Germany commits €100B to defense spending
dw.com
dw.com
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?
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.
He still pays capital gains tax when he is realizing profits though.
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.
https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.57576...
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.
* 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
By borrowing money Germany can actually make a 'profit'.
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://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-la...
Too much spending has generally not been Europe's problem.
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.
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.
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.
Sure but, you can't change past. So NOW, is the best option left on the table.
Moreover, everything seems obvious afterwards. But what if Putin had not started rampaging? The opportunity cost of spending 100B on defense if it wasn't needed, is huge. Integrated over decades, that sort of money is (part of) the difference between having a German economy and a Russian economy.
Also, investments age. It may make sense to make upgrades only when you need them.
Those are all maybes. I don't have the answer. But I think it'd good to have in mind that the world is more complex than that.
This needs to be balanced against the public opinion, which is not (AFAIK) very favourable to war-related business in Germany. It is also complicated by the fact that nobody knows when they will be needed, so war spending can be practically increased as a matter of principle, not because war is expected in X years; this makes it more difficult to accept.
No one can change the past, so shoring up defenses now is better than waiting until later, especially when the need might be more acute and it is actually too late.
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.
The lack of reliability regarding the relationships between nations is truly the most significant sign of a changing (changed?), unstable, world.
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.
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.
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?
We are taking on debt to do this.
Germany is a very rich country. It can walk and chew gum at the same time.
And no. Our leaders (especially Olaf Scholz) decided to put Nordstream 2 on hold, Putin didn't change anything regarding Russia's gas export.
I see it like this: Russia gets the eastern Ukraine, the US gets to export more expensive fracking gas, and the Europeans are on the losing side in both cases.
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.
The personnel is there, they are just not getting the license to open an office.
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.
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.
sure? i was under the impression that the licensing also serves as a vetting process and are bound to a person.
https://www.therapie.de/aktuell/artikel/handelsware-kassensi...
They're not exactly trades, but those who retire are able to declare a successor - and they're not forbidden from making such deals.
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.
The challange is EU governments and armies don't act in unison.
[1] https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA231-1.html
Europe's deterrent is basically "We're really good friends with the USA."
What does the USA gain from this setup?
The deal used to be that we soak up the refugees created in their wars, while also providing the military bases (think Rammstein etc) that cement their power, etc. When media figures in the US make it look like the US were the generous gifters of freedom and security, and their allies are effectively parasites, that’s just populism/right-wing agitation.
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.
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.
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)
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.
It will take longer to move away from gas as an energy source. That will happen over next decade at least.
You are aware what Habeck is currently doing?
There are already plans for laws which will force more investment and reduce burdens.
He talked about it in length just in January.
Exactly.
He already mentioned his timeline.
Let's start critisis him when the time is right and not just a few month after the election.
And yes corona and Ukraine conflict adds additional burden on everyone.
It feels more like modern cooperation working together.
- From helmets to actual military aid to Ukraine.
- large increase in military expenditure instead of woeful inadequacy.
- reversal of Swift decision.
Why wouldn’t there be a change in energy policy if Russia continues its war in Ukraine? This huge reliance on Russian gas has Europe, and especially Germany, in this strange conflict of interest.
If political winds change to support nuclear then such processes would evaporate into something far more streamlined and efficient because they simply don't make any sense in the context of "we want to do this nuclear thing and we want to do it ASAP".
It doesn't seem to be so impossible as you think.
Lets imagine that the gas pipeline from Russia explodes due to war or Putin shuts it off. Is it still 'impossible', as in we'd rather freeze and have blackouts?
which one? https://www.gie.eu/publications/maps/gie-lng-map/
In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't make sense to go back to nuclear power. It is afterall a very expensive technology. It is much more efficient to go full in with renewables. And nuclear power does not work well together with renewables, as it cannot be controlled fast enough.
Would it make more of a difference than just using the same amount of money that would need to be spent to refit the old nuclear plants for longer use to build out renewables across the EU? No, not even close.
> German nuclear energy companies reject demands for nuclear power extension
Maybe nuclear waste storage is not yet solved, but it is a long term problem while global warming is already here. I’d rather work on storage solutions for the next 1000 years than fighting floods, hurricanes and forest fires every day.
Hydrogen is a joke, just the infrastructure to distribute it will dwarf any costs nuclear could ever have. Not to mention production costs . . .
