Germany is systematically expanding its cooperation with Israel in the military, police, and cybersecurity spheres.

Agreements formally signed at the beginning of this year are currently being implemented. The “Cyber Pact and Security Pact”, concluded in January, provides for closer cooperation between the respective police forces as well as the establishment of a “Cyberdome” in Germany.

Berlin hopes that security cooperation with Israel will deliver “practice-based know-how from a country with a high frequency of military operations”.

Another agreement signed in February enables a major intensification of military cooperation, with the objective of making the Bundeswehr (German Armed Forces) practically “war-ready”.

The stated aim is for Israeli ground forces to transfer capabilities and experience gained in Israel’s past and present wars to the German military.

Through its “unrivalled expertise in ground operations”, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) is assisting the Bundeswehr in “adapting to an increasingly volatile global environment”.

“The most important partner outside NATO”

According to an analysis published by German Foreign Policy, German-Israeli military cooperation, much like collaboration in arms production, dates back to the late 1950s.

During that period, West German military personnel began training Israeli soldiers in the operation of German weapon systems delivered under a secret agreement.

Sporadic records document joint military training involving German mountain infantry from the 1980s onwards.

From 1998 onwards, exchange programmes for officer candidates were introduced alongside “regular meetings at the general staff level”.

Official German government data indicates that between 1984 and 2014, “up to 493” Israeli military personnel, including officers, took part in training and other programmes conducted by the Bundeswehr.

In return, 254 German soldiers were sent to Israel for military training programmes and exercises.

It remains uncertain whether these figures reflect the full extent of the cooperation, as military collaboration with Israel is generally kept secret, as noted in a Federal Government response to a parliamentary inquiry in the Bundestag.

Furthermore, German-Israeli cooperation is by no means limited to ground forces. Since 2017, the German Air Force has participated in multiple bilateral exchange programmes with the Israeli Air Force within the framework of the “Blue Flag” exercises.

Speaking on behalf of his service branch in 2022, the Chief of the German Air Force, Ingo Gerhartz, stated that the IDF was the military’s “most important partner outside NATO”.

IDF prepared the German military for operations

The intensification of German-Israeli military cooperation has been pursued systematically since the 1990s.

The growing proximity of bilateral ties was confirmed in 2002 by retired Lieutenant General Helmut Willmann.

Serving as Chief of the German Army from 1996 to 2001, Willmann was tasked, among other duties, with institutionalising links between his units and IDF ground forces.

Willmann argued that because the Bundeswehr was undergoing a transformation from a “peacetime military into an operationally ready force”, the German side “naturally” sought to establish “contact with armed forces that have more experience than us in this field”.

In his assessment, it was obvious to everyone that “cooperation with the Israeli military naturally provided us with professional advantages”.

In 2014, for example, a training visit to Israel by German military personnel was announced—though it took place with a delay in 2015—under which soldiers were to study urban and tunnel warfare.

The Bundeswehr underscored the armed forces’ intense interest in the “specific operational experience of the Israeli armed forces”.

Commenting on increasingly close military relations with Israel in October 2021, Colonel Juergen Haffner, the Defence Attache at the German Embassy in Tel Aviv, confirmed that “the Bundeswehr has an incredibly close interest in the IDF, and vice versa”, adding that the frequency of reciprocal visits was “incredibly high”.

War preparations continue in Europe

Today, as the Bundeswehr faces the requirement to become “war-ready” without delay, cooperation between the German armed forces and the battle-tested IDF is being further expanded.

On 20 February—eight months after Israel’s initial war of aggression against Iran and several days prior to a second wave of US-Israeli attacks on the country—Lieutenant General Christian Freuding, the current Chief of the German Army, and Major General Nadav Lotan, the Commander of the Israeli Ground Forces, signed a cooperation agreement designed to link the ground forces of both nations closely across four domains.

The plans encompass joint “training and exercises”, “joint capability development”, the “sharing of operational principles”, and “exchange programmes, especially for junior officers and officer candidates”.

Following the signing of the agreement, Freuding was reportedly briefed by Lotan on “tactical lessons learned from the current war”. Which Israeli war this referred to remained unspecified.

The report noted that, through the IDF’s “unrivalled expertise in ground operations”, it is helping the Bundeswehr “adapt to an increasingly volatile global environment”. Their cooperation was described as forming a “highly effective alliance”.

