldiers, whereas contract personnel numbers recorded a slight decline.

Although 56-year-old regular soldiers whose physical performance may be limited remain necessary due to specialised expertise, this sweeping policy slows the effort to reshape the personnel structure into a pyramid.

As the armed forces age in practice, debate continues over whether this approach converts the military into a more effective and hard-hitting force.

The ministry is also hesitant to publicly disclose the true scale of the personnel shortfall. The gap is not merely the 73,300 soldiers separating the current strength of 186,700 from the 260,000 target.

Regular personnel briefings omit the number of departures from the armed forces—namely the actual requirement for replenishment and replacement.

Over the past three years, an average of 14,000 regular and contract soldiers departed the Bundeswehr annually. According to the ministry’s response to an information request, this figure stood at roughly 14,600 in 2025, with similar numbers expected this year. Conscripts completing their term of service add to these totals.

A ministry spokesperson stated that they could not provide a five-year projection because the data fluctuates continuously and remains highly volatile. However, such an estimate is not difficult to deduce.

Following the suspension of compulsory military service in 2011, then-Defence Minister Thomas de Maiziere (CDU) began tying contract soldiers to extended service terms of 20 to 25 years under the “Personnel Structure Model 185”.

As the service terms of these personnel expire in the coming years, replacement requirements will rise substantially.

Experienced personnel planners agree that approximately 30,000 new recruits must enter the armed forces annually in the future to achieve the targeted growth.

Current figures fall far short of this requirement. The annual net personnel gain stands at only around 3,700 compared to the previous year; furthermore, this expansion risks being eroded by regular attrition rates exceeding 20%. The implementation of the new military service model is also failing to progress at the intended pace.

By the end of July, a total of 378,000 letters were dispatched under the military service questionnaire initiative, including roughly 194,000 to young men and approximately 184,000 to young women.

Roughly 96% of the men, for whom completing the questionnaire was mandatory, fulfilled their obligation. Among women, for whom participation was voluntary, the response rate remained at 4%.

Approximately 2,630 individuals who expressed interest underwent evaluation; following this process, 865 individuals were scheduled for deployment within the Bundeswehr.

This situation underpins retired Lieutenant General Mais’s scepticism toward the defence leadership’s personnel bulletins.

Mais underscored the gravity of the situation: “One cannot conceal qualitative deficits simply by cheering marginal numerical gains!”

Continue Reading

Europe

Europe builds drone defence walls along eastern flank against UAVs

Published

on

On the night of 20 August, an uncrewed aerial vehicle crashed near the Ukrainian border in Romania, marking the fourth such incident in the country within a single month.

The Romanian Ministry of National Defence announced that the drone, which had entered national airspace, came down in an uninhabited area approximately 4 kilometres north-east of the village of Grindu. On the same day, Moldova’s Ministry of Internal Affairs reported that UAV wreckage had been located one kilometre from the Ukrainian border.

Over the past month, at least six incidents involving airspace violations or crashes of unidentified UAVs have been recorded across Europe, including in Germany, Bulgaria, Latvia, Romania, and Moldova. Several regional states suggested that Russia may have been involved in these occurrences.

Following the crash and detonation of a military drone near the village of Crocmaz, Moldova recalled its ambassador to Moscow for consultations on 10 August.

Moldovan Defence Minister Anatolie Nosatii stated on 12 August that initial data indicated the UAV was of Russian origin, adding that experts were continuing to examine the wreckage.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova rejected the allegations, stating that Moscow does not fly UAVs through the airspace of states neighbouring Ukraine, including Moldova, and does not plan such flight paths.

According to a report by The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), the US administration decided to disband a strike battalion established in Europe in January to advance UAV warfare tactics.

Speaking to the newspaper, an unnamed US Army official said the unit would present its findings to command following large-scale exercises conducted in Germany in August and September, before reverting to its primary combat mission as an airborne infantry battalion.

Incidents involving unidentified UAV violations of European airspace have grown more frequent since the autumn of 2025.