And you are already irradiating your country by burning coal, so no idea what do you mean by "Instead of investing into irradiating our country".
And observed practice in Germany confirms this. Or do you have real data pointing in other direction? Say, period of low output from solar & wind which resulted in anything else than using mostly (imported) fossil-fueled electricity?
EDIT to illustrate:
https://www.agora-energiewende.de/en/service/recent-electric... - emission factor of Germany's power generation was for several days (during the selected week) far above EU average (https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/overview-...)
But to entertain your argument: yes i agree that it would make sense if i, personally, had more energy storage. However i don't see how that is relevant to my point against investing (tax money probably) into reviving a dead nuclear industry.
As a side note with you, _Tev, on a personal level: sure we could have a talk about that "fig leave" metaphor and if there is some kind of conspiracy in german politics and power industry that profits from coal. We could talk about whether hydrogen "is a joke" or a worthy investment, but honestly your rhetoric makes me not want to talk with you at all, as i don't think i will enjoy it.
Back to the point: this constant reiteration of "it is either coal or nuclear" is a false dichotomy and answering an argument against the nuclear industry with "but what about coal" is what-about-ism. My point is: the german nuclear industry is/was incredibly dirty, with an unsolved waste problem, expensive, reliant on Russia, failed to deliver its promises for decades and by now it is deader then disco. The newest german nuclear power plant was constructed in the '80s. Trying to revive that industry is not an actual solution to the problems of our energy market. That is like trying to revive the soviet union to get rid of Putin. The way forward must be something else. And no, that does not mean i am in favor of coal, russian gas, or american fracking.
So you say i should invest into energy storage? Sounds reasonable, any more concrete pointers?
Logically it's absolutely true that inattentive drivers are a greater risk to Americans than airline hijackers but 3,000+ people dying in one day in one location hits a lot harder than 30,000 people dying mostly one or two at a time, over 12 months, spread out across fifty states.
As an aside, France announced last week a plan to construct 6 new EPR installations, and a plan to revamp and extend the existing fleet.
The Netherlands has reversed it's decision to phase out gaz, and is extending it's capacity.
https://quillette.com/2022/01/27/why-environmentalists-pose-...
Nuclear has a place to do what the French did, massive subsidies to achieve a national security motivated energy independence. With renewables at the fore front that argument does not exist anymore. Now nuclear only exists to share an industry base with naval reactors in submarines.
Turns out environmentalists of the 20th century are directly responsible for global warming.
But as airplane crashes became rarer the more we flew, so will nuclear accidents the more we build and use nuclear power plants. The ones we have are a very old and early technologuy.
The French famously had some negative learning by doing in their nuclear build out.
> The French nuclear case illustrates the perils of the assumption of robust learning effects resulting in lowered costs over time in the scale-up of large-scale, complex new energy supply technologies. The uncertainties in anticipated learning effects of new technologies might be much larger that often assumed, including also cases of “negative learning” in which specific costs increase rather than decrease with accumulated experience.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014...
Contrast that to any other kind of power generation, and the regulatory uncertainty alone is enough to sink any interest in spending a large amount of money up-front on something so uncertain.
> By the mid-1970s it became clear that nuclear power would not grow nearly as quickly as once believed. Cost overruns were sometimes a factor of ten above original industry estimates, and became a major problem. For the 75 nuclear power reactors built from 1966 to 1977, cost overruns averaged 207 percent. Opposition and problems were galvanized by the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.[48]
> Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were canceled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage, and 27 percent are operating without having a year-plus outage. Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating and have proved relatively reliable.[53]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_St...
As said, the only enemy nuclear faces is it's own economics.
Ah yes, the magical private capital, we should trust in it's infinite wisdom and do no national policy or planning ourselves.
Thats why the greatest infrastructure projects, like tbe hoover damn or interstate highway system, or Netherland barrier system for holding back the sea, are all private capital, right?
The auctions for off shore leases for wind power are getting up into nuclear power range. This does not include the constructions of them. The capital exists, it simply seeks alternatives which can actually bring a profit.
"New York Bight Offshore Wind Lease Auction Smashes Offshore Energy Record with $4.37 Billion in High Bids"
https://gcaptain.com/new-york-bight-offshore-wind-lease-auct...
Good luck trying to auction the possibility of building a nuclear plant.
