Why Germany’s Army Is In A Bad State?

Duh. Because that’s the way Germany wants it. This isn’t rocket science, folks.

Army

DONALD TRUMP says it is “not fair” for Europe’s largest economy to spend proportionally so much less on defence than America does. Germany spends just 1.2% of its GDP on defence, and it shows. A report released in February showed that less than half the country’s Leopard tanks, 12 out of 50 Tiger helicopters and only 39 of its 128 Typhoon fighter aircraft were fit for action. At the end of last year, none of the country’s six submarines was at sea. In short: Germany’s armed forces are barely fit for purpose. Why?

Just 15 per cent of all Germans agree with Angela Merkel that the country should increase its military spending to 2 per cent of GDP by 2024, with 36 per cent saying the country’s already spends too much on its military.

Advertisements

Germany Is So Wunderbar

As we all know, or are at least that’s what we’re told time and time again. But it is a country that presents us as in US/the NATO allience with, well, a bit of a challenge.

NATO

NATO’s 21st-century problem is not the United States, which provides a large percentage of its wherewithal, but Germany. As the most populous and most affluent of European nations, Germany still insidiously dominates Europe as it has since its inception in 1871.

Berlin sends ultimatums to the indebted Southern European nations. Berlin alone tries to dictate immigration policy for the European Union. Berlin establishes the tough conditions under which the United Kingdom can exit the European Union. And when Berlin decides it will not pony up the promised 2 percent of GDP for its NATO contribution, other laggard countries follow its example. Only six of the 29 NATO members (other than the U.S.) so far have met their promised assessments…

This is the NATO that Trump inherited and that he tried to shake up with his customary art-of-the-deal antics. Trump may be loud and uncouth, but his argument that NATO countries need to pay more money for their shared alliance’s self-defense is sound. If successful, it would lead to a stronger NATO.

In contrast, German Chancellor Angela Merkel sounds customarily professional and diplomatic as she continues to weaken the alliance and pursue German commercial and financial interests at the expense of fellow NATO members.

Germans Outraged That Trump Would Not Go To War For Montenegro

The Germans certainly would.

Trump

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

These people kill me sometimes. Figuratively speaking.

Montenegro, a former Yugoslav republic with a population of about 630,000, joined NATO last year, becoming is 29th member. Its military only numbers about 2,000 personnel.

The only time Article 5 was ever invoked was by America after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks conducted by al-Qaeda.

Für ein kleines Land wie Montenegro in den Krieg ziehen? Donald Trump hat in einem Interview Zweifel an der Bündnistreue der USA innerhalb der Nato gesät. Der US-Präsident machte eine vielsagende Andeutung.

German Of The Day: Zusage

That means pledge – like the one Germany just made (increase in defense spending to 2% by 2024 instead of 2028 or 2030).

Zusage

President Donald Trump appeared to declare victory on Thursday in his battle with America’s closest allies to get them to contribute more money to the NATO alliance. Mr. Trump acknowledged that he had taken a tough stance with his European counterparts, demanding they contribute more of their national budgets to defense and saying after Thursday’s meetings, “they upped their commitments and I am very happy…”  

Under fire for his warm embrace of Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Mr. Trump on Wednesday turned a harsh spotlight on Germany’s own ties to Russia, alleging that a natural gas pipeline venture with Moscow has left Angela Merkel’s government “totally controlled” and “captive” to Russia.

Auch Deutschland habe große Zusagen gemacht – das Zwei-Prozent-Ziel solle nun wesentlich früher erreicht werden als ursprünglich geplant – laut Trump nicht erst 2028 oder 2030, sondern schon 2024.

German Of The Day: Gefangener

That means prisoner or captive. You know, as in “Germany is a captive of Russia.”

Yeah. A captive who finally got caught.

Germany

“It pays billions and billions of dollars to Russia for energy. Germany is a rich country. Why should the U.S. protect you against Russia when the two countries are making deals? You tell me, is that appropriate?”

Deutschland ist ein Gefangener Russlands.

German Of The Day: Nicht Mehr Tragbar

That means no longer tenable or sustainable.

NATO

As in “The United States continues to devote more resources to the defense of Europe when the Continent’s economy, including Germany’s, are doing well and security challenges abound. This is no longer sustainable for us.”

