German chief of defence orders swift expansion of warfare capabilities
BERLIN (Reuters) -Germany's Chief of Defence, Carsten Breuer, has ordered the German military to be fully equipped with weapons and other material by 2029, a document seen by Reuters on Sunday shows.
By 2029, Russia may have reconstituted its forces sufficiently to attack NATO territory, according to estimates by Breuer and other senior military officials at NATO.
The latest document, entitled "Directive Priorities for the Bolstering of Readiness", which Breuer signed on May 19, said Germany will meet the goal with the help of funds made available by the loosening of the country's debt brake in March.
The defence ministry in Berlin did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
In the directive, Breuer sets priorities for the weapons that should be acquired or developed most urgently, reflecting in part priorities NATO has previously laid out.
Among them, Breuer lists the strengthening of Germany's depleted air defences, in particular with a view to intercepting drones.
Last year, sources told Reuters that NATO will request Berlin to at least quadruple its air defences, ranging from systems with a longer range, such as the Patriot, to short-range systems.
Another priority is a capability to launch deep precision strikes, according to the document, effectively hitting targets at a distance of more than 500 kilometres (310 miles) and far behind enemy lines.
In addition to pushing for Germany's ammunition stocks to be replenished, Breuer also orders Germany to raise its stockpiling targets for all types of ammunition.
Other priorities listed in the document are the swift expansion of Germany's capabilities in electronic warfare and the establishment of a resilient system of "offensive and defensive capabilities" in space.
In a speech in mid-May, Army Chief Alfons Mais said a large-scale social and industrial mobilisation meant Russian forces were rapidly gaining firepower.
"From 2029, at the latest, the Russian forces will be capable of a conventional aggression against NATO territory on a large scale," he said. "But they can start testing us much sooner."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Putin is preparing for another invasion while Nato is fatally distracted
At the latest Nato summit in The Hague, the alliance announced that members had set a new target of spending 5 per cent of GDP on defence and security by 2035. In part, this is likely to have been driven by a realisation that Trump envoy Steve Witkoff's shuttle diplomacy and Europe's denunciations of Vladimir Putin will not be enough to end the war in Ukraine. More fundamentally, however, members are waking up to the need to deter Russia from attacking a Nato country – which, according to Mark Rutte, the alliance's secretary-general, it could be ready to do within five years. As a military intelligence analyst specialising in Putin's thinking and Russian military strategy, I agree with Rutte's assessment about Russia's readiness for another offensive military campaign in just a few years. I'm less convinced that a Nato country is likely to be the Kremlin's next target, unless the alliance directly intervenes in Ukraine by deploying troops onto the battlefield. Nevertheless, what Nato does or doesn't do in the next few years could be highly significant in determining whether Putin decides to attack another post-Soviet state – such as Moldova. The problem is that increasing spending on defence and security-related areas will not do the trick on its own. Money and technology, the staples of the West's style of warfare, do not by themselves prevent or win wars. Strategy does. And a successful strategy must be based on a deep understanding of the opponent's way of war, addressing the key elements of its military planning. I briefed Nato members on Russia's war-fighting strategy in September 2013, just months prior to Putin's invasion of Crimea. Regrettably, no counter-strategy was developed by the Pentagon and its Nato counterparts. Hence Putin's invasions. Developed by the Russian General Staff and often dubbed 'asymmetric warfare', Russia's strategy borrows heavily from the classic works of the British strategist Sir Basil Liddell Hart. He advocated indirect methods of fighting the opponent, rather than the brute application of force. The centrepiece of this approach is to bypass the enemy's areas of strength and focus on exploiting weaknesses and vulnerabilities. Obviously, the war in Ukraine has developed into precisely the sort of conflict Russia seeks to avoid. But that doesn't mean that the Kremlin has fundamentally changed its approach to conflict, particularly when facing new opponents. Since Nato militaries are technologically superior to the Russian forces, Moscow knows it will have to rely on