15 ms·

Germany commits €100B to defense spending

176 points by pythux 5y ago

PaywallBuster 5y ago
too little, too late Most NATO members are under the 2% min required of their membership for years No surprise Russia can just steamroll all the way through Ukraine with nothing but "strong" messages in the media in response.
- Melio 5y ago
  That's just not correct. NATO has higher military power than Russia. The reaction you see is diplomatic driven not military driven.
  - PaywallBuster 5y ago
    `In light of this, we agree to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets and aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows; we will direct our defence budgets as efficiently and effectively as possible; we will aim to move towards the existing NATO guideline of spending 2% of GDP on defence within a decade, with a view to fulfilling NATO capability priorities. We will display the political will to provide required capabilities and deploy forces when they are needed.` https://web.archive.org/web/20180610061817/https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_112985.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20180610061817/https://www.nato.... NATO can have higher military power, but mostly coming from the USA spending 4% of GDP in military, while the "pacifist" European countries keep under spending, with most of them at only 1%
    - Melio 5y ago
      I'm not sure what you try to explain to me. Independent of the military spending the military power of NATO is still bigger than Russia. This is the point I made.
    - microtonal 5y ago
      Although European NATO members have been underspending, it's also a question of 1-2% of what. For example, UK's ($59.2b) and Germany's ($52.8b) spending alone was almost as much as Russia ($61.7b) [1]. The combined economies of EU Nato members is so much larger than Russia's that even with 1-2% spending, their military spending outnumbers that of Russia by a large margin. That said, I agree that all NATO countries should spend at least the required 2%. Just want to counter the wrong impression of military power. Even the European NATO members have vastly more military power than Russia, let alone the full NATO including the US. Of course, nukes change the equation, but once nukes start getting used, we are all doomed. Furthermore, neither the Russians, Ukrainians, Europeans or Americans want a nuclear war. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...
      - yyyk 5y ago
        >For example, UK's and Germany's spending alone was almost as much as Russia A lot of it goes to salaries, so in practice UK and Germany militaries have much less effective spend.
  - yrgulation 5y ago
    The russian army is propaganda and nukes. Putin’s psychological warfare triggered images of the soviet army in us making us think they are unstoppable. Seems like we were wrong. Sure russia can do damage but its nowhere near the image it tries to project. Furthermore, russians aren’t monsters and they are against such a war.
    - adventured 5y ago
      > Furthermore, russians aren’t monsters and they are against such a war. While that's certainly true, Putin is a product of Russian culture. Just as the Russian state is today, and just as it was 30, 50, 70, 100 years ago. The people of Russia are responsible for what's going on. Putin is a very logical outcome to their culture of power, conquest and empire lust. They cheered when Putin took Crimea, they reveled in the expansion of empire, it made them feel good, and Putin fed off of it. They are responsible. For how many centuries does an outcome have to persist before the people of a nation are held responsible morally for what has occurred? Golly gee, those poor Russian people, they're just never responsible for anything that happens even if a thousand years goes by. I just can't figure out why Russia keeps ending up with authoritarian leaders, century after century. Must be some bad luck, that's all. And Americans don't bear responsibility for Iraq or the military industrial complex. Bull, of course they do. Yeah, but Putin is a dictator! The Russian people greatly applauded Putin's successes, gave him credit for things he didn't deserve credit for (oil prices artificially bolstering their economy during the Bush years), tolerated his behavior and extreme human rights abuses, and have never actually attempted to remove him from power (only relatively small challenges to his power have ever occurred). Overall they've barely lifted a finger in his direction to curb his behavior. They are responsible in every possible way. How many monsters, tsars, conquerers have to come out of Russia before it becomes obvious that it's springing directly from the Russian culture. The Russian culture is made by the Russian people. Thus, they're responsible. The German people were also responsible for Hitler, they made the culture of the region that produced him ideologically. They cheered the notion of empire and conquest openly, they reveled in the successes of their war machines. If one goes swimming in the history of cultures that repeatedly produce leaders with the conquering, empire mentality, you see many similarities. Putin has the mentality of European conquerers of centuries past, he represents a regressive disease ideologically. Russia is the only major nation that is part of Europe today that is still holding onto (largely) vanquished ideologies of conquest and empire that were very common in Europe in the 19th and early 20th centuries (and before). For Russia to not just get another authoritarian after Putin, the people of Russia have to consciously change their culture. Other European nations have done so, have eliminated barbaric cultures of conquest and empire, including prominently the Germans, French and British among others.
- kleiba 5y ago
  Don't forget that Ukraine is not a NATO member.
  - PaywallBuster 5y ago