Yeah private capital is great at cookie-cutter projects, like buying factory-made pre-built windturbines or solar panels and operating them, this a low-risk operation and every bean-counter can model it's profitability in excell. But when it comes to developing new types of solar panels and suddenly without government research dollars there is zilch.
It is also nowhere to be seen when we need actually risky and difficult projects like build a massive hydroelectric damn or multi-gigawatt power storage which will be required to support these renewables. It is nowhere to be seen in Tidal and Geothermal, which you can't buy premade from a factory in China. It is also useless in keeping reserves of grain, gas, or any other critical resource.
So why should anyone take seriouslty this point about private capital if it only contributes in areas of least concern?
If the human race was sitting around for private capital, we'd have gone extinc by now.
> As of Oct. 2021, ERCOT had about 1100 MW of grid-connected battery storage in service with a pipeline of 4,000 MW by March 2023.
https://www.power-eng.com/energy-storage/batteries/texas-add...
The point is that nuclear is not risky or difficult. It is simply awfully inefficient.
The risky nuclear move, which states should take, is investigating the possibility of supercritical CO2 turbines and similar technologies. That is to get away from the dead end of boiling water into a steam turbine which haven't have not been economical for 40 years.
First steam turbines was out competed by gas turbines and now gas turbines themselves are having a hard time competing with the solid state components of PV or an axle right into a generator for wind turbines.
So how do we reduce gas use the most, building $X Billion nuclear or $X Billion solar, wind and batteries? The expert consensus is the latter.
Where can this expert consensus be found? I don't think this is accurate
A readable summary of the latest info is "Electrify": https://www.rewiringamerica.org/electrify-the-book
One thing that is often left out of the international discussion of Germany's domestic policies is that we actually put a law into our constitution to limit governments from making new debt... So if the current government wants to take on new debt for Defense and Energy Transition, it will have to either do some tricks (the 100B for the military is supposed to come from a different, special pot), or change the constitution again, for which they would need the votes of the opposition.
A lot of the 90s era monetary economics that the euro is intertwined in has been collapsing as a dominant school of thought. Covid plays a role here, but a lot of it has been building since 2009 & the greek debt crisis. I don't think many are ready (especially in germany) to throw out institutions, even ethereal intellectual ones... but OTOH change has come. Military emergencies, historically, are pivot points for monetary infrastructure... FWIW.
Interestingly, I'm not sure the german constitution necessarily has to change. In some sense, the more conceptually radical solutions wouldn't require it. ECB debt, or at least the debt transferred to the ECB in the 90s, just needs to stop being considered debt.
Now if that doesn't sound like the ideal starting point to ever more lying into ones own pocket about money and debt.
> ... ECB debt, or at least the debt transferred to the ECB in the 90s, just needs to stop being considered debt.
Without diving too deep into what such a sentence means in practical terms .. purely semantically it sounds a lot like consciously ignoring some inconvenient numbers, hoping they'll magically dissolve.
It'll "work" for some time and by "work" I mean, people will notice the bad effects but still put up with unsound government budgeting .. but it's surely not a healthy/stable dynamic of an economic system. Pair this looking away with what is basically an imperative (because of climate crisis) to not further _increase_ the worldwide output of material goods but _reduce_ it (as long as most products aren't climate neutral, which will remain the case for quite some time) and you'll look at a dire prospect concerning prices/inflation.
Germany should start building nuclear themselves, instead of bailing out the French nuclear industry. $100bn can build a lot of nuclear powerplants.
Why the hell do we have these highly polarized discussions whenever Germany, France and electricity production comes up?
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.
What does Germany have to show here?
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03320-2 [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03318-w
But now it's time to accept Putin for what he is.
Given the background of pacifist education enforced/encouraged for long by Allies post war in German schools, is it not possible to assume generations have been brainwashed into thinking that they can stay safe while the world burns.
Can such a populace take rational decisions when it comes to defence or offense?
I can honestly can't think of any reason for such bad decisions taken collectively like: 1) Getting into a deep trade relationship with a dictator 2) Assuming such relationship will keep the nation safe 3) Starving their own army of weapons and budget that their own chief of army says he can't guarantee safety of the nation: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/german-army-chief-fed-u...
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.
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-n...
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.
There's no discussion we don't want to take from healthcare and other institutions that are beneficial for the citizens, but at the same time with this 100B investment i think germany somewhat catched up(it's not an arms race though, germany has a lot of US presence).As for the poor people joining the military, I don't exactly know how much that applies to Europe's population as it does to US'.Saying we will have poor people >because< there's more funding for defence is a little off for me.Poverty is a more complicated issue even than defence.
