Putin woke up a giant from geopolitical sleep. A day will come when NATO will regret it. This is why

Vladimir Putin's angry reaction to Germany's last movements – new weapons deliveries to Ukraine, authorizations to use them within the Russian territory – reveals a weak point of the Tsar. Maybe he opens his eyes to the consequences of his behavior, writes the Italian-American journalist Federico Rampini in an analysis for Il Corriere della Sera, taken by Rador Radio Romania.

Through the aggression against Ukraine, he had already pushed two neutral countries such as Sweden and Finland to throw themselves into NATO's arms. Now, rejecting Donald Trump's mediation (no matter how awkward it was), little accelerates the re -armament of a Germany who had been pacifist and substantially disarmed (or sub -army).

And if Germany will take the war again, it will be serious, because it is the country that in the history of the twentieth century was the most serious threat to Moscow's security. Her awakening from geopolitical sleep was not a brilliant movement.

In the long term, this could prove to be the most destructive consequence for Russia of its aggression in Ukraine. Sweden and Finland were just a sample; The big shock will only come now.

“Hold the Americans in, the Russians outside and the Germans on the ground”

At this moment it is useful to remember the brightest definition that was given to NATO at the birth of the first Secretary General of the Atlantic Alliance, the English Lord Ishiy, who described in the following way: “Hold the Americans inside, the Russians outside and the Germans to the ground.” It was the year 1950, the Second World War ended just five years earlier, and the idea that NATO used to “hold on Americans in (Europe), Russians outside and Germans on the ground” reflected the spirit of the time.

The memory of Adolf Hitler and the third Reich was still very alive, and Stalin's threat was as real as possible, after the Red Army occupied several European nations and had transformed them into communist dictatorships.

That phrase of Lord Ismay was so brilliant that it was transmitted over the following decades, in different contexts and was analyzed from different perspectives. What did he mean? It was important to anchor America from Europe, to prevent it from repeating the mistake he made after the First World War, when he recurred in isolationism generating tragic consequences. It was also necessary not to allow the Soviet Union to expand its tentacles to Western Europe.

And the third point was not trivial at all: NATO, by the presence of American troops on the continental territory, blocks a new German reunion.

Because after all, Germany was the one who triggered both world wars. The Federal Republic of Germany, born of the post -war division (amputated by his eastern sister, RDG, annexed into the Soviet sphere), would soon have an economic miracle, would become a much richer and more advanced industrial and technological superpower than Russia. However, as long as the Americans defended it, it could remain unarmed, or almost unarmed.

Putin woke up a sleeping giant, will pay the consequences

A “parasite” of defense, yes, but by the will of the Americans themselves. In this regard, NATO was also soothing for Moscow. Indeed, beyond propaganda, many communist leaders have understood that for them, this “remote-distance”, it was an advantage. The Soviet Union had never fought against the United States; while his territory had been invaded twice by the German Wehrmacht. For Moscow the true danger came from the nearby colossus, not the distant one.

75 years after that phrase of Lord Ismay, we see the combined effect of Putin's aggressive expansionism and Trump's dissatisfaction with Europe. Friedrich Merz's Germany began to re -enter not because he became an imperialist nation, but because he feels insecure, scared of Putin's military endeavors, his bombings, massacres and violations of his sovereignty.

Dubs on NATO solidibility denotes that America is less “inside”, and Russia is less “outside”. Therefore, it would be extremely reckless that Germany would continue to keep its head, possibly even in the sand, like ostriches. Merz is not a militaryist, but he has to think about the future of his country, a security that he can no longer delegate to the Americans.

So, Putin woke up a giant asleep, and his country will pay the consequences. It will take some time, maybe even a long time, until Berlin rebuilds a credible army and a war industry that is currently underdimed. But the resources that it can dedicate to this re -monitoring enterprise are considerable, being much larger than those of Russia. Compared to Germany, Russia is an economic dwarf. Putin could regret one day that he rejected Trump's steps and forced Merz to a change of attitude.

America, with all its flaws, played a stabilizing role over 75 years

A similar discourse can be made in principle and about the distant East. Even in Beijing there have been communist leaders-Deng Xiaoping, certainly, even Mao Zedong himself-who, beyond the anti-American ideological propaganda, have seen advantages behind the US-Pacific military presence.

Even there, although there is no NATO equivalent, American military bases can be perceived in an ambivalent way: as a threat to China; Or as a guarantee against Japan's reaction, a power that has invaded and busy China for years.

Today, the Japanese leading class is in a situation quite similar to the German one. If he cannot consider the eternal protection of Washington to be self -evident, he must act. The same can be said about another economic and technological power that was still poor in the time of Mao and Deng: South Korea. Like Putin, Xi Jinping could prove, in the long term, guilty of a strategic error.

Reducing American influence in the Far East and Indo-Pacific stimulates Chinese nationalist pride. But what next? Who will fill the security vacuum? In some circles in Tokyo and Seoul there are now about equipping with autonomous nuclear arsenals.

America, with all its errors and defects, has played a stabilizing role for over 75 years, attenuating the regional geostrategic rivalries that in the past had led to terrible wars. The two wizards from Moscow and Beijing are playing stirring fears-and countermeasures-which one day or their successors could regret.