Russische Konfrontation mit Nato: Warum die Zeit drängt | Militärexperte Mölling bei ZDFheute live

ZDF

live

a warm welcome Russian President Putin is once again on the big political stage, specifically at the G20 summit, at the last G20 summits in Neudeli and in Indonesia he was represented by his Foreign Minister, Lavrov, and now appears again before the heads of state. Of the leading states and governments of industrial nations and emerging countries, although only virtually, Putin rejected accusations against Ukraine due to the war in Ukraine and at the same time his rhetoric was not as aggressive towards the West as we have seen in the past. Is this appearance understood? Asked. Like our ZDF correspondents in Moscow, the war in Ukraine continues unabated and Russia is said to be suffering extremely high losses, both in terms of soldiers and materiel, and yet

milit

ary expert Christian Mö

lling

of the German Society . of Foreign Policy says that Russia's position with its imperialist ambitions is the greatest threat to the NATO States, because now it is about preventing the next war.

I am discussing this with Christian Mö

lling

, who is now connected to me from Berlin. Good night. Mr. Mölling, hello, good evening, Mr. Wortmann. Yes, if you have any questions for Mr. Mölling. If you would like to share with us your opinion on the subject with Mr. Mölling, you can do so as always. by placing them in our chat or by emailing them to

zdfheute

[email protected] and I will try to accommodate as many as possible here in the flow that Mr. Mölling describes in the analysis of him, which I just mentioned.

Briefly, Russia would need 6 to 10 years from the time the intense fighting in Ukraine stops to establish its

milit

ary in such a way that it can dare to attack NATO, how is this analysis arrived at? Well, two factors that really make up this threat of war, so to speak, is the motivation of what Russia really wants to achieve and Russia has been very clear about that since the end of the Cold War. There are very early statements from Putin in which he laments that the end of the Soviet Union means that many Russians now

live

abroad, but Russia would not end where the Russian borders are, it would still be part of Russia, so to speak. , and that too.

We have seen actions in the past in which many Russians who were abroad received passports and, as a result, reasons were created, at least preliminary reasons were created, ostensible reasons were created to justify military interventions, What is now part of Russia's intention to restore the old Russian empire, so to speak, is Russia's increasing ability to catch up industrially and indeed continue to increase its production capacity. They are absolutely right, but at the moment there is no threat because it exists. There is a war in which the newly produced material or what has been repaired has basically been exhausted.

But the end of the fighting in Ukraine means that Russia has the new opportunity to use what is being produced there now and is being produced to a large extent. and increasingly to rebuild their own armed forces before moving on to theirs. Talk about the scenario and also about Russia's rearmament beforehand to understand what you mean in your analysis by the end of heavy fighting. What would that be like? Describe this moment? We use this word deliberately because we are not talking about peace, ceasefire or anything else. If we want to talk about how this happens and when it happens, we deliberately leave it open, but loud. -intense fighting means everything that we have seen in the last two years in the season without rain, where a lot of material, a lot of ammunition and a lot of people, basically in war, are destroyed or fallen, and when this stops, when the consumption of material at the front also ceases or is no longer destroyed on the way to the front, then Russian war production will be in a considerable position to produce, for example, new tanks and new missiles. everything that can already be done, but is still used today, mhm, you just mentioned it briefly.

Of course, we have always reported on the significant Russian losses in recent weeks, one of soldiers dying in large numbers, but. also from a large amount of material that has just been destroyed, for example in the Black Sea Fleet, where does the Kremmel want to take resources, both human and material, to become equally strong again, so Russia is On the one hand, currently we can still generate a lot of money from oil and gas revenues, even if Europe no longer buys it, the rest of the world takes it and also at higher prices because one of the Meanwhile, the effects of the war are that prices have increased.

This means that Russia can continue to maintain its income at a tolerable level and is willing to give up prosperity, which is also a significant difference from Western societies. prosperity, it can actually use a lot of the money it earns in the war economy and that is a crucial difference for us, apart from the fact that Russia is capable of training 140,000 recruits twice a year, which means that only in one year can do it. create around 280,000 people trained in weapons, so this has to be said carefully. Of course, there are already questions on YouTube all the time, one is how not, you can't trust that, if Russia is already going through a difficult situation. time conquering even a city in Ukraine, why should Russia attack the entire NATO?

