To anyone familiar with the matter, l this was long overdue, now the government just has a reason to greenlight >€1200 per citizen for badly needed investments, this wouldn’t have been a popular move before. Obviously the calculus changed. The Bundeswehr is not even close to what I’d consider the minimal requirements as it stands right now, but I still don’t like that we increase our annual spending on the military now. We need the money elsewhere, NATO should have enough guns already, this is just going down the industry-drain instead of funding much needed help in the care- and education sectors. We need elementary school teachers, psychologists, and systemic change for the people who care for the old, sick and weak. Instead we’re playing war games. That’s just not right
I think you're too harsh? The war games were not started by Germany, they are just reacting. It is only prudent to shore up your defenses when a country in your region starts a war, especially if that aggressor occupied part of your country until moderately recently.
> We need the money elsewhere, NATO should have enough guns already, this is just going down the industry-drain instead of funding much needed help in the care- and education sectors. We need elementary school teachers, psychologists, and systemic change for the people who care for the old, sick and weak.
At long last, it would appear that German politicians understand what you still fail to grasp: You can ignore your defense budget, refuse to pull your (contractually defined) weight in a defense pact, and invest your ill-gotten savings elsewhere – but ultimately these investments will have been all for naught if you are unable to defend their returns when push comes to shove.
I think it shows quite a disconnect on your behalf to call it ‘war games’, it’s real people out there dying as you write this comment. A country sticking its head in the ground ignoring this to focus on internal matters is not a solid long term strategy.
Also NATO is not some kind of puppet Germany can use however it sees fit. It’s a group, where each member has its own interests and views and one day they might diverge from Germany’s.
While all the things you mentioned are very much needed, so is the power that ensures their security.
I get your point but “elementary school teachers, psychologists, and systemic change for the people who care for the old, sick and weak” won’t mean much when Russia takes Poland and has troops at the Eastern border of Germany.
And let's not forget the additional money spent over the last two years on pandemic-related measures, that will already burden the tax payer for years.
Germany has money for all of that, it doesn't have to neglect healthcare to afford a working military.
Merkel has starved the Bundeswehr of resources relying on assumptions that have revealed themselves to be false. Historical alliances can be unreliable (Trump) and historical rivalries can be reignited (Russia). I fully support this move by Scholz.
Right now NATO is the United States. Tucker Carlson has a point when he claims that this conflict doesn't concern the US, it really doesn't. It concerns Europe. And with 450m people and that GDP, the EU shouldn't be a third wheel in this conflict, and it is the EU, not Biden, who should have detered Russia. It is time that Europe takes its defense seriously, starting with Germany.
International treaties are only worth the will of the signing parties to enforce them. Just like the Budapest Memorandum. And NATO is just another treaty.
I disagree. Education and other funding is irrelevant if they are teaching Russian at your local school.
My personal take on this is the Western world must show force in order to avoid further conflicts. I believe NATO has a leadership and strategy crisis at the moment, British secretary of defense talking about "kicking the backside" underlines this. A sane strategist talks like this? Definitely no Kissingers today.
Other than that, EU needs to have a strong army that's independent of USA.
Why? Putin already demanded NATO to return to pre-1997 membership, that means excluding Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland etc.
Russia will want to extend its influence over the ex-COMECON countries, Poland, Hungary, Romania, etc.
Russia was always a superpower ever since its existence, it had only a small dip the past 20 years because of the bad economy.
I know this might read like a pro-Russian view, but it's not, it's just the reality.
Regarding Ukraine, it is not a surprise to those who read History books, Kyev is where present-day Russia was originated along with its language and culture. In Russian eyes, it cannot be another country.
The bear must not be cornered. My view is that we should return to the status quo of the Yalta agreement, otherwise we'll head straight into WW3.
Totally agree. If we have enough elementary school teachers and psychologists, they can transform Putin and Xi into nice people and we will have a peaceful world forever. /s
Yeah of course you don't want that. Because my country will pay to defend your country while the poor people in the U.S. need schools, teachers, and access to healthcare more than Germany does. Thanks for nothing.
The same speech actually mentions energy security [0], and the new government is planning to invest a huge amount into renewable energy and a deeper integration of the european energy market.
One thing that is often left out of the international discussion of Germany's domestic policies is that we actually put a law into our constitution to limit governments from making new debt... So if the current government wants to take on new debt for Defense and Energy Transition, it will have to either do some tricks (the 100B for the military is supposed to come from a different, special pot), or change the constitution again, for which they would need the votes of the opposition.
Part of the speech the chancellor gave was also the announcement to build two new LGN terminals „pretty quickly“ in order to gain more independence. This of course goes hand in hand with a general push to more renewables.
