GER politics thread

[Skybird]

Baerbock is so full of herself about this, but the new Ger,man "Nartional strategy" imo is a failure when I red about it when it was published some days ago. Its a list of shallow phrases and empty holes. The work of naive laymen. The NZZ commented with this:
-----------------------
Germany's National Security Strategy demonstrates strategic naiveté. The roles of the Bundeswehr, the Foreign Service and the Federal Intelligence Service are not defined.

Peace is based on power. It prevails when nations do not fight each other by military means. The strategic question must be how supranational society can develop and international law be strengthened.

After the end of the Second World War, Thomas Mann described the Germans' relationship to the world as "abstract and mystical". This was at a time when Germans were just awakening from hubris and loss of compass. A good twenty years after the lost war, Helmut Schmidt spoke of the "necessity of scientific-rational reflection on foreign policy and security issues" and of the Germans' difficult relationship with strategy.

When Chancellor Olaf Scholz and half his cabinet recently presented the new National Security Strategy (NSS), the self-praise could not have been more pithy: "We've done a great job."

In fact, however, the National Security Strategy raises more questions than it answers. First of all, it is an attempt to describe security threats among the ministries from the perspective of the federal government. Departmental thinking has always been the big brake in Germany when it comes to initiating fundamental changes. Thus, no agreement could be reached on the central issues of organizational adjustments - especially with regard to the establishment of a Council for National Security. The document concludes, "An Integrated Security Policy requires adjustments to our policies to meet new challenges." The strategy is silent on what these structural administrative adjustments or any measures might look like.

What is likely?

Foreign policy is defined in the classical understanding as a statement of the state's will with regard to developments that take place beyond its state borders, i.e., in the international community. Strategy should also not be confused with international relations theory.

Theorists tend to simplify and to have ideal-typical conceptions of reality. A strategy, however, must take into account the logic underlying the behavior of the actors. This means, in particular, to grasp the internal contradictions.

Every action is based on probabilities. In the current situation of the ongoing war, which was triggered by the Russian invasion of Ukraine and, like any war, carries the risk of escalation, it is more than useful to remember this. Strategy is the union of diplomacy and military strategy. Any strategy has the task of defining goals, and it must determine the means available to achieve those strategic goals.

It is one of the weaknesses of the NSS presented that the objectives are described in general terms, but a definition of the means is given only in a woolly way. The roles of the instruments - Bundeswehr, Foreign Service, Federal Intelligence Service - are not defined in the text.

The quality of a strategy is measured by Raymond Aron's question, "How can a change in the status quo be avoided without violating the law?" The difficulty of the current world system is its heterogeneity and the increasing influence of technological developments as strategic drivers. Describing reality in a strategic policy document requires understanding strategy in a way that names the geographic and military structural issues and captures the determinants of the relationship among the major actors. Again, there is relatively little in this regard in the present German government document.

Baerbock's naiveté

When Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock writes in the foreword: "For too long we in Germany have believed that our security in Europe is self-evident," and comes to the conclusion: "But our peace order is not set in stone," these sentences can also be interpreted as an admission of strategic naiveté.

In the current situation of strategic uncertainties and especially against the backdrop of the uncertain outcome of the Ukraine war, a fundamental problem is the restoration of peace. In addition, there is the question of how to prevent a change in the status quo from leading to an increase in threats. This is because the classic strategic goal - for example, of an equilibrium strategy in the Cold War - of maintaining the status quo is out of the question in the current situation.

The NSS finds no real answer to the three central strategic questions that arise after the crisis of the old order and in view of the increasing system rivalry: first, the question of how American power can be guaranteed in a post-American world against the background of the uncertainty of the internal development of the United States. And: what does this mean for the future development and shaping of the European-American relationship, in particular for the further development of the North Atlantic Alliance and its partnership policy or the security policy role of the European Union?

Secondly, the question arises as to how the strategic problem of Russia, which will be a European task especially in the coming years, can be solved. The text does not specify what strategic tasks this poses for German and European policy toward Russia - initially in the context of successful containment and then increasingly with a view to peaceful coexistence and resurgent cooperation.

The China question

Russia is the number one threat today. But after an end to the Ukraine war, it seems more likely that shaping the future relationship with China will be the dominant strategic issue of the next ten to twenty years. China is aptly described in the National Security Strategy as a "partner, competitor, and systemic rival" without explaining the strategic consequences for German security policy.

