The consequences of the intercepted German air force conversation mean war

The reactions of the German government and media show that no one in Europe is aware of Russia’s obvious reaction to a further step towards escalation. President Putin has already clearly explained this. – Analysis.

Peter Hanseler

Introduction

We have published the intercepted conversation in full and analyzed it in detail on this blog (“How German Military Officials Want to Destroy the Crimea Bridge“) and on ZeroHedge (“‘A Complete Disaster For The German Govt’ – Scholz Promises Probe Into “Very Serious” Leaked Recording Of Plan To Destroy Crimea Bridge“).

Taking into account all the circumstances known to us, we came to the following conclusions: (1) the conversation, which is to be classified as secret (NZZ), was conducted on unsecured channels and shows that the officers and thus the leadership of the German Bundeswehr acted negligently; (2) according to the officers’ own statements, British and American troops are already in Ukraine (we already discussed this over a year ago and have now been proved right); (3) the Germans want to destroy the Crimean Bridge, which is located on Russian soil and is a structure that primarily serves civilian purposes; (4) the Germans are aware that the use of Taurus would make Germany a direct party to the war; therefore, “tricks” were discussed to conceal this; (5) the German officers know that the use of Taurus will have no influence on the course of the war.

Following our publication, Chancellor Scholz confirmed that the conversation was authentic and that an investigation would be carried out.

Defense Minister Boris Pistorius described the publication of the intercepted conversation as a “disinformation campaign” by the Russians, although the opposite is true: Clear information about the attitude of German officers regarding an attack on the Crimean Bridge; admittedly embarrassing for Pistorius, but true.

The CDU man Roderich Kiesewetter, a former colonel in the German army, who is referred to by the media as a “defence expert” ( better “attack expert”), criticized Chancellor Scholz for ruling out the deployment of ground troops in Ukraine. Would people like Kiesewetter be ready to go to the battlefront? – Probably not.

Although the highest officers of the German air force have unequivocally confirmed in their own words that NATO is at war with Russia and that this has come about due to a more than bungling level of security in the Bundeswehr’s communications system, German politicians are not pausing to reflect on the possible military consequences for NATO, especially for Germany, but are instead pouring more oil on a fire that is becoming increasingly difficult to put out.

On behalf of the Federal Republic of Germany, allow me to halt and reflect on the consequences. I do not consider the whole discussion in Germany as to whether the conversation was published in order to put pressure on Chancellor Scholz and how and to what extent Germany should get further involved in this conflict (Taurus or troops) to be expedient, because Russia’s President Putin has already made the world aware of Russia’s course of action; and he has done so with disarming openness.

Russia’s strategy can be found in Putin’s speech

President Putin already knew about the conversation before his speech

We can take it as a foregone conclusion that it was the Russian secret services that intercepted the conversation and that the content of this conversation was known to President Putin before his speech on February 29.

It is therefore worth combing through Putin’s speech of February 29 for evidence of his knowledge and his reaction to it. Evidence of the wiretapped conversation and the possible consequences is not hard to find.

Precise renditions – sentence by sentence

We reproduce this part of the speech in detail.

First, Putin describes the West’s claim that Russia wants to attack Europe as inaccurate:

“Now they have the audacity to say that Russia harbours intentions of attacking Europe. Can you believe it? We all know that their claims are utterly baseless.”

SPEECH BY PRESIDENT PUTIN, FEBRUARY 29, 2024, P. 4

And immediately afterwards he mentions the discussion of the German officers:

“And at the same time, they are selecting targets to strike on our territory and contemplating the most efficient means of destruction.”

SPEECH BY PRESIDENT PUTIN, FEBRUARY 29, 2024, P. 4

He then mentions the official discussion about the deployment of NATO troops. We know – confirmed by the officers in the intercepted telephone conversation – that NATO troops are already in Ukraine.

“Now they have started talking about the possibility of deploying NATO military contingents to Ukraine.”

SPEECH BY PRESIDENT PUTIN, FEBRUARY 29, 2024, P. 4

The next statement refers unequivocally to the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941.

“But we remember what happened to those who sent their con2ngents to the territory of our country once before.”

