Why Is Germany Increasing Defence Spending ?
Recently, we have learned that the Russian military is vastly less capable than anyone imagined. Also, in three whole weeks, Ukrainians have markedly reduced the capabilities of the Russian military. Therefore, naturally many governments (including the German government) have decided they must spend more on their militaries to face the Russian threat. This makes no sense.
To deal with Russia, Germany needs liquified natural gas terminals and heat pumps. It will gain little by buying F35s (based on the general principal that buying F35s is stupid). With the same money they can tell people “if you replace your gas furnace with a heat pump, we will pay for the heat pump and the electricity to run it.” This is a much more effective strategy, just like the one discussed on sites such as 1945.
Yes, they also need more capacity to generate electricity. They might (heaven forfend) have to reactivate the nuclear reactors which they have already built. They will not quit natural gas this year (they will need a lot less when the Spring which is in full swing here in Rome finally reaches Germany). So to be genuinely independent from Russian they need liquified natural gas terminals — and also a budget to buy natural gas at the new without Russia world price.
But what the hell are they planning to do with the new improved Bundeswehr? They are certainly nowhere near actually sending them to fight unless a NATO country is attacked and, since Ukraine can fight Russia to a standstill NATO certainly already has the capacity to do so.
I think the explanation is in this headline “A big defence budget shows Germany has woken up”. The new military spending is not related to actual military missions. It is a (very expensive) symbolic gesture.
Similarly the USA reacted to 19 guys with box cutters killing 3000 of us by increasing our immense military budget.
I think the illogic is that increased military spending is a compromise move (this means that my analogy with the US is unfortunate as our illogic was uncompromising). Responding with economic sanctions and military aid to Ukraine was judged to be insufficient. Actually sending Germans to kill and die was (obviously correctly) judged to be doing way way too much. So let’s add a few tens of billions of wasted Euros. We must do something. This is something. We must do this.
On a related topic, what do I support instead ?
OK so heat pumps and gas terminals. I also propose a United European renewable electricity effort (on a really big enough to make a difference scale). Currently in the EU there are a whole lot of solar energy installations in Germany where there is very little solar. Also there is high unemployment in sunny Spain, Greece and Calabria. It won’t be pretty but electicity can be (and is) transmitted over long distances. I suspect that not totally old direct current technology might be optimal. Why not ?
I suspect that this environmentally and strategically necessary step is blocked partly by NIMBY ultra confused environmentalists (analogy with USA) and partly won’t work exactly because it requires a unified European approach (pointlessly rigid fiscal rules fine, a lot mor wires not so fine, don’t ask me why).
Why? Perhaps because the Kremlin leadership has shown that it is willing to unleash in Europe the murderous cruelty that it demonstrated in Syria.
While “it requires a unified European approach” is easy to say, then it also makes herding cats look as easy-peasy as a walk in the park. One cannot deny that, similar to rick shapiro’s remark, one should not take an accounting ledger to a gun fight.
If one were to take a monetary approach to fighting the Big Bear, then first they must know that something the Big Bear needs for its life, aggressive tendencies, and protection were not available to be made at home or imported from friendly China. Hurting the oligarchs appears to be the only way we have to hurt the Bear and so far its Putin head is still on its shoulders.
Not unlike the ‘logic’ that the US uses to spend billions upon billions of dollars to maintain and ‘improve’ a thermonuclear arsenal with additional vast sums on delivery systems to deliver ‘nukes’ that (with a bit of luck) will never, ever be used.
Go figure!
Maybe they think Baltics could be next and Baltics are NATO and they’ll be shoved into the fight and suffer a lot if they do not have better capability. It feels to me that the idea of a NATO/Russia “stalemate” is exactly what they want to get away from. I bet they want to feel they would pulverize whatever units crossed into Lithuania and not simply do a good enough job. “See this line? Cross it and the line is going to be 200 KM east of where it is today within a week.” This is Germany. Maybe 77 years of not being warriors hasn’t suited them as much as they thought it might.
I wish I could find out what the “order of battle” is in Central Europe — how many tanks the different countries have; or how many tank divisions (same thing — about 300 per division). Also love to know how many tanks Russia can actually man. (US has 20000 mostly salted away: 8000 M1s, 8000 M60s, 4000 M48A5s which are M60 equivalents — we could man about 5000 in mid 1980s, counting 6 National Guard armored divisions.)
In mid 1980s Russia had 50000 they could actually man: 180 tank divisions: 60 first category (75% active, 25% reserve, ready to go in one week), 60 second category (50%, 50%, one month), 60 third category (75%, 25%, ready three months) — plus 10 parachute divisions.
135 Russian divisions facing Central NATO (30 v. Turkey’s 10; 45 facing China) versus 30 NATO divisions (at full mobilization). 4 1/2 to one ratio Russia against Central: Germany 12 divisions*, US 10 (10 divisions in 10 days to prepositioned equipment), 3 French, 3 British, 2 more Benelux and Canada. *Germans said they could put 1.2 million men in the field in 60 hours.
