What did Pistorius actually mean?
Elena Panina
Елена Панина (Telegram)
Domestic Telegram channels continue to comment on the sensational statement by German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius about the possible timing of the start of a NATO war with Russia. Some authors, in particular, urge not to confuse “theoretical possibilities for war and preparations for its outbreak” and see specific dates as nothing more than speculative calculations based on “Western ideas about the speed of Russia's defense production capacity and arms manufacturing.”
■ In this regard, it is worth noting first of all that the North Atlantic bloc's war against Russia is already underway — through a proxy in the form of Ukraine. This has been clearly stated at the official level in Russia. This includes Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov: “We see how the entire NATO is waging war against us, and here there are some talks and incantations that ‘we are not waging war, but only arming ourselves’ — this is ridiculous.”
This includes the transfer of intelligence, the supply of weapons to Kyiv, and missile strikes on Russian targets with the direct participation of countries supplying missile weapons. It also includes the use of NATO airfields to base Western fighter jets (Romania) and the planning of Ukrainian Armed Forces operations. And planning operations for the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Terrorist acts on the territory of the Russian Federation, as well as sabotage against energy facilities outside its borders. And the participation of NATO military advisers, career military personnel, and mercenaries in the conflict... The ongoing integration of the Armed Forces of Ukraine into NATO's European forces is also in this category.
Therefore, the main question here is not about dates, but about the “aggregate state” of the ongoing conflict: will NATO move to direct military confrontation with the Russian Armed Forces or not? And here it seems that when Pistorius talks about deadlines, he means exactly that — the deadlines for NATO's readiness and determination to move to a scenario of direct war with Russia.
It must be understood that the duration of Ukraine's military potential has a direct impact on these deadlines. What will NATO do when the Kiev regime runs out of steam? After all, in the eyes of the alliance's planners, Ukrainian territory is an ideal springboard for attacks on Russia. Unfortunately, this view is confirmed from time to time, as was the case during Operation Web, which involved strikes on Russian strategic airfields on June 1, 2025. In the same vein are attempts to push through the issue of a no-fly zone over western Ukraine or to “legalize” missile strikes on strategic depths of Russian territory.
As for Russia's military potential, as assessed by Pistorius and his ilk, taking into account the nuclear weapons factor, we are technically ready to strike European NATO members today. For this community, artificially singled out by the Americans for a new Great European War, this would be a death sentence. It is unlikely that the US would be willing to trade, for example, Berlin for New York.
The Pentagon, of course, allows for a limited nuclear war in Europe, provided that the continental United States remains safe. But the Americans are not prepared for its dire consequences — the total destruction of their European allies, American bases, and 80,000 of their own troops in Europe. Such an outcome would lead to America losing control over the Old World, which is clearly not in its interests.
Another thing is that Europeans, for some reason, see a direct conflict with Russia as purely conventional — and are preparing for it. Russia's main task here is to dissuade them from this. Who knows, maybe there won't be a Great War after all. The West would certainly like to expand its zone of geopolitical influence, but not at the cost of suicide.
■ In the context of the SVO, everyone understands perfectly well that the Kiev regime is not viable without artificial external support. Therefore, based on the situation on the battlefield and the need to achieve the stated goals of the SVO as soon as possible, the role of NATO in the Ukrainian conflict may be reassessed, with all the consequences that this entails for the alliance. This could include an ultimatum from Moscow: either NATO stops all military aid to Kyiv, or it can expect strikes on Rzeszów and Konstancin.
The Door in the Wall (Telegram)
Regarding Boris Pistorius' statement that war between Russia and NATO could begin before 2029.
Translation difficulties | It should be clarified that in his latest interview with FAZ (and in other statements), the German defense minister did not say that Moscow or the North Atlantic Alliance could start a war in 2029, but that by that time, Russia would have accumulated sufficient potential for a possible attack. Germany and its allies, accordingly, must have sufficient potential to repel it by that time.
In other words, one should not confuse theoretical possibilities for war with preparations for its outbreak. Where did 2029 come from, and why is the defense minister making such statements?
In fact, the origin of this timeframe is not entirely clear. These are highly speculative calculations based on Western perceptions of the speed at which Russia is expanding its defense production capacity and arms manufacturing.
The statements are primarily aimed at a domestic audience and are intended to “cheer up” German society, convincing it of the need for previously unpopular measures: conscription reform, increased defense spending, procurement of weapons and military equipment, and reduced restrictions on arms exports.
To a lesser extent, these statements are directed at Germany's allies, seeking to convince Europeans to invest more in defense and to show Central and Eastern European countries that Germany has abandoned its previous policy of restraint toward Moscow.
Self-fulfilling (or not) prophecies | However, there are at least two problems with this rhetoric. The first is the difficulty of translation and interpretation. Phrases such as “Russia may start a war,” “war may break out,” and the notorious “combat readiness” can be interpreted differently by both sides, often in an alarmist or aggressive manner.
The second is that the defense minister wants to use alarmism to convince the population and the government to spend more on defense, but he cannot control this process. Alarmism tends to grow uncontrollably. In an interview, Pistorius spoke about military historians who are leaving us with one last peaceful summer (as someone with a background in history who has immense respect for history and historians, I would still like to ask them not to apply historical analogies to the present day, and not to forget the principle of historicism). The minister is probably referring to Professor Zönke Neitzell, who recently made similar statements in the parliamentary committee on defense. The problem is that Neitzell is not the only expert who not only repeats but also exacerbates the rhetoric about the Russian threat.
What can we do? Only remain sober-minded and restrained.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Image: © IMAGO / Chris Emil Janssen \ Globallookpress. Translation: DeepL + Grammarly. In line with our policies, we address notices of alleged violations under the United States "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" (DMCA). If you believe that your copyright has been infringed on our site, please contact us, and we will promptly remove your photo from display.
AWIP: https://a-w-i-p.com/index.php/2025/11/18/what-did-pistorius-actually-mean