8 ms·

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,

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?
      - bdavis__ 5y ago
        one just has to identify how society determines the "rich", and how much to require. both of these are very difficult questions. i want to tax the rich! yes, i do. lets take a reasonable share and deal with societies ill's. let's not take all their money; just the excess that there is no reasonable chance that an individual could use it. for example, you could raise my takes $100 a month and it would not be missed, or noticed. in Elon's case, $10M a month would be nothing.
        mccorrinall 5y ago
        You can't just dump all his shares into the market and expect it to absorb it. He still pays capital gains tax when he is realizing profits though.
      - aspenmayer 5y ago
        If you earn a wage, or otherwise rely on an earned income to live or sustain yourself, you’re not rich in the same sense that you’re using the word. Wealth and income are not the same.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - sascha_sl 5y ago
        The "rich" people you generally want to tax do not toil, their income is all generated by capital (aka "passive income"), not labor.
    - mschuster91 5y ago
      We are not. The amount of the wealth of billionaires and their number has exploded since the "golden 80s" era, and the corporate and individual tax rate has plummeted correspondingly since then. We had so much tax money that we used to build and maintain swimming pools even in tiny villages. These days, after they had to close for lack of tax base, we have record numbers of children drowning because they have no nearby and affordable place where they can learn to swim.
    - sascha_sl 5y ago
      We're very bad at doing it in any way that'd matter to them. https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.575768.de/dp1717.pdf https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.57576...
    - hansel_der 5y ago
      sure we do, the question is of course "how". afaik income tax is "progressive" in most nations but practically hyperbolic aka progressive in a way that is just barely true to the meaning of the word.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  Yields on many German bonds are negative: * https://www.investing.com/rates-bonds/germany-government-bonds https://www.investing.com/rates-bonds/germany-government-bon... 10Y bonds have been negative since April 2019, before the pandemic: * https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IRLTLT01DEM156N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IRLTLT01DEM156N By borrowing money Germany can actually make a 'profit'.
  - native_samples 5y ago
    That's just because all the bonds are bought by the government's themselves using printed money. It doesn't actually mean Europe is in a good position financially. Inflation is rising fast and had the potential to cause ruin. Of all times it is blue that Europe is financially wrap and unable to respond, thanks to our society being unable to detect academic pseudoscience.
    - pas 5y ago
      Printed money is also cheap as long as inflation is low. For example it took trillions in unexpected spending to bump US inflation above the target 2%. And yields are going to remain low because of the aging population of the "west" put their pension into stable assets, and pension funds will buy gov. bonds. https://fullstackeconomics.com/sorry-deficit-hawks/ https://fullstackeconomics.com/sorry-deficit-hawks/
    - throw0101a 5y ago
      Negative real rates are negative real rates. The yield has been dropping in the Euro area for twenty years: * https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/financial_markets_and_interest_rates/euro_area_yield_curves/html/index.en.html https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/financial_markets_and_intere... For a while you could get mortgages with negative rates: * https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/aug/13/danish-bank-launches-worlds-first-negative-interest-rate-mortgage https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/aug/13/danish-bank-la... Too much spending has generally not been Europe's problem.
SCHiM 5y ago
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.
- ejb999 5y ago
  >>It is only prudent to shore up your defenses when a country in your region starts a war I'd actually say it is much more prudent to shore up your defenses BEFORE you need it, not after. Playing catch up is hard to do when the tanks start rolling in.
  - xcambar 5y ago
    I find your rationale too simple. It is reasonable to assume that it would have been at the same time unacceptable for the population and perceived as a threat by other nations, should that have been done proactively.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - ejb999 5y ago
      What exactly is 'too simple' about planning for the future? Do you also start shopping for homeowners insurance once the house catches on fire? Last few decades have been 'relatively' peaceful for many parts of Europe, but given the almost 2 thousand year history of on and off warfare in Europe, nobody should have been surprised for the need for a country to defend itself or its neighbors. What is 'simple' is assuming that because it is peaceful today, it will always be peaceful.
      - xcambar 5y ago
        Since you're comparing a house to a country, resp. a fire to war, and resp. an insurance to diplomatic relationships, then I stand strongly by my initial comment. Your comment is overly simplistic as it ignores a ton of the signals that nations and leaders emit by doing one thing or the other. Think of the nuclear treaties: they're here to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, actually adding to the global security. Si, yes, not beefing up your military can be beneficial to everyone.
spupe 5y ago
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.
- xcambar 5y ago
  It is now very popular to see the good ol' times of alliances as dead. The lack of reliability regarding the relationships between nations is truly the most significant sign of a changing (changed?), unstable, world.
  - pas 5y ago
