Quote:
Originally Posted by STEED
|
Its all stupid propaganda babble. I do not see that the EU takes it serious. There are European combat brigades alöready but their combat strength is such that their value is in very serious doubt. Paper tigers. The German contributions to these are as underfunded and underequipped as in the whole Bundeswehr.
With such underfunding by many nations already regardign NATO committments, it makes no sense to raise parrallel structures. Or does it make sense to assume that their additional founding costs and then costs needed to have these new structures not beign undefunded as well, is a reaosnable expectation while the NATO commitments are underfunded? It makes no sense.
What Merkel wants, and barrack barbie von der Leyen as well (while on the surface saying the opposite of Merkel), is that other nations should contribute to the needs of German defence, whith Germany not doing so, at least not
en par. What they want to conceal is the shortage management system of the BW, the limitations in material as well as in personnel -without calling this by its name. This was introduced already by von Guttenberg, who - so to speak - thought that one rifle could be used by several soldiers: handing it around always to the one who currently needs it. Saves the money for buying one rifle per sodlier. Its a fictional example by me, just to illustrate the core of the problem more easily (although there is indeed a shortage in new personal support weapons of logistic and medical units who would not carry assault rifles, but small MPs for self defence like the H&K MP7). This is called by various terms that conceal the deficit here: intelligent managmenet, or flexible ressource management, or modular equipment supply, or on-demand-supply. It all weasels around the fact of "too less", "too few", "not enough", "not sufficient".
German media went into hysteria mode again when reporting that the Donald was offended by Macronman demanding a European army. What the Donald in fact has said is that he finds it offending that Macronman said this European army should be able to defend against Russia, China
and the US. So not the mere existence of such an army was offensive to Trump, but to have the US listed as a possible opponent, implying the US were an enemy of Europe. Now this can be discussed indeed, especially since Trump took office - but to
just correctly report the facts of what was said in words indeed, already was - once again - too much asked for of our German high quality media. Suggestive headlines using some shortcutting was so much easier to trigger the wanted emotional reaction.
Germany is slowly shifting into a recession. Italy and its banks challenge the EU and Euro. Brexit. Migration. Does anyone think they would heavily invest into a European army right now? Its a distraction. And our debts have climbed already to higher levels than in 2007, and inflation is raising.
Also, a single EU army would have over two diozen commanders, so to speak. Say good night to swift responses and even decision making in case of reactions needed to seriosu challenges. A nightmare. As the saiyng goes: too many chefs spoil the brew.