EU signs defence pact - Page 2

Skybird · 11-16-17, 07:42 AM

Reports are coming in today, an expert group that surveyed the Bundeswehr's tank fleet, said that of 244 Leopard-2s, just 95 are ready for action. One third of the fleet has broken down permanently due to lack of spare parts.

Defence pact! Germany needs you to defend it, so join our pact!

According to the German foreign minster Sigmar Gabriel from some months ago, even just repairing the tanks and other broken down equipment or procuring replacements for it, would be considered as "entering a new round of arms race" that "sends the wrong signal to Moscow."

95 tanks left.

Pact! Thats two tank batallions with three companies each (German army structure). TWO! batallions! Six companies!

PACT! PACCA-PACCA-PACCA-PACT...!

Jimbuna · 11-16-17, 07:50 AM

^ most worrying if true.

August · 11-16-17, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catfish

Well PESCO sounds like pesky, so...

It is now more a treaty for quick help than to fight, though this may come later.

So then why do you say that you don't think this was President Trumps "real desire"? Do you think we like having to pick up Europe's defense costs?

Catfish · 11-16-17, 10:37 AM

^ i think that Trump's desire was to let the EU's members invest more money in the NATO, not to let the EU create its own army.

Which certainly ignores the point that the US invests in European security and NATO, for their own strategic reasons – not altruism.

Skybird · 11-16-17, 12:02 PM

Trump did not think. He just saw: "US cuts investment in Europe - less moneyspent oj others - my voters at home happy." There was no strategic reasoning from his side, regarding NATO. Its all about keeping is fanboys pleased.

The strategy of the US in Europe in past decades was multi-layerd. Keeping the Russians out, was dominant intention, but also: complain about Ezuropeans beaing so low on defense spendings - while enjoyng this weakness as an excuse to remain in ciontorl of NATO and heaivly committed i coutnries that not alwys were so welcoming at all. Much of thos ecomplaints during the cold war, was theatre play. In reality one liked the Europeans beogn so weak - you must not share control of NATO, and they cnanot afford to throw you out.

I assume however for a wider part of the US public, it was more on the surface a perception: Europeans weak, and we muts pay for them. The rest of the above description, got cut.

Its true, Europeans do too little. Too much hot air, too much pathic words and oaths about Nibelungentreue. Fact is the nATO treaty does not mandatorily demand any nation to come to thr rescue of any other, it leaves a very wide escape hatch open. One of which I am convinced some states would have made use of, if the cold war would have turned hot.

Thats why I want the Europeans to strengthen their defemse and inside NAOT, so to meet the Americnas finally on sam eey elevel, so that they can demand a more mutual sharing of command authorities at top levels, and have more influence on decision building. Right now, America has little reason to take the Europeans serious - why should it? Europe cannot even take care of rumbles in its own backyard like former Yugoslavia. How much less if the Sowjets would have attacked back then!

Skybird · 11-16-17, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

^ most worrying if true.

Its believable, becasue in other wepaon branches it doe snot look better. The Tiger helicopter in Mali that lost its rotor blades and killed its crew some months ago, is said to also have been suffering from ill maintenance in that kind of heat, due to underfunding. Not to emntion that they send a helicopter that by design is not operational in this kind of heat, pilots say, and needs utmost careful maintenance if beign send nevertheless. Its a stupid thing, this Tiger helicopter. IMO no match for the Apache, way too many compromises in its design.

When was the last time you heard that a helicopter lost its rotor blades by them disconnecting from the rotor head?

The cannibalising in the navy also is proverbial, so to speak. For sending one boat or ship out on an internaitonal mission, two other units have to be sacked and cannibalised.

I do not have the exact numbers of tranpsorts and helicopters being grounded or broken, but in both categories: the majority of machines is not ready to fly. So it was last time I have read about it months ago. The vast majority is grounded - since years. Last time I read about the Eurofighter, more than half them or more were grounded, that was early this year.