Not because there more funding but because more funding for one thing means less funding for another one.
Where does even the 2% come from? Why only for the military and not education and health care? Doesn't NATO need educated and healthy people? Does it count towards the 2% if we fix infrastructure because military is mainly logistics?
How about health care workers. More money for them is also part of military capability.
In the current form these 2% are just subsidies for weapon manufacturers. I wonder who the biggest beneficiaries are.
Especially since armies don't win wars these days. In the end, it boils down to house fighting and guerrilla warfare. You don't need 100 billion for that
Referencing my previous post with the link for the politics of 2%, there are a lot of things Germany frankly is really behind when it comes to military: Poland for example has stronger military relatively speaking if you compare the manpower, reserves, total population and military hardware.
The money indeed goes to the mil. industrial complex which is undesirable,that's why i'm skeptical about this, but at the same time: do you take the chances when a nutjob like Putin keeps daring you? There's no good answer, only compromise
I don't want to sound like a broken clock, but Germany could have used the investments of NS2 into energy independence(more nuclear, electric,etc),NATO contribution, or infrastructure.Socialistic policies are also good, but there's higher volatility in terms of what you get, and if you want to actually put socialistic policies in practice, follow the hungarian long-term model, not welfare-state for everyone: Merkel probably learned this the hard way, and the barely-not-recession numbers show that.
Because german will now buy expensive gas and weapons from USA.
There are major consequences to every vote and policy. People need to learn this and not vote on idealistic feelings.
We also did not should down all of them.
And we still have energy. My flat is warm.
The Russian gas only makes 20-30%.
I'm totally lost on this weird rethoric.
And the greens, now in power, will startup the renewable push, see what habeck said and already is doing. CSU/CDU started it but didn't push through.
Germany also added twice the amount of renewables than it ever had in nuclear power. And that is despite the heavy hits against the industry that the late Merkel governments landed, after boosting them for a while in the early ones.
After 16 years of CDU being in charge, yelling at the greens about today's situation is not just ignorant, it's a fake news attack on democracy.
How about providing some evidence that environmentalists are astroturfed by island owning billionaires…?
>shoots nuclear
>Why would the Greens do this?
Do you ignore Germany has nuclear power? Renewable energy as well?
And we have our own coal.
What do you think Germany is?
"Germany is the world’s third biggest weapons exporter" https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-is-the-worlds-third-...
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.
I guess different history books paint different histories.
I'm not sure I agree with GP's broader point but your riposte makes no sense.
Yeah, but Europe’s been fine with any conquering anyone was doing outside of Europe. It’s upsetting the delicate balance within that’s the issue.
Also, not sure where that leaves France if Germany "wakes up" militarily.
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...
With Nuclear submarines and rockets, same as the UK.
The problem is that we’d need an even more integrated Europe (and probably language). And a lot of people don’t want that.
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?
> 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.
- The Greek economy is not dead thanks to an EU debt jubilee that could not be called that way.
- The migrant crisis has increased the role of Frontex and other EU level instruments by an extent unimaginable before.
- My significant other is Latvian, lives in Belgium, got her first and second covid shot in France, and her third one in Germany.
- In this crisis, even - hm, let's call them "less cooperative" politicians- like Matteo Salvini, Mateusz Morawiecki and Viktor Orban got behind several common EU policies at political light speed.
- Did you see the recent flurry of NATO moving east announcements?
That's not what the OP said.
The war is a few days old. Everyone was hoping Putin is not lying in there faces.
Ukraine is not in the NATO and you want to find the right balance between total war and diplomatic ways.
And yes Russia has nuklear weapons btw.
1. It may be a few days old but we stood by as Russia took Crimea years ago. We shouldn’t have allowed that in the first place.
2. Many counties have nukes. Ukraine had them and gave them up in exchange for security assurances from UK/US/Russia.
3. The UK gov is now saying if British citizens want to go and fight in Ukraine they support them. Maybe we should send some of the soldiers we’ve spent lots of taxpayer money training instead?
But otherwise let's see how it plays out.
Currently the sanction level is not low. It's already surprising high. Totally different to Crimea.
That is a mistatement of facts. There were Russian troops controlling Russian nukes under Russian control on Ukrainan soil. Even if Ukraine somehow seized them they couldn’t have maintained them in the long run.