seizing the strategic initiative during the initial period of any future war. It will not be seeking a repeat of what has happened in Ukraine. Russian planners therefore envision undermining Nato's network-centric approach to war by disrupting its forces' 'kill chain', the process that enables military decision-making to detect, target, and destroy adversaries. This could be achieved by targeting, perhaps pre-emptively, the C4ISR (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) and space systems on which Nato forces depend. So Nato members need to do more than spend money. They need to understand what the Russians consider to be the alliance's vulnerabilities, and take action to remove the Kremlin's incentive to exploit them. There are five principal areas that require action. 1. Secure space-related infrastructure Russia has a formidable arsenal of counter-space weapons, designed to degrade or destroy US and allied satellites. It includes GPS-jamming systems, lasers, orbital interceptors, and anti-satellite missiles. The US Office of the Director of National Intelligence warned in its 2025 Annual Threat Assessment that Russia is training its space forces, fielding new anti-satellite weapons, and is already using electronic warfare to counter Western assets. Moscow is also developing a new satellite meant to carry a nuclear weapon as an anti-satellite capability. 2. Harden critical infrastructure against cyber attacks Russia has one of the world's most destructive arsenals of cyber weapons, a sophisticated doctrine, and advanced expertise. The 2025 Annual Threat Assessment warned about Russia's repeated success in compromising sensitive targets for intelligence collection. Moscow is likely to already have access to critical infrastructure in the US and Europe. Moscow has a particular strength and practical experience in integrating cyber attacks with military operations in wartime. 3. Establish stronger protocols to guard undersea communications cables Russia's General Staff Main Directorate has a highly secretive deep sea research programme, known as GUGI. Moscow is highly likely to have put this expertise into practice, with several suspected sabotage operations of undersea cables in the Baltic Sea since the war in Ukraine began. A similar risk applies to energy pipelines. In October 2022, the UK Ministry of Defence acknowledged that a Royal Navy frigate was deployed to the North Sea to assist Norwegian forces in protecting gas pipelines, after the rupture of Nord Stream in the Baltic. 4. Bullet-proof against Russian espionage It hardly needs saying that Russia routinely infiltrates spies all across Europe and recruits locals to steal military, political, and economic secrets. But Moscow has also been able to insert intelligence operatives to conduct destabilisation operations, targeting critical infrastructure. Some estimates suggest that such sabotage operations almost quadrupled in number between 2023-24. Multiple arrests have taken place, including in Germany, Poland, and the UK. But the alliance must take a more pro-active approach, neutralising and disrupting Russia's espionage operations before they are able to do damage. 5. Establish advantage in total combat potential Having moved onto a war footing several years prior to the invasion of Ukraine, Russia now produces more ammunition in three months than Europe does in one year. Scaling up production of air defence systems, tanks, drones, and ammunition is imperative for Nato to catch up to Russia and restock its depleted arsenals. Weapons don't shoot themselves, however. The alliance must recruit, train, and equip a fighting force sufficient to change Putin's decision calculus. Moscow has been mobilising overtly and covertly throughout its three and a half year war in Ukraine. And on Tuesday, a bill was submitted to the State Duma introducing year-round conscription for military service. If approved and signed by Putin, the law will come into effect on Jan 1, 2026. In Europe, only a few countries have mandatory military service, and so far most of the others are not considering it. But in a war of attrition, such as the one Russia is fighting in Ukraine, the side that has more manpower is better positioned to win. The good news is that the alliance has time to get its act together to prevent another invasion. It would be tragic if the alliance fails to step up to the plate now, especially given the colossal price Ukraine is paying to defend itself against the Russians. Nato owes it to all those dead Ukrainians and their families to develop a viable counter-strategy to Putin's playbook. Rebekah Koffler is a strategic military intelligence analyst, formerly with the US Defense Intelligence Agency. She is the author of 'Putin's Playbook', Regnery 2021. Her next book 'Trump's Playbook' will be published later this year. Rebekah's podcast Trump's Playbook is running on her channel Censored But Not Silenced and is available on most social media platforms @Rebekah0132. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