Normally takes 3 to 1 to attack successfully but with Russian army quality like a gigantic Arab army. problem for NATO might be not running out of ammunition.
Now when I try to Google it, it seems like German and France both have about enough tanks to fill 1 single division each.
PS. Putin — and many Russians I suppose — long for the days when Russia was considered a great power. Some great power. An all time crackpot economic system — an all time oversized police state (never forget J.S. Stalin at its worst) — and what little economic surplus they could eke out (compared to modern countries) wildly squandered on a military that looked ready for a Mars attack.
Buy 1 F-35 or 20,000 Stingers.
We should have stopped Putin in Syria. Have shot down a couple of Russian fighter jets to stop them from deliberately bombing hospitals and schools and densely populated markets — to help Assad carpet bomb his whole country from end to end into submission. We could have tried just recording pics of the bloodthirstily attacks at first — to shame them out of it — in front of their own people. Have to get your guts up at some point. The Russians deliberately shot down 2 Korean airliners: one, a 747 with a US congressman aboard — for fear they might be collecting a little electronics data.
If we had drawn a red line at self-genocide of the Syrian government, we wouldn’t be dealing with the Ukraine horror now. Someplace in Africa last year (I’ll let the more academic fish out where) a column of 400 mostly Russian mercenaries attacked a US installation with 30 Americans, later reinforced by 10 more Americans — with artillery and armor. Within 24 hours, 200 to 300 of the mercenaries were killed — not one scratch on the Americans. One thing about the “forever wars”: we have gotten real good at it.
Time to reinstate the Pax Americana. Russia now has 140 million people and one-tenth the GDP we have. China will come on in time but China is run by adults who want to do business mostly. They are feeling their oats. Not run by megalomaniac thieves. Xi would never bomb and shell Taipei into submission.
I think the real problem is whether or not to wage war on Russian territory. It’s pretty clear that NATO can easily defeat any Russian ground attack. The days of Fulda Gap are long gone. But Russia might be willing to accept the occasional ground attack defeat as long as all the fighting is contained within NATO borders. So what happens when NATO defeats Russian armor and pushes the Russians back to their border? Should NATO continue rolling on towards Moscow or stop at the border? The former risks global nuclear war. The latter risks perpetual incursions and threats from Moscow. We’re going to face the same dilemma when it comes to long range conventional missiles coming from Russia. Do you enter Russian airspace to take out those missiles or sit back and absorb the hits?
I think the ultimate answer is to bankrupt Russia, and in service of that goal Robert Waldmann’s argument makes perfect sense. Eventually a Russian Brutus will emerge as the Russian economy collapses and the Russian army keeps being fed into the woodchipper without being able to reconstitute itself.
2slugs
You were in the trash.
Where I rightly belong, no doubt.
Remember Korea, when we go too close to the Chinese border? They are not going to perpetually intrude on NATO territory — domestic political price to pay: new generations and Russian mothers.
Maybe Germany figures that there are advantages to building up military capacity now rather than waiting for a NATO country to be attacked? If nothing else, a general military build up in Russia’s neighbors and near neighbors might have a deterrent effect. If Russia follows its historical pattern, it probably considers at least East Germany as part of its empire. This is something much older than the USSR and depending on just what one wants to trace, one can go back to the conversion in the tenth century or the transition to a being a great power in the 18th.
Germany increasing its military spending is sort of like stockpiling masks and protective gear before an epidemic appears rather than waiting until people are getting sick and dying. Sometimes preparation can make a difference.
(It is rather obvious that Germany should also be moving towards energy independence, as should many other nations. There is no reason it cannot afford to do this as well as build up its military. If Russia becomes the dominant military power in the region, there is a chance Germany might not be able to say no to Russian oil or gas.)
When asked about the ‘existence of two Germanys’, back in the day, Russian leader Khrushchev opined (sarcastically) ‘We love Germany so much we only wish there were more of them.’
governments decide ‘they must spend more on their militaries to face the Russian threat. This makes no sense.’
When ‘governments’ decide they must spend enormous amounts on ‘defense’, in some sense it is a symbolic gesture, but one that lines the pockets of the Notorious MIC (Military Industrial Complex), and boosts the salaries of lobbyists & defense contractors all over the place.
Is this spending symbolic? Does it compel other countries to raise their spending. Is it ultimately extremely, obscenely wasteful? Indeed it is. ‘Why can’t we all just get along?’
It’s an ill wind that blows nobody good. This is one of those.
The Ukraine war revealed Russia’s military effectiveness; to be less that previously believed, but also revealed the Putin regime’s willingness to commit major aggression; to be greater than previously believed. To many governments, evidently, the second revelation is more salient than the first.