Cyber pact and security pact advance

Beyond armaments and military matters, Germany and Israel are also deepening cooperation between their law-enforcement and cybersecurity agencies.

On 11 January, German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signed a “Cyber Pact and Security Pact” to this end.

One dimension of this agreement on “digital defence” involves measures to intensify cooperation between the police forces of both countries, which is already considered very close.

The accord also aims to advance improvements in “unmanned aerial vehicle detection and defence”, realise the “establishment of a joint artificial intelligence and cyber innovation centre”, and support “information exchange and networking regarding a Cyberdome”.

According to the Interior Ministry, this Cyberdome is a “semi-automated system for the detection, analysis, and response to cyberattacks”.

Whether “response” entails retaliatory cyberattacks against an alleged adversary remains unclear.

Overall, according to a government statement, Interior Minister Dobrindt hopes that “the exchange of information with Israel will provide practice-based know-how from a country with a high frequency of operations”.

Editor’s note: Anatol Lieven, Eurasian Program Director of the Washington-based think tank Quincy Institute, made striking assessments regarding the future of the international system at the East-West Forum held in Istanbul on September 26-27. Stating that Western elites believe in the illusions they have built themselves, Lieven expressed that the “rules-based order” discourse is actually just a cover masking American hegemony. Reminding that the Cold War years were not a period of stability for the peoples of the global south, but rather experienced as a nightmare, the experienced expert emphasized that the policies pursued largely by Washington lie behind the conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine.

***

As a Brit, I have to say I would have no objection to such a merger if it were run by King George and his descendants. The problem is that unfortunately the balance has shifted a bit since those days. Though I have to say, if you were to listen to the British establishment, you wouldn’t always realize that we live in many ways—in America above all, but in Europe too—in a weird world of illusions now. And one of the most dangerous things is that a great many people believe their own illusions. And that brings me to the infamous phrase “rules-based order,” which of course is on the one hand simply a euphemism for American global hegemony, with the Europeans as American satraps or lieutenants.

It is nonetheless a myth in which, unfortunately, a large part of the Western establishment genuinely believes; they have convinced themselves that this is true. One of the key ways in which they underpin this belief—and belief in its necessity—is to claim, and no doubt to believe, that without this American-run rules-based order (with rules made by America and broken by America whenever it sees an interest in doing so), one of two things would happen. First, that without a global ruler, the world would fall into chaos and new conflicts would break out everywhere if America were not there to suppress or mediate them. The second belief is that if the world is not ruled by the United States—once again, with Europe acting as its lieutenant—it will be ruled by China in the same way America has tried to rule the world.

If China did simply imitate America’s hegemonic policies, that would not be an advantage for anybody, including perhaps most of all the Chinese themselves. Fortunately, I see no signs that that is going to happen. Behind this also is an almost totally false picture of the supposed stability and peace preserved by the United States when it was the non-communist pole of a partially bipolar world with the Soviet Union, supposedly in what Americans—and somewhat bizarrely, Europeans too—called the “free world.” This preserved peace and stability to a considerable degree in Western Europe, but it would come as a very considerable surprise to the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Algerians, the Arab world, Angolans, many South Americans, and so on. From their point of view, the Cold War was not a period of stability and peace; it was in many ways a nightmare. And many areas tormented by Cold War conflicts are in fact today much more peaceful and stable. Where there are really serious conflicts going on, above all in the Middle East, these are very largely the result of the policies of the United States and its local allies—and I would say that of the Ukraine War as well.

I won’t speak much about China because we have much better people to talk about that. It does seem to me undoubtedly clear that China is aiming at global economic predominance, as indeed Britain did before (though also through military means). There are no signs to me as yet that China is aiming at the kind of militarized global primacy that America has sought. And as we just heard, that is a very good thing, because if China had produced somebody like Donald Trump—or I would add, Hillary Clinton or George Bush II—the world would indeed probably have been destroyed by now. But this does not seem to be the case. Indeed, there is a case, I would say, for China playing a much more active role politically—not militarily, of course, but politically—in certain parts of the world.

Above all, I am not entirely happy with the term “multipolarity,” because if you go back to the notion of bipolarity or unipolarity, it suggests, perhaps unconsciously, that other countries have to attach themselves closely to one or other pole and have no alternative. That is still very much true in certain parts of the world, but it doesn’t seem to me that this is what most countries are aiming at, or what will be possible in the future for poles to enforce. Having spent a great deal of time in the countries of the former Soviet Union—I was in Uzbekistan in the summer—I have often heard them express their policies not in terms of multipolarity, but of a multi-vector policy: trying to maintain decent working relations with all other states, including their own neighbors.

