Anti-Russian Senior German Politician Calls For EU To Have Nuclear Weapons

Click to see the full-size image

Written by Lucas Leiroz, journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant

A radical wing is emerging among pro-EU militants. In a recent statement, a prominent senior German politician called for Europe to have nuclear weapons to “deter” Russia. In addition to being irresponsible, his words sound truly naive and show how the European”experts” fail to understand the reality of the continent, as they insist on seeing Russia as an enemy, instead of a vital strategic partner.

The words were spoken by Germany’s former foreign minister, Joschka Fischer. According to him, it is necessary for the European bloc to have its own nuclear weapons in order to prevent Russia from carrying out invasions against EU member countries. In an interview with Die Zeit, he stated that Europe must restore its deterrent capacity in the face of events in Ukraine. Furthermore, he also emphasized the propagandist discourse that the EU must avoid a Russian victory in the current conflict, believing that this challenge is vital for European security.

In fact, this type of statement is not something new from Fischer. He has always been an extremely pro-Western politician, having supported NATO’s military measures during his time as an official. Fischer was Germany’s top diplomat between 1998 and 2005, when he supported, for example, the illegal invasion of Yugoslavia by the US-led alliance. Later, in 2011, he was a leading supporter of sending German troops to assist American forces in Afghanistan.

As a member of the Green Party, Fischer is aligned with the most radical sectors of European liberalism, which is why he openly supports the use of military force against countries that represent some form of opposition to the political project of the Collective West. Currently, in the face of military moves in Ukraine, this type of mentality is becoming even more extremist among European militants, which explains Fischer’s words in defense of European nuclearization.

From a realistic point of view, however, the strategy proposed by Fischer seems illogical and naive. There would be no problem for the EU to have nuclear weapons to guarantee its own continental security. If operated defensively, nuclear technology is an important tool for protecting people and sovereignty, which is why Europeans could try to acquire such weapons to defend themselves against possible foreign threats.

The problem, however, is misidentifying such “threats”. When talking about the “Russian danger”, Fischer shows that he does not have accurate geopolitical thinking, since Russia clearly does not represent any danger to the EU. Moscow has never shown any interest in implementing measures that would harm the EU in any way – on the contrary, it is the Russian side that is constantly threatened through coercive measures, illegal sanctions and military provocations.

In the same sense, friendly relations with Russia have always been seen by serious European strategists as important for the bloc’s stability. It is not by chance that the so-called “Ostpolitik” was the main German strategic guideline for many decades, having recently been replaced by the irresponsible and bellicose anti-Russian radicalism.

Fischer does not seem to understand that the real threat to the EU’s interests lies precisely in NATO itself – and in the US, which is the real leader of the bloc. Fischer’s own country has been a victim of American interventionism for decades, as Washington has nuclear weapons in German territory, keeping Berlin hostage to US geopolitical interests. These semi-colonial attitudes are typical of Western methods, and there has never been any similar action on the Russian side.

To truly act as a sovereign organization, protect its own interests and prevent other nations from interfering in its internal affairs, the EU must reassess its ties with the West. It seems quite evident that current relations are extremely negative for Europe and need to be urgently rethought. In this sense, sovereignist projects such as the creation of a European army outside NATO could be resumed, which would make European independence from the US possible. But, unfortunately, European leaders seem to simply ignore geopolitical reality.

It seems that European politicians were deceived by their own propaganda. They really see Russia as a problem and the military issue in Ukraine as evidence that Moscow will soon attack European countries. This fallacious narrative, created to convince public opinion to support Kiev, is absolutely unsubstantiated and cannot be seen as accurate geopolitical analysis, since the Ukrainian conflict evidently happened because of the West itself, which fostered instability in the Russian strategic environment.

The case clearly shows that the lack of analytical precision and pro-Western radicalism among European politicians can lead to a catastrophe. By identifying Moscow as a threat, the EU tends to implement anti-Russian measures that will make the bloc a real threat to Russia, making expectations of conflict a kind of “self-fulfilling prophecy”. It is vital that mentalities like Fischer’s are prevented from achieving hegemonic status, otherwise there will be a significant worsening of European continental security.