    It's a long overdue correction. Alliances were not just big promises and handshakes and expectations of blind loyalty (and doing the right thing). They were power structures forged in quid pro quo deals that continuously benefited the parties. As the cold war, uh, thawed to room temperature and China became the new focus the old alliance deals started to make no sense. Now that suddenly the kleptocratic gas station attendant feels insecure the old alliance starts to make sense again, but the underlying deals might need a bit of tweaking.
- mccorrinall 5y ago
  While we do have money, I don’t agree with this move. In the end, the german tax payer will need to pay more for gas, since we are importing very expensive fracking gas from the US now, instead of getting cheap gas via nordstream 2. Germany has so many social issues, we honestly should spend more money to get people off the street and have affordable housing. Not spending another 100bn on weapons and destructive activities.
  - b112 5y ago
    Germany already has the money to do that, but it doesn't want to. Thus, spending money on the military has no relation, as to why other things aren't being done. Therefore, complaining about those other things, in reference to this thing, is not logical. They are separate. Now take a step back. Look at history. Don't be fooled into thinking humans have somehow inexplicably changed in a few decades. Now, should a country be able to defend itself? Should it prepare? If not, why?
yyyk 5y ago
>NATO should have enough guns already 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.
- mccorrinall 5y ago
  Because a non-nato member has been invaded? Or are you referring to something else than the current ukraine crisis?
refurb 5y ago
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.
mccorrinall 5y ago
We do have the psychologists. What we are lacking off are the „kassenärztliche Zulassungen“. The personnel is there, they are just not getting the license to open an office.
- pas 5y ago
  Can somebody please explain this? :) (details are welcome!)
  - BjoernKW 5y ago
    The national healthcare system in Germany to a large extent is based on a command economy. The number of licenses for psychotherapists - in fact, for any kind of physician - allowed to bill through the national healthcare system is artificially constrained (not unlike the taxi medallion system in New York, for example) by regional authorities for statutory health insurance physicians ("Kassenärztliche Vereinigungen"). This can create artificial scarcity for specific kinds of medical professions, such as psychotherapists in this case.
  - sascha_sl 5y ago
    The association of public insurance providers in Germany provides a limited set of licenses that make psychotherapy reimbursable, everyone else practices in private. These licenses can also be transferred, making them a commodity among therapists. It's a horribly outdated stance that has pushed waiting lists far beyond the stated legal maximum wait time. This means you can technically get private therapy reimbursed, but the bureaucracy in between (proof you have attempted to get therapy at 3+ places that get reimbursement, filing and often fighting over specific charges) is designed to stall people already fed up with life into simply giving up.
    - hansel_der 5y ago
      > These licenses can also be transferred, making them a commodity among therapists. sure? i was under the impression that the licensing also serves as a vetting process and are bound to a person.
cm2187 5y ago
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.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  The problem is political, it is not shortage of planes, tanks and missiles. Europe has more and better military hardware than Russia in every category except SAMs. The challange is EU governments and armies don't act in unison.
  - cm2187 5y ago
    I agree with your point on the political challenges, but not with your point on military hardware. There was a recent report on the French military by the rand corporation that stated that France wouldn't be able to sustain a long conflict [1], and the Franco-British intervention in Libya was critically dependent on US logistics and intelligence. I don't think that it is the european armies that provide the Baltic states any comfort right now. [1] https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA231-1.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA231-1.html
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      Thank you for the link, haven't had a chance to read it yet, but this seems to talk about opearting in a distant theater while the scenario here is 'home turf' and we would be adding up 27 countries that make up Europe?
      - cm2187 5y ago
        I think the report is explicitly assessing France’s readiness for a large conventional war in eastern europe.
hh3k0 5y ago
> 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.
samsonradu 5y ago
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.
- hansel_der 5y ago
  > 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. ppl die every day, it's the quantity and reasons that should inform a strategy. (saying this as about 60 ppl died in a mining accident the other day)
ricardobayes 5y ago
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.
- phatfish 5y ago
  The Roman empire was a superpower. Do we need to give most of western Europe back to Italy? Same with Britain, and any number of other examples throughout history. Times change, there is no right for Russia to control Ukraine (or to be a "superpower") just because that's how it used to be.
  - onos 5y ago
    The world may be returning to a state of “might is right”, if we ever left it.
  - ricardobayes 5y ago
    Of course, I agree fully. But that's not how superpowers think.
    - infamia 5y ago
throwaway4good 5y ago
This is tragic shift in European foreign policy. Will lead nowhere good.
temp8964 5y ago
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
- hansel_der 5y ago
  it can be argued that more education would reduce the number of ppl that go along with "suboptimal" leadership and hence would make the world a better place, no?
  - pintxo 5y ago
    True, but it’s more of a long term solution, isn’t it?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - hansel_der 5y ago
      yes, why do you ask?
      - pintxo 5y ago
        This was merely a rhetoric question: It's not going to help with out current problem.
amcoastal 5y ago
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.