The next generation of leaders learn that Radio Free Europe is worth saving
It was an early morning, 12 days and three cities into our summer study abroad, yet my very tired students were at our hostel door, on time and dressed nicely, as warned. Our group, from a regional state university, had snagged an invitation to the Resilient Europe conference at Prague's 17th century Czernin Palace. Once there, the students perked up, dazzled by being in the same room as the Czech minister of foreign affairs and 150 other government and non-governmental experts from the European Union and NATO. They were clearly the only college students in the room. Later, one student showed me his notes. At the top, he'd written simply 'Russia = Bad.' I laughed, but it wasn't untrue. One after another, government officials from the Czech Republic, Latvia, Ukraine, Moldova, Lithuania and Estonia described relentless Russian election interference. Russian digital misinformation had provoked a 2021 migrant crisis in Europe, which has only worsened since the Russian invasion of Ukraine a year later. The point of the conference was for participating democracies to learn strategies from one another, because 'the information arena is a crucial battlefield,' one representative said. Ironically, they announced, the Czech foreign ministry's email account had become the victim of a cyberattack just the night before, albeit by China. One of those crucial battlefields in the information arena was our next stop. We had arranged to visit the headquarters of Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty across town, which was still open only because of a court challenge to the Trump administration's decision to take away its congressionally appropriated funding. Radio Free Europe, which provides uncensored, trusted news to audiences in 23 countries where a free press is nonexistent or under threat, is still at risk even after furloughing staff, reducing programming and letting go of hundreds of freelancers. Again, my students were awestruck, but for different reasons. First, by the numerous searches and scans to get into the compound housing the news agency. And second, by the reasons for the high security: Trump isn't the only person who wants to kill it. Nineteen of its journalists have been killed — five since 2018 — by regimes that do not want their people to have real news. Another three of its journalists remain unjustly imprisoned in Russia, Belarus and Azerbaijan. Most Americans know little about this historic service because the news it does isn't aimed at us, though it can be accessed in English on the Radio Free Europe website. My students were clearly proud that the U.S. government pays for real, independent journalism that reaches 47 million people each week in their own languages. Some of those people find Radio Free Europe at great risk. In Belarus, for instance, just following or liking something on Radio Free Europe's social media can land you in prison, we were told. Yet, they don't have any alternative, truthful source of information. This means that Radio Free Europe's Belarussian journalists (now working in Prague) know they can never go back to their home country without being arrested and imprisoned by a president who doesn't want real news. For doing this job, they might never see their families again. 'Our journalists really feel the mission,' said Jakub Tesar, the fellowships and academic relations officer for Radio Free Europe. 'We just always have to make sure the people who work for us understand the risk.' Yet, under President Trump this spring, the U.S. Agency for Global Media inexplicably disconnected satellites carrying Radio Free Europe to Russia, so its reach there has decreased. Such decisions have thrilled Russia, where regime officials told The Moscow Times that they were glad to see the service defunded, particularly because it reaches Russians without abiding by state censorship. The message got through to my students, who called the tour a 'privilege.' One later wrote that 'a lot of dangerous and powerful people … stand to gain by silencing the truth which these journalists seek out, often causing them to put their lives on the line for their work.' In summing up her study abroad, she wrote that she'd found a deeper respect for journalism, which is so much under threat. 'I just hope they know that there are people and students (like us) who support the work that they do each and every day,' she wrote. 'I couldn't even imagine cutting funding for an organization that brings unbiased media to places that don't have it.'