    Right But Russia has been encroaching around EU territory since taking Crimea in 2014 and if Ukraine did join NATO, or if Russia makes further threats against other potential NATO members like Finland or Sweeden, why wait until now
    - isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y ago
      Crimea is not in the EU.
      - PaywallBuster 5y ago
        updated to "around"
    - Melio 5y ago
      To keep diplomatic solutions open as long as possible of course.
- e-clinton 5y ago
  So we should we head into WW3 over Ukraine? What’s happening in Ukraine is incredibly sad, but if NATO gets involved millions (billions?) will die.
  - PaywallBuster 5y ago
    Being ready or having a good defense in place is not the same as going into war.
    - cbg0 5y ago
      There already is a good defense in place.
  - kqr 5y ago
    How confident of this are you? I might be interested in betting against you on that.
    - chrononaut 5y ago
      Not hundreds of millions of lives worth. Part of the problem is expectations. No one was comitting troops prior to the invasion, and the possible commitment of troops was one of the reasons Putin claimed he developed this situation to begin with, so it would have made a possibly avoidable situation immediately unavoidable. (Obviously he just went ahead anyway, hindsight.) As such it's even more difficult to commit troops now, as Russia committed to its strategy with the information it had, and thus it would be taking an extremely large gamble at massive cost to the world. However, troops are committed to various NATO members with a reinforcement of more. There is also a clear expectation that they will be defended should Russian aggression expand. Putin would have to willingly decide to bear this cost should he attack one of those nations, and its consequences. That wasn't the case at the time for the Ukraine. Responding to erratic behavior with erratic behavior does not lead to stability. It's a moral crusade, which you could argue is worth the possibility of World War 3.
      - kqr 5y ago
redwood 5y ago
Wow congratulations Europe!
- markvdb 5y ago
  This military budget increase being necessary is nothing to rejoice really.
  - koonsolo 5y ago
    No it is. As NATO members you are committed to defend each other, but to also spend a % of your GDP on military. I know Belgium always payed the fine, which is less than actually spending it. That's like saying a bunch of buddies team up to defend each other, and each go take self defense lessons. Then in the end only the biggest buddy takes self defense classes, and the rest just hopes this guy is present the next time shit hits the fan. Not really fair is it? I hope Belgium also starts spending the proper amount, as they should have done already.
- Friday_ 5y ago
  You mean " thank you" Because german will now buy expensive gas and weapons from USA.
  - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
    Or Germany could, you know, build and purchase local made weapons instead. It could ally with the France, Sweden, Belgium, Netherlands, etc. to lower development costs.
    - Friday_ 5y ago
      With what energy?
      - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
        With the energy it would have had if it wouldn't have given into the clueless Greens and shut down nuclear many years too early. There are major consequences to every vote and policy. People need to learn this and not vote on idealistic feelings.
umpalumpaaa 5y ago
155 billion to be precise. It’s 100 billion in addition to what is spent this year already.
jnsaff2 5y ago
How about invest 100 billion on renewables to get independence from russian gas.
- umpalumpaaa 5y ago
  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.
  - Aeolun 5y ago
    Huh? He’s going to build more gas terminals to reduce the dependence on gas?
    - reitanqild 5y ago
      Probably to reduce the dependency on Russian gas.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - ahartmetz 5y ago
      The dependence on Russian gas
    - sidkshatriya 5y ago
      You can import gas via pipeline (from Russia) or in liquid form (LNG) from Qatar and others. You need a terminal to deal with LNG which is under high pressure and very low temperatures. It will take longer to move away from gas as an energy source. That will happen over next decade at least.
    - mschuster91 5y ago
      The idea is to use these to import LNG from the US and Qatar, so that these terminals together with those in France, Belgium and the Netherlands can be used to supply all of Europe with gas - including the countries in Eastern Europe, that currently depend on Russian gas even more than we do.
yrgulation 5y ago
My respect for germany is through the roof.
sAbakumoff 5y ago
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.
- zx85wes 5y ago
  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_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...
  - sAbakumoff 5y ago
    To put this into perspective: Build Back Better was at its highest $4.5 trillion over 10 years. The lowest point was $1.5 trillion for 10 years. Biden didn't do anything serious to actually pass it. But $700Bln+ for yearly defense budget? EASY!
    - zx85wes 5y ago
      4.5 trillion. Not billion. ;-) Agree with what you're trying to say.
  - adventured 5y ago
    Germany isn't planning to spend $155 billion per year on defense. Why would it matter if $155 billion is 4.5% of Germany's annual GDP?
- ejb999 5y ago
  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.
sebow 5y ago
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)
- croes 5y ago
  >but there's also a reason the nato quota is calculated as a percentage of GDP Which reason? Since when is money spent a measurement of effectiveness? Some companies will just make more money but the people are fucked. Rotting infrastructure and overloaded social security systems. In the end this will lead to better armed extremists.
  - sebow 5y ago
