The Bundeswehr scandal: loose ends

There are many ‘loose ends’ in the story about the Bundeswehr generals discussing how to use Taurus missiles to destroy the Kerch (Crimea) bridge, not least of which is the question of Russians supposedly breaking secure communications lines to obtain the recording which RT’s Margarita Simonyan made public.  Just how complicated and rife with speculation the entire scandal may be was made clear yesterday by a certain Alexander Sosnovsky in his appearance as a panelist on the Evening with Vladimir Solovyov talk show.

Born in Kiev, Sosnovsky is a naturalized German who arrived in the country in the 1990s and has made a career as a university and think tank lecturer on international politics. He is also the editor of the internet journal World Economy. Sosnovsky’s side line is as guest on Russian state television talk shows, either in studio in Moscow or by remote from Berlin, as was the case yesterday when he spoke from behind the wheel of his parked car. One may assume that Sosnovsky is paid handsomely for his time on Russian television, unlike the domestic Russian panelists who are treated to a cup of coffee, a little sandwich and a handshake.

Most of Sosnovsky’s appearances on the Solovyov show have been empty of content from my perspective. Given his place of residence and Jewish identity, Sosnovsky regularly does verbal ‘high fives’ with the program host and little more. But his ten minutes at the microphone last night caught my full attention.

Sosnovsky did what the Financial Times journalists in their feature article on the scandal failed to do: he asked who were the generals recorded on the tapes, what are their relations to the civilian authorities in Germany and to Big Brother in Washington. When you do that, the plot really thickens.

The overall commander of the Luftwaffe, Lt General Gerhartz is very close to German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, who depends on him for advice on military questions since he, Pistorius, is clueless. Pistorius received a higher education in political science and has had a government career at the municipal level (Osnabruck) followed by service as Minister of Internal Affairs in Lower Saxony for 2013-23.  He was named Defense Minister just over a year ago.

Of course, there is nothing surprising in the fact that a person totally incompetent in military affairs should have been appointed to run the Defense Ministry in Germany.  After all, before she was ‘kicked upstairs’ to head the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen had been the Defense Minister of Germany and her professional training was as a….gynecologist.

Pistorius is a member of the same party as Scholz (Social Democrats) and is perceived as more popular with the broad public. Certainly he is positioned as more hawkish on Russia and more determined than the chancellor.

Sosnovsky speculates that the discussion of possibilities for using Germany’s 500 km range, air launched Taurus cruise missiles to attack the Kerch (Crimea) bridge, a discussion in which Gerhartz acted as moderator, was intended to find holes in the Chancellor’s arguments against turning over these weapons to the Ukrainians. The fact that their conversation was overheard, that is to say ‘tapped,’ by outsiders may not have been an accident but instead was their very intention.  In short, Sosnovsky is suggesting that a putsch to oust Scholz from power may have been the real intent of the plotters.

This scenario is supported by the use of communication lines that were not and could not be completely secure. Discussions of such confidential security issues are, by military regulation, never to be held with anyone outside the boundaries of the Federal Republic.  And yet one of the key participants, Erik Gräfe, was in Singapore at the time and the line was WebEx internet telephony from Cisco, meaning that U.S. intelligence could have easily intercepted it, not to mention the intelligence gatherers of another 15 countries, including Russia.

 As Sosnovsky points out, Gräfe was not vacationing in Singapore. No, he was just on a stopover on his way to Alaska.  To Alaska?  In this regard, it is highly relevant to mention that Gräfe has had close professional relations with the Americans. At the end of 2019, he was appointed as the Federal Republic’s military attaché in the German embassy in Washington. This was when he was promoted to the rank of Brigadier General.

I will take a step beyond the educated guesswork of Mr. Sosnovsky and ask whether it was not indeed Washington that was behind this putsch plot, since to its more rabid Russophobes in the Biden administration Scholz is not fit to purpose.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024

Der Bundeswehr Skandal: unbeantwortete Fragen

Es gibt viele “offene Fagen” in der Geschichte über die Bundeswehrgeneräle, die darüber diskutiert haben, wie Taurus-Raketen zur Zerstörung der Brücke von Kertsch (Krim) eingesetzt werden könnten, nicht zuletzt die Frage, wie die Russen die angeblich gesicherte Kommunikationsleitungen angezapft haben, um an die Aufnahme zu gelangen, die Margarita Simonyan von RT veröffentlicht hat. Wie kompliziert und voller Spekulationen der ganze Skandal ist, machte gestern ein gewisser Alexander Sosnovsky bei seinem Auftritt in der Talkshow “Abend mit Vladimir Solovyov” deutlich.