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?
    - bdavis__ 5y ago
      one just has to identify how society determines the "rich", and how much to require. both of these are very difficult questions. i want to tax the rich! yes, i do. lets take a reasonable share and deal with societies ill's. let's not take all their money; just the excess that there is no reasonable chance that an individual could use it. for example, you could raise my takes $100 a month and it would not be missed, or noticed. in Elon's case, $10M a month would be nothing.
      - mccorrinall 5y ago
        You can't just dump all his shares into the market and expect it to absorb it. He still pays capital gains tax when he is realizing profits though.
    - aspenmayer 5y ago
      If you earn a wage, or otherwise rely on an earned income to live or sustain yourself, you’re not rich in the same sense that you’re using the word. Wealth and income are not the same.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - sascha_sl 5y ago
      The "rich" people you generally want to tax do not toil, their income is all generated by capital (aka "passive income"), not labor.
  - mschuster91 5y ago
    We are not. The amount of the wealth of billionaires and their number has exploded since the "golden 80s" era, and the corporate and individual tax rate has plummeted correspondingly since then. We had so much tax money that we used to build and maintain swimming pools even in tiny villages. These days, after they had to close for lack of tax base, we have record numbers of children drowning because they have no nearby and affordable place where they can learn to swim.
  - sascha_sl 5y ago
    We're very bad at doing it in any way that'd matter to them. https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.575768.de/dp1717.pdf https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.57576...
  - hansel_der 5y ago
    sure we do, the question is of course "how". afaik income tax is "progressive" in most nations but practically hyperbolic aka progressive in a way that is just barely true to the meaning of the word.
throw0101a 5y ago
Yields on many German bonds are negative: * https://www.investing.com/rates-bonds/germany-government-bonds https://www.investing.com/rates-bonds/germany-government-bon... 10Y bonds have been negative since April 2019, before the pandemic: * https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IRLTLT01DEM156N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IRLTLT01DEM156N By borrowing money Germany can actually make a 'profit'.
- native_samples 5y ago
  That's just because all the bonds are bought by the government's themselves using printed money. It doesn't actually mean Europe is in a good position financially. Inflation is rising fast and had the potential to cause ruin. Of all times it is blue that Europe is financially wrap and unable to respond, thanks to our society being unable to detect academic pseudoscience.
  - pas 5y ago
    Printed money is also cheap as long as inflation is low. For example it took trillions in unexpected spending to bump US inflation above the target 2%. And yields are going to remain low because of the aging population of the "west" put their pension into stable assets, and pension funds will buy gov. bonds. https://fullstackeconomics.com/sorry-deficit-hawks/ https://fullstackeconomics.com/sorry-deficit-hawks/
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    Negative real rates are negative real rates. The yield has been dropping in the Euro area for twenty years: * https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/financial_markets_and_interest_rates/euro_area_yield_curves/html/index.en.html https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/financial_markets_and_intere... For a while you could get mortgages with negative rates: * https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/aug/13/danish-bank-launches-worlds-first-negative-interest-rate-mortgage https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/aug/13/danish-bank-la... Too much spending has generally not been Europe's problem.

SCHiM 5y ago

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.

ejb999 5y ago
>>It is only prudent to shore up your defenses when a country in your region starts a war I'd actually say it is much more prudent to shore up your defenses BEFORE you need it, not after. Playing catch up is hard to do when the tanks start rolling in.
- xcambar 5y ago
  I find your rationale too simple. It is reasonable to assume that it would have been at the same time unacceptable for the population and perceived as a threat by other nations, should that have been done proactively.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ejb999 5y ago
    What exactly is 'too simple' about planning for the future? Do you also start shopping for homeowners insurance once the house catches on fire? Last few decades have been 'relatively' peaceful for many parts of Europe, but given the almost 2 thousand year history of on and off warfare in Europe, nobody should have been surprised for the need for a country to defend itself or its neighbors. What is 'simple' is assuming that because it is peaceful today, it will always be peaceful.
    - xcambar 5y ago
      Since you're comparing a house to a country, resp. a fire to war, and resp. an insurance to diplomatic relationships, then I stand strongly by my initial comment. Your comment is overly simplistic as it ignores a ton of the signals that nations and leaders emit by doing one thing or the other. Think of the nuclear treaties: they're here to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, actually adding to the global security. Si, yes, not beefing up your military can be beneficial to everyone.

spupe 5y ago

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.