Since the Trump presidency, Europe has had to reckon with the possibility that Trump or someone like him might get elected again, pull out of NATO, and leave them in the lurch. This was less worrisome when everyone assumed that Putin wouldn’t launch a full-on pre-1945-style invasion because “countries just don’t do that any more”. That assumption is now dead and buried.
Tom Friedman pointed out that the economic sanctions pressure on Russia is being balanced by the economic pressure of 25% of the Ukraine population being displaced as of this moment. I wonder if that will reach 50% or more!
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/20/opinion/putin-zelensky-ukraine.html
—https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/20/opinion/putin-zelensky-ukraine.html—
Thanks to all those with saner answers than mine. Here is mine anyway: Though a devout pacifist, I have learned in my own life that the only way to stop a bully is to make him understand he is going to get hurt worse than he wants to be. If we had known Putin was stupid enough to invade, we should have massed our own forces on the border. He would have thought twice. I have no patience with those who think our massing would have been provocative or a violation of some prior agreement.
And if we couldn’t mass forces before the fact, a full on “NATO” response when the Russians actually crossed the border would have wiped them out in hours or less. Would Putin have gone nuclear..I don’t think so, but saner people than me (or him) thought it wasn’t worth the risk and do think financial sanctions will do the job. I hope they are right, and that Putin or the next madman doesn’t think of a way to prevent sanctions from hurting him next time he gets the itch to be a big shot.
I also think, however we get out of this, if we do, it’s time for countries, all countries, to start to think of ways to prevent or cure madmen from taking power. We haven’t quite figured it out in this country yet.
As for why Germany should start rebuilding its forces: first, they can’t trust US to defend them. Second, it is better to make the other guy think you can hurt him worse than he wants to get hurt.
The Ukranians are wonderful, but in the end they will fall to sheer power. i.e. you can’t expect the brave Ukranians to fight the war you (we) should be fighting.
German energy independence will have no effect on any of this. but it’s a good idea anyway. Even in America the sun is shining most of the day somewhere. That’s where the electric lines come in. We can manage to get through the night somehow. maybe even by using a little less gas than it now takes us to get through the whole 24 hours. The same sun is shining somewhere most of the time in Europe-Asia-Africa, so I think solar might work without undersea cables or whatever damn thing the last Big Science person I talked to was planning.
And re Syria, some time ago American airpower decimated Soviet airpower (Israelies vs Syrians). That’s probably what told the Soviets they needed to try something different..hence Gorbachev…hence Putin. It took a Putin to figure out the “different” was just to bluff with the nukes.
And much as I hate to say it, it might be time for the Ukrainians to say “uncle”. Change their flag and put up with Putin until they figure out a way to pry his cold dead fingers off the nuclear trigger.
I don’t really recommend any of my suggestions. But I hope someone smarter than me comes up with something better not yet in evidence.
Coberly,
For good or ill no one in power will ask us what they should do nor care what we think. On a purely rational level, then I must agree with you on all points, but on a purely realistic level then I could not agree with you on any points. I do not know if reality has ever been rational, but it seemed to be when I was a small child. Nowadays though, reality does not seem like anything near rational.
Ron
I don’t know what you mean by purely realistic.
when i was small nothing made sense, but i didn’t know that. everything was just what it was. i wouldn’t have known what “made sense” and the idea never occured to me.
even when i probably should have been old enouogh to know better, i never thought anything made sense or didn’t make sense. I gradually came to believe that some things were not what they should be or could be. And sometimes I used (use) the language of “made sense” when trying to convince someone to do or think the way i want them to do or think. it almost never works.
as it is, the new york times thinks we may be looking at a world where the use of “battlefield” nukes makes sense. we will have climate change. social security will be “fixed” (like the cat). the police will still beat people up, kill them, or put them in jail with trumped up (sic>) charges. blacks will think it’s all about them. and white red necks will have web sites stringing together lunatic sentences which make perfect sense to them.
and the government will still be dancing and singing on stage in an ever continuing production of “Hamilton.”
and the reporters and columnists who cover them will think it’s all wonderful.
Coberly,
Yes, agreed.
Insofar as the distinction between rationalism and realism then on today’s open thread I posted a comment followed by a post (presently awaiting moderation) of a linked article fully pasted from its source that refers back to Rosser’s post from 2/27/22 on the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 insuring the security of Ukraine if they gave up their nuclear arsenal to be decommissioned by Russia. It is a perfect example (and the one that I had in mind all along) of a completely rational action (the said security assurance memorandum) that was entirely unrealistic.
In June of 1982, the Israeli Air Force gave a lesson to Syria. Israel: 85 — Syria: 0.
Denis,
A lot has changed in the last forty years, but the writing was on the wall twenty to thirty years earlier than that; but not just talking about avionics, propulsion systems, and weapon systems.