Der in Kiew geborene Sosnovsky ist eingebürgerter Deutscher, der in den 1990er Jahren ins Land kam und als Dozent für internationale Politik an Universitäten und Think Tanks Karriere gemacht hat. Außerdem ist er Herausgeber der Internet-Zeitschrift World Economy. Sosnovskys Nebenbeschäftigung ist die Teilnahme an Talkshows des russischen Staatsfernsehens, entweder im Studio in Moskau oder per Fernübertragung aus Berlin, wie gestern, als er hinter dem Steuer seines geparkten Autos sprach. Man kann davon ausgehen, dass Sosnovsky für seine Zeit im russischen Fernsehen gut bezahlt wird, im Gegensatz zu den einheimischen russischen Diskussionsteilnehmern, die mit einer Tasse Kaffee, einem kleinen Sandwich und einem Händedruck bedacht werden.

Die meisten von Sosnovskys Auftritten in der Solovyov-Show waren aus meiner Sicht inhaltsleer. In Anbetracht seines Wohnorts und seiner jüdischen Identität gibt Sosnovsky dem Moderator regelmäßig verbale “High Fives” und wenig mehr. Aber seine zehn Minuten am Mikrofon gestern Abend haben meine volle Aufmerksamkeit erregt.

Sosnovsky tat das, was die Journalisten der Financial Times in ihrem Artikel über den Skandal versäumt hatten: Er fragte, wer die Generäle auf den Aufzeichnungen sind, welche Beziehungen sie zu den zivilen Behörden in Deutschland und zu Big Brother in Washington haben. Wenn man das tut, wird die Sache richtig interessant.

Der Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe, Generalleutnant Gerhartz, steht dem deutschen Verteidigungsminister Boris Pistorius sehr nahe, der sich in militärischen Fragen von ihm beraten lässt, da er, Pistorius, keine Ahnung hat. Pistorius hat ein Hochschulstudium der Politikwissenschaft absolviert und hat eine Regierungskarriere auf kommunaler Ebene (Osnabrück) gemacht, gefolgt von einer Tätigkeit als Innenminister in Niedersachsen von 2013-23. Vor etwas mehr als einem Jahr wurde er zum Verteidigungsminister ernannt.

Natürlich ist es nicht verwunderlich, dass eine in militärischen Angelegenheiten völlig inkompetente Person mit der Leitung des Verteidigungsministeriums in Deutschland betraut wurde. Schließlich war Ursula von der Leyen, bevor sie an die Spitze der Europäischen Kommission versetzt wurde, deutsche Verteidigungsministerin und hat eine Ausbildung als …. Gynäkologin.

Pistorius ist Mitglied derselben Partei wie Scholz (Sozialdemokraten) und wird in der breiten Öffentlichkeit als beliebter wahrgenommen. Sicherlich wird er in Bezug auf Russland als härter und entschlossener eingeschätzt als der Bundeskanzler.

Sosnovsky vermutet, dass die von Gerhartz moderierte Diskussion über die Möglichkeiten des Einsatzes der deutschen luftgestützten Taurus-Marschflugkörper mit einer Reichweite von 500 km zum Angriff auf die Brücke von Kertsch (Krim) dazu diente, die Argumente des Kanzlers gegen die Übergabe dieser Waffen an die Ukraine zu entkräften. Dass das Gespräch von Außenstehenden mitgehört, d.h. “abgehört” wurde, war möglicherweise kein Zufall, sondern die eigentliche Absicht. Kurzum, Sosnovsky deutet an, dass ein Putsch zur Entmachtung von Scholz die wahre Absicht der Verschwörer gewesen sein könnte.

Dieses Szenario wird durch die Nutzung von Kommunikationsleitungen unterstützt, die nicht vollständig sicher waren und sein konnten. Gespräche über solch vertrauliche Sicherheitsfragen dürfen nach militärischen Vorschriften niemals mit Personen außerhalb der Grenzen der Bundesrepublik geführt werden. Dennoch befand sich einer der Hauptteilnehmer, Erik Gräfe, zu dieser Zeit in Singapur, und die Leitung war eine WebEx-Internettelefonie von Cisco, was bedeutet, dass der US-Geheimdienst sie leicht hätte abhören können, ganz zu schweigen von den Nachrichtendienstlern weiterer 15 Länder, darunter Russland.

