7 ms·
German Bundeswehr cooperates more closely with European Allies
- bryanrasmussen 9y agoSo the article says: "For every federalist in Brussels who thinks a common defense force is what Europe needs to boost its standing in the world, there are those in London and elsewhere who recoil at the notion of a potential NATO rival." The question I have is if 'elsewhere' is as irrelevant to a EU politician as London is?
- matt4077 9y agoSince only NATO countries seem to be in a position to "recoil at the notion of a potential NATO rival", the "elsewhere" probably does include a fair number of EU politicians, including Germans. I believe "rival" isn't meant in the sense of a potential armed conflict between the EU and NATO (which would be ridiculous), but simply as competition for mindshare and organisational resources.
- LyndsySimon 9y ago> competition for mindshare and organisational resources. This is how I interpreted it as well. The First World seems to be concerned right now with the apparent rise of Russian power. In the previous order (during the Cold War), NATO was the counterbalance to Russia's empire. If NATO is divided in two by the creation of the EU, then a reinvigorated Russia would be able to act against each entity separately, giving them a great advantage in international diplomacy.
- bryanrasmussen 9y agoI guess my interpretations was - For every federalist with a say in what the EU needs to do about a common defense force there is a federalist without any say in that or a federalist from somewhere unnamed who may or may not have a say in that. I mean I understand that the somewhere unnamed federalist may in fact be someone who has a say in the matter in some way, but if that is what one is trying to say why lead off with an example named federalist that doesn't have any say. Also a non NATO member might recoil at a potential NATO rival if they feel they can exploit some weakness in NATO and fear the rival would not have the same weakness.
- padthai 9y agoI think in 10-20 years we could see something like an European Union army. Some countries will opt-out (Ireland? Sweden? Austria?) but the main internal opposition (the UK) is not an issue anymore.
- mtgx 9y agoI wonder if this will make countries more or less likely to stay in the EU. I would lean towards "more" because they probably wouldn't want to be on EU's bad side in the future. Tough luck for UK, I suppose.
- LyndsySimon 9y agoIt wouldn't be the first time the UK has stood alone against a Europe united. It would be interesting to see the UK build a closer relationship with the Commonwealth, instead of doing so with the EU.
- WesleyLivesay 9y agoI don't know why anybody would be surprised about this. The threat of Russia to Eastern Europe, the fact that one Western European country has already voted to leave the EU, and having a United States that doesn't seem like a country you can count on is going to lead smaller countries to come closer to Germany as the strongest nation in the region.
- muninn_ 9y ago> having a United States that doesn't seem like a country you can count on In what way? A Russian attack on Germany or a NATO ally is something the US would definitely go to war over. I know it's popular now to freak out because Trump is president, but nothing has changed in this regard.
- matt4077 9y agoWords have meaning, and there's no denying that Trump has, quite literally, questioned the US' commitment to the common defence doctrine. It's not like there's some court of law somewhere that would make Latvia whole again if Trump decided not to fulfil the US' treaty obligations after the "Latvian association of I-am-just-a-farmer–oh-look-I-found-a-Russian-tank" wins the referendum to join Russia.
- muninn_ 9y agoQuestioned, but I don't think that means the US is ready to abandon countries like Germany. I think Latvia is an interesting case because, frankly, should the US go to war over Latvia if Russia invaded? I think we would because of the treaty, but idk if the US (absent NATO) should do it. At one point is it worth the risk? That's the thing with Russia. At one point do you say no and go to war with them over a land grab? Germany is a clear case of going to war, same with other Tier 1 US allies, but Latvia?
- dogma1138 9y agoDo you remember how WW2 started, and more importantly what preceded it? ;)
- waibelp 9y agoInteresting to read this on a non-german page as a german... o_0
- skdotdan 9y agoWhy?
- germanier 9y agoNote that Foreign Policy is a niche publication. If you would follow similar German sites you would have noticed. Regular news hasn't reported much (it's a very slow moving process, not so ideal for a news website) but it's mentioned occasionally, e.g. the FAZ had a very similar article a few months ago. But you are right, a regular citizen with no particular interest in that field would almost surely never have heard about it.
- waibelp 9y agoWhat sides beside FAZ would you suggest for daily reading to get to know that topics?
- germanier 9y agoAt FAZ I would follow the author Johannes Leithäuser. A few other suggestions would be the publictions of Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, Gesellschaft für Sicherheitspolitik, IPG Journal, the newsletter Sicherheitspolitische Presseschau, and the blog Augen Geradaus. But all those are pretty specialized. Unfortunately I don't know any mainstream source where one would have noticed this story. There are also some interesting political science journals but I don't follow any. If I could only add one thing to my daily reading list it would be that mentioned newsletter. And of course I would read the Bundeswehr Weißbuch.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- matt4077 9y ago> “Gaps” in the Bundeswehr is an understatement. In 1989, the West German government spent 2.7 percent of GDP on defense, but by 2000 spending had dropped to 1.4 percent One man's gap is another's peace dividend. 0% should be the standard to judge against, and the unfortunate necessity to go above that shouldn't be mistaken for anything but a giant drain of productivity that could be spent on almost anything else with better results. I also don't get how military spending is indexed to GDP. Surely what matters first is the actual power of an alliance's militaries compared to realistic threats. Only then could GDP be a useful yardstick to distribute the burdens among the members of that alliance. In the specific case, it's a completely rational decision to lower investments in Europe considering the US continues to fund its military at levels that can only be explained by some sort of chauvinist fascination with guns, bombs, and golden toilet seats. It's even beneficial for the US if Europe instead invests in soft-power resources, something that has actually happened since 1990.
- chatmasta 9y agoIt's easy to hate on the military industrial complex, but it's hard to deny the positive technologies borne from military r&d. Microwave ovens, space ships, the internet, Tor, GPS, canned food...
- matt4077 9y agoYou'd be hard pressed to spend $600,000,000,000 per year, or $1,200,000,000,000,000 since WW2, and not come up with a few ideas in the process.
- lorenzfx 9y agoTitle sounds a bit too clickbaity IMO, but I guess who would want to read an article titled "German Bundeswehr cooperates more closely with European Allies".
- dang 9y agoLet's try it.
- skocznymroczny 9y agoAn European army, especially nowadays, won't work without finalizing all the rules. If a far-right government wins in a EU country, will the army be used to bring the country under liberal control?