By Theodore Shoebat
Angela Merkel just recently affirmed: “We can’t rely on the superpower of the United States,” which is just another expression of Germany’s pursuit of independence from the American security umbrella. As we read in one report from news.com.au:
Chancellor Angela Merkel, vowing to stay in office despite challenges at home and abroad, says she will work on Germany’s “under pressure” relationship with the United States but that Washington could no longer be relied on to deliver world order.
“We can’t rely on the superpower of the United States,” Merkel said, describing possible US tariffs on imported cars as “a real threat to the prosperity of many in the world”.
In a wide-ranging news conference, Merkel described Germany’s relationship with the United States as “crucial”, even after US President Donald Trump last week accused Berlin of being a “captive” of Russia due to its energy reliance.
Again, this just another example of what we have been talking about for a while now: Germany is pursuing military independence from the American security umbrella. If Germany becomes militarily independent, it would not be adventuresome at all to say that they will return to the warpath to get their reich back. As we have pointed out numerous times, if Germany expresses an absence of willingness to rely on the American security umbrella, it will pursue nuclear proliferation.
This issue was made known in a report addressed to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate in 2008, entitled: Chain Reaction: Avoiding a Nuclear Arms Race in the Middle East, in which it says:
“In the cases of Germany and Japan, both countries can easily obtain nuclear weapons but have chosen not to because of their integration beneath a NATO (Germany) or an American (Japan) security umbrella. Today, all of these countries have the technical capacity to obtain nuclear weapons in a matter of months or a few short years. Yet, they chose not to because of their respective cost-benefit analyses. Pursuing nuclear weapons demands a large amount of finite money and other resources and could invite punishing international political pressure and economic sanctions. At the same time, little need exists to pursue such an undesirable policy because these countries do not view nuclear weapons as necessary for their national security. This belief derives primarily from the fact that these countries rest comfortably beneath a U.S. or U.S.-led security umbrella. If these countries ever begin to question the reliability of this security umbrella, they would almost certainly reassess past nuclear weapons decisions.”
The reputable political scientist, John Mearsheimer, made a very interesting observation back in 1990, on how the fall of the Soviet Union will precipitate another war in Europe. Mearsheimer writes that before the end of the Cold War, Europe was ruled by the US and Russia, and since each of these superpowers had nuclear weapons, the threat of nuclear war prevented war between the two. With the fall of the Soviet Union came the independence of the nations that it ruled over. Thus Europe was no longer under the control of these duel powers, but now under multiple powers, and with a multiplicity of independent countries, comes nationalism, and with nationalism, comes war. As Mearsheimer writes:
“Most importantly, hyper-nationalism helped cause the two world wars, and the decline of nationalism in Europe since 1945 has contributed to the peacefulness of the postwar world.”
Mearsheimer is correct. Even Jesus warns about wars between nations (Matthew 24:7).
With the rise of the nation-state and the inevitable subsequent rise of nationalism, conflict is most definitely expected. The world saw this in the 1990s with the break down of Yugoslavia and the independence of the nations that was under it. Mearsheimer made an emphatic prediction that the fall of the Soviet Union will open the door for conflict in Europe:
“I argue that the prospects for major crises and war in Europe are likely to increase markedly if the Cold War ends and this scenario unfolds.” (Mearsheimer, Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War)
Roderich Kiesewetter, a member of the German parliament for the Protestant Christian Democrats — the same party of Angela Merkel — wrote an article for the Right-wing publication, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, stating that now is the time to contemplate “the altogether unthinkable for a German brain, the question of a nuclear deterrence capability, which could make up for doubts about American guarantees”.
With major German officials expressing distrust for the United States, and interest in creating nuclear weapons, and in the wake of the most prestigious scientific establishment in Germany, the Max Planck Institute, creating the nuclear fusion reactor, the Wendelstein 7-X stellarator.
Just last month, the Norwegian general and Secretary General for NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, said that he agrees with Trump that Germany must pay more for its defense, with one report from the Bundeswehr Journal stating:
Brussels / Hamburg. In the dispute between the US and Germany over the level of defense spending, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg expresses his understanding of the position of US President Donald Trump. In an interview with the Hamburg weekly magazine stern , he now said: “I encourage Germany to do more.” It is not about doing the US and its president a favor. “We now have to spend more on our defense because it’s in our own interest. We need credible deterrence. “
Notice what he says: its not to do the US in favor. Rather, it is taking advantage the US is giving to the Germans to boost their military. The Germans want to bring their reich back.