Wie Sosnovsky feststellt, machte Gräfe keinen Urlaub in Singapur. Nein, er war nur auf einem Zwischenstopp auf seinem Weg nach Alaska. Nach Alaska? In diesem Zusammenhang ist es höchst relevant zu erwähnen, dass Gräfe enge berufliche Beziehungen zu den Amerikanern unterhielt. Ende 2019 wurde er zum Militärattaché der Bundesrepublik in der deutschen Botschaft in Washington ernannt. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt wurde er in den Rang eines Brigadegenerals befördert. Ich werde einen Schritt über die gebildeten Vermutungen von Herrn Sosnovsky hinausgehen und fragen, ob nicht tatsächlich Washington hinter diesem Putschkomplott steckt, da Scholz in den Augen der rabiaten Russophoben in der Biden-Administration nicht für den Zweck geeignet ist.

10 thoughts on “The Bundeswehr scandal: loose ends

  1. You continue to amaze me! Ben

    <

    div>

    Sent from my iPhone

    <

    div dir=”ltr”>

    <

    blockquote type=”cite”>

    Like

  2. Love the intrigue.

    For a moment I thought I was reading john Helmer!

    Does Evening with Vladimir Solovyov have English captioning? You mention his program a lot and I am interested in listening.

    Like

    1. Well of course John Helmer has a view. Today he has cited an article in Vzglyad in which the author suggests the leak did indeed originate with the Americans. The suggested motive is sympathy with Russia, or at least objection to a nuclear war started by cretinous Germans. Perhaps there is another Snowden at the NSA.

      johnhelmer.org/how-the-bad-germans-were-exposed-by-their-generals-and-not-only-by-them

      Alternatively this could just be more Russian schadenfreude.

      Like

  3. a) Taurus can be nuclear-tipped.

    b) There will soon be, and there is presently one, two rail links that are used to supply Russian troops by-passing Kerch. The Kerch bridge’s significance is purely theatrical.

    c) Gräfe is CIA without question.

    Putsch? I think not. What we probably have, especially given the flowery tribute to the CIA’s key role in Ukraine on the front page of the NY Times in the past few days, is a very, very, angry CIA that sees its project in Ukraine evaporating. In passing one could ask who is behind the CIA? No matter, they are very, very angry.

    A nuclear attack on Sevastopol via Taurus? That would certainly fulfill the terrorist mission of the CIA as well as “returning Crimea to Ukraine” albeit in a coffin, but that’s the way the CIA likes it.

    Note that on the front page of today’s NY Times is a long, detailed article about the horrors of a 10 kiloton bomb detonated at 2500 feet above its target. This is in the context of the war in Ukraine.

    The US electorate is being prepared for nuclear war in Europe. Almost undoubtedly the purpose of the leak was to keep that war in Europe: “Bad, Germany!”. So all that is really supposed to happen is to convert the non-nuclear war in Europe into a nuclear one that will be more favorable to the Ukrainian side and more likely to produce political chaos in Russia without threatening the U.S.

    And I actually believe that’s what will happen, except that VVP will strike the U.S.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Agree. The unanimity surrounding the incident is suspicious (that it was leaked by the Russians to embarrass Germany, and that there must be an investigation regarding unsecured lines of communication).

    With leaks it is always very difficult to ascertain who did it and what their goal was.
    I will not speculate further, but multiple interpretations seem quite possible.

    Like

  5. “advice on military questions since he, Pistorius, is clueless”

    According to Wikipedia (and other sources) Pistorius did his (compulsory for young men) military service (then a lengthy 15 months) in 1980, quite a rarity among politicians: Chancellor Scholz did alternative civilian service (15+1 months, Zivildienst) in a nursing home (after rather perfunctorily refusing military service ~ verweigern), many others were deemed unfit, like e.g. war hawk Hofreiter from the Green Party – green like a green mamba on steroids.

    When Pistorius (Latin for baker) was appointed minister of the defense, there was a bit of debate about him being the only male (after some female predecessors) candidate for the job, who did his military service – alluding to the old prussian question: Haben Sie gedient ~ Have you served (militarily). See for example

    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Hauptmann_von_K%C3%B6penick_(1956)

    He might have very well spend these 15 months drinking or polishing his boots, so really not having a clue about the high art of mass-killing. Before minster of defense he was known as a hardliner on questions of law&order, immigration etc.

    Like

Comments are closed.