In response to these developments, the European Union began discussing the construction of a collective defence mechanism along NATO’s eastern flank, termed a “drone wall”.

The European Commission presented the concept to the public in October 2025 under its Defence Readiness Roadmap 2030.

The planning envisaged the implementation of two projects: the European Drone Defence Initiative and Eastern Flank Watch.

The first project aims to establish a joint EU-Ukraine Drone Alliance. A €6 billion loan was allocated to fund this initiative under the G7’s Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration (ERA) programme in support of Kyiv.

Under the Eastern Flank Watch project, the EU aims to build a unified European defence system in close coordination with NATO against a broad spectrum of threats, including hybrid operations, Russian “shadow fleet” activities, and the risk of armed attack.

Encompassing multi-layered surveillance systems, anti-drone technologies, electronic warfare assets, and precision strike systems, the project is slated for deployment across all countries along the EU’s eastern border, including land and maritime frontiers with Russia and Belarus. The system is planned to become operational by the end of 2028.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced on 15 July that an agreement on joint UAV production had been signed between the EU and Ukraine.

“Ukraine has the ingenuity, what it needs is scale. Together we can deliver that, so that Ukraine keeps its edge and Europe reinforces its own strength,” von der Leyen said.

Formally launched two days later, the Drone Alliance was designed as a platform bringing together Ukrainian and European manufacturers of UAVs and countermeasures.

A total of 18 companies joined the initiative, nine from each side. Firms on the European side include ORQA, Indra Group, Fincantieri, and WB Electronics/WB Group.

Europe also deepened its cooperation with the US during this period. According to information reported by the WSJ, the decision to form a specialised battalion within the 173rd Airborne Brigade to study the Ukrainian experience was taken in November 2025.

Under the plan devised by former Chief of Staff of the US Army General Randy George, the concept’s architect, a small group of American soldiers from the approximately 600-strong battalion made covert visits to Kyiv to meet with Ukrainian officials. The unit also conducted joint work with Ukrainian UAV operators at NATO combat training areas.

The decision to end the battalion’s activities was reportedly taken under the influence of Acting Secretary of the Army Christopher Laniwe, who is known for his close ties to US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

The WSJ previously reported that US troops’ vulnerability to UAVs was exposed during the Combined Resolve exercises held in Germany in April and May, where Ukrainian drone operators detected and simulated strikes against American units and armoured vehicles.

Transatlantic cooperation continues across various channels. At the Industrial Forum in Ankara in July, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte announced the NATO Drone Edge initiative, aimed at developing UAV systems and counter-drone capabilities.

Alliance members agreed under this framework to allocate more than $40 billion over five years and to quintuple the number of trained UAV operators by the end of 2027.

“We are using the latest innovative technologies, investing in our transatlantic defence industry, and drawing practical lessons from the fighting in Ukraine,” Rutte said.

During the same period, Germany, Denmark, Finland, and Norway signed a letter of intent for the joint procurement of MQ-4C Triton long-range, high-altitude UAVs, developed by Northrop Grumman for the US Navy.

Germany has become one of the most active countries in the field of UAV technologies and defence. In early August, a UAV containing Semtex-type explosives was discovered at Leipzig/Halle Airport near a Ukrainian An-24 transport aircraft believed to be carrying ammunition.

German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt stated that his country had become the “target of hybrid warfare” conducted by foreign states, though he did not name a specific country. No further official statements were issued by senior authorities regarding the incident.

The Bild and Die Zeit newspapers reported that DNA traces found on the UAV matched DNA samples from a 2024 arson attack at a DHL freight facility in Leipzig, which German investigators linked to Russian sabotage operations.

Die Zeit also reported that security services were considering the possibility that the operation might have been conducted by Ukraine as a false flag action intended to induce the Berlin government to provide greater support against Russia.

The Russian Embassy in Berlin described the incident as a provocation, stating: “It is obvious that this hastily orchestrated provocation serves solely the objectives of Kyiv and the militarist wing of the European political class.”