    Fixed values don't mean much of anything if you're a big economy like Germany. The reason the percentage is of GDP is, to put it very bluntly, because 'money needs protection'.Becoming an economic force without spending properly on defence is just stupid.And we're not talking about money spent being a measurement of effectiveness: defense spending is mostly investing and protecting the economy itself, that's one simplistic view of why it's measured as a percentage of gdp.(Alongside with the fact that more members spending 2% means Europe becomes less reliant on US) I don't know the details of the politics, but i believe this (outdated) article has good explanations about it: https://carnegieeurope.eu/2015/09/02/politics-of-2-percent-nato-and-security-vacuum-in-europe-pub-61139 https://carnegieeurope.eu/2015/09/02/politics-of-2-percent-n...
    - croes 5y ago
      Both percentage and fixed amount is useless if you don't define a goal that must be accomplished. Von der Leyen wasted lots of military money with McKinsey. The US wasted lots of money on a shitty next-gen jet fighter. So making money the measurements leads to corruption. In Germany's case it's even worse because if the debt brake. The money that goes to the military is cut from others expenses, most often healthcare, social security and education. So the future will be full of devasted, poor people who can't afford education and health care for themselves and their children. And that without the guarantee of proper ability of self-defence. Of course poor people without social security are good for the military because many would join them to make a living. The effect of this is pretty obvious in Russia and the US.
AniseAbyss 5y ago
If you put all the defense budgets of the EU together it dwarfs Russia. Sadly because of historical reasons we can't have a European army.
- Aeolun 5y ago
  I think it’s more that this is difficult. But certainly not impossible. The problem is that we’d need an even more integrated Europe (and probably language). And a lot of people don’t want that.
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago
  >Sadly because of historical reasons we can't have a European army No, history is not the issue, it's because good luck convincing French or Germans for example, they gotta send their men to fight protecting Poland, Romania or Bulgaria for example, or vice versa. All you have to do is look at how badly EU countries cooperated during the Greek economic crisis, the migrant crisis of 2015, the Covid crisis, etc. Every EU member government was blaming each other or the immigrants from poorer countries and refusing to cooperate or come to a consensus. And you think military cooperation will somehow work better?
  - viraptor 5y ago
    We don't have an international pact triggered by historical experience around handling refugees, or infectious disease control. We have one like that exactly for the purpose of military support. So yes, we expect NATO members to step up for protection of other members. We have joint exercises so that the forces do have common approaches and plans.
    - viraptor 5y ago
      Turns out things change quickly: https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1498017173792514051 https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1498017173792514051 > EU announces it has agreed unanimously amongst all member countries to take in Ukrainian refugees fir up to 3 years without asking them to first apply for asylum.
4gotunameagain 5y ago
The only winners from war are oligarchs and the "defense" industry..
- Aeolun 5y ago
  Unfortunately you will need defense as long as you have madmen ruling some of the countries around you.
  - Hamuko 5y ago
    Well, historically the madman in this part of the world has been Germany. Germany doesn't really have a border with Russia to worry about like for example the Baltics have.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - jonathanstrange 5y ago
      And now it's Putin.
    - isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y ago
      I see that you're the fan of appeasement strategy. Worked out well for France and the UK in the past.
      - Hamuko 5y ago
        Who are you arguing against?
    - rat9988 5y ago
      > historically the madman in this part of the world has been Germany I guess different history books paint different histories.
      - 5y ago
aaaaaaaaaaab 5y ago
And maybe bring back nuclear power plants? Nah, that would actually make sense!
- turbinerneiter 5y ago
  Sure, because buying Uranium from the Russians is so much better than buying their gas. Also totally not a limited resource, absolutely not extremely expensive, does for sure not take a long time to build, has now downsides at all, does not even produce waste.
  - actuator 5y ago
    Canada and Australia have tons of uranium. Magnitudes more than Russia No one is saying a country should run on Uranium till it exhausts. It is there to supplement renewables till we can have major breakthroughs there. It is not like burning gas doesn't come with its challenges of handling waste
  - orbifold 5y ago
    There is plenty of Uranium elsewhere, plus if you build the right reactors, you can use Uranium much more efficiently.
T3RMINATED 5y ago
hans1729 5y ago
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
- kleiba 5y ago
  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.
  - mschuster91 5y ago
    There is a way out: tax the rich. Lindner will have to see reason eventually.
    - croes 5y ago
      Lindner? No way. He rather kills social security than tax the rich accordingly
    - mccorrinall 5y ago
      We are already taxing the rich though?
      - b112 5y ago
        Some think taxing the rich is some eternal well of a problem solve. This well can be run dry very fast, when one talks about state level spending. And once dry, and once shown that all efforts lead to naught, is stays dry. An example? I just work less, rather than pay more tax, and lose certain tax breaks. Why would I toil more, only to make less per hour?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