Yes, that is a good and important question. I think the Russian strategy is not about defeating NATO territorially, but rather about inflicting a loss on NATO first and then. basically waiting for NATO to split over the issue. We have to, for example, reconquer the Baltics or we can accept what will surely happen then, perhaps an offer from the Kremmel to give up part of the Baltics if that happens, roughly. In the political debate about NATO, possibly the disintegration of Russia would no longer have to win militarily, but NATO, which currently remains a military problem for Russia, would practically collapse and many individual states would have to be dealt with.

That is the biggest risk. because the greatest asset that NATO has is the political unity from which the military force would arise, but they want to say that, as I just mentioned briefly, perhaps Russia's first objective would be the Baltic countries. That is a possible scenario. Focus everything on that. From the Russian perspective, it makes sense to simply look at where Europe is weakest. It certainly won't be the first to suffer a massive tank attack, but we are now seeing this also on the Finnish border. , given that there is an attempt to use instruments below the level of war to spread disinformation on the one hand and to sow discord on the other, these will be the points on which one expects from Russia that the West will not agree on what do now and when the first square meter or the first square kilometer is finished, whether it is digestible or not digestible, those will be the questions and I think that then they will depend on the weak candidates within NATO or the candidates within NATO have to be They are supposed to be much closer to Moscow than they could be to the rest of Europe.

We already have questions on YouTube about what NATO can do and what NATO should do to minimize this risk of war. They also summarized this in their analysis of various options for how NATO can now counter this threat. Let's take a look at this. My colleague Thomas Gons outlined for us how to arm ourselves against a Russian military expansion. NATO has simplified three options. According to the document, the risk of war is very low or low if the alliance invests quickly and heavily in weapons and armed forces in the next two years or at least in the near future.

Advantages, then there are better standardized armaments and a strong deterrent signal for Russia. Disadvantages. Costs are high in a time of economic problems Therefore, public acceptance is probably low Medium to high The risk of war only occurs in the medium and long term Advantages Reduction of spending spread over time and the Bundeswehr and industry have to adapt less quickly Disadvantages Weaponry equipment can only be used with a delay. Extradition means that, in the event of an attack, the alliance has little room for maneuver to react. The risk of war is very high or extremely high if investments only come when there is a visible threat.

Russia The advantages are the current cost relief and probably high public approval, at least if there is also a war in Ukraine. But the clear disadvantages, according to the newspaper, take a backseat: in the event of war, NATO could suffer defeat. or a division, then Mr. Möling, these different scenarios that you describe are each associated with a different risk of war, which of these scenarios seems current to you because yes, most likely my fear is that the big and important Los European states, which are mainly located in Western Europe, currently avoid rapid and high investments.

The goal of such a high investment is, above all, to send a signal to Moscow that they are not interested and should give in to the idea. that NATO would not be prepared because it is not about preparing for war in any way, but about convincing Moscow that there is never a military option to implement its political objectives. That's basically the main starting point, but the danger actually is that Europe, because it is currently under a huge financial burden and, on the other hand, the danger of war, possibly or the urgency to do something, will decrease again due to new crisis.

What's happening around us is that this takes a backseat and then basically you're too late and that means you're not prepared, which only increases the likelihood of a war because you're opening a window for Moscow where Moscow might think: "Ah, it might be worth it, leave it at that." trying, that would basically be the worst thing and even a late upgrade would mean you can still equip your army well, but the deterrent signal is that it should lead the other person to conclude that it's not a good idea. There is no need to attack me at this point, and in fact we are increasing the risk of war in Europe by investing too late.

You just said that NATO was ill-prepared, so to speak, what do you mean by that? A defense capability is necessary to deter Russia from an attack or to be able to stop it if it occurs, basically on the NATO border, but at the moment this is not the case. All NATO States agree on this and at the same time. All NATO states also agree that Russia is the biggest threat right now, so the text you just presented at the beginning is not from our document, but rather a quote that all NATO states NATO have agreed, which means that it is basically the ambition to avoid it.

But right now in Europe there is a lack of soldiers, commanders, general staffs and many small things. In general, Europe is currently only able to defend itself at a very low level and the important thing is that Russia. She is already producing it. That means you are basically one step ahead of us and we have to catch up with this step. It's not about continuing what we're currently doing, it's about moving forward and doing it very quickly so we can ship it. a clear signal to Moscow, mhm us Neo asks on YouTube how realistically do you see the danger of a mutual arms race?