Angela Merkel has made two crucial mistakes in foreign policy/defense spending that have now become clear. The first was the assumption we could appease Russia by offering it a carrot, namely gas pipelines and mutual investments. We now see that the economic dependence goes both ways, making Germany vulnerable to what a dictator like Putin decides to do. The second mistake was the belief that investment in its own military was a waste of money. Germany has diverted hundreds of billions to other areas over the decades, because it relied on the assumption that its alliances would protect it - Trump and Brexit have harshly shown that this might not be the case -, or that it no longer had actual enemies left to fight.
In her defense, her options were logical and a lot of the money that would otherwise go to less productive sectors of the economy, such as defense, went into more useful ones like research and development. Russia has also bought a ton of German goods, although arguably it would have regardless. However, compounded with her disastrous energy policy, Merkel made Germany more dependent than ever, a weak regional power at best. She simply did not foresee a future like our present.
How did Trump and Brexit show that German alliances wouldn't help in a crisis? Trump pushed Germany and other NATO states to meet their pledge of 2% GDP, and Brexit had nothing to do with NATO which is probably the most relevant treaty in a time like this.
Germany was late in offering armament to Ukraine. Moreover, this move is defensive in nature. I would be very surprise to see Germany getting more involved in this conflict from its current dependence on natural gas.
Honest question based on some of the comments current, past events:
Given the background of pacifist education enforced/encouraged for long by Allies post war in German schools, is it not possible to assume generations have been brainwashed into thinking that they can stay safe while the world burns.
Can such a populace take rational decisions when it comes to defence or offense?
I can honestly can't think of any reason for such bad decisions taken collectively like:
1) Getting into a deep trade relationship with a dictator
2) Assuming such relationship will keep the nation safe
3) Starving their own army of weapons and budget that their own chief of army says he can't guarantee safety of the nation:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/german-army-chief-fed-u...
Better late than never I guess...That's a lot of money but there's also a reason the nato quota is calculated as a percentage of GDP.Now let's just hope this money won't somehow go into the oligarch's pockets, as we've seen germany likes to spend money on russia way too often.(Remember NS2)
It’s great to see Europe waking up to taking action although I think EUR 100B could be spent more constructively than buying guns and bullets.
Watching the crisis from afar (I’m based in Asia, but born in Europe), I can’t help but think how hypocritical Europe and US are right now.
1) Most EU countries right now open their borders with arms wide open to provide for Ukrainian refugees, help them find a job, and send food and clothes. We show basic human decency. Yet, when there was genocide in Syria, which forces 1000s of Syrian refugees to seek shelter in Europe, few countries (apart from Germany) wanted to help. In Denmark, my country of birth, locals were spitting at the refugees from the bridges crossing the highways where the refugees were walking. They were treated, by and large, in a hugely inhumane way. Nobody wanted them. The former Danish right wing government forces refugees to sleep in cold tents with very little space.
2) The US, UK, EU and the NATO allies have been swift and decisive (mostly) at imposing sanctions against Russia. Within days after the invasions, they will now be blocked from the global financial system. Don’t get me wrong, this is the right thing to do. But when the US decide to invade Iraq without a clear UN mandate (and later find out there were actually never any WMDs without any political repercussions) or when Israel conduct another carpet bombing of Gaza followed by further tightening of apartheid policies against Palestinian civilians, the West turn their back on the problem and dare not say a word.
3) The glorification of war and honour. Over the last few days, I’ve seen this photo circulate on social media of a famous Ukrainian boxer who is now out serving his country at the frontline, proud with a rifle in his hand. Yet at Ukrainian-Polish border, families are being split in two by border control so fathers and young men don’t leave the country, they have to stay and fight the enemy.
We are humane when it is convenient (Russia), idolise war heroes even thought 1000s will likely get killed in this country (have we never learned from the psychological damage to civilians and soldiers from the US atrocities, war crimes and aggression against civilians in Vietnam?), and turn a blind eye to breach of basic human rights in our own backyard when things get tough. I don’t want to troll, but it really bugs me how simple and utterly hypocritical we are in facing the tough questions. Putin is a madman and the invasion of Ukraine is awful. Yet I wish our politicians and we, citizens of the world’s richest and safest countries, could face some of the other real issues at stake.
That must have been a calculated risk of Putin. This was going to happen, besides neutral European countries reconsidering NATO membership (e.g. Sweden, Finland, Austria). Especially because they cannot join NATO once they are in a military conflict.
I can't imagine that he wouldn't have foreseen this. Except if he'd thought to replace leadership in Ukraine in a few days, Western countries would impose some sanctions, and would move on as usual (as happened after the annexation of Crimea and MH-17).