anotheraccount9 5y ago
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.
- Melio 5y ago
  It's hopefull thinking. Which is not a bad thing to do. But now it's time to accept Putin for what he is.
sinyug 5y ago
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. [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_2018_president_trump_told_nato_secretary_europe_is_a_captive_of_russia_as_long_as_theyre_buying_russian_oil_and_gas.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/02/25/flashback...) [2] FactChecking Trump’s NATO Remarks (https://www.factcheck.org/2019/12/factchecking-trumps-nato-remarks/ https://www.factcheck.org/2019/12/factchecking-trumps-nato-r...)
- yrgulation 5y ago
  This. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Most europeans are aware of germany’s involuntary aid for russia but cant do much since germany dominates eu politics. There is a near conspiracy theory amount of decisions that Merkel took and played right into putin’s favour. Also worth noting the german ceo of north stream is a former stasi officer, the east german communist secret police - a russian tool. These are many of the reasons why i am against a european army. It will likely be dominated by germany, and regardless of how much germans will try and pr their country’s image, germany has made colossal mistakes.
ng55QPSK 5y ago
Given the speed of german bureaucracy the money will be available to spend in 8...10 years.
mytailorisrich 5y ago
Double-edged sword for the US here if Europeans finally start to build up their own capability. Also, not sure where that leaves France if Germany "wakes up" militarily.
- _ph_ 5y ago
  One wonderful thing after WW2 is the French-German friendship developed. They are the closest partner and together an important cornerstone of the EU. And of course, in contrast to Germany, France has nuclear weapons.
  - mytailorisrich 5y ago
    "Friendship" works better when the relationship is balanced.
    - _ph_ 5y ago
      How wouldn't it be balanced?
      - mytailorisrich 5y ago
        It's not balanced and getting more imbalanced. Germany is much more powerful economically and has benefited massively from the Euro. EU extension to the East benefit them most. Brexit reinforced their domination. Now, if they also "wake up" militarily then France can soon be outclassed on all fronts and more of a "junior partner" than an "equal friend" (let's be honest, it already is). At least France has nukes and I hope no-one will have the "brilliant" idea to share them...
- nix23 5y ago
  >where that leaves France if Germany "wakes up" militarily With Nuclear submarines and rockets, same as the UK.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lvl100 5y ago
- Melio 5y ago
  Wtf? Pls leave your comments at home. We have a stable democracy for over 70 years. We are Europa power house, highly educated, make peace around the globe. We have better soviel standards than most countries. Are way more social than USA. You should really educate yourself...
  - lvl100 5y ago
    I am sorry it came across that way but this is how wars start. Countries first have excuses to build up arms. Same reason why I would never want Japan to build up arms. It is NOT different this time. And Russia has shown that. It’s never the people. It takes just ONE bad apple to start it all back up. And by the way, I did educate myself. Educated myself quite a bit on WWI and WWII.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - Melio 5y ago
      My comment regarding education was for current Germany. Modern Germany. The country who helps tremendously around the globe with stable politics. The country which did not hide it's past. We all learn in school about ww2.
tonyedgecombe 5y ago
It will be ironic if after all Putin's complaints about NATO the response to this is to strengthen NATO's capabilities in Europe.
- microtonal 5y ago
  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).
hestefisk 5y ago
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.
- belval 5y ago
  > 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. Not sure why you think this is surprising and/or wrong. Ukrainians are Europeans, they look the same, have similar institution, a compatible culture, etc... It's not hypocritical to feel the need to help your neighbor, and not everyone on the globe. In other words, if there were US refugees, Canada would most likely accept millions of them because at the end the day we "know" and interact with them a lot.
spupe 5y ago
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.
- tasubotadas 5y ago
  > went into more useful ones like research and development. What does Germany have to show here?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - spupe 5y ago
    Actually quite a bit, leading Europe by a comfortable margin[1][2]. Note that its two foremost European competitors (UK and France) were spending proportionally more into military in this period. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03320-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03320-2 [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03318-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03318-w
  - boruto 5y ago
    Things like covid vaccine?
- 5y ago
allisdust 5y ago
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-up-with-neglect-countrys-military-2022-02-24/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/german-army-chief-fed-u...
tsoukase 5y ago
The defense companies (aka military-industrial complex) lobby US military to force Russia/Ukraine (and in the past Afghanistan, Kosovo etc) to fight in order to push countries for military expenses and orders from the former. In the mean time the world watches the theater on the TV and comply...
- pelasaco 5y ago
  sure, the US military forced Putin to try to conquer the Crimea, the east Ukraine and now Kyiv. Putin had no other alternative, right? /s