If the Russians would strike us with even just one of their two armies located in the western military district of theirs, it would cut through Germany like a hot knife through butter. There was the claim earlier this year that they would need just three days from the Eastern border to the coast of the North Sea. Judging it by the state of the German military, that is not unrealistic in my opinion. I do not know their capability to logistically support such a 72 hours thrust with a full army group, but my trust in the capabiltiy of the German army to stop them by force, is very low. Too broken down, too few, too little of everything. And then, a public attitude with zero fighting morale and no willingness to resist. Lrst sit down and talk with th Russians, you see. Give them what they want, thats better than war. - THAT is the German way today. Thats why Merkel took months and months before - maybe -understanding that Putin would NOT give back the Crimean peninsula. Such determination has become unimaginable over here. Regarding this, the Russians can snack us for breakfast, and easily so.

This treaty they signed, is just hot air, pltical smybolism that the operetta stars of potlics love to boast with. What is needed is getting swords, spears, shields and armour. What these operetta stars instead spend their time with, is newly designed parade uniforms with bigger golden emblems, and dreams of how lovely the applaus will be once they go on Sunday parade.

Schroeder · 11-16-17, 12:55 PM

Why I agree that our forces are a bad joke I think that we're arming us for the wrong reasons (what do we need the Tiger for anyway for example? Wouldn't something with a cannon make more sense for Mali, Afghanistan etc? Should have gotten Apaches or Cobras instead or at least develop something that is suitable for the current scenarios and not full Soviet tank spam that will never come). Let's face it: "The Evil Russian"© won't move into central Europe, end of story.
Russia has about twice the population of Germany and only about the same GDP, yet everybody seems to be pooping their pants all of a sudden... I think they simply couldn't financially afford a full scale invasion and occupation and frankly why would they even want to? Occupying Crimea made strategic sense from a Russian perspective, waltzing into Central Europe just because they could doesn't. Besides our economies are so interwoven by now that this would hurt Russia's interests more than it's worth.

To me it seems there are certain elements who want to revive the old "red menace scare" for their own reasons. Maybe it's a cry for help to finally get some funding into the military.

Skybird · 11-16-17, 05:19 PM

Playing guessing games is good. Being prepared is better. And what if the Russians miove just into the Baltic states and Poland? Germany then again sending logistical support only? The former Warsaw Pact states are attractive for quites some political people in Russia. They want them back. And some of them do not hide that.

On the other hand, the Poles more and more behave like under the Communist regime anyway, and this time they do it voluntarily and without being occupied by Sovjets. Maybe we should not try to stop the traveller. But the three small Baltic states - that is a majpor problem for which NATO currently has no military option except threatening thermonuclear exchange.

And btw, Schroeder - Germany was the loudest voice saying that the Russians did not mean to keep the Crimean forever, and the Eu was ht eloduets vpoice claimign that Rsusia could not sustrain ther sanctions. The Crimean is sitllo theirs, and their economy is improving and has the low of the sanctions behind it.

ikalugin · 11-17-17, 02:39 AM

The only value Baltic states now have is as a jump off point for invading Russia, with NATO presense there being the primary reason why we care about them. This is so because their economic value is marginal, especially with the new ports we built in SPB area.

Introducing classical manuever forces into Baltics would feed that. Morever, defense of the Baltics is non viable not only due to military causes but also due to the geographical ones.

Skybird · 11-17-17, 06:09 AM

I think many in Russia still live with their heads in the past, mourning about the loss of their empire, and glorifying the good ol' days when the world could not afford to not oisten to the Russian miliztary'S drums. I think the former provinces are wanted back more for emotional and sentimentla reaosns, than any other. To relive the glory ol' days. Its the country that nowadays makes a cult of Stalin and celebrates him in pop culture and present entertainment media.

Imagine Germany would do that with Hitler, and have a musical about him, and gloss over his mass murder. The outcry would echo from here to the moon, and back.