In a unipolar, bipolar, or rigid multipolar world, subordinate countries often prioritize relations with the hegemon over their closest neighbors, sometimes even conducting regional relations through the hegemon rather than directly. That is ceasing to be the case. Countries are increasingly aiming to diversify their relations and avoid the American approach—the constant insistence that “you are with us or against us,” that you must be completely with America, and if you’re not, you are an enemy. This has been carried to grotesque extents by Donald Trump, but he is only exaggerating something we heard very often before from American leaders.

When it comes to an anarchic world—that is, a world without a ruler—it is a staple of anthropology that an anarchic system does not have to be a chaotic system. Anarchic systems can also generate their own mechanisms and traditions to resolve or minimize conflicts and pursue common aims. That is what we must hope for, not only to minimize the risk of conflict, but also because there are huge challenges that America, despite claiming to be the global hegemon for the good of humanity, has totally failed to address, and in many ways acted as an actively malignant actor—above all regarding climate change, artificial intelligence, and the protection of secure international trade.

Our anarchic system must hope for arrangements that will help us overcome this. But even if we fail, I doubt that many people around the world will look back to American primacy with much nostalgia. Thank you.

Opposition parties in Greece have demanded that the government respond to allegations raised concerning US Ambassador Kimberly Guilfoyle.

According to a report in The Wall Street Journal, the US ambassador to Greece, Guilfoyle, implied that her country played a role in the overthrow of the Romanian government and that the US could do the same in Greece.

The WSJ alleges that US Ambassador Kimberly Guilfoyle made these remarks in March during a dinner attended by Greek and American officials.

According to this account, Guilfoyle, referring to the imminent collapse of the Romanian centre-right government led by Ilie Bolojan, told Greek Energy Minister Stavros Papastavrou that the US played a role in this overthrow process and stated: “We can do this to any country we want. We can do the same here.”

According to the newspaper’s sources, Papastavrou said that the US could not change the democratically elected Greek government.

Guilfoyle’s lawyer, however, disputed the account of this exchange published in the WSJ.

The opposition PASOK party stated in a press release:

“The government, and in particular the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Environment and Energy, are the only bodies competent to provide the necessary clarifications and evaluate the veracity of the published report. Greece is an independent and sovereign democracy and is obliged to act as such in every instance and before all parties without exception.”

The Greek Left Alliance (ELAS) stated that the alleged remarks were “unprecedented and unacceptable”, adding:

“The government neither confirms nor denies the incident; it maintains its silence. For this reason, we demand that the Mitsotakis government immediately clarify to the Greek people whether the incident in question actually took place; if it did, why it has been concealed since March; and whether the government responded to it: and how it responded.”

SYRIZA stated that the emergent allegations are “extremely serious and the government cannot remain silent…” The party said: “If true, we are faced not with a simple diplomatic incident, but with an insult to the country’s system of governance.”

SYRIZA also demanded that the government explain why it insists on supporting the Vertical Gas Corridor and “Greece becoming more dependent on American LNG.”

The Communist Party of Greece (KKE) stated that the government “bears a heavy responsibility”, particularly in light of the visit US Secretary of State Rubio is scheduled to make to Greece in a few days, which aims to further advance US plans in the region and renew the Greece-US strategic agreement.

Guilfoyle had played a significant role in promoting the Vertical Gas Corridor, a regional infrastructure project designed to transport gas from Greece via Bulgaria and Romania to Central and Eastern Europe as an alternative to Russian gas.

Greek government spokesman Pavlos Marinakis stated that this issue “was never raised” and that such conduct would not be tolerated.

Marinakis also described the relationship between Greece and the US as strategic, stressing that the partnership is based on mutual respect and shared values.

The WSJ report also examines Guilfoyle’s activities concerning American liquefied natural gas (LNG).

Guilfoyle has reportedly promoted US energy sales across South-East Europe.

A separate section of the report addresses businessman Hristos Marafatsos. Marafatsos is said to have accompanied Guilfoyle to several official meetings on behalf of the Greek construction company Aktor.

According to the report, Aktor paid Marafatsos $160,000 for lobbying activities. Marafatsos’s involvement in this process has raised suspicions regarding the mixing of private interests with diplomatic meetings.