Saying that “Ukraine had nukes” is equivalent with saying that Belgium has nukes just because the US keeps some nuclear warheads in an airbase physically located in Belgium.
If you are interested in more I recommend this Arms Control Wonk podcast episode: https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1215097/deterrence-i...
But a Russian allied governement was installed at that time ( the president then wasn't even born in Ukraine and was a member of the Communist Russian Party before).
It's Russia who broke that word and the West did react pretty quick. This could and probably will decimate the Russian economy and shorten the lifespan of the potential invasion significantly.
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
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.
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.
I'm not afraid to accept that if there is some war in Asia I care a lot less than when 9/11 happened because I can barely pronounce the name of one while I've been to the other several time.
That's borderline racist thinking. By your definition Irish and South-Italians would not see each others as Europeans, and btw Russia is Europe too.
Of course it is. And this is the sad fact, most Europeans would rather take in Ukrainians than Syrians. It is not surprising, even though it is (morally) wrong.
Russia is Europe
I don't think Europeans have any issues with Russians, only with Putin's aggressive behavior. I think most Europeans are just sad that Russians live under an oppressive regime that takes the country's wealth and redistributes among a few oligarchs.
It's a European war ergos Europeans feel involved. It's not hard to understand. If stuff explodes in Syria it's just a headline for most people.
Nothing todo with how people look, but more with "get used to" for example in the middle east. Not many in Germany felt involved even in Iraq where German soldiers where stationed (nothing to see here...it's like that since 2002).
And if you look at Serbia...after 3 month it was "just" normal news, that's how humans work.
Also, a lot of the "Syrian refugees" weren't actually from Syria: once people from Africa and poorer middle eastern countries learned that Syrians were getting asylum, they tried for it too, pretending to be from Syria.
This is not a proof of racism. These are the rules about asylum.
You'll generally find the left of those countries on the correct side of all those issues. And the right on the wrong side. Even within the countries doing the bad stuff, like Russia or Israel, the people protesting their own leaders will be left, the people doing the bad stuff on the right.
As I said, it's simplistic, but it's less simplistic than "The West are hypocritical", we're talking about hundreds of millions of people, who often get their news from fascist media monopolies.
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).
Defense contractors are dancing and singing and praising the war while people die and suffer.
People need to stop believing what Biden says he is going to do, and watch what what he actually does.
> President Trump told NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg during a meeting in 2018 that the Western alliance, particularly Germany, is "totally controlled" by Russia through oil and gas deals.
> "We're supposed to protect you against Russia but they're paying billions of dollars to Russia?" Trump asked. "I think that's very inappropriate."
> "And the former Chancellor of Germany is the head of the pipeline company that is supplying the gas. Ultimately, Germany will have almost 70% of their country controlled by Russia with natural gas. So you tell me, is that appropriate? I've been complaining about this from the time I got in."
> Trump called on Germany to "step it up" on their contribution to NATO immediately, "not 10 years from now."
> "Germany as far as I am concerned is captive to Russia ... we're supposed to protect Germany while they are getting their energy from Russia, explain that," Trump asked the NATO Secretary-General.
> Trump called it "very unfair" to the United States and its taxpayers.
[1] FLASHBACK: President Trump Told NATO In 2018 That Germany Is A "Captive Of Russia" As Long As They're Buying Putin's Oil And Gas (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/02/25/flashback...)
[2] FactChecking Trump’s NATO Remarks (https://www.factcheck.org/2019/12/factchecking-trumps-nato-r...)
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.
Germany demilitarized after WW2 and decided to use diplomacy and economic integration to ensure peace, instead of war. And they tried to play nice with Russia, after they killed 27 million Russians in WW2. Now everyone is acting like Putin going mad is Germany's fault. Now everybody wants Germany to be a military power again. The last two times they were, the world burned.
And yes, the German approach to reign in Russia failed. But so did the US approach of treating Russia as an enemy forever.
Edit: i dont think projecting this back on the us is the right approach. The us showed its not ready to appease a country that sponsored dictators, assassinated journalists and enslaved its own citizens. I see a few germans here and there feeling guilt for what germany did to russia, but what about what germany did to east europe? It invaded those countries making them weaker for russia to take. East europe forgave german war reparation debts and now germany is barely doing anything. Where it the guilt for that?