Jimbuna · 11-17-17, 07:29 AM

This thread has certainly become more interesting during the course of the last handful of posts

kraznyi_oktjabr · 11-17-17, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Besides our economies are so interwoven by now that this would hurt Russia's interests more than it's worth.

Why this sounds so familiar...?

Oh, yeah! Because that is same line of thought we heard before First World War. Don't worry, be happy!

Yes, there were other fallacies as well. Blood ties between monarchs will keep them out of war and so on...

Catfish · 11-17-17, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

This thread has certainly become more interesting during the course of the last handful of posts

So the EU creating its own army is not interesting, but a german beating on Germany's defence force is. From a certain point of view this may be logical

The US spends more than ten times on "defence" (lmao) than Russia. What about China invading? So is anyone really in fear of a russian invasion? In Europe? "Only" in Poland? "Only" in the baltic? Really?
Not me.

Jimbuna · 11-17-17, 09:35 AM

I try to take an interest in military matters and I find it interesting to learn of the current state of affairs of different countries armed forces.

The more I glean, the more I realise it is not just the UK that is downsizing but I suspect, also most of the armed forces in the western world.

ikalugin · 11-18-17, 04:55 AM

As Russia was mentioned, this piece may be of interest:
http://carnegie.ru/commentary/74762

11-16-17, 07:42 AM	#16
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,638 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Reports are coming in today, an expert group that surveyed the Bundeswehr's tank fleet, said that of 244 Leopard-2s, just 95 are ready for action. One third of the fleet has broken down permanently due to lack of spare parts. Defence pact! Germany needs you to defend it, so join our pact! According to the German foreign minster Sigmar Gabriel from some months ago, even just repairing the tanks and other broken down equipment or procuring replacements for it, would be considered as "entering a new round of arms race" that "sends the wrong signal to Moscow." 95 tanks left. Pact! Thats two tank batallions with three companies each (German army structure). TWO! batallions! Six companies! PACT! PACCA-PACCA-PACCA-PACT...! __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 11-16-17 at 07:58 AM.

11-16-17, 07:50 AM	#17
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 190,562 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	^ most worrying if true. __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

11-16-17, 10:37 AM	#19
Catfish Dipped Squirrel Operative Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: ..where the ocean meets the sky Posts: 17,767 Downloads: 38 Uploads: 0	^ i think that Trump's desire was to let the EU's members invest more money in the NATO, not to let the EU create its own army. Which certainly ignores the point that the US invests in European security and NATO, for their own strategic reasons – not altruism. __________________ >^..^<)))>{ All generalizations are wrong. Last edited by Catfish; 11-16-17 at 11:04 AM.*

11-16-17, 12:02 PM	#20
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,638 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Trump did not think. He just saw: "US cuts investment in Europe - less moneyspent oj others - my voters at home happy." There was no strategic reasoning from his side, regarding NATO. Its all about keeping is fanboys pleased. The strategy of the US in Europe in past decades was multi-layerd. Keeping the Russians out, was dominant intention, but also: complain about Ezuropeans beaing so low on defense spendings - while enjoyng this weakness as an excuse to remain in ciontorl of NATO and heaivly committed i coutnries that not alwys were so welcoming at all. Much of thos ecomplaints during the cold war, was theatre play. In reality one liked the Europeans beogn so weak - you must not share control of NATO, and they cnanot afford to throw you out. I assume however for a wider part of the US public, it was more on the surface a perception: Europeans weak, and we muts pay for them. The rest of the above description, got cut. Its true, Europeans do too little. Too much hot air, too much pathic words and oaths about Nibelungentreue. Fact is the nATO treaty does not mandatorily demand any nation to come to thr rescue of any other, it leaves a very wide escape hatch open. One of which I am convinced some states would have made use of, if the cold war would have turned hot. Thats why I want the Europeans to strengthen their defemse and inside NAOT, so to meet the Americnas finally on sam eey elevel, so that they can demand a more mutual sharing of command authorities at top levels, and have more influence on decision building. Right now, America has little reason to take the Europeans serious - why should it? Europe cannot even take care of rumbles in its own backyard like former Yugoslavia. How much less if the Sowjets would have attacked back then! __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