xcambar 5y ago
It is now very popular to see the good ol' times of alliances as dead. The lack of reliability regarding the relationships between nations is truly the most significant sign of a changing (changed?), unstable, world.
- pas 5y ago
  It's a long overdue correction. Alliances were not just big promises and handshakes and expectations of blind loyalty (and doing the right thing). They were power structures forged in quid pro quo deals that continuously benefited the parties. As the cold war, uh, thawed to room temperature and China became the new focus the old alliance deals started to make no sense. Now that suddenly the kleptocratic gas station attendant feels insecure the old alliance starts to make sense again, but the underlying deals might need a bit of tweaking.
mccorrinall 5y ago
While we do have money, I don’t agree with this move. In the end, the german tax payer will need to pay more for gas, since we are importing very expensive fracking gas from the US now, instead of getting cheap gas via nordstream 2. Germany has so many social issues, we honestly should spend more money to get people off the street and have affordable housing. Not spending another 100bn on weapons and destructive activities.
- b112 5y ago
  Germany already has the money to do that, but it doesn't want to. Thus, spending money on the military has no relation, as to why other things aren't being done. Therefore, complaining about those other things, in reference to this thing, is not logical. They are separate. Now take a step back. Look at history. Don't be fooled into thinking humans have somehow inexplicably changed in a few decades. Now, should a country be able to defend itself? Should it prepare? If not, why?

yyyk 5y ago

>NATO should have enough guns already 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.

mccorrinall 5y ago
Because a non-nato member has been invaded? Or are you referring to something else than the current ukraine crisis?

refurb 5y ago

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.

mccorrinall 5y ago

We do have the psychologists. What we are lacking off are the „kassenärztliche Zulassungen“. The personnel is there, they are just not getting the license to open an office.

pas 5y ago
Can somebody please explain this? :) (details are welcome!)
- BjoernKW 5y ago
  The national healthcare system in Germany to a large extent is based on a command economy. The number of licenses for psychotherapists - in fact, for any kind of physician - allowed to bill through the national healthcare system is artificially constrained (not unlike the taxi medallion system in New York, for example) by regional authorities for statutory health insurance physicians ("Kassenärztliche Vereinigungen"). This can create artificial scarcity for specific kinds of medical professions, such as psychotherapists in this case.
- sascha_sl 5y ago
  The association of public insurance providers in Germany provides a limited set of licenses that make psychotherapy reimbursable, everyone else practices in private. These licenses can also be transferred, making them a commodity among therapists. It's a horribly outdated stance that has pushed waiting lists far beyond the stated legal maximum wait time. This means you can technically get private therapy reimbursed, but the bureaucracy in between (proof you have attempted to get therapy at 3+ places that get reimbursement, filing and often fighting over specific charges) is designed to stall people already fed up with life into simply giving up.
  - hansel_der 5y ago
    > These licenses can also be transferred, making them a commodity among therapists. sure? i was under the impression that the licensing also serves as a vetting process and are bound to a person.

cm2187 5y ago

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.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
The problem is political, it is not shortage of planes, tanks and missiles. Europe has more and better military hardware than Russia in every category except SAMs. The challange is EU governments and armies don't act in unison.
- cm2187 5y ago
  I agree with your point on the political challenges, but not with your point on military hardware. There was a recent report on the French military by the rand corporation that stated that France wouldn't be able to sustain a long conflict [1], and the Franco-British intervention in Libya was critically dependent on US logistics and intelligence. I don't think that it is the european armies that provide the Baltic states any comfort right now. [1] https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA231-1.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA231-1.html
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    Thank you for the link, haven't had a chance to read it yet, but this seems to talk about opearting in a distant theater while the scenario here is 'home turf' and we would be adding up 27 countries that make up Europe?
    - cm2187 5y ago
      I think the report is explicitly assessing France’s readiness for a large conventional war in eastern europe.

hh3k0 5y ago

> 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.

samsonradu 5y ago

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.

hansel_der 5y ago
> 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. ppl die every day, it's the quantity and reasons that should inform a strategy. (saying this as about 60 ppl died in a mining accident the other day)

ricardobayes 5y ago

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.

phatfish 5y ago
The Roman empire was a superpower. Do we need to give most of western Europe back to Italy? Same with Britain, and any number of other examples throughout history. Times change, there is no right for Russia to control Ukraine (or to be a "superpower") just because that's how it used to be.
- onos 5y ago
  The world may be returning to a state of “might is right”, if we ever left it.
- ricardobayes 5y ago
  Of course, I agree fully. But that's not how superpowers think.
  - infamia 5y ago

throwaway4good 5y ago

This is tragic shift in European foreign policy. Will lead nowhere good.

temp8964 5y ago

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

hansel_der 5y ago
it can be argued that more education would reduce the number of ppl that go along with "suboptimal" leadership and hence would make the world a better place, no?
- pintxo 5y ago
  True, but it’s more of a long term solution, isn’t it?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - hansel_der 5y ago
    yes, why do you ask?
    - pintxo 5y ago
      This was merely a rhetoric question: It's not going to help with out current problem.

amcoastal 5y ago

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.