Forbes
3 hours ago
- Forbes
Safety Bodies Urge EU Not To Let US Vehicles Skirt Safety Rules
Independent European road safety bodies are concerned that the U.S. will skirt around the EU's ... More crash-safety regulations as part of any trade deal. Photo: Guido Kirchner/picture alliance via Getty Images. Europe's peak independent transport safety bodies have urged the European Union not to follow Japan's lead and allow U.S.-made vehicles to be sold to European customers without passing European safety regulations. The European Transport Safety Council (ETSC) has insisted that the EU should not allow American companies to sidestep EU safety regulations in the interests of lowered tariffs with the U.S. The Trump administration this week announced a trade deal with Japan, the centerpiece of which is a 15% reciprocal tariff on goods exported from Japan to the U.S. - which has American automakers concerned. But the fine print of the deal showed that American automakers would now be allowed to sell their vehicles into the Japanese market - without passing Japanese domestic crash or emissions regulations. News stories today hinted that the EU was preparing to sign a similar deal, allowing its automakers to export to the U.S. for a 15% tariff rather than building cars there, with the same circumvention of its crash-safety regulations, which are considered the toughest in the world. Autonomous emergency braking, ntelligent speed assistance and pedestrian protection are some ... More features mandated under EU law that are not mandatory in U.S. cars. Photo: Getty. In a statement released today, the ETSC expressed deep concern that the move could undermine years of crash-safety science and improvement and urged the EU to reject any such deal and insisted vehicle-safety standards were public protections, not trade barriers. 'We are deeply concerned by the trade deal reached this week by the governments of Japan and the United States, which reportedly removes domestic Japanese safety testing requirements for American-made vehicles exported to Japan,' the statement read. "This move sets a dangerous precedent - one that could undermine road safety in countries that have led the world in automotive safety regulation. 'Allowing vehicles to bypass proven national safety standards for the sake of trade expediency risks turning back the clock on decades of progress in reducing road deaths and serious injuries.' Signatories to the statement include the the Executive Director of the European Transport Safety Council (Antonio Avenoso), the Acting Director General of the FIA's Region 1 (Diogo Pinto), the Executive Director of Transport & Environment (William Todts) and the President of the International Federation of Pedestrians (Geert van Waeg). Others involved included leaders of the European Consumer Voice in Standardization, Cities and Regions for Transport Innovation and the European Cyclists' Federation. Leading the pushback were Michiel van Ratingen, the Secretary General of Euro NCAP (New Car Assessment Program) and the CEO of Global NCAP, Richard Woods. NCAP programs have been responsible for enormous steps forward in consumer awareness of vehicle crash safety and, more lately, in driver-assistance systems. 'Reports indicate that Japan will now allow U.S. vehicles to enter its market without being subject to Japan's specific crash testing or safety compliance requirements. We urge the European Union not to follow suit,' the statement continued. "Trade talks must not become a backdoor to regulatory weakening. Vehicle safety standards are not trade barriers; they are public protections backed by science and evidence. Weakening or bypassing them would lead to real and measurable harm - particularly to vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists. "The EU has consistently adopted some of the world's most effective vehicle safety regulations, culminating in the General Safety Regulation that is currently in force. These rules mandate technologies such as automated emergency braking, intelligent speed assistance, and pedestrian protection - none of which are currently required for vehicles sold in the U.S. 'We urge EU leaders to maintain this position, and to state clearly that no deal on vehicles will be accepted unless all products placed on the EU market meet existing European regulatory requirements in full.'While the Trump administration has insisted that its tariff war would bring jobs back to America, it was the Toyota Motor Corp whose shares boomed on the Japanese tariff announcement, rising 13% to a seven-month high yesterday. The Big Three U.S. automakers called for caution on the tariffs yesterday, with the head of the American Automotive Policy Council (which represents Ford, GM and Stellantis) insisting they would harm American manufacturers, rather than helping them. 'Any deal that charges a lower tariff for Japanese imports with virtually no U.S. content than the tariff imposed on North American built vehicles with high U.S. content is a bad deal for U.S. industry and U.S. auto workers,' the council's head, Matt Blunt, said in a statement. Auto Drive America, which represents automakers who sell imported vehicles in the U.S., had a different take, and urged Trump to reach similar deals with the EU, Mexico and South Korea. 'We share President Trump's vision to make the U.S. the worldwide center of automotive production, and our member companies need stability in order to create an environment where we can maintain our competitive edge both in the U.S. and on the global stage,' Auto Drive America said in a statement. The Trade War has been a collection of ups and downs that have driven automakers to despair, given that all U.S.-built cars contain at least 15% foreign-made parts. The irony is that American cars have been sold tariff-free in Japan for decades, but have failed to garner interest due to being too large and inefficient for Japanese tastes. Now, they'll be at least 15% more expensive to Japanese buyers.