Donald Trump has reportedly sent sharply worded letters to several Nato member countries, urging them to spend more on their self-defence, in an escalation of the US president’s long-standing feud with the military alliance…

The Nato allies agreed in 2014 to spend more on their own national defence, aiming to eventually contribute two per cent of their GDP to the effort. Many members countries say they are still working towards that goal, and are frustrated by Mr Trump’s threats.

“Die Vereinigten Staaten geben nach wie vor mehr Mittel für die Verteidigung Europas aus, während es der Wirtschaft des Kontinents, einschließlich Deutschlands, gutgeht und die Sicherheitsherausforderungen vielfältig sind. Das ist für uns nicht mehr tragbar.”

PS: Happy 4th of July!

Seems Like A Fine Idea To Me

As speculated upon earlier, the Pentagon is considering plans to remove American troops from Germany, possibly placing them in Poland instead.

Troops

Hey, the world changes. That old Cold War line doesn’t run through Germany anymore, it’s moved to the East. And Germany, although not willing to pay it’s fair share for it’s own defense, doesn’t want American troops here in Germany anyway (Germans are pacifists) so it’s a win-win situation if you ask me. I know, you didn’t ask me but I told you anyway.

Poland is willing to spend $1.5 billion to $2 billion to entice the U.S. to build a permanent military base there, according to a Defense Ministry proposal. The plan offers a strong incentive for the U.S. to consider moving at least some of its forces from Germany, especially since the current deployment makes little military sense.

Das US-Verteidigungsministerium prüft laut einem Bericht der „Washington Post“ einen Abzug der in Deutschland stationierten US-Soldaten. Zu den erwogenen Optionen gehöre eine Rückkehr eines Großteils der rund 35.000 in Deutschland stationierten Soldaten in die USA oder die Verlegung des gesamten oder eines Teils des Kontingents nach Polen, berichtete die Zeitung am Freitag.

 

Poland Gets It

The U.S. doesn’t stand to lose anything by accepting Poland’s generous proposal and gradually relocating troops there from Germany. A move of this kind would be consistent with stated U.S. goals, such as deterring Russia. It would also allow the U.S. to support an ally eager for closer military ties.

Poland

It might also force Germany to give more thought to its position. Would it feel unprotected with a smaller U.S. presence? Would it, perhaps, be motivated to enhance its own defense? Or would it still be secure in its apparent conviction that no one is interested in attacking it?

The U.S. should offer protection to the countries that want it most, and reduce its involvement with nations that benefited in the mid-20th century. The American military presence should be aligned with its allies’ sense of being threatened. This anxiety gets stronger the closer a country is to Russia’s borders. Ignoring that makes little military or political sense.

Speaking Of Tanks…

Tanks for nothing, Germany.

Tanks

The nerve of Donald Trump to come along and suddenly demand, like out of the blue already, that NATO countries start living up to what they promised to do way back when in that warm and cuddly Obama year of 2014 (that each NATO country spend two percent of its economic output on defense). Since when is an agreement that you agreed to an agreement you have to actually live up to?

Only three NATO countries (other than the US) have kept their word: Greece, Estonia and the United Kingdom. Germany only came up with 1.24 percent of its GDP in 2017.This is a vast improvement from the year before, however. Then it had only been 1.2 percent of its GDP (the number keeps getting bigger, see?).

Money doesn’t grow on trees, you know. And sometimes things get lost in translation. The German government has interpreted this agreement to mean “to move in the direction of two percent.” They’re heading there, folks. In fifty or sixty years you’ll see.

Er fordert, dass alle Bündnispartner spätestens ab 2024 jährlich mindestens zwei Prozent des BIP für Verteidigung ausgeben und verweist dabei auf einen Nato-Beschluss aus dem Jahr 2014.

Complicated?

Not at all. It’s called freeloading.

Gabriel

Germany and two percent for defense – it’s complicated.

Lofty goals of European and NATO cooperation abound here at the Munich Security Conference, but who will pay the bill?

Top German leaders here have managed to put a damper on the expectation that Berlin would radically ramp up its defense spending, as Washington would have it, stressing instead that gradual boosts and integration with foreign development would yield better results than military might alone.

“We no longer recognize our America.” No, Sigmar. I guess you don’t. That America where nobody bothered to call it freeloading up until now, I mean.