GER politics thread

[Skybird]

The Neue Zürcher Zeitung puts the finger into the wound:

There is a dispute in Germany over the centerpiece of the security policy "turnaround" proclaimed by Chancellor Olaf Scholz: the 100 billion euro modernization of the Bundeswehr. The CDU and CSU are signaling that they do not want to approve the government factions' draft bill as it stands. They doubt that the money will really only be used for the Bundeswehr. They also say it is unclear how the new debt - which is what the "special assets" are all about - is to be repaid. Party tactical games, as the government claims? No, the criticism is justified.

It is the duty of the opposition to ensure that such huge sums are used appropriately. Especially since it would not be possible without the votes of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group. For the so-called debt brake to be circumvented and the credit-financed special fund to be anchored in the Basic Law, a two-thirds majority is needed in parliament - and thus the approval of the CDU and CSU.

But even with the approval of the opposition, there is a real danger that 100 billion euros will only be a flash in the pan, which will blaze impressively but not heat up the Bundeswehr to the necessary operating temperature in the long term.

The German government is currently planning to use the additional debt, known as special assets, to close the gap between the regular defense budget and the fulfillment of NATO's two-percent target, which the chancellor has also promised. This states that all member states of the alliance must spend at least two percent of their respective gross domestic product on defense. Germany has been falling well short of this target for years.

The German defense budget is threatened with a coverage gap

Expenditure in billions of euros

At the same time, the regular defense budget is to be frozen at just over 50 billion euros until 2026. However, this would mean that the money in the special fund would already be used up by 2025. Once regardless of the question of whether the Bundeswehr's notorious procurement bureaucracy can even properly spend so much money in such a short time: What comes after that?

Certainly, there will probably be annual increases in the defense budget in the future, as there have been recently. The galloping inflation trend alone will make this necessary. However, by their very nature, long-term defense projects can hardly be planned if the regular defense budget is not increased in a predictable manner for years to come. Only in this way would the German military also have planning security for the rising operating costs that inevitably arise with more material to be maintained.

It would make sense to finance the particularly costly armaments projects through a special fund spread over several years, such as the planned development of the Future Combat Air System. Other expenditures, however, would be better covered by a growing regular defense budget. These include protective equipment for soldiers and the 20 billion euros in ammunition stocks that Germany has committed to NATO to procure - enough for 30 days of combat. Only in this way will Germany succeed in achieving the goal set by Finance Minister Christian Lindner of making the Bundeswehr the most effective army in Europe.

If, on the other hand, the special fund is spent within a few years without increasing the defense budget, the next federal government will face a huge challenge: How will Germany then meet the NATO quota? It is questionable whether the country will have the political strength after the next election to close what would then be a much larger funding gap. If it fails to do so, the grandly announced turnaround will have turned out to be a flash in the pan by then at the latest.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

More and more the turnaround" in German defence policy is getting demasked as just another Scholzian smoke screen - as I feared and said it would. In its current format its just a very very little bit more than cosmetics only. Cosmetics that will wash off the face again in 3-4 years.

However, the question must be asked if such defence budgets as needed even are seriously affordable anymore? But that is a question I would ask on many political projects and state administrating areas, not a few of them I would describe as mad and insane. Climate policy hybris, inflation, unfolding recession and stagflation, extremely high debt standings while the currency still gets inflated, and ever more greed and need and political profiling with the money of other people - and the next generation.

It's all over our heads already, but no one wants to admit it - or stop packing even more and more on top. All high flying plans. No sense of realism - or competence to show it. Best example for the latter: the German energy "turnaround". A stupid drama since 12 years, still accelerating make sure one hits the wall at the end at top speed. Say, how do you stop a loooooong train in almost no time that has been accelerated for 12 years and that lifts the wheels on one side higher and higher in every turn it races through...?