Although they're geographically between Russia and us, so there's that.
Anyway we can keep disagreeing all day about this. There is absolutely no hate towards germans or germany, i am not sure where this comes from. I imagine east europeans can also claim germans hate them for calling them cheap labour and the south europeans for calling them lazy and it would lead nowhere and so on.
Germany is part and parcel of a free european history and germans are loved. End of story.
Greeks called Merkel Hitler because of helping them with their debt. Poland and Hungary is raging against Germany because of them helping refugees since about 5 years now. Whenever there is any kind of disagreement, Poland brings up WW2 reparations.
Whenever a German voices concern about how their EU tax money is embezzled I Hungary, they are called arrogant.
I think its a bit hypocritical to claim germany is a victim. Arent germans all too happy to welcome refugees against eu member state concerns yet when east europeans travel to germany for work they are looked down upon? Aren’t germans all too happy to point out how lame all of these other eu countries are when they make mistakes?
We can spin in circles all day long and the only conclusion i can draw is that europeans replaced wars with insults and thats ok. I prefer this over invasions.
> I think its a bit hypocritical to claim germany is a victim.
Which I did exactly where?
> Arent germans all too happy to welcome refugees against eu member state concerns yet when east europeans travel to germany for work they are looked down upon?
Exactly, here we go. The most evil thing you can throw against Germany is that ... they helped refugees. And when east europeans travel to Germany for work they are looked down upon? I thought they were mostly getting paid! I thought the EU opened borders for people looking for work, well knowing that this puts pressure on the low wage workers in the richer countries.
> Aren’t germans all too happy to point out how lame all of these other eu countries are when they make mistakes?
Germany does, in fact, criticize other EU members for violating the EU contracts that they signed. Like when the Polish and Hungarian governments are hard at work and turning their democracies into authoritarian states modeled after Putins Russia.
> We can spin in circles all day long and the only conclusion i can draw is that europeans replaced wars with insults and thats ok. I prefer this over invasions.
Orban is Hungary for example is a despot quite similar to Putin and has been spending years of stealing EU money for him and his friends.
I don't feel like fighting in drenches for this guy. I would for many Hungarian people, but not really for the ones that are fostering hate against my Muslim neighbors or the ones that steal the EU money that is meant to prop up the Hungarian economy.
The german media also does a good job at creating an image of east europeans being criminal and south europeans being lazy.
As does the british media portray germany as a treacherous country.
But those are petty politics on all sides and not hatred. Hatred is declaring war and stating that your country shouldnt exist and denying that your people are a fake people.
Europe can only defend by sticking together. I am 100% sure that poland will go to war for germany in a heartbeat as would ANY country in nato and the eu.
But indeed we need to stop the petty politics of calling each other names and imposing diktats on allies.
Orbans corrupt and polands politics are lame, but no where near the danger we are facing. We’ll sort these two out and germany’s diktats in the eu parliament without tanks and bullets because we dont hate each other we just behave like the siblings that we are.
Just check out where that sweet EU money is coming from. Think about where Eastern European people migrate to for work. Think about who is building factories and industry in these countries.
And many if these countries are in NATO, so Germany is literally willing to go to war for their protection.
Germany just can't win in this situation. Someone will always figure out a way to claim it's the Germans faults and that they still owe from WW2.
Germany is trying to be less militaristic because of WW2 and now Germanies victims from back them are complaining about Germany not being more militaristic.
What do you want them to be?
Where do the sweet german money come from? East Europe accounts for 15% of german exports.
This needs to stop really, we are all in this. There is no hate in having disagreements, as there is not hate in germany being proud of its economy.
But we are all in this together. We all depend on each other. And its fine to disagree but not when it comes to security and thats what i mean by germany not doing enough. I am not saying germany is a total slacker, i am saying we need to move fast and show unity. We’ll argue in the eu parliament thereafter and it wont be hate.
Edit: sorry, the only reason i brought ww2 into this is in reply to you bringing it and stating that germany dhows compassion towards russia for what it did in ww2 and i said but where is the compassion for east europe.
Germany is of colossal help to europe and is an undeniable positive player in european affairs. Period.
You are saying Germany isnt doing anything. When I point out what Germany is doing, you call it German superiority.
And then you end on German is important and positive.
What is it?
You ask Germany to act fast and unified, basically disallowing them to disagree about anything ever. We can argue in the parliament after? Aren't you supposed to find a common stance via discissions?