The dialectic of war and peace and the resulting consequences for security policy must therefore be at the heart of any strategy for national security. This must define, against the specific German background, the relationship between governance, the military as an instrument of politics, and society. The NSS does not do all this. It is more like a rehash of the coalition agreement. The part on nuclear is inherently contradictory.
Maintaining the international order

Particularly in view of the power shifts of the present, a national security strategy should have answered the question of under what conditions a future international order will be maintained and strengthened. This also corresponds to the strategic guideline for the goals of German foreign and security policy as defined in the preamble to the Basic Law: to serve a Europe at peace as an equal member.

Willy Brandt's word that foreign policy is peace policy has its origin here. Peace prevails when nations do not fight each other by military means. Peace is based on power. It is thus linked to the ability to use power to influence others who threaten peace.

Out of the organizational trap

By its very nature, war is a test of wills. The strategic question, on the other hand, must be how supranational society can unfold in the face of increasing heterogeneity in the system and how international law can be strengthened. Declarations of intent on the non-permanent seat on the Security Council and reform of the United Nations do not answer the strategic question about the future of the collective security system.

In a 1953 speech ("The Seven Pillars of Unwisdom"), American Democrat, political strategist, and later security advisor to Ronald Reagan Paul Nitze outlined possible pitfalls to watch out for when writing a national security strategy. First: the organization trap, or more specifically, the danger of overemphasizing international organizations and overestimating the United Nations as a world government. Second: the notion that speeches and declarations of intent alone can bring down the walls of Jericho. Third: the belief in the remedy of personnel exchange.

Fourth, goal attainment through neglect of allies (and thus overestimating one's own prescriptions). Fifth: achieving goals by withdrawing from international tasks and limiting them. (The vague passages on the Bundeswehr's financial resources and the reference to tight budgets could be interpreted in this way). Sixth, the notion that all problems can be solved through the use of personal diplomacy. And finally, Nitze cites as the seventh error the view that technology alone can enable the achievement of goals.

It would be advisable to review Germany's new National Security Strategy for such principles in its incompleteness and statements about the international system that have not been thought through to the end.
--------
Ulrich Schlie is Henry Kissinger Professor of Security and Strategic Studies and Director of the Center for Advanced Security, Strategic and Integration Studies (Cassis) at the University of Bonn.
https://www.nzz.ch/meinung/deutschla...ert-ld.1745495

NZZ runs regional limitations and is not displayed everywhere.


----------------


In another eassy on the German govenrment, the NZZ chosed a title that serves ver well to summarize the value of this German "Security Strategy" very well: arrogance does not solve problems.

As I mentioned repeatedly, German political thinklng and acting lacks the ability oft think in long terms, to think strategically instead of opportunistcially carry from just one legislature to the next, and in even short intervals. This paper they wrote illustrates how very true that deficitm is.

It also illustrates naivety and laymenship. The political craftsman's 101 of skill and techncial base abilities and understandings - is not mastered. Which is another common thread that runs through the entire political activity of this amateur play group called "government" the technical badness of its results, the lousy craftsmanship. Merkel had at least the decency not to deliberately disclose her dillentantism, she knew how to dress it in order to hide it: by pleasing the plebs no matter the longterm costs. The members of the Scholz cabinet lack that much shame. So does Scholz himself.

[Skybird]

A series of small interview snippets with ordinary German people on what they want the Berliner politicans to know and why they have turned away from the established parties and towards the AfD.


The estalbished parties so far are in complete denial of these reasons, and defame them, or arrogantly oppose them with left-ideological reasons or untenable promises of how great things will be in the future. Blasé arrogance is the main characteristic nowadays. Complete disconnection from the normal citizen's everyday life reality. These politicians know nothing about the world anymore. And nothing about profound economics.


https://www-focus-de.translate.goog/..._x_tr_pto=wapp

[Skybird]

The Germans have discovered their love of stabbing, or rather, they have imported it. The number of actual stabbings is obviously many times higher than announced by the official authorities and reported by the German propaganda media without any objections. The suspicion of deliberate concealment of unwelcome consequences of uncontrolled immigration, and of deliberate deception of the public, is absolutely obvious. The clear majority of knife crimes (over 60 every day) are committed by foreigners with or without German passports.


https://www-tichyseinblick-de.transl..._x_tr_pto=wapp


You possibly must hit "Ich unterstütze bereits".