176 points by pythux 5y ago

too little, too late Most NATO members are under the 2% min required of their membership for years No surprise Russia can just steamroll all the way through Ukraine with nothing but "strong" messages in the media in response.

Melio 5y ago
That's just not correct. NATO has higher military power than Russia. The reaction you see is diplomatic driven not military driven.
- PaywallBuster 5y ago
  `In light of this, we agree to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets and aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows; we will direct our defence budgets as efficiently and effectively as possible; we will aim to move towards the existing NATO guideline of spending 2% of GDP on defence within a decade, with a view to fulfilling NATO capability priorities. We will display the political will to provide required capabilities and deploy forces when they are needed.` https://web.archive.org/web/20180610061817/https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_112985.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20180610061817/https://www.nato.... NATO can have higher military power, but mostly coming from the USA spending 4% of GDP in military, while the "pacifist" European countries keep under spending, with most of them at only 1%
  - Melio 5y ago
    I'm not sure what you try to explain to me. Independent of the military spending the military power of NATO is still bigger than Russia. This is the point I made.
  - microtonal 5y ago
    Although European NATO members have been underspending, it's also a question of 1-2% of what. For example, UK's ($59.2b) and Germany's ($52.8b) spending alone was almost as much as Russia ($61.7b) [1]. The combined economies of EU Nato members is so much larger than Russia's that even with 1-2% spending, their military spending outnumbers that of Russia by a large margin. That said, I agree that all NATO countries should spend at least the required 2%. Just want to counter the wrong impression of military power. Even the European NATO members have vastly more military power than Russia, let alone the full NATO including the US. Of course, nukes change the equation, but once nukes start getting used, we are all doomed. Furthermore, neither the Russians, Ukrainians, Europeans or Americans want a nuclear war. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...
    - yyyk 5y ago
      >For example, UK's and Germany's spending alone was almost as much as Russia A lot of it goes to salaries, so in practice UK and Germany militaries have much less effective spend.
- yrgulation 5y ago
  The russian army is propaganda and nukes. Putin’s psychological warfare triggered images of the soviet army in us making us think they are unstoppable. Seems like we were wrong. Sure russia can do damage but its nowhere near the image it tries to project. Furthermore, russians aren’t monsters and they are against such a war.
  - adventured 5y ago
    > Furthermore, russians aren’t monsters and they are against such a war. While that's certainly true, Putin is a product of Russian culture. Just as the Russian state is today, and just as it was 30, 50, 70, 100 years ago. The people of Russia are responsible for what's going on. Putin is a very logical outcome to their culture of power, conquest and empire lust. They cheered when Putin took Crimea, they reveled in the expansion of empire, it made them feel good, and Putin fed off of it. They are responsible. For how many centuries does an outcome have to persist before the people of a nation are held responsible morally for what has occurred? Golly gee, those poor Russian people, they're just never responsible for anything that happens even if a thousand years goes by. I just can't figure out why Russia keeps ending up with authoritarian leaders, century after century. Must be some bad luck, that's all. And Americans don't bear responsibility for Iraq or the military industrial complex. Bull, of course they do. Yeah, but Putin is a dictator! The Russian people greatly applauded Putin's successes, gave him credit for things he didn't deserve credit for (oil prices artificially bolstering their economy during the Bush years), tolerated his behavior and extreme human rights abuses, and have never actually attempted to remove him from power (only relatively small challenges to his power have ever occurred). Overall they've barely lifted a finger in his direction to curb his behavior. They are responsible in every possible way. How many monsters, tsars, conquerers have to come out of Russia before it becomes obvious that it's springing directly from the Russian culture. The Russian culture is made by the Russian people. Thus, they're responsible. The German people were also responsible for Hitler, they made the culture of the region that produced him ideologically. They cheered the notion of empire and conquest openly, they reveled in the successes of their war machines. If one goes swimming in the history of cultures that repeatedly produce leaders with the conquering, empire mentality, you see many similarities. Putin has the mentality of European conquerers of centuries past, he represents a regressive disease ideologically. Russia is the only major nation that is part of Europe today that is still holding onto (largely) vanquished ideologies of conquest and empire that were very common in Europe in the 19th and early 20th centuries (and before). For Russia to not just get another authoritarian after Putin, the people of Russia have to consciously change their culture. Other European nations have done so, have eliminated barbaric cultures of conquest and empire, including prominently the Germans, French and British among others.
kleiba 5y ago
Don't forget that Ukraine is not a NATO member.
- PaywallBuster 5y ago
  Right But Russia has been encroaching around EU territory since taking Crimea in 2014 and if Ukraine did join NATO, or if Russia makes further threats against other potential NATO members like Finland or Sweeden, why wait until now
  - isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y ago
    Crimea is not in the EU.
    - PaywallBuster 5y ago
      updated to "around"
  - Melio 5y ago
    To keep diplomatic solutions open as long as possible of course.
e-clinton 5y ago
So we should we head into WW3 over Ukraine? What’s happening in Ukraine is incredibly sad, but if NATO gets involved millions (billions?) will die.
- PaywallBuster 5y ago
  Being ready or having a good defense in place is not the same as going into war.
  - cbg0 5y ago
    There already is a good defense in place.
- kqr 5y ago
  How confident of this are you? I might be interested in betting against you on that.
  - chrononaut 5y ago
    Not hundreds of millions of lives worth. Part of the problem is expectations. No one was comitting troops prior to the invasion, and the possible commitment of troops was one of the reasons Putin claimed he developed this situation to begin with, so it would have made a possibly avoidable situation immediately unavoidable. (Obviously he just went ahead anyway, hindsight.) As such it's even more difficult to commit troops now, as Russia committed to its strategy with the information it had, and thus it would be taking an extremely large gamble at massive cost to the world. However, troops are committed to various NATO members with a reinforcement of more. There is also a clear expectation that they will be defended should Russian aggression expand. Putin would have to willingly decide to bear this cost should he attack one of those nations, and its consequences. That wasn't the case at the time for the Ukraine. Responding to erratic behavior with erratic behavior does not lead to stability. It's a moral crusade, which you could argue is worth the possibility of World War 3.
    - kqr 5y ago