SPEECH BY PRESIDENT PUTIN, FEBRUARY 29, 2024, P. 4

Now Putin explains that Russia will not defend itself on Russian soil, but due to the capabilities of Russian weapons (which he described again in a previous section of his speech) Germany must expect that targets in Germany will be attacked:

“Today, any potential aggressors will face far graver consequences. They must grasp that we also have weapons – yes, they know this, as I have just said – capable of striking targets on their territory.”

SPEECH BY PRESIDENT PUTIN, FEBRUARY 29, 2024, P. 4

Following this quote, President Putin also refers to the danger of nuclear escalation. The Western press combines these two statements and claims that Putin is threatening nuclear war – this is not the case. Putin is openly threatening Germany with a conventional strike. It is astonishing how sloppily the West reads President Putin’s statements. Or rather – how purposefully it bends them to suit its own purposes.

A final warning

How should these statements by President Putin be interpreted? If you follow Putin’s speeches over the last 23 years, they are characterized above all by one thing: In contrast to Western politicians, Putin has always stood by what he said. He does what he says. Putin was and is transparent in his statements. However, his warnings come very early so as not to lose the element of surprise in an escalation.

If we apply these principles to his speech on February 29, Putin’s statements can be classified as follows:

He is of the opinion that NATO is already at war with Russia, as confirmed by the officers in the wiretapped conversation.

In my opinion, his statements should be interpreted in such a way that President Putin holds out the prospect to NATO or Germany in the event of an attack – e.g. on the Crimean Bridge – that Russia will feel free to attack targets in Germany in such a case, as an attack on the Crimean Bridge by Taurus is not even possible without the direct involvement of the German armed forces.

Possible target

The German headquarters of MBDA, the manufacturer of Taurus, is located in Schrobenhausen, approx. 60 km north of Munich, just over 1,600 km from the Russian border.

From the officers’ conversation it emerges that the planning, i.e. the programming of the Taurus could be carried out at MBDA – quote:

«Können wir den Trick anwenden, dass alle Daten über MBDA [Hersteller] laufen, um eine direkte Verbindung zur Bundeswehr- Ukraine nicht zu zeigen? Wir planen die Daten und fahren die dann im Auto durch Polen in die Ukraine.»

INTERCEPTED CONVERSATION MINUTE 29:05

MBDA’s headquarters are located away from the town of Schrobenhausen, some distance from the residential area in a forest clearing.

There should be no illusions as to whether Russian weapons are capable of covering this distance unhindered and razing the MBDA-Germany headquarters to the ground.

What would be the reaction from Germany

If this attack is carried out by Russia, the question arises as to what options would be open to Germany or NATO in response.

Declaring war or invoking Article 5 of the NATO Charter would have no effect, as Germany and NATO are already verifiably at war with Russia, even in the opinion of German officers. This is also the clear position of President Putin.

In response to such an attack, Germany and NATO will therefore be free to manifest their indignation or make further threatening gestures.

Of course, NATO will then be at liberty to officially send ground troops to Russia and to attack Russia with aircraft and missiles. The main American weapon of the last 80 years – aircraft carriers – will not be used.

Conclusion

NATO is already at war with Russia, as we discussed at the beginning of February 2023. Now, any remaining doubts have been dispelled by statements from Germany.

President Putin has – probably for the last time – warned NATO and especially Germany not to step up to the next level of escalation – this is clear from the Russian President’s speech on February 29.

In my opinion, the quotes from President Putin’s speech cited in this article were the final warning to Germany and NATO. Relying on the Kremlin to issue another warning could prove fatal. By issuing further warnings, Russia might not only lose the element of surprise, but also some of its credibility, which is not desirable.

Based on statements by German politicians, such as Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, who dismissed the scandal as a “disinformation campaign” by the Russians, it appears that Germany’s responsible politicians have probably not read President Putin’s speech carefully and would be completely surprised by a military response from Russia.

If Russia wants to administer a shock therapy to Germany, the headquarters of the Taurus manufacturer in Germany is a good place to start. It is located in a forest clearing, far enough away from civilian facilities, and could be razed to the ground within minutes.

Since NATO is already at war with Russia, a declaration of war by Germany or the invocation of Article 5 of the NATO Charter would be irrelevant.

The only military option open to NATO in this case would be an invasion of Russia.

Before making such a decision, it would be highly advisable – especially for the German leadership – to take a look at the history books.