Then there won’t be much left of Germany

In a recently recorded interview on KLARTEXT Deutschland, a serial of a private TV station in Austria, retired Brigadier General Erich Vad, a former adviser on military and security policy matters to the Bundestag and the German government, warns of an increasingly dangerous escalation in German security policy. Chancellor Merz’s declaration, made before the whole world, that Germany aims to ‘field the strongest conventional army in Europe’ by 2039, forms part of a strategic shift that is no longer geared towards avoiding war, but towards victory through military means in a war against Russia. In Vad’s view, this is unrealistic and “extremely dangerous”. Below, key statements by Vad are summarised and reproduced verbatim based on the transcript. This is followed by a personal commentary.

Doubts about the assessments of the actual threat situation

Erich Vad considers it a major risk that the shift in German security policy no longer seeks to keep war at bay from Germany, its people and its territory, but is instead moving towards it as if caught in a maelstrom. As Vad recalls, by contrast, when the German Bundeswehr was founded, the prevailing view was that, as a purely militia-based and defensive army, it had to keep a new impending war away from Germany. The purely military doctrine held that the Bundeswehr should deter a potential threatening power so thoroughly that war could not even occur on German territory. 
    Nowadays, however, the public is constantly bombarded with statements from the government, political parties and the media, all conveying the message that an imminent Russian attack on Ukraine’s western neighbours in Eastern Europe is inevitable and that, following their defeat, this would lead to a Russian attack on Western Europe – and thus on Germany as well. For Vad, this new version of the American domino theory is not supported by any facts, not even as far as Russia is concerned. Vad counters this with what level-headed experts have consistently emphasised independently of one another since the start of the war in Ukraine: following the US’s unilateral withdrawal from arms control (including nuclear arms control), Russia’s primary objective is the security of its population. Conquering Europe is neither Russia’s intention nor militarily feasible. The official threat scenario put forward by the EU and Germany – which Vad considers unrealistic – is, with its potential to cause panic, steering the situation towards a new major war against Russia. However, Russia is not just any adversary, but the world’s strongest nuclear power, far superior to the US and even China in terms of destructive power.

Aggressive language masks a lack of substance

Erich Vad is deeply concerned about Germany’s aggressive official rhetoric: “Given the actual situation, we should show more moderation and restraint. […] I don’t like it when our politicians use inflammatory language towards Russia. […] When you consider what a possible [Russian] armed response to Germany’s ongoing provocative escalation might look like, this brash style is completely at odds with reality.” Vad speaks unequivocally in this context when he emphasises: “With Russia, we are not dealing with just any country. Russia is the world’s strongest nuclear power. They have more warheads than the Americans, far more than the Chinese. Russia would, of course, in the event of a foreseeable defeat, if they were forced to withdraw from the Donbas – then Russia would go nuclear. Much like John F. Kennedy in 1962. Kennedy would have had to resort to nuclear weapons if the Soviets had stood their ground back then and stationed Russian – that is, Soviet – missiles there [in Cuba]. That is precisely what the Russians want to prevent: the West doing that in Ukraine today, and that is also the reason why Russia does not want Ukraine to join NATO.” 

One example clearly illustrates what the situation is 

Vad illustrates the true nature of the threat with a chilling example: “We signed a defence agreement with the British two years ago. It covered matters in the maritime sector, but also the construction of combat drones. We signed a cooperation agreement to this end. Last week, the British informed us that Ukraine is to receive 120,000 of these combat drones. These are capable of striking targets deep within Russia. The Russians did not take long to react. They made their position crystal clear: ‘Fine, but then we’ll add all the arms suppliers to our target lists too.’ This is precisely where Germany’s escalation is leading – into a complete dead end.
I am certain that as soon as the Ukrainians have these systems, it will be open season for them.¹ […] This is a disaster waiting to happen.”
    Vad issues a similar warning to those forces he considers to be acting irresponsibly, who would like to see Ukraine as a member of the EU in order to demonstrate European solidarity: “I consider this approach to be extremely dangerous. We have Article 42 in the EU Treaty, the obligation to provide mutual assistance. If we bring a country at war into the EU, we are bringing war to Europe.” 