If I have understood correctly now, then in this race, if you want to call it that, Russia is already two. Three steps ahead. Yes, you can say that if there is an arms race it is always a very difficult concept, but the level you want to achieve within NATO is determined by what Russia is likely to achieve in the next few years and no more. So it is not about preparing an attack against Russia, but rather about what Russia can achieve in the next 6 years, about what can basically be countered and thus make no military option for Moscow seem as plausible as it is good. all of that, expressing that now in tanks and airplanes would be a bit too.

Keeping it simple also has a lot to do with where the material is, whether it takes time to get it in, whether it's already parked on site, all of that plays a role. how capable you really are of defending yourself, Mr Möing, thank you very much for the moment, we will talk to you in a moment more and then I want to go into more detail about what NATO and Germany can do to prevent or minimize the risk of a Russian attack. Thanks for the moment to Berlin, but now we want to move on to Moscow, where my colleague Armin Body followed Putin's. appearance at the virtual G20 summit for us today hello Armin hello to Moscow hello from mosg to Mainz Amin how did you hear the speech how did you experience Putin's appearance today was a very unusual production that took a while to get used to or shall we say unusual A Putin was almost a friendly and conciliatory elder statesman in problem solving, staging what we have really experienced since the conflict over Ukraine as we have experienced it, that is, very aggressively accusatory, repeatedly pointing out that NATO wants to threaten Russia, that Ukraine wants threaten Russia, and that the West wants, he would not have kept his promises, he would have lied and deceived, nothing ofthis was mentioned at all, NATO USA, these words were not even said, fascists, Nazis, that is what the government of Ukraine often describes, all these words were not said at all, it was a completely unusual Putin today .

But then he also said at the G20 summit that we have to end the tragedy in Ukraine, how cynical is this statement? a very specific apology, he said very specifically that we have to end the war, which is a tragedy and that, of course, as you say, is difficult to overcome in terms of cynicism, but you have to look at Putin, what We have seen here follows A very cold and hard calculation. From the Kremmel's point of view, the Kremmel is reeling from the offensive in Ukraine. In the West there is debate about how long we can and want to support Ukraine.

What exactly is your objective? Now is the time to test how far you can go. You can return to this stage. This G20 summit was organized by Indian Prime Minister Modi in favor of Putin. People spoke one after another, no one could say anything against Putin because everyone gave their little sermon virtually and you have to know that India is today the largest recipient of Russian raw materials and that the Indian has obviously done his friend Putin a favor. . Another question: how do you explain Putin's virtual presence at the summit? Perhaps it should also be said that it was actually a virtual summit, so it's not that Putin didn't want to go, but that all the heads of state and government met.

Virtually, you already understood it. I've already done a bit, but I'd venture to say it was organized for him. I would dare say that this summit, which is unusual, took place. in this format so that you have the opportunity to do it all virtually and anyway, okay, important point. You just touched on it a little bit, so it was a production and the Kremmel was probably thinking about what signal it should send, both externally and internally, maybe you can describe again what signal Putin sends, so to speak, that the Russian population wants to send exactly : We are here four months before the Russian presidential elections, which are scheduled for March, which.

It means that Putin has set up a photo, I am on stage, look, nothing works without me when the great leaders of the world discuss the world's problems. At least I'm virtually sitting at the table and that's the message he's showing his people. Putin has the situation under control and Russia is once again WR. Now, after Putin's statement at the G20 summit, Chancellor Scholz asks Putin about Ukraine's withdrawal what reactions he already knows from the West to Putin's appearance today. exactly, the reactions are completely obvious, it really has absurd characteristics when the person who started the war in Ukraine now says that it is a tragedy and that we have to end it together; ending it is relatively simple and obvious, that is, with Russia withdrawing its troops from Ukraine.

This is, of course, what the West demands not only today but also yesterday, and for almost two years since this war began he took advantage of the stage to make his mhm Amin statement. Mr. Mölling just touched on it a little in our conversation there. What is also part of this analysis is, so to speak, a relatively high level of acceptance in Russian society of human losses in military conflicts. How is the mood of the Russian population perceived, also with a view to possible wars in the future? So, it must be said very clearly that Russian society is as cynical and harsh as it seems, that it is used to war, so when I think about my time as...

Adult, how many wars has Russia already fought? Tsechenia in Ukraine in Georgia in Syria that means that there is no generation of peace here in the sense that you and I are from Germany and D Putin also takes advantage of that, he also represents society for a long war, for example, now has a Now the introduction of a general ban on abortion is being discussed, which means that people have a duty to the homeland, a patriotic duty to produce children for the wars that Russia will fight, Amin, thank you very much for these impressions for this evaluation live from Moscow.

