One of the most compelling narratives when it comes to national security is the threat of imminent doom. When a German general stated that a Russian attack on NATO territory could be imminent, fearmongering headlines quickly followed.
However, it is important to weigh whether such claims are truly credible or are merely fearmongering designed to achieve certain political aims. Is Moscow prepared to launch a strike that would likely lead to a third world war while fighting a costly war in Ukraine or is it not? In this case, the latter seems more likely.
While most headlines suggest that the prospect of a Russian attack is likely, it is important to analyze what Lieutenant General Alexander Sollfrank actually said. In an interview with Reuters, Sollfrank, who heads Germany’s joint operations command and oversees defense planning, stated that “Russia could kick off a small-scale attack against NATO territory as early as tomorrow.”
The German general also echoed NATO warnings that Russia could potentially mount a large-scale assault on the 32-member alliance as early as 2029 if its armament efforts persist, the Reuters report said.
But “could” and “will” have two very different meanings. Later on, the general stated that the strike would be “nothing big” as “Russia is too tied down in Ukraine.” This makes sense given the numerous reports that Russia’s stockpile of weapons and manpower is severely depleted. In fact, Russia has even resorted to using prisoners as soldiers to man the front lines.
However, Sollfrank and others sharing a more hawkish position contend that Russia will soon be at a greater capacity to wage wider war. He went as far as to say that “Russia has enough main battle tanks to make a limited attack conceivable as early as tomorrow.”
Nevertheless, he did not say whether there was any indication that such an attack was currently being planned. While such claims are certainly alarming, especially coming from a general, it is important to recognize that the German military has had a history of making hyperbolic statements.
In July of 2024, similar articles circulated claiming that “Russia is directing its army at [the] West.” These reports were based on comments also made by a German military official that Russia may be ready to attack NATO in 5-8 years. This begs the question: Why are German military officials specifically raising the alarm of a Russian attack? The answer is pretty clear.
The German military has long been constrained by a provision in the German constitution that limits government borrowing. Well, this is no longer the case, as the Bundestag voted for a constitutional amendment to change this rule.
Now, Germany is planning to double its defense budget, aiming to spend US$761 billion in the next five years. Necessarily, such a drastic spending increase requires some sort of justification. Claims of a Russian attack in the near future are the perfect justification for such spending.
Germany is not the only country to employ such rhetoric to justify its spending to its citizens. Other NATO countries have increased spending following pressure from the Trump administration for each member of the alliance to spend 5% of their GDP on defense.
As a recent brief indicated, in Europe, military spending is often unpopular, whereas spending on social welfare consolidates public support and ensures political stability during crises.
During a time of economic uncertainty, especially as concerns about an AI bubble and automation grow, less concrete talking points about spreading democracy become unconvincing. Therefore, the government and the media are encouraged to change their framing, which leads to more doomsday headlines.
Much of the power of the “imminent Russian attack” narrative comes from how often it is repeated. When statements like those made by Lieutenant General Sollfrank appear in publications like Newsweek, US News, The Mirror and numerous others throughout the West, a culture of fear is spread far and wide.
“Could” becomes “will,” and the hypothetical morphs into inevitability. This fearmongering sells papers and online advertisements while at the same time plying the agendas of military elites. This symbiotic interaction between the media and military ensures that measured analysis is replaced by alarmist headlines.
In the end, the threat of imminent doom at the hands of Russia serves the same function it has since the Cold War: keep defense budgets high and discourage diplomacy.
Conflating the Russia-Ukraine war with an imminent attack on NATO distorts public perception of reality and silences discussions about whether money would be better spent domestically rather than on arms. We have seen this playbook before; don’t fall for it.
J.D. Hester is an independent writer who has previously published on Antiwar.com. He may be reached at josephdhester@gmail.com and followed on X at @JDH3ster.