11-16-17, 12:55 PM	#22
Schroeder Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Banana Republic of Germany Posts: 6,170 Downloads: 62 Uploads: 0	Why I agree that our forces are a bad joke I think that we're arming us for the wrong reasons (what do we need the Tiger for anyway for example? Wouldn't something with a cannon make more sense for Mali, Afghanistan etc? Should have gotten Apaches or Cobras instead or at least develop something that is suitable for the current scenarios and not full Soviet tank spam that will never come). Let's face it: "The Evil Russian"© won't move into central Europe, end of story. Russia has about twice the population of Germany and only about the same GDP, yet everybody seems to be pooping their pants all of a sudden... I think they simply couldn't financially afford a full scale invasion and occupation and frankly why would they even want to? Occupying Crimea made strategic sense from a Russian perspective, waltzing into Central Europe just because they could doesn't. Besides our economies are so interwoven by now that this would hurt Russia's interests more than it's worth. To me it seems there are certain elements who want to revive the old "red menace scare" for their own reasons. Maybe it's a cry for help to finally get some funding into the military. __________________ Putting Germ back into Germany.

11-16-17, 05:19 PM	#23
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,638 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Playing guessing games is good. Being prepared is better. And what if the Russians miove just into the Baltic states and Poland? Germany then again sending logistical support only? The former Warsaw Pact states are attractive for quites some political people in Russia. They want them back. And some of them do not hide that. On the other hand, the Poles more and more behave like under the Communist regime anyway, and this time they do it voluntarily and without being occupied by Sovjets. Maybe we should not try to stop the traveller. But the three small Baltic states - that is a majpor problem for which NATO currently has no military option except threatening thermonuclear exchange. And btw, Schroeder - Germany was the loudest voice saying that the Russians did not mean to keep the Crimean forever, and the Eu was ht eloduets vpoice claimign that Rsusia could not sustrain ther sanctions. The Crimean is sitllo theirs, and their economy is improving and has the low of the sanctions behind it. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

11-17-17, 02:39 AM	#24
ikalugin Ocean Warrior Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 3,212 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	The only value Baltic states now have is as a jump off point for invading Russia, with NATO presense there being the primary reason why we care about them. This is so because their economic value is marginal, especially with the new ports we built in SPB area. Introducing classical manuever forces into Baltics would feed that. Morever, defense of the Baltics is non viable not only due to military causes but also due to the geographical ones. __________________ Grumpy as always.

11-17-17, 06:09 AM	#25
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,638 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	I think many in Russia still live with their heads in the past, mourning about the loss of their empire, and glorifying the good ol' days when the world could not afford to not oisten to the Russian miliztary'S drums. I think the former provinces are wanted back more for emotional and sentimentla reaosns, than any other. To relive the glory ol' days. Its the country that nowadays makes a cult of Stalin and celebrates him in pop culture and present entertainment media. Imagine Germany would do that with Hitler, and have a musical about him, and gloss over his mass murder. The outcry would echo from here to the moon, and back. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

11-17-17, 07:29 AM	#26
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 190,562 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	This thread has certainly become more interesting during the course of the last handful of posts __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

11-17-17, 09:35 AM	#29
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 190,562 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	I try to take an interest in military matters and I find it interesting to learn of the current state of affairs of different countries armed forces. The more I glean, the more I realise it is not just the UK that is downsizing but I suspect, also most of the armed forces in the western world. __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

11-18-17, 04:55 AM	#30
ikalugin Ocean Warrior Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 3,212 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	As Russia was mentioned, this piece may be of interest: http://carnegie.ru/commentary/74762 __________________ Grumpy as always.