Yeah, and Biden plans to seek more than $770 billion in the 2023 defense budget while doing nothing to implement any significant item of the agenda he was running on.
Defense contractors are dancing and singing and praising the war while people die and suffer.
To put this into perspective : 155 billion is almost 4.5% of the German GDP. The US is spending 3.7% this year. The original 55 billion was equal to what Russia was planning to spend this year on its military (at least officially) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...
yes, and also thanks to Biden, energy companies are now making record profits once again after being in the doldrums for years under trump; we are also now burning almost 25% more coal in the US under Biden than Trump.
People need to stop believing what Biden says he is going to do, and watch what what he actually does.
When Trump was crying about the cozy Russia-Germany relationship[1] and talking about how NATO was not contributing its share, the fact checkers were busy concentrating on his tone rather than the substance of what he said.[2] They must be very pleased today that they were able to do that then.
> President Trump told NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg during a meeting in 2018 that the Western alliance, particularly Germany, is "totally controlled" by Russia through oil and gas deals.
> "We're supposed to protect you against Russia but they're paying billions of dollars to Russia?" Trump asked. "I think that's very inappropriate."
> "And the former Chancellor of Germany is the head of the pipeline company that is supplying the gas. Ultimately, Germany will have almost 70% of their country controlled by Russia with natural gas. So you tell me, is that appropriate? I've been complaining about this from the time I got in."
> Trump called on Germany to "step it up" on their contribution to NATO immediately, "not 10 years from now."
> "Germany as far as I am concerned is captive to Russia ... we're supposed to protect Germany while they are getting their energy from Russia, explain that," Trump asked the NATO Secretary-General.
> Trump called it "very unfair" to the United States and its taxpayers.
[+] [-] hans1729|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SCHiM|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hh3k0|4 years ago|reply
At long last, it would appear that German politicians understand what you still fail to grasp: You can ignore your defense budget, refuse to pull your (contractually defined) weight in a defense pact, and invest your ill-gotten savings elsewhere – but ultimately these investments will have been all for naught if you are unable to defend their returns when push comes to shove.
[+] [-] samsonradu|4 years ago|reply
Also NATO is not some kind of puppet Germany can use however it sees fit. It’s a group, where each member has its own interests and views and one day they might diverge from Germany’s.
While all the things you mentioned are very much needed, so is the power that ensures their security.
[+] [-] yyyk|4 years ago|reply
NATO may or may not have enough guns, but some members aren't paying their share, and this has (as we've seen) bad consequences for everyone.
[+] [-] refurb|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mccorrinall|4 years ago|reply
The personnel is there, they are just not getting the license to open an office.
[+] [-] kleiba|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spupe|4 years ago|reply
Merkel has starved the Bundeswehr of resources relying on assumptions that have revealed themselves to be false. Historical alliances can be unreliable (Trump) and historical rivalries can be reignited (Russia). I fully support this move by Scholz.
[+] [-] cm2187|4 years ago|reply
International treaties are only worth the will of the signing parties to enforce them. Just like the Budapest Memorandum. And NATO is just another treaty.
[+] [-] ricardobayes|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway4good|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] temp8964|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amcoastal|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jnsaff2|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bakuninsbart|4 years ago|reply
One thing that is often left out of the international discussion of Germany's domestic policies is that we actually put a law into our constitution to limit governments from making new debt... So if the current government wants to take on new debt for Defense and Energy Transition, it will have to either do some tricks (the 100B for the military is supposed to come from a different, special pot), or change the constitution again, for which they would need the votes of the opposition.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_F1xCKi5vY
[+] [-] umpalumpaaa|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] belter|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] turing_complete|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] p410n3|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] inter_netuser|4 years ago|reply
Germany should start building nuclear themselves, instead of bailing out the French nuclear industry. $100bn can build a lot of nuclear powerplants.
[+] [-] u320|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] onlyrealcuzzo|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theropost|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Melio|4 years ago|reply
You are aware what Habeck is currently doing?
[+] [-] sto_hristo|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] spupe|4 years ago|reply
In her defense, her options were logical and a lot of the money that would otherwise go to less productive sectors of the economy, such as defense, went into more useful ones like research and development. Russia has also bought a ton of German goods, although arguably it would have regardless. However, compounded with her disastrous energy policy, Merkel made Germany more dependent than ever, a weak regional power at best. She simply did not foresee a future like our present.
[+] [-] tasubotadas|4 years ago|reply
What does Germany have to show here?