redwood 5y ago

Wow congratulations Europe!

markvdb 5y ago
This military budget increase being necessary is nothing to rejoice really.
- koonsolo 5y ago
  No it is. As NATO members you are committed to defend each other, but to also spend a % of your GDP on military. I know Belgium always payed the fine, which is less than actually spending it. That's like saying a bunch of buddies team up to defend each other, and each go take self defense lessons. Then in the end only the biggest buddy takes self defense classes, and the rest just hopes this guy is present the next time shit hits the fan. Not really fair is it? I hope Belgium also starts spending the proper amount, as they should have done already.
Friday_ 5y ago
You mean " thank you" Because german will now buy expensive gas and weapons from USA.
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago
  Or Germany could, you know, build and purchase local made weapons instead. It could ally with the France, Sweden, Belgium, Netherlands, etc. to lower development costs.
  - Friday_ 5y ago
    With what energy?
    - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
      With the energy it would have had if it wouldn't have given into the clueless Greens and shut down nuclear many years too early. There are major consequences to every vote and policy. People need to learn this and not vote on idealistic feelings.

umpalumpaaa 5y ago

155 billion to be precise. It’s 100 billion in addition to what is spent this year already.

jnsaff2 5y ago

How about invest 100 billion on renewables to get independence from russian gas.

umpalumpaaa 5y ago
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.
- Aeolun 5y ago
  Huh? He’s going to build more gas terminals to reduce the dependence on gas?
  - reitanqild 5y ago
    Probably to reduce the dependency on Russian gas.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ahartmetz 5y ago
    The dependence on Russian gas
  - sidkshatriya 5y ago
    You can import gas via pipeline (from Russia) or in liquid form (LNG) from Qatar and others. You need a terminal to deal with LNG which is under high pressure and very low temperatures. It will take longer to move away from gas as an energy source. That will happen over next decade at least.
  - mschuster91 5y ago
    The idea is to use these to import LNG from the US and Qatar, so that these terminals together with those in France, Belgium and the Netherlands can be used to supply all of Europe with gas - including the countries in Eastern Europe, that currently depend on Russian gas even more than we do.

yrgulation 5y ago

My respect for germany is through the roof.

sAbakumoff 5y ago

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.

zx85wes 5y ago
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_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...
- sAbakumoff 5y ago
  To put this into perspective: Build Back Better was at its highest $4.5 trillion over 10 years. The lowest point was $1.5 trillion for 10 years. Biden didn't do anything serious to actually pass it. But $700Bln+ for yearly defense budget? EASY!
  - zx85wes 5y ago
    4.5 trillion. Not billion. ;-) Agree with what you're trying to say.
- adventured 5y ago
  Germany isn't planning to spend $155 billion per year on defense. Why would it matter if $155 billion is 4.5% of Germany's annual GDP?
ejb999 5y ago
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.

