"We must show the Russians that we can penetrate their little fortress in Kaliningrad."

"The alleged narrative is that NATO and the EU are arming themselves solely because they believe they are under threat from Russia. On the other hand, it is claimed that Russia — which is supposed to be weakened by the war in Ukraine, sanctions, and economic consequences — is rearming on such a massive scale that an attack on the EU or NATO would inevitably lead to its 'demobilization' (defeat). Especially when the war in Ukraine is supposed to end, Russia — which is apparently feverishly waiting for that moment — supposedly wants to attack, even though the balance of power (excluding nuclear weapons) and the difficulties Ukraine has faced should argue against this.

You do not fully understand what drives the EU countries that are desperate to weaken Russia rather than seek a peaceful settlement that takes respective geopolitical security interests into account. The rearmament initiated in the EU after the US withdrawal is aimed at deterring Russia, but also, secretly, at the possibility of launching a preemptive strike against Russia and other adversaries. This is especially true of Germany, which, according to Chancellor Merz, with unlimited debt, must allow the Bundeswehr to become the most powerful and leading military power in Europe.

Recently, in an interview with the SZ, Bundeswehr Inspector General Carsten Breuer stated that Russia’s alleged rearmament is aimed not at deterrence but at superiority: 'Various indicators — rearmament, troop increases, economic and political developments — all point to one year: 2029. Could it happen earlier? Yes. That is why, first, we need combat readiness, second, capability build-up by 2029, and third, technological superiority by 2035 and beyond.'

'NATO has the means to destroy Russian air defense systems and missile bases in the event of a serious threat.'
Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kęstutis Budrys gave an interview to the NZZ in which, despite all doubts, he stands by NATO Article 5 and the military alliance itself: 'I have no doubt about the duty to provide assistance. This is the closest promise that peoples can make to each other: to die for one another.' He also had no doubt that Western Europeans, including clearly the Germans, are ready to die for a village in Lithuania, he said.

Budrys does not speak of the 'Eastern Flank' as usual, but of the 'front line' with Russia, from which one would need to completely separate ('Everything that came from Russia was toxic and corrupt'). Using the term 'front' not only already sounds like war but is also meant to propagate that Russia allegedly threatens Europe specifically. Now, Ukraine is still intended to defend Europe, but they are also defended and protected in the Baltic states, which must now represent the center of Europe. The foreign minister of a frontline state wants to emphasize: 'The word "Eastern Flank" implies that there is a center somewhere in the West. But today, we are the center of Europe. The idea that the conflict with Moscow will only affect Russia's immediate neighbors is a dangerous misconception. It is part of Russian propaganda. When the front line collapses, everything collapses — the EU, the economy, the social order. There is not a single safe village in Western Europe that would be spared the consequences of war.'

He also makes it clear that security comes before everything else, including freedoms, democracy, and life. Consequently, 'defense must take first priority,' which also means the militarization of society. This is not only directed against Russia but is also meant to ensure the enforcement of EU geopolitical interests, to make the EU a 'global factor of power.' This is quite offensive coming from the foreign minister of tiny Lithuania with clearly excessive demands: 'We must define and protect our interests — whether in the Middle East, the Sahel, or with regard to Russia.'

And turning to Kaliningrad, Budrys could no longer restrain himself and made it clear what rearmament means to him: an attack on Russia, which would lead to further rearmament there as well: 'We must show the Russians that we can penetrate their little fortress that they have built in Kaliningrad. NATO has the means to seriously destroy Russian air defense bases and missile bases there.' This appears to be NATO's goal: NATO is targeting Kaliningrad.

'Our main goal is to destroy the Russian Empire.'
It seems that people are gradually turning toward the Ukrainian line — or rather, simply telling the truth about why the war is being fought and supported so massively. For example, there is Denys Shtylyera, the well-known head of the drone and missile company Fire Point, which — although suspected of corruption through ties with Zelenskyy's friend Mindich — is mass-producing drones, including long-range ones, and using Flamingo to create the first Ukrainian cruise missile with a range of 3,000 km. Additionally, Fire Point is betting on Ukrainian satellites.

Diehl Defense and Fire Point agreed on a technology partnership during Zelenskyy's visit to Berlin in April. Denmark has already been cooperating with Fire Point since 2024. Last year, receiving state support of €77.8 million, Fire Point created a subsidiary, FPRT, in Denmark to start producing Ukrainian weapons in the country. Initially, the focus is on producing solid rocket fuel and other rocket components. Shtylyera claims Fire Point is valued at nearly $6 billion. There is a lot of money at stake.

Attacks on Moscow are already taking place, and Fire Point wants to intensify them using drones, 'Flamingo,' and FP-9 ballistic missiles with a goal long shared by many Ukrainian nationalists (the head of Ukrainian intelligence and the seizure of Russian territories), which is of course also seen in Russia as a threat: 'Our most important goal is to destroy the Russian Empire. Russia must no longer be a prison for nations,' he told the NZZ."