The whole thing is completely ridiculously focused on everyone else having an opinion what Germany is supposed to do, disregarding even so much as allowing Germany to think about it and completely ignoring everyone else.
France, Italy, Hungary and some others also opposed the SWIFT exclusion. Itlay tried to get Gucci handbags excluded from the sanctions for gods sake.
We are all in this together but God forbid Germany just spends an extra minute considering the effects of a certain sanction and God forbid Germany naivly tries to work towards peace by using diplomacy over weapons.
We are all in this together, unless Germany isn't immediately doing whatever anyone else wants, then we quickly remind them that they didn't pay for WW2.
Germany spends more than 50 bullion on its army every year, compared to Russia's 60. Now they are doing 3 times that. That money will be taken from schools, social services and taxes on the working class. How much more?
I suspect the americans had to take a lot of money from their schools to finance the marshall plan and the reconstruction of germany.
The british has a lot to spent yet they are rallying around the troops and telling their citizens their security starts in the forests of latvia and lithuania.
The east europeans have yet again money to take from schools to spend defending against russia and essentially shielding germany.
I think many germans are feeling pressure for the first time in their lives, and for the first time in modern german history they have to sacrifice comfort in order to do their part.
I agree its a sacrifice but i dont agree its the end of germany. If anything germany will come out stronger. A secure and stable east europe is directly in the benefit of germany.
Anyway i still dont see hatred, or injustice made to germany. No one’s threatening germany with sanctions, as it so often happens to east eu countries when they are out of line, and no one is saying germans are bad.
There is no contradiction in saying germany is great while saying germany can move faster. Just like i see no harm in your comment - indeed germany needs to take its time, its fine.
I am sorry if anything i wrote makes you think there is anti german sentiment - there is none!
And here we are with the "weak westerners" trope. I can't count the jokes about Germans being to soft to manage slightly colder rooms in the last two days. You perpuate this in the same comment I which you claim there is absolutely just pure love for Germany, nothing else.
And then the whole Germany isn't doing anything. They spend 50 billions on the military each year. The added another 100 billion on top now. They support all sanctions, including SWIFT.
Still not enough? Why? What else? Do you want them to march on Moscow again? Kill another 26 million Russians?
Why are you trying to act like all the negativity towards Germany does not exist? I'm not saying you hate Germany, I'm not saying everyone hates Germany, but just look around. Think about all the examples I gave you for a second. From the German perspective, they sure get a lot of shit for everything the do and not too much recognition either.
Nobody is even mentioning France and Italy, who were also opposed to SWIFT exclusion.
Remember, this discussion started by me saying that I don't see Germany loving the idea of a unified army, given the internal differences in the EU and the way many people from other countries like to hate on Germany. You have continuously just denied that. You think Germany and Poland can happily fight for freedom together, when in Poland that freedom does not extend to women with unwanted pregnancy? You think Germans want to die in the trenches for Orban, who is stealing their money? For people who are openly racist against Muslims? In a unified EU army, can I even trust that this army will always be used for defense? Or do I have to support Poland's phanasies of drowning refugees in the Mediterranean sea?
Don't get me wrong, standing together against Putin is easy and we are all in. But I don't think Germans want their soldiers be controlled via the EU, in which PIS and Orban would get a say one who they should kill.
I’ll stop this here because at no point have you criticised how germans and germany treat other europeans, making me think you are playing victim or simply trolling. I thought we were having a genuine debate.
It's easy for you to accuse me of not having a "genuine debate". From my perspective, you have continuously ignored all points I brought up.
Again, remember what we are discussing here: a unified EU army. My whole argument is that when I look at the way Germany is bashed by some EU countries, I don't know how the Germans will like that. Go ahead and rephrase: "If I look at the amount of disagreement between European countries, I don't see how many nations can be happy about a unified army."
Please, explain to me how Germans would feel when Orban and PIS have power over their soldiers? Again, easy when it is to fight against Putin. But what about the refugee situation? How can we fight for common values, when in Hungary and in Poland, the leaders are actively against freedom and promoting authoritarianism?
When Germany sent helmets to Ukraine, the whole world laughed at them. The Polish PM came to Germany and basically spat in Scholzes face. Now Germany is shipping weapons. In violation of German law, which states that Germany is not allowed to ship weapons to active war zones. A law that was made to ensure Germany would not repeat mistakes of the past.
