« The Lebanese Connection | Main | "Faint tapping" The beginning of the end for Japan »

06 December 2019


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

As a Kraut reserve guy. To be the nucleus for a European army we Krauts would have to drop our brave soldier Sweijk act which we maintain in front of the Americans (and to a lesser extent the Russians). As our politicians dont have the cojones to say no to the transatlanticists (well, a lot of them are tansatlanticists), the only way to prevent German troops from being voluntold to the hotter lines of contact with the Russians is to publically appear so inept that no serious request is made by the "transatlantic community".
One can say no to Uncle Sam, but saying no in the way of "we could do as you want, but it would be stupid and criminal, therefor we are not going to do it", carries costs while "we would love to follow your glorious and totally sane requests, but sadly our military is not as incredible as yours and as such we hope that valiant America will heroically carry the burden" works better and does not carry personal carreer trajectory costs for whoever says no.

Essentially, the (rather soft in historical terms, the US is a fairly benign overlord from a european perspective, certainly more benign then a lot of European overlords were) vasallisation of the EU by the USA had the hardly unexecpected result of degrading European military capabilities (rule 101: if a vasall has a competent military, he will probably be demanding independence soon). It is no surprise that the countries who are least "vasallized by the US" in Europe maintain the most capable militaries (these being Russia, Turkey and France as well as GB. While GB is quite subordinate to the USA, they believe that they are allies rather then vasalls which improves their willingness to invest resources).

From a strictly machieavellian perspective, why should Germany fund a large and capable standing army? Its utilization (for what German goal?) would be subject of the veto by the USA, and it could be utilized by the USA on issues that either dont matter to German interests or are actually against German interests, while Germany could in turn veto such utilizations, saying no to Uncle Sam carries a political/personal price. The "transatlantic community" never forgave Schröder for saying no to the Iraq invasion, even if the USA would have been massively better off listening to him on this issue, and even despite Schröder rock solid transatlanticist credentials (he was behind declaring article 5 over 9/11, and threatenened to resign if the greens did not agree to the German Afghanistan mission).

We Germans are surrounded by nations that we are treaty bound to not invade, and that are treaty bound to not invade us. Much of the migration threat we face is due to ill advised military operations. Much of the "Russian threat" we face is due to also ill advised military expansion.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

My Photo

January 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by Typepad