[Skybird]

The days of the Tiger combat helicopter are numbered.

https://www.nzz.ch/international/nac...&_x_tr_sl=auto

It was an inferior and now really bad solution from beginning on, because it was a political project from beginning on. The AH-64 Apache Longbow would have been the superior solution, so is the AH-1 Cobra. But politicians wanted to mess thigns up, and so they did.

I hope the article does not disappear behind a paywall, like so often at NZZ.

Using DeepL has become a pain due to its new now extremely small word count limit.

Even the Bundeswehr flew combat helicopters in Afghanistan, but only for a short period of time and almost never in live combat. It was better that way, because the Tiger, as this helicopter was known, did not meet the military's needs even then. Cracks in the fuselage structure, insufficient engine power, inadequate armament, and above all a disproportionately high logistical, technical and financial outlay to get the helicopter airborne for an hour - from the very beginning, the Tiger, which was introduced into the Bundeswehr in 2004, was considered a screw-up.

Even when the helicopter was being developed by Germany and France in the second half of the 1980s, there were voices in the Bundeswehr that would have preferred to buy the American AH-64 Apache. But then-German Chancellor Helmut Kohl wanted to establish a European aerospace group with France and subsidized the development of the military division of today's Airbus Group with tax money and orders.

They now want to buy a civilian machine used by police and the ADAC. Nobody in the armed forces likes this idea, the engine is too weak, and you cannot pick such a civilian thing, hang some - few - weapons to its belly and then think you have a gunship helicopter capable to survive on the modern battlefield. Its being used by special forces, but if it should take those four commandos aboard, it must fly with only half of its fuel, due to weight constraints. Its a stupid idea. And thats is why not a few politicians poress for it.

I think they should go with loitering ammunitions instead. Cheap. Fast to produce in huge quantities. Maintenance does not compare to that needed for manned machines. The Ukraine war writes some new, and even unwanted truths. Loitering ammunitions is one of the biggest problem of the Ukrainian offensive, and soldiers say they currently fear nothing more than these.

[Skybird]

Bureaucracy, taxes, shortage of skilled workers: One in four German SMEs is thinking of giving up

According to a survey, around one in four German SMEs is said to be considering closing down. For some entrepreneurs, a move abroad is also conceivable. There are many reasons for these considerations.

More than one in four medium-sized companies (26 percent) are considering giving up their business, according to a recent industry survey. This is the result of a survey by the Bundesverband mittelständische Wirtschaft (German Association of Small and Medium-Sized Businesses), which was made available to the Deutsche Presse-Agentur. More than one in five SMEs (22 percent) are even thinking about relocating abroad.

Above all, entrepreneurs feel inhibited by too much bureaucracy, with just under a third of respondents citing excessive regulations as a constraint. More than a quarter see high taxes and duties as an obstacle. Likewise, just over a quarter of respondents feel their business is restricted by the worsening shortage of skilled workers.

"The results of our survey are more than just a warning signal," said Markus Jerger, chairman of the association, according to a statement. If homebound, deep-rooted entrepreneurs are thinking about giving up or moving abroad, that "can't leave anyone cold."

Among the SMEs surveyed, there is a strong desire for reliability and predictability with regard to the general conditions. However, just under 40 percent gave a positive assessment of Germany's infrastructure in the survey, while 36 percent praised the country's political stability.


[Focus]


Two things worry me.
First, this rate is constantly climbing to the current level since several years, and it is clear that we have a net brain drain as well whcih accelerated over the past 2 years. Its not a snapshot caused by random chance, but it mounted up over several years.
Second, different to the tone of the article'S last paragraph I find it alarming when only 40% give a posiitive assessment of the infrastructure and only 36% praise the political stablity anymore. Only 40 and 36%...? Red lights blinking all across the panel.



If I were an entrepreneur with a great business idea, I would get out of Germany and Europe before thinking about building a company. No chance I would build a business in Germany, not even if they pay me money.

[Skybird]

Another symptom for Germany's economic troubles: now the German startup scene is collapsing. Fasten your seatbelts, we go vertically.



https://www-welt-de.translate.goog/w..._x_tr_pto=wapp

[Jimbuna]

The German economy has had a good innings over the years though and hopefully it will make a comeback.

[Skybird]

2%? Forget it. You just dont understand German humour.



https://www.nzz.ch/meinung/der-ander...&_x_tr_sl=auto

[Skybird]

Solar cell manufacturer Meyer Burger is shipping machines to the U.S. for eastern Germany because of the high subsidies. The lessons are obvious.