Is it so hard for to acknowledge that Germany might have a hard time with all this stuff? Can you not see how the descendants of the Nazis, who swore themselves "never again", might have a hard time to jump back into being a military power? Can you not maybe try to empathize with people who, after they opened their borders to refugees have been met with harsh criticism from other countries, who are openly anti-muslim, now have hard time seeing these "shared values"? And can you maybe also understand why these people might be a little upset about how everyone constantly harks at them for "not doing enough", when in fact they are always on board with all sanctions and already have one of the biggest military budget in Europe?
And again, this is not about fighting Putin today, this is about the idea of unified EU army.
So what are you genuinely debating about? What is your point? My point is that a lot of people seem to want to tell the Germans what to do, whenever they don't the others suddenly remind them of unpaid Nazi debt, and when the Germans are unwilling to be a military power because of the same Nazi history, they are being ridiculed. And we are having this whole conversation here, where you basically deny the Germans right to feel a little annoyed by all this.
Solution is simple: force Russia to demilitarize. Put sanctions on them until they do.
Didn't see Trump cutting the US oil imports from russia.
Germany and the EU don't have much of choice especially after Trump killed the Iran deal.
I and many other, probably mistakenly, believed this would keep putin in check. You have to remember that for the US russia is far away, but for us it's a neighbor and our history is bound together for centuries. East germany was part of the soviet union for decades.
We live, lived, in the longest stretch of peace on the european continent and maybe it was NATO and a common enemy but it was also because of diplomancy, compromise and economic integration.
The US is also importing $25bn of crude oil from russia while telling germany to cut down on gas imports from a reliable parter at that point.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M...
Putin is a whacko, damn.
Why? Not everything in the world is for sale, particularly what one perceives to be their national security and interest. Former Pakistani President and Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto once famously said: "If India builds the bomb, we will eat grass or leaves, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own."[1]
> for the US russia is far away, but for us it's a neighbor
Technically, only 50 miles separate the US and Russia from each other across the Bering Strait. But, yes, I can see how distances might be perceived in the European context.
> the longest stretch of peace
In geopolitics, permanent peace is not possible. At some point in time, someone will do something to break it. And every generation has to be ready for it.
> The US is also importing $25bn of crude oil from russia while telling germany to cut down on gas imports from a reliable parter at that point.
The US can be self-reliant very quickly if it wants to. I don't know if the same can be said for Germany.
[1] How Pakistan Developed Its Own Nuclear Triad (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/how-pakistan-develo...)
German is trying to be diplomatic and logical about it and not a military bully like the USA.
All your trump stuff doesn't matter, we are not the USA. We do not want to be proud Germans having dead relatives dying in useless wars.
Putin's attack on kiev is not just a bad day because of the death but also because the hopes of having proper diplomatic talks with Putin failed.
It's still a good thing that we tried.
I just can't believe anyone could eat the diplomatic and logical narrative up.
Germany is not stupid.
With Merkel now gone, Germany is more open to put up a more resistant position - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/08/world/europe/germany-russ... . The odds are very high ( and definitely how it is now), that the rest of Europe will follow.
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.
NATO has higher military power than Russia.
The reaction you see is diplomatic driven not military driven.
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%
Independent of the military spending the military power of NATO is still bigger than Russia.
This is the point I made.
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_...
A lot of it goes to salaries, so in practice UK and Germany militaries have much less effective spend.
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.
Russians for the most part simply dont know better. They are told by politicians and religious figures that and injustice has been made, that everyone hates them, that we are coming for their resources and that they are the only ones that can save them.
Their systems are clogged by putinist criminals, their courts are infested by mafias, while their culture is ideologically hijacked.
But the russians have it in them. They are part of european culture and have proven time and again they are.
Just like with nazi germans they are the first victim. I hold no grudge against russians. I think russia should be a developed, have a powerful economy and become a democratic free country. One can only hope.
Edit: grammar as i am writing this in a rush.
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
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.
Imagine a bet in which nothing is exchanged if NATO has not gotten involved five years from now, but if they get involved and fewer than 1 million die within the next five years, you give me 100 €, but if they get involved and more than 1 million die within the next five years, I give you 500 €, would that seem like a fair bet to you?
(Die refers to as part of this conflict, e.g. using Wikipedia for verification.)
It's not the way to play the game unless you really want to lose.