[Skybird]

[Skybird]

Now that the "special assets" for the Bundeswehr, amounting to 100 billion and loudly announced as an additional booster, have already started tpo be unmasked as a means of achieving the 2% target for the defense budget, the question is now also increasingly being asked whether this 2% requirement will actually, as pompously announced, ever be anchored in the constitution as a binding obligation. The loudly advertised German "turn of time" seems to be trivialized now already more and more, while numerous speakers left today on the occasion of the 1st May no doubt that they want maximum increases of the already murderously high social expenditures, and see the necessity to be able to defend such a welfare state also militarily, as practically irrelevant. Somehow I have the overwhelming impression that, despite two months of war, a great many firecrackers still haven't heard the shot/the shots/the never-ending salvos. I shouldn't be surprised, after all, I announced early on that I wouldn't believe Scholz's lofty announcements until I see them implemented. It is doubtful that the 100 billion will ever be approved, because the opposition also smells a rat and has made it clear that it will not accept a wishy-washy definition for the use of the money and will then rather vote against the necessary constitutional amendments.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that there's a 70% chance that all the grandiose announcements will come to nothing or almost nothing, at least more nothing than anything. Already the buying of the F-35, announced early, is in my opinion in the stars, and will be unraveled again, because it is not "European". Bet?!

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung therefore also comments:

The fact that the "turn of the times" has by no means changed everything can be seen from the Green party conference over the weekend. The party did support the federal government's current realpolitik course, including arms deliveries, which is what ministers Habeck and Baerbock stand for.

But on one issue, the Greens, who used to be the parliamentary arm of the peace movement, remained true to their old beliefs: They do not want to anchor NATO's two-percent target in the Basic Law. They had already rejected it in their election program, which, of course, was written in a completely different foreign policy environment.

Not everything has to be written into the constitution. But if there is one thing to which German politicians should urgently commit themselves legally after the experiences of recent years, it is to equip the Bundeswehr in line with the alliance. How is it to be understood that the Greens are in favor of the special fund of 100 billion euros, but do not want to commit themselves to a long-term spending target for defense?

Do they really believe that the Bundeswehr's striking power will be permanently restored with an injection of funds? Or that the war in Ukraine will soon be over and the money can then be spent again on greener causes?

Putin's war of aggression is just two months old, and already a coalition partner is raising doubts about a key promise made by the chancellor. In all likelihood, the West faces a very long strategic confrontation with Russia, which incidentally spends four percent, as well as with China, which has the world's second-largest military budget.

The two percent target, which has been ignored for far too long, is an important prerequisite for Germany to better protect its population, its allies and its interests in the future. The yardstick should not once again be German wishful thinking, but international reality.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

[Skybird]

These people disgust me.

https://www-achgut-com.translate.goo..._x_tr_pto=wapp

[Reece]

If it disgusts you then it definitely disgusts me!!

[Skybird]

According to Reuters, negotiations on liquefied gas supplies from Qatar for Germany are going slowly. The main reason is that Qatar is insisting on long-term supply contracts for at least 20 years, people familiar with the talks told the news agency.

The German negotiating partners, however, have little interest in long supply contracts, as Germany wants to be climate neutral as early as 2045. According to the latest legislation passed by the cabinet, the energy sector is to be virtually CO2-free as early as 2035.

This would therefore mean that gas would no longer be allowed to be used for heating or power generation. For the next few years, however, Germany will have to rely on liquid gas to replace Russian pipeline gas. A source told Reuters, "The length of the liquefied natural gas contracts could jeopardize Germany's decarbonization goals."

The two sides are also apparently at odds over a clause on the destination of gas deliveries. Qatar wants to dictate that the gas will not be forwarded to other European countries. The European Union does not agree.

A third point of contention is the question of what the gas price should be linked to in the future. Qatar wants a link to the price of oil. Germany argues for a link to a European gas index. Felix Booth, a liquefied natural gas expert at Vortexa, says: "Qatar has the levers in its hands. In the end, Germany will have to agree to terms to secure supply." Liquefied gas is much more expensive than cheap Russian gas anyway.

The German Economics Ministry did not comment when asked, nor did the government of Qatar. Gas importers Uniper and RWE also declined to comment on the talks.

