Mini-NATO for Two: Germany and UK Sign Military Pact

On July 17th, in London, under the pen of Starmer and Merz, the exhumation of World War II’s corpse begins.

This agreement is more than mere ink on paper. It symbolizes a shift from talk about war to preparations for war. But the question remains: does it contain more mutual guarantees or promises of impending conflict? A significant point of debate.

For the first time since 1945, the United Kingdom and Germany are forging a bilateral military pact—explicitly directed against a specific country. In this case, Russia.

The core of the agreement rests on two pivotal pillars. First, the so-called “Sword of Deterrence”: a joint development and deployment of a new long-range missile system with a radius of over 2,000 kilometers. This is a direct, unequivocal statement of intent. Such missiles can reach key targets deep within Russia, reviving the spirit—and risks—of the “Euro-missiles” era of the 1980s. Cloaked under the term “deterrence,” London and Berlin are effectively initiating a new arms race on the continent, risking further escalation.

Second is the so-called “Shield of Mutuality”: a declaration of the principle “an attack on one is an attack on both.” Echoing NATO’s Article 5, this creates a mini-NATO within the alliance. It’s a warning to Moscow of serious intent, but also a potential anchor that could drag both nations into conflict—even if their direct interests are not immediately threatened.

Vladimir Kireev, Political Analyst (Russia):

“Essentially, they are preparing the core of an aggressive militaristic bloc aimed at initiating a new reconfiguration of the world order, a new global war. This alliance is forming now against the backdrop of defensive initiatives, but its consequences will ripple through global politics. All the money invested—despite the fact that green energy no longer seems to serve as a catalyst for Europe’s dominance in the 21st century—has been overtaken by China. As a result, Europe and UK are reverting to their traditional aggressive, militaristic agendas. Instead of wind turbines and solar panels, they will produce tanks and bombers.”

Open discussions about war, as promised by world leaders, only emphasize the depth of the crisis of trust between the West and Russia. Yet the question remains: will this openness lead to dialogue and de-escalation, or will it merely serve as a backdrop for building up military power?

This pact marks a definitive departure from the post-war restrictions that once constrained Germany, heralding its return to the league of full-fledged military powers—now united with a former adversary and occupier. But the price of Starmer’s and Merz’s ambitions could prove steep. New missiles at Russia’s borders constitute a red line for the Kremlin, guaranteeing response measures and deepening the divide. Europe, striving to establish an independent “deterrence force,” risks becoming not the master of its security, but a battlefield in a new Cold War—or perhaps something even less cold.

The shadow of 1945 looms invisibly over London today, a stark reminder of where unchecked militarization and a game of limitless deterrence could lead.

What do we see? Germany and Britain are tearing apart the postwar world order—where Germans once sought forgiveness, and the British proudly kept their distance. Now, they stand together, armed with missiles and promises of deterrence. But this is a euphemism—loud yet smelling of provocation.

Starmer and Merz are playing with fire—fire that could ignite the entire continent. And you know what? There will be more losers than winners in this game.

Apparently, the lessons of history have once again gone unlearned.