Thank you, Putin introduces himself, we just heard it from my colleague as the great mediator and bringer of peace, so to speak, how does this fit with what we are currently experiencing? Now I want to discuss this again with Christian Mölling. from the German Foreign Policy Society, greetings again to Berlin, greetings also in the body, he says that today he has not experienced Putin in a way that he has not had verbal attacks against the West for a long time. He presents himself as the one. Who guarantees peace? In your analysis you describe, so to speak, the potential danger that comes from Russia and also from Putin and, starting with the Kremmel, how do the two fit together for you?

It has been seen not only in the last two or ten years since 2014 but basically since the beginning of the 2000s that Moscow has a very clear plan of where it wants to go and where it wants to return and that it not only says it openly but also tells it. continue with actions The war in Ukraine or the war in Ukraine by Russia did not start only in 2022 but in 2014, even if Russia has not really achieved any success. This war has become the biggest war we have currently had. Europe in 75 years That's pretty impressive, so believing that Moscow is looking for alternative, non-military ways to achieve its goals is a bit naïve.

In this context, mmm, there is a question on YouTube by Silvia Greiner that. she is more oriented towards a diplomatic solution and she asks Mr. Mölling: Is Putin mourning the disintegration of the Soviet Union? Are there still possibilities for conversations with him? How do you assess this, based on what you can read in the sources? something in which there is a great loss or the feeling of loss of the old strength, which is also found in many writings that Putin himself wrote or that the people around him always wrote, has been redeployed in such a way that it is It's basically about bringing in Russia. return to the old strength of it and that basically any means is suitable for it.

In this context, if we now assume that a Russian attack on NATO, so to speak, in the event of an alliance, of course Germany and the Bundeswehr would also do so. I asked him how, in his opinion, the Bundeswehr is currently prepared for such a scenario, um yes, the Bundeswehr is very poorly positioned for this at the moment, um, what has actually been promised, so you can see the three divisions that They should be working. starting in 2025. At the moment it seems that they will not be able to be provided, at least not in terms of combat capability, as was actually promised, at least the first, nor the second, possibly either.

In general, Germany is fulfilling the commitments it promised. and what the allies really rely on, but it must also be said that this not only includes having various visions, but Germany describes itself as a hub, that is, as a logistics center, but our infrastructure is currently not in conditions to transport large troops. movements safely, so everything is from west to east, in one case across Germany there is a big question mark over whether our bridges and our roads will be able to carry that and in the third, completely away from the armed forces. I think that's very important.

The question is: will the population really have support for the defense of NATO territory and all the changes that are necessary to make this defense possible in the first place? That also has something to do with how we will create the possibilities of communicating with each other in this country in the future, so it has something to do with the digital infrastructure, but it also has to do with it, how we can make it possible in the future by allowing that military transports pass through our villages and cities. things that would change our daily lives and the question is: are we prepared to change our daily lives for this because we say yes, okay?

Is it worth it for us, even if we can't be sure that Russia will attack NATO? Nobody can imagine that. There's no crystal ball where we can foresee this now, even the majority of Moscow doesn't think they have this plan right now, but they're working through the options and saying we basically want it. In this case, as Germany, we are in a position to counteract this with our allies, I think we are not aware of it, that is what the Minister of Defense mentioned in a somewhat abstract way about the change of mentality, it is about the possibility of a conflict and that we can be part of it, not just spectators but really an active part of it, that at this moment this is not part of our everyday thinking and it is not part of our actions and that we have to look at it again Because of what On the contrary, the Bundeswehr and also the federal government are fighting a losing battle, because in reality it is not possible to carry out a defensive war without the support of the population.

I believe that the Federal Minister of Defense, Pistorius, has done so. There has been talk of the need to be prepared for combat. If I listen to you now, on the one hand there is, so to speak, an apparent lack of awareness. On the other hand, in the population, the Bundeswehr, which is now not positioned. Well, Germany cannot, so to speak, play a major role in this whole process of presenting itself as stable and strong vis-à-vis Russia, or not at the moment; that is also the reason why we are writing this document. written to make it clear that there is a deadline by which we basically have to finish, we can still do it, but politics has to set the course for that, currently we have, um, unlike Putin, there are a lot of words said, but the actions are still too small for us to fulfill our responsibility, which we have consciously assumed.