German Economics Minister Robert Habeck (Greens) had visited Qatar in March and subsequently reported an energy partnership. According to insiders, the Emir of Qatar, Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, wants to come to Germany before the end of May to sign an agreement. This does not mean, however, that supply contracts will be agreed, said people familiar with the plans for the visit.

[Catfish]

[Jimbuna]

^ I hope Olaf Scholz sees that clip.

[Skybird]

^ Words of horror that make Bubble-Olaf tremble in fear: "If there is an emergency, it has to be delivered in no time."

After six weeks passed since the mutual agreement, the Polish still listen to deafening silence from the chancellor's office regarding the agreed ring exchange of combat vehicles.

[Skybird]

When the "traffic light coaltion" cam einto office I said it is absolkutely possible that it might not last the full term. When the Ukraine war broke out I said it might not even last until the end of this year. In both cases I indicated that the key problem is Scholz himself, and poiitned to his pltlical records sinc ehis desastrous tiem as mayor of Huam,burg. This man shoud, nave rhave been allwoed to become chancellor. He is arrogant while cowardly, incompetent while absolutely full of himself.

Focus writes:

It's Friday the 13th, and the first coalition wrangling is taking place in the traffic light alliance. But it's only superficially about individual issues. In fact, distrust of the chancellor is growing. And that just two days before the important state elections in Germany's most populous state. Things are getting dicey for Olaf Scholz.

This Friday, the defense committee will discuss the delivery of heavy weapons to Ukraine - and the suspicion, expressed not only by the arms industry, that the chancellor and his office are delaying these arms deliveries. And this with the argument that Germany must always move in the West's convoy. No "German Sonderweg," the chancellor says in this regard.

But this principle of the chancellor's turns the small question into a big one in terms of state policy. The question is: Should Germany assume a leading role in the Western alliance? That's what the Greens and liberals expect of him. But Scholz doesn't want to. And Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann (FDP), the chairwoman of the defense committee and therefore hard to ignore as Scholz's liberal tormentor, has a reason, which she dresses up in a very, very nasty sentence.

The "NZZ" asked Strack-Zimmermann about Scholz's leadership qualities. The question is absolutely legitimate, because Scholz has claimed this leadership for himself not only once. Scholz even claims to be the mastermind for a Western strategy on Ukraine. To this now the tomboyish, to Scholz's chagrin, but above all independent and therefore hardly to be disciplined parliamentarian:

"I would be happy if we at least marched in step with our partners (the word "march" is likely to bring a blush of anger to the faces of many Social Democrats) and did not give the impression that the Germans always have to be persuaded to act first." But the liberal in the Germany-critical liberal paper did not leave it at that. Leadership?

"The chancellor needs a pretty broad back for that, should he ever want to fill this role." The subjunctive irrealis means that from Strack-Zimmermann's point of view, Scholz is not leading. An opinion that is shared by at least Toni Hofreiter among the Greens, an equally independent since he did not become a minister.

It is the combination of unfulfilled leadership role, arrogance and lack of respect for freely elected parliamentarians that led to the discharge today among liberals. Not for the first time. On 24 April Strack Zimmermann had already dealt with the leadership qualities of the chancellor.

A country as big as Germany in a crisis as big as the one over Ukraine would have to lead. And this leadership would have to come from Olaf Scholz - "not only economically, but also militarily." And then, "And for those who don't want to accept this role, I say, then they may be sitting in the wrong place at the wrong moment." Now, this does not mean that the whole coalition is in the toilet.

What is already to be recognized by the fact that Strack-Zimmermann as well as the defense-policy FDP spokesman Marcus Faber distribute even currently after the meeting of the defense committee sedatives. One could clarify, which remained open, surely in a next meeting. However, this presupposes that Olaf Scholz will also accept a second "invitation".

The need for clarification that the members of the defense committee have arises from two kinds of decisions - those that have been made but are difficult to explain, and those that have not yet been made, which is equally difficult to explain. Scholz's government has promised to supply Ukraine with Gepard tanks. But that will take time. Was this "will take time" intentional? [You bet it was!, Skybird]

Marder and Leopard 1 tanks have not been delivered because the Federal Security Council has not yet decided on them, although Scholz promised that it would not take that long. But apparently it does.