Germany’s precarious situation

For Vad, Germany’s grave strategic error lies in the fact that, even after the Cold War, it continued to side entirely with the supposedly stronger party, rather than actively working towards understanding on the highly contentious issue of security in a world that had become multipolar. A sound security policy requires an honest, consistent foreign policy with an emphasis on responsible diplomacy aimed at balance. Today, leading German politicians boast about the fact that they have severed all contact with Russia: “Germany no longer engages in any meaningful exchange with Russia. This is a dangerous imbalance for Germany, extremely dangerous […]. If we end up with what the federal government’s ‘Operation Plan Germany’ envisages, then we have got everything wrong. If Friedrich Merz were to become a ‘war chancellor’ – the first in post-war history – then we have got everything wrong in terms of security policy. We might as well have the strongest conventional army in Europe standing in our backyard. It would be of no use to us. And that is where we need to rethink things. We need a new approach. One that requires us to admit: we must combine military strength with political wisdom, and ultimately also with a balancing of interests with Russia.” 

‘Strategies that knowingly lead us into
a hell of war bring us anything but security’

For Vad, another reason why a purely military security policy is likely to fail in a world that has become multipolar lies in the lack of persuasive power over the country’s own population. As he puts it, many people – particularly younger citizens – find it hard to accept the doctrine that Germany is being defended in the Hindu Kush or on the Dnieper (Ukraine). For him, this new doctrine of so-called “pre-emptive defence” represents a sharp departure from the essence and spirit of a Federal Republic that has long commanded respect worldwide. But how, Vad asks, is active peace-building in the world supposed to work if Germany, under the protection of a NATO that has become aggressive, actively supports a belligerent country with training, money, weapons and war rhetoric – and in future also with German soldiers? For Vad, this is a logical and strategically disastrous break: “Security guaranteed by the superpower USA and its interests is, and has long been, no longer a real security strategy; it is dependent on the fickle behaviour of the USA. The current national security strategy, however, must have the territorial integrity of Germany as its ultimate goal. These cannot be serious strategies that lead us, with our eyes wide open, into a hell of war.” 

_* * *

pk. Erich Vad expresses alarm, partly due to his knowledge of the recently published German strategic documents preparing for a major war with Russia: the first German “Military Strategy” and the “Operational Plan Germany”. For Vad, these documents rely entirely on the threat narrative adopted from NATO, which demonises Russia, and thus fail to fulfil their actual purpose in this world: to address the security issue comprehensively, not merely in military terms. The new strategic concepts apparently grant the German government the authority – entirely within its own power – to replace positive law with emergency law “in the event of an increased threat”. It is not difficult to see that this is intended to further stifle the already severely curtailed right to freedom of expression.
    The document recently published by the Swiss Federal Council on “maintaining internal security in situations of threat” takes a very similar line. Official Switzerland has not only voluntarily and uncritically implemented the EU sanctions against Russia, it has also eagerly joined in the demonisation campaign against everything Russian, thereby provoking astonishment and even outrage in the non-Western world. Now, on top of this, uncomfortable expressions of opinion that do not toe the government line are to be treated as disinformation and as activities serving the “enemy”. Yet this authoritarian muzzling destroys precisely what constitutes a genuine democracy: dialogue and the thorough discussion of differing opinions. Against this backdrop, the courageous, serious public warning issued by a German career officer deserves attention and recognition, both in Germany and in Switzerland. Aware of the situation, he makes a serious plea for a return to the true tasks of a citizen’s and militia army in a democracy. What he has to say on the matter should also be discussed in Switzerland and certainly not decreed “from above”. •

¹ This has now come to pass and has apparently led to increased pressure within the Russian population, including in key Russian decision-making circles, to launch targeted counter-strikes against the manufacturing facilities producing long-range combat drones. 

Source: KLARTEXT Deutschland: “Ex-General Erich Vad warnt vor Krieg: Dann bleibt von Deutschland nicht viel übrig” (Former General Erich Vad warns of war: Then there won’t be much left of Germany), 30 April 2026, accessed 10 May 2026