We want to have the most modern and effective army in Europe. We are very far from that. We do not have much time left to do this and to avoid a war in Europe because it can be made clear that it is not worth considering whether a war of aggression against NATO should really be started from the Russian point of view. Mr. Mölling, I would like to understand you again because you definitely have a strong voice, I say this now in political Berlin, what you are formulating there is a somewhat urgent appeal. Do you have the feeling that you are? not being heard or what does it depend on?

No, our task in the document is to discuss the different things. To collect information that was actually there and combine it with each other, you can actually see it very well in the We have made drawings to make it clear that defense policy is constantly moving towards the future and everything that needs to be done towards a future that does not can be quantified, which actually plays with the risk of war escalating. We don't know if we will be heard, at least we give the opportunity to discuss this document publicly from now on, that was our impetus here to have the opportunity to talk about what needs to happen and not only in the military but also with a view to a reliable arms industry, a picture of the arms industry that can support this army, but also in a much broader context to have a discussion in Germany about what is needed.

What are the chances of a war? We have a lot of people who are concerned about this. , and I have the impression that the population has thought through many points and sees the risks much more clearly than sometimes in political Berlin, a comment that is still added YouTube has reached you, so it is a bit like being an ally of Russia so to speak, I suspect it is long termThe division of the world into Brick and NATO is also a fear that you would share with the user, the fear you can have is a good thing and I think it is very important, we can still influence That's why we have too open a position. where you think We are observers, we sit in front of the screen and just watch everything.

No, we still have the opportunity to choose between the options if we want to play it safe, so to speak, or if we want to play. We play with risk and what we do in the document is what we show. Also, the options that exist for this are described very simply at the beginning, but basically there is a clear signal and we still have the opportunity to play it safe if we give time. pass and think that we do not want to put too much pressure on the population, then we are actually playing at risk. Additional commentary is also on YouTube by Mario.

NATO is on a different planet militarily, it is so superior that it seems ridiculous that Russia could seriously attack a NATO country. NATO is a different league if you look at the past. If you listen for 20 minutes, you probably wouldn't share this evaluation or, well, I think you have to do it, above all, that's the important thing and that's also the The difficult thing is to look into the future without believing that what you see will be reality. In the future, we are talking about a risk that is increasing because we see that the NATO States themselves are currently saying that we do not have enough ammunition and that there is no State inside.

NATO may now be prepared to fight a longer war; One of the most important lessons of the Russian war of aggression is that industrial support for the armed forces is avery central factor. In my opinion, the European armed forces cannot currently provide it to countries. To the extent that it would be necessary, industrial support is not sufficient. We have high-quality weapons systems, but we don't have enough of them. Basically, the problem is that quantity is its own quality and this war has also proven that. That is, if you don't even fight a high-intensity, high-tech war, but simply operate with a lot of mass, that's what Russia has shown, then you can be successful.

It is not about NATO being defeated militarily, so to speak. speak, but NATO is one of the options that is always considered a risk, even within NATO it can defeat itself by dismantling itself politically, but Russia can use NATO's fuse by actually managing to take only a small part of the territory of NATO and. then make an offer to NATO to say we will do a ceasefire, the small part of XY that could give up on that is not a problem, but that would mean that if NATO would accept this or some NATO states would accept the fact There would be different members of NATO, those who enjoy security and those who do not, which we basically accuse Russia of.

Hmm, you have already said that you do not see Germany as having the leading role at the moment. According to your analysis. He may now be in charge, on the one hand, of keeping NATO together, so to speak, but also of pushing for a strong, joint military NATO. Yes, Germany has taken responsibility. the statements of the Federal Chancellor through the statements of the Minister of Defence, we cannot simply leave that aside now saying: we are sorry, we are not ready yet, we are still in a position to be ready and the promises that we have made both To our people here in Germany and to them.

We have made these promises to our allies, it is not easy, but I don't know why we should abandon them now and therefore the politicians should be freed from their responsibility. security expert from the German Foreign Policy Society, thank you very much for your analysis of the questions. I would like to thank you for the answers to the questions and for your time this afternoon. Goodbye, have a pleasant evening. ZDF live today, you can find the latest information on the war in Ukraine, general information and analysis, for example from Christian Mölling, as always in the ZDF Today app.

Thank you for watching today, for your questions and thoughts, and until next time.