sebow 5y ago

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)

croes 5y ago
>but there's also a reason the nato quota is calculated as a percentage of GDP Which reason? Since when is money spent a measurement of effectiveness? Some companies will just make more money but the people are fucked. Rotting infrastructure and overloaded social security systems. In the end this will lead to better armed extremists.
- sebow 5y ago
  Fixed values don't mean much of anything if you're a big economy like Germany. The reason the percentage is of GDP is, to put it very bluntly, because 'money needs protection'.Becoming an economic force without spending properly on defence is just stupid.And we're not talking about money spent being a measurement of effectiveness: defense spending is mostly investing and protecting the economy itself, that's one simplistic view of why it's measured as a percentage of gdp.(Alongside with the fact that more members spending 2% means Europe becomes less reliant on US) I don't know the details of the politics, but i believe this (outdated) article has good explanations about it: https://carnegieeurope.eu/2015/09/02/politics-of-2-percent-nato-and-security-vacuum-in-europe-pub-61139 https://carnegieeurope.eu/2015/09/02/politics-of-2-percent-n...
  - croes 5y ago
    Both percentage and fixed amount is useless if you don't define a goal that must be accomplished. Von der Leyen wasted lots of military money with McKinsey. The US wasted lots of money on a shitty next-gen jet fighter. So making money the measurements leads to corruption. In Germany's case it's even worse because if the debt brake. The money that goes to the military is cut from others expenses, most often healthcare, social security and education. So the future will be full of devasted, poor people who can't afford education and health care for themselves and their children. And that without the guarantee of proper ability of self-defence. Of course poor people without social security are good for the military because many would join them to make a living. The effect of this is pretty obvious in Russia and the US.

AniseAbyss 5y ago

If you put all the defense budgets of the EU together it dwarfs Russia. Sadly because of historical reasons we can't have a European army.

Aeolun 5y ago
I think it’s more that this is difficult. But certainly not impossible. The problem is that we’d need an even more integrated Europe (and probably language). And a lot of people don’t want that.
ChuckNorris89 5y ago
>Sadly because of historical reasons we can't have a European army No, history is not the issue, it's because good luck convincing French or Germans for example, they gotta send their men to fight protecting Poland, Romania or Bulgaria for example, or vice versa. All you have to do is look at how badly EU countries cooperated during the Greek economic crisis, the migrant crisis of 2015, the Covid crisis, etc. Every EU member government was blaming each other or the immigrants from poorer countries and refusing to cooperate or come to a consensus. And you think military cooperation will somehow work better?
- viraptor 5y ago
  We don't have an international pact triggered by historical experience around handling refugees, or infectious disease control. We have one like that exactly for the purpose of military support. So yes, we expect NATO members to step up for protection of other members. We have joint exercises so that the forces do have common approaches and plans.
  - viraptor 5y ago
    Turns out things change quickly: https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1498017173792514051 https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1498017173792514051 > EU announces it has agreed unanimously amongst all member countries to take in Ukrainian refugees fir up to 3 years without asking them to first apply for asylum.

4gotunameagain 5y ago

The only winners from war are oligarchs and the "defense" industry..

Aeolun 5y ago
Unfortunately you will need defense as long as you have madmen ruling some of the countries around you.
- Hamuko 5y ago
  Well, historically the madman in this part of the world has been Germany. Germany doesn't really have a border with Russia to worry about like for example the Baltics have.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - jonathanstrange 5y ago
    And now it's Putin.
  - isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y ago
    I see that you're the fan of appeasement strategy. Worked out well for France and the UK in the past.
    - Hamuko 5y ago
      Who are you arguing against?
  - rat9988 5y ago
    > historically the madman in this part of the world has been Germany I guess different history books paint different histories.
    - 5y ago

aaaaaaaaaaab 5y ago

And maybe bring back nuclear power plants? Nah, that would actually make sense!

turbinerneiter 5y ago
Sure, because buying Uranium from the Russians is so much better than buying their gas. Also totally not a limited resource, absolutely not extremely expensive, does for sure not take a long time to build, has now downsides at all, does not even produce waste.
- actuator 5y ago
  Canada and Australia have tons of uranium. Magnitudes more than Russia No one is saying a country should run on Uranium till it exhausts. It is there to supplement renewables till we can have major breakthroughs there. It is not like burning gas doesn't come with its challenges of handling waste
- orbifold 5y ago
  There is plenty of Uranium elsewhere, plus if you build the right reactors, you can use Uranium much more efficiently.

T3RMINATED 5y ago

hans1729 5y ago

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

kleiba 5y ago
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.
- mschuster91 5y ago
  There is a way out: tax the rich. Lindner will have to see reason eventually.
  - croes 5y ago
    Lindner? No way. He rather kills social security than tax the rich accordingly
  - mccorrinall 5y ago
    We are already taxing the rich though?
    - b112 5y ago
      Some think taxing the rich is some eternal well of a problem solve. This well can be run dry very fast, when one talks about state level spending. And once dry, and once shown that all efforts lead to naught, is stays dry. An example? I just work less, rather than pay more tax, and lose certain tax breaks. Why would I toil more, only to make less per hour?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

anotheraccount9 5y ago

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.

