Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

vonstubbins t1_j4l5t18 wrote

Reply to comment by 0pimo in German defense minister announces resignation by misana123

You really don't. You subsidise your grossly overweight Military Industrial Complex and your aggressive international ambitions.

18

goonsquad4357 t1_j4lpsq7 wrote

And now explain why major European member states of NATO still don’t meet the basic spending threshold to be part of the alliance. Oh because their defenses are subsidized by the US armed forces right.

3

vonstubbins t1_j4lz4gb wrote

Because we can spend our taxes how we like. And if the war in Ukraine is anything to go by, the spares from our inventory and old soviet equipment has been more than capable of bitch slapping NATOs old enemy. Please do tell me what we need to spend on our militaries whilst I enjoy free healthcare.

−4

BanthasWereElephants t1_j4m10gu wrote

The NATO treaty documents require a 2.0% GPD expenditure. Our you saying your nation shouldn’t abide by treaties and international agreements? I’m sure your citizens would be upset if international contracts with medical equipment and pharmaceutical complies were not abused to and your expenses rose. Or if your citizens’s were mistreated abroad. Or a neighbor country moved your border and took away your land, resources, and people.

1

LookThisOneGuy t1_j4mcot3 wrote

>The NATO treaty documents require a 2.0% GPD expenditure.

I guess you can just make wild claims. Or you could link the official NATO funding documents:

Official NATO funding calls it 'The 2% defence investment guideline' to be met in 10 years (decided 2014, so until 2024) and NATO members have agreed to raise their military funding each year if they aren't already at 2%.

Also just in case this wasn't alread known: German contribution to direct NATO funding is at 16.3444% of NATO total budget. Exactly the same value as US funding and way ahead of the UK at 11.2823%.

5

donbernie t1_j4mqyp4 wrote

Not even "to be met in 10 years", but "aim to move towards within the decade".

3

BanthasWereElephants t1_j4mfxmz wrote

The €300m internal-NATO budget is completely irrelevant and distinct to the military spending and capabilities requirements of each member state itself. I’m sure you read the exact NATO information page to find that factoid.

The point remains clear, Germany has postured itself to take the mantle of the de facto EU power broker. Yet it’s willing to let its defense ministry wither away while unwilling to let more vocal members, like France or Poland, lead an more efficient and streamlined response to the largest threat to European security in half a century.

−1

LookThisOneGuy t1_j4mhr83 wrote

  1. Germany has the highest military spending out of all EU countries

  2. Please provide at least one example of Germany 'not letting' France lead the EU in military matters

  3. Yes I did read the NATO treaty documents. Did you?

6

BanthasWereElephants t1_j4mqptw wrote

This entire war? The tank debacle being the last step. https://www.politico.eu/article/france-and-poland-push-germany-to-send-leopard-tanks-to-ukraine/amp/

It goes back to at least February 2022. Germany actively stopped military equipment. It’s been forced to abandon its reticence every step of the way. Back in February: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/02/07/germany-forced-to-defend-itself-over-ukraine-crisis.html

−2

LookThisOneGuy t1_j4mrtuz wrote

I feel like you confuse 'Germany not leading' with 'Germany not letting France lead'. Which is aboslutely not the case.

The first article: France leading would be France sending tanks and then Germany following. How is Germany 'not letting' France do that? Germany has shown very well that they will let France lead. After France decided to send their AMX-10, Germany followed less than 24h later.

Same with Poland. If they want to 'lead' then maybe they shouldn't push Germany to send Leopard 2s first, hide behind that they would only send Leoaprd 2s in a coalition. Just send the export request already and Germany can approve it like Habeck has already said.

4

goonsquad4357 t1_j4m3gmr wrote

You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about if the NATO consensus 2% GDP threshold requirement is a foreign concept to you. Tough look buddy

−2

vonstubbins t1_j4m71h0 wrote

I know exactly what the 2% threshold is. What I object to is fucking yanks thinking they’re the center of the universe. Get a grip. The countries of Europe are more than capable of deciding what they need to spend on defence.

−2

goonsquad4357 t1_j4m7ojw wrote

Your PM/defense minister at the time voluntarily agreed to that threshold back in 2006 what are you even complaining about? You’re suggesting the United States coerced your leader to agree to spend more on its military? Sorry the United States has and will continue to be the world’s policeman for bums like you it’s certainly a thankless job.

0

vonstubbins t1_j4m8hhg wrote

What's wrong? Getting all antsy because you've not bombed a third world country in a while?

−1

goonsquad4357 t1_j4m9lxh wrote

So you agree that the 2% requirement was a voluntarily agreed upon common consensus by member states, including whoever your defense minister was at the time, got it.

−1

vonstubbins t1_j4mkpk8 wrote

NATO helped you out after September 11th. Irregardless of whatever budgets were over or under the arbitrary spending number. Yet your country still winges like you’re the important ones.

1