[+] [-] oh_sigh|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] umpalumpaaa|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anotheraccount9|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ng55QPSK|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] allisdust|4 years ago|reply
Given the background of pacifist education enforced/encouraged for long by Allies post war in German schools, is it not possible to assume generations have been brainwashed into thinking that they can stay safe while the world burns.
Can such a populace take rational decisions when it comes to defence or offense?
I can honestly can't think of any reason for such bad decisions taken collectively like: 1) Getting into a deep trade relationship with a dictator 2) Assuming such relationship will keep the nation safe 3) Starving their own army of weapons and budget that their own chief of army says he can't guarantee safety of the nation: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/german-army-chief-fed-u...
[+] [-] sebow|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] redwood|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] markvdb|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 4gotunameagain|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mytailorisrich|4 years ago|reply
Also, not sure where that leaves France if Germany "wakes up" militarily.
[+] [-] AniseAbyss|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaaaaaaaaaab|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yrgulation|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hestefisk|4 years ago|reply
Watching the crisis from afar (I’m based in Asia, but born in Europe), I can’t help but think how hypocritical Europe and US are right now.
1) Most EU countries right now open their borders with arms wide open to provide for Ukrainian refugees, help them find a job, and send food and clothes. We show basic human decency. Yet, when there was genocide in Syria, which forces 1000s of Syrian refugees to seek shelter in Europe, few countries (apart from Germany) wanted to help. In Denmark, my country of birth, locals were spitting at the refugees from the bridges crossing the highways where the refugees were walking. They were treated, by and large, in a hugely inhumane way. Nobody wanted them. The former Danish right wing government forces refugees to sleep in cold tents with very little space.
2) The US, UK, EU and the NATO allies have been swift and decisive (mostly) at imposing sanctions against Russia. Within days after the invasions, they will now be blocked from the global financial system. Don’t get me wrong, this is the right thing to do. But when the US decide to invade Iraq without a clear UN mandate (and later find out there were actually never any WMDs without any political repercussions) or when Israel conduct another carpet bombing of Gaza followed by further tightening of apartheid policies against Palestinian civilians, the West turn their back on the problem and dare not say a word.
3) The glorification of war and honour. Over the last few days, I’ve seen this photo circulate on social media of a famous Ukrainian boxer who is now out serving his country at the frontline, proud with a rifle in his hand. Yet at Ukrainian-Polish border, families are being split in two by border control so fathers and young men don’t leave the country, they have to stay and fight the enemy.
We are humane when it is convenient (Russia), idolise war heroes even thought 1000s will likely get killed in this country (have we never learned from the psychological damage to civilians and soldiers from the US atrocities, war crimes and aggression against civilians in Vietnam?), and turn a blind eye to breach of basic human rights in our own backyard when things get tough. I don’t want to troll, but it really bugs me how simple and utterly hypocritical we are in facing the tough questions. Putin is a madman and the invasion of Ukraine is awful. Yet I wish our politicians and we, citizens of the world’s richest and safest countries, could face some of the other real issues at stake.
[+] [-] tonyedgecombe|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] microtonal|4 years ago|reply
I can't imagine that he wouldn't have foreseen this. Except if he'd thought to replace leadership in Ukraine in a few days, Western countries would impose some sanctions, and would move on as usual (as happened after the annexation of Crimea and MH-17).
[+] [-] sAbakumoff|4 years ago|reply
Defense contractors are dancing and singing and praising the war while people die and suffer.
[+] [-] zx85wes|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ejb999|4 years ago|reply
People need to stop believing what Biden says he is going to do, and watch what what he actually does.
[+] [-] sinyug|4 years ago|reply
> President Trump told NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg during a meeting in 2018 that the Western alliance, particularly Germany, is "totally controlled" by Russia through oil and gas deals.
> "We're supposed to protect you against Russia but they're paying billions of dollars to Russia?" Trump asked. "I think that's very inappropriate."
> "And the former Chancellor of Germany is the head of the pipeline company that is supplying the gas. Ultimately, Germany will have almost 70% of their country controlled by Russia with natural gas. So you tell me, is that appropriate? I've been complaining about this from the time I got in."
> Trump called on Germany to "step it up" on their contribution to NATO immediately, "not 10 years from now."
> "Germany as far as I am concerned is captive to Russia ... we're supposed to protect Germany while they are getting their energy from Russia, explain that," Trump asked the NATO Secretary-General.
> Trump called it "very unfair" to the United States and its taxpayers.
[1] FLASHBACK: President Trump Told NATO In 2018 That Germany Is A "Captive Of Russia" As Long As They're Buying Putin's Oil And Gas (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/02/25/flashback...)
[2] FactChecking Trump’s NATO Remarks (https://www.factcheck.org/2019/12/factchecking-trumps-nato-r...)