It's a blow to everyone who wants to make the domestic photovoltaic industry strong again: Swiss solar module manufacturer Meyer Burger has succumbed to the lure of lavish subsidies in the U.S. and is building a new solar cell plant in Colorado.

For this purpose, production machines that were intended for an expansion in Saxony-Anhalt are now being shipped across the ocean. In America, the capital invested generates a government subsidy return from the start of production. Washington is mercilessly stepping up the pace in its efforts to escape its dependence on Chinese suppliers of future technologies.

For an entrepreneur whose business is in troubled waters, that makes the decision clear. Even if Meyer Burger says the expansion in the East is only postponed, the lessons are obvious: In the competition for scarce production resources, it's not just about the amount of subsidies, but also about ease and speed of implementation. This further drives up the price of rapid independence.

[FAZ]

[Skybird]

Germany becomes the new Easter Island. The Easter Islanders built stone statutes to call the gods. The Germans build windmills to call sustainability and get into climate heaven. Both people in the end will have fallen.

https://www-tichyseinblick-de.transl..._x_tr_pto=wapp

Click on "Ich unterstütze bereits". I hope Google Translator works.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Skybird

2%? Forget it. You just dont understand German humour.



https://www.nzz.ch/meinung/der-ander...&_x_tr_sl=auto

Does anybody?

[Skybird]

How the green-woke terror of sentiment de facto establishes a religous dictatorship.

https://www.nzz.ch/meinung/gender-kl...&_x_tr_sl=auto

NZZ and Google do not like each other. I hope the translator works.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Skybird

How the green-woke terror of sentiment de facto establishes a religous dictatorship.

https://www.nzz.ch/meinung/gender-kl...&_x_tr_sl=auto

NZZ and Google do not like each other. I hope the translator works.

Following made me smile

" Die Mehrheit der Deutschen denkt anders, aber wen kümmert das?"

A majority of the Germans think otherwise, but who cares(not exactly translated I know)

Secondly you have to register to read the entire article.

Markus

[Skybird]

Over here it's just asking for permission to set cookies.

[Skybird]

From Tichys Einblicke:


Some texts present an editorial team with unanswered questions. For example, this article about the next initiative from Robert Habeck's (Greens) Ministry of Economics. Actually, what is happening is so absurd that it can only be adequately presented in a gloss. On the other hand, the absurdity in Habeck's ministry is reality. So TE decided against the gloss. This time. Every word of it reflects reality - the reality of a green-led country, though.

The Ministry of Economics wants to remeasure the country's prosperity. Habeck's office doesn't know exactly how to do that either. That's why it has launched an online survey on the question of what that might look like. The only thing Habeck's people are sure of is that GDP does not adequately represent prosperity.

This is a relief for the Ministry of Economics. After all, since it has been led by a Green, the gross domestic product has not been doing so well. In the last quarter, the national wealth did not grow despite record immigration. Which is good news. Because in the two quarters before that, it declined. High time, then, to redefine wealth.


So until September 6, users are now to vote on what the new wealth looks like. Quite openly, quite impartially. But to ensure that it goes in the right direction, State Secretary Sven Giegold has already set a few guidelines in the Tagesspiegel. Wealth must not be left to the citizens, left-wing parties have always agreed on that.
"Gross domestic product only shows economic performance," says Giegold in the Tagesspiegel. Climate protection and social justice should be included in the recording of prosperity, Giegold gives the respondents what they should please answer. So far, not everyone has benefited equally from the growing wealth, writes the Tagesspiegel. Conversely, this means:
If everyone has nothing, no one is considered poor. Workers' paradises somehow always work the same way.

Now one could increase Giegold and Tagesspiegel into the absurd. Joke: Whoever has nothing to eat, but carries Robert Habeck in his heart, will be considered infinitely rich in the future. And those who starve would reduce CO2 emissions to such an extent that they would be so rich that the SPD, FDP and Left would demand additional taxes from the corpse. But we will refrain from these jokes. After all, the text should not become a gloss simply because a poorer country wants to redefine wealth.


The Ministry of Economics has announced that the online survey will be included in the 2024 Annual Economic Report. The stupid gross domestic product can then decline as much as it wants - no one would simply report on it anymore. Except the OECD or the International Monetary Fund would inform the Germans about it. But that could then also be prevented by law. But to mention this option would turn the text into a gloss. Or a conspiracy theory. Or perhaps soon a description of reality in a green-led country.



-----------------------


Orwellian NewSpeak plus DoubleThink to deconstruct reality. It all gets more and more an open nightmare.