Let's move up a level. The CDU/CSU, the Greens and the FDP are largely in agreement on security policy issues. More so than the SPD, the Greens and the FDP. Among the Social Democrats, phantom pains are still widespread. Many there cling to a notion of pacifism that the Greens have overcome at record speed.

A Jamaica coalition could replace a traffic light government immediately and without new elections. That would be very unusual, but it is not impossible. Who would have believed three months ago that Greens would justify arms deliveries with love of peace ?

Finally, the North Rhine-Westphalia elections this Sunday. There, it smells like black-green, and for several reasons. Perhaps the most important: The Greens know the SPD. And they have had to put up with this arrogant coalition partner for three minister presidents.


It started back then with Johannes Rau, a man who was actually affable, drank Pilsner and smoked HB cigarettes. But he thought the Greens were an accident of history. And from the Social Democrat a nice bon mot has been saying for decades:

"Better a cottage house in the green than a green in the house."
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

[Skybird]

There were state elections in Northrhine Westphalia (where I live in) today. Due to the state heaving the biggest population of all 16 states, these elections sometimes are called and seen as "small Bundestag elections". Participation dropped from 65 to 56%, and the faction of the non-voters formed the biggest group, as big as the voters of CDU, SPD and Greens all together. Means: the non-voters have won this election, so to speak. The CDU gained, the SPD sufferedc a pretty desastrous result (the worst since WW2), the Green tripled their last result form five yers ago.

CDU and FDP had formed a colation government the past 5 years, but due to the FDP being the second national coaltion party suffering very heavy losses, that is not possible anymore. Its either a coalition of CDU and the Greens, or CDU and SPD, or the SPD, Green and the FDP - like on national level, what is called traffic-light coalition in germany.

The SPD campaigned heavily withScholz,. so their loss isdue to Scholz and his Ukraine policy. The FDP got punsihed becasue - I think - its boss Linder who also ios the ficnaine ministrer in the nationb govenbrment, juggled way to much with terms and calcuations to hide that he has dramatically increased debts, his main priority being that debts are not called debts anymore, but get some distracting alternative names. With the FDP's voters being established business people and young voters from the better situated families in Germany, he seems to not get away with this trcik, his clientel being too aware of what all this fincial mumbojumbo is meaning for us and helps to fuel inflation and thus: loss of wealth.

All this reflects the national government's many issues. The Green however see a strom-and-triumph phase and run from victory to victory currenbtly. Their weight will gian in the national coaltion, they will be able to diatctae Bubble-OPlaf even mroe temrns and ciodnitions iof he wants to keep in power. Which is good. Somebody has to kick the stupid little boy in his cowardly back, else he would not even get out of bed, that much afraid he is of atomic war with Russia.

The results, counting in the non-voters - and that is how it should be, to put the eleciton results into their real context.


Roughly only every 5th person eligible to vote voted for CDU, not even every 6th voted for SPD, only every 10th voted for Greens. This must be kept on mind when parties claim they "speak for the people" and "represent this or that majority". They don't. They are minorities. Mostly even surprisingly small ones.


Not even the complete to-be-formed coalition government speaks for a majority of the people.

AFD and FDP are in, the SED ("Linke") is out.

[Skybird]

I like to communicate with conviction!......With a lot of desire and enthusiasm!......Authentically approachable and emphatic......Clear, spontaneous and honest!......And full of emotionality and passion!


Okay Olaf. And now again, but this time without reading from the cheat sheet with the weasel words!

[Catfish]

Watch this and cry
(german only)

[Skybird]

^ A kingdom for a starship that takes me aboard and flies away. Its all so completely hopeless. Gegen Dummheit ist einfach kein Kraut gewachsen.

When I am near my death I hope they will get in full what they are craving for. Stupidity deserves to suffer from its consequences. I hope it then burns like a torch.