Amid these developments, the Drone Defence Technology Centre was officially opened on 18 August at the German Aerospace Centre (DLR) test airfield in Magdeburg-Cochstedt.

The facility aims to combine scientific research, technology, and the requirements of security agencies to accelerate the development of UAV detection and interception systems. The centre houses the mobile anti-drone unit of the Federal Police alongside a joint UAV coordination centre established by federal and state authorities.

Speaking at the opening ceremony, Dobrindt emphasised: “The arms race in the UAV sector requires us to establish our own research units to keep pace with technological developments,” noting that Germany faces daily hybrid attacks from foreign states due to its pivotal role in Europe’s economic and political security.

Up to €10 million is expected to be allocated in the coming years for the development of the centre.

German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius presented the country’s first military strategy document in April. The document noted that Russia would remain the “greatest security threat” to Europe for the foreseeable future.

According to the text, Moscow aims to reshape the European security architecture by weakening NATO. In the section titled “Threat”, the document stated: “Russia is creating the preconditions for a military attack against NATO countries. This is already leading to hybrid operations being conducted against alliance member states, including Germany.”

The Polish government has also accelerated work on its air defence perimeter. Having announced an anti-drone wall project named SAN along its eastern border in January, Warsaw is executing the €3.8 billion project through a consortium comprising state-owned Polska Grupa Zbrojeniowa, Norway’s Kongsberg, and the private Polish firm Advanced Protection Systems.

Polish Deputy Defence Minister Cezary Tomczyk announced that 18 specialised anti-drone air defence batteries—comprising APKWS missile launchers, anti-aircraft artillery, machine guns, and interceptor UAVs—would be deployed, with work scheduled for completion by 2028.

The Baltic Drone Wall initiative, announced in January 2025 by Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Finland, is likewise targeted for completion by the end of 2026.

Designed to protect the eastern flank of the EU and NATO, the joint project provides for integrating radars, sensors, and interceptor UAVs into a single multi-layered network under centralised management. Participating nations plan to expand the network by the end of the year to ensure uninterrupted surveillance along the Russian border.

Experts from the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) note that while the EU, NATO, and eastern flank states are making intensive efforts to address the UAV threat, the proliferation of initiatives risks causing duplication of effort and uncertainty for commercial entities participating in the projects.

“Greater coordination is needed to ensure coherence across initiatives, particularly at the level of data sharing,” the report stated. It also emphasised that capacity building within the European defence industry against the Russia-derived UAV threat can in no way replace diplomatic, political, and military measures.

Continue Reading

Europe

Denmark trains first conscripts in Greenland amid Arctic tensions

Published

on

Denmark has begun training its first group of soldiers in Greenland. Following claims over the territory by US President Donald Trump, Denmark has deployed conscripts to Greenland for the first time.

Copenhagen has increased its military presence in Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, and has now deployed conscripts for the first time to the island’s capital, Nuuk, and the Kangerlussuaq airbase.

Captain Laura, a company commander currently leading the soldiers in Greenland, said: “The current state of the world means we need to become more accustomed to Arctic terrain.”

Greenland became the focal point of transatlantic tensions after US President Donald Trump laid claim to the territory.

Other European nations rushed to Denmark’s aid earlier this year before Trump, who had refused to rule out the possibility of military action, ultimately backed down.

At the height of the crisis, Denmark sent blood bags to Greenland and planned the destruction of the airstrips in Nuuk and Kangerlussuaq in order to slow the advance of a potential adversary as much as possible.

Approximately 300 professional soldiers are currently deployed in the region.

Around 100 soldiers from the Schleswig Foot Regiment will train in Greenland for roughly a month as the first cohort under Denmark’s new 11-month conscription programme, introduced in February 2026.

Defence Minister Jeppe Bruus stated in June that these young service members would be assigned there to “tasks that do not require longer-term specialist training”.

Denmark introduced gender-neutral conscription in the wake of the war in Ukraine that began in 2022.

Replacing the previous four-month programme, young Danes now undergo five months of basic training before serving the remainder of their term in operational assignments, such as deployment to Greenland.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey