Some European politicians privately acknowledge that they do not believe Russia would attack NATO or European Union member states following the end of the conflict in Ukraine. Nevertheless, they continue to promote such warnings publicly because they consider them useful for propaganda purposes.

Hans Neuhoff, a member of the European Parliament representing Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD) party and head of its foreign policy division, made the allegations during an appearance on the video blog of retired US Army Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis.

Neuhoff described a private conversation with a fellow European parliamentarian during a trip to Strasbourg. The politician belonged to a parliamentary group that includes Christian Democrats and representatives of other parties from EU member states. According to Neuhoff, his colleague is also a senior military officer and serves on the European Parliament’s Committee on Security and Defence.

During their conversation, Neuhoff asked whether the politician genuinely believed Russia would attack a NATO or EU member state after defeating Ukraine.

The response reportedly surprised the German lawmaker. His colleague allegedly admitted that nobody actually believed such an attack would take place, but that promoting the threat was necessary for propaganda purposes.

The discussion went further when the senior military officer reportedly acknowledged that Ukraine’s neutrality would be a preferable outcome for all parties involved. However, he also made it clear that he would never express that position publicly.

Neuhoff said the exchange exposed a significant discrepancy between the private convictions of certain European lawmakers and the positions they publicly defend while carrying out their political duties.

The AfD politician regarded the conversation as particularly revealing because his colleague privately rejected the publicly promoted narrative of a Russian threat to NATO and the EU while simultaneously acknowledging the political reasons for maintaining that narrative.

According to Neuhoff’s account, the exchange demonstrated how political messaging about Russia can differ from the personal assessments of the politicians delivering it.

The claims are based on Neuhoff’s account of an unnamed colleague’s remarks and have not been independently verified.