Melio 5y ago
It's hopefull thinking. Which is not a bad thing to do. But now it's time to accept Putin for what he is.

sinyug 5y ago

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. [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_2018_president_trump_told_nato_secretary_europe_is_a_captive_of_russia_as_long_as_theyre_buying_russian_oil_and_gas.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/02/25/flashback...) [2] FactChecking Trump’s NATO Remarks (https://www.factcheck.org/2019/12/factchecking-trumps-nato-remarks/ https://www.factcheck.org/2019/12/factchecking-trumps-nato-r...)

yrgulation 5y ago
This. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Most europeans are aware of germany’s involuntary aid for russia but cant do much since germany dominates eu politics. There is a near conspiracy theory amount of decisions that Merkel took and played right into putin’s favour. Also worth noting the german ceo of north stream is a former stasi officer, the east german communist secret police - a russian tool. These are many of the reasons why i am against a european army. It will likely be dominated by germany, and regardless of how much germans will try and pr their country’s image, germany has made colossal mistakes.

ng55QPSK 5y ago

Given the speed of german bureaucracy the money will be available to spend in 8...10 years.

mytailorisrich 5y ago

Double-edged sword for the US here if Europeans finally start to build up their own capability. Also, not sure where that leaves France if Germany "wakes up" militarily.

_ph_ 5y ago
One wonderful thing after WW2 is the French-German friendship developed. They are the closest partner and together an important cornerstone of the EU. And of course, in contrast to Germany, France has nuclear weapons.
- mytailorisrich 5y ago
  "Friendship" works better when the relationship is balanced.
  - _ph_ 5y ago
    How wouldn't it be balanced?
    - mytailorisrich 5y ago
      It's not balanced and getting more imbalanced. Germany is much more powerful economically and has benefited massively from the Euro. EU extension to the East benefit them most. Brexit reinforced their domination. Now, if they also "wake up" militarily then France can soon be outclassed on all fronts and more of a "junior partner" than an "equal friend" (let's be honest, it already is). At least France has nukes and I hope no-one will have the "brilliant" idea to share them...
nix23 5y ago
>where that leaves France if Germany "wakes up" militarily With Nuclear submarines and rockets, same as the UK.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

lvl100 5y ago

Melio 5y ago
Wtf? Pls leave your comments at home. We have a stable democracy for over 70 years. We are Europa power house, highly educated, make peace around the globe. We have better soviel standards than most countries. Are way more social than USA. You should really educate yourself...
- lvl100 5y ago
  I am sorry it came across that way but this is how wars start. Countries first have excuses to build up arms. Same reason why I would never want Japan to build up arms. It is NOT different this time. And Russia has shown that. It’s never the people. It takes just ONE bad apple to start it all back up. And by the way, I did educate myself. Educated myself quite a bit on WWI and WWII.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Melio 5y ago
    My comment regarding education was for current Germany. Modern Germany. The country who helps tremendously around the globe with stable politics. The country which did not hide it's past. We all learn in school about ww2.

tonyedgecombe 5y ago

It will be ironic if after all Putin's complaints about NATO the response to this is to strengthen NATO's capabilities in Europe.

microtonal 5y ago
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).

hestefisk 5y ago

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.

belval 5y ago
> 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. Not sure why you think this is surprising and/or wrong. Ukrainians are Europeans, they look the same, have similar institution, a compatible culture, etc... It's not hypocritical to feel the need to help your neighbor, and not everyone on the globe. In other words, if there were US refugees, Canada would most likely accept millions of them because at the end the day we "know" and interact with them a lot.

spupe 5y ago

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.

tasubotadas 5y ago
> went into more useful ones like research and development. What does Germany have to show here?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- spupe 5y ago
  Actually quite a bit, leading Europe by a comfortable margin[1][2]. Note that its two foremost European competitors (UK and France) were spending proportionally more into military in this period. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03320-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03320-2 [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03318-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03318-w
- boruto 5y ago
  Things like covid vaccine?
5y ago

allisdust 5y ago

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-up-with-neglect-countrys-military-2022-02-24/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/german-army-chief-fed-u...

tsoukase 5y ago

The defense companies (aka military-industrial complex) lobby US military to force Russia/Ukraine (and in the past Afghanistan, Kosovo etc) to fight in order to push countries for military expenses and orders from the former. In the mean time the world watches the theater on the TV and comply...

pelasaco 5y ago
sure, the US military forced Putin to try to conquer the Crimea, the east Ukraine and now Kyiv. Putin had no other alternative, right? /s