I repeat this from time to time, every year or every second. It never grows old:

[Skybird]

I'm getting more and more scared and anxious in this country. Brutal ice-cold ideologues and self-lobotomized lunatics elevate state-defined collectivism to the reason of state - even in infancy. And for years now it has been getting worse and worse. Where do we differ from authoritarian regimes such as Russia or China, which also maltreat the very young to ensure that they become the trained conformists, ideologically trimmed state drones that the control-addicted state leadership demands them to be? The NZZ writes:

The German "traffic light" (coalition) has entered its sixth month. In mid-December of last year, Chancellor Olaf Scholz issued his first government declaration. Since then, the accusation that the three-party coalition has been running its mouth too full has persisted. Digitalization is not making any progress, economic development is stalling, the healthcare system is limping along, and the "share pension" is a long time coming. It's all a lot of bickering, hesitation and dithering.

The SPD, Greens and FDP can point to the Ukraine war and its consequences as mitigating factors. And they can look with pride at those areas in which they are actually delivering. The social transformation that Olaf Scholz promised is progressing. Society is well on its way to becoming a community of the committed. But is this really progress?

Every plan carries the seeds of failure, and not all laws change reality. But no one can deny the will of the three governing parties to fundamentally transform society. Federal Minister of the Interior Nancy Faeser of the SPD, for example, calls for and promotes "democracy education.

In this way, she gives the Germans an alarming report card. Clearly, almost 80 years after the end of the war and 33 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, her compatriots are still not (or no longer) proper democrats. If that were really the case, all of Europe and half the world would be worried. But it is possible that Faeser's diagnosis is a rhetorical ploy to make it easier for her pet project, the "Democracy Promotion Act," to clear the hurdles of necessity.

By the end of the year, a draft law prepared jointly with the Ministry of Family Affairs should be available. Initiatives and associations that previously relied on short-term project funding can then look forward to regular payments from the state budget.

According to the two ministries' discussion paper, Germany needs "democratic commitment and convinced democrats. For this reason, "projects in the area of promoting democracy, shaping diversity and preventing extremism are to receive reliable support." Family Minister Lisa Paus of the Green Party specifies: The "committed civil society" deserves every state support.

If civil society is already a strange conceptual bastard of state and society, which should be in fruitful tension with each other, "engaged civil society" is completely wooden. What is meant here are social actors who act in the interests of the parties currently in power and are subsidized by the state to do so. The state wants to shape a society in its own image. Ultimately, the citizen is placed under reservation.

Those players in identity politics who offer courses and seminars on the "fight against the right," against climate change, for integration and for "diversity" are primarily worthy of permanent funding. Paus and Faeser expressly reject an extremism formula with which the initiatives would have to renounce any extremist temptation.

The "committed civil society" is supposed to oppose racists and extremists of all stripes, although their extreme right-wing form is mentioned very often and the Islamist form almost never. It is also disconcerting that Faeser mentions "anti-Semites and anti-feminists" in the same breath. Apparently, the SPD politician considers hatred of Jews and rejection of feminism among "convinced democrats" to be equally abhorrent.

To prevent both from arising in the first place, Faeser advocates early childhood democracy education. Kindergartens should become a political space in which the youngest children can playfully learn about the "fight against right-wing extremism. If one takes other statements by Faeser, who is also the Minister of Home Affairs, at face value, the battle against the traditional concept of home must also be fought in the kindergarten.

Home, says the minister, "is all people, no matter where they come from." That's why "we have to reinterpret the concept of home in a positive way and define it in such a way that it is open and diverse. And that it expresses that people can decide for themselves how they want to live, believe and love." We learn: the Secretary of Homeland considers homeland a negative term that must be reinterpreted by the state. She demands that the collective work on the concept in order to then generously assign individuality.
The social restructuring of the "traffic light" has two goals: First, life is to break down into a sequence of correct decisions, from kindergarten to the deathbed; this creates a long flow of confessions and thus of ideological norm control.

Secondly, it is no longer being that determines consciousness, but doing that determines existence. Those who do not permanently participate and pull along have no part in the community of the committed. "Our cohesion" (Paus) does not apply to the apolitical, or even to those who already consider home a positive concept.

Even four-year-olds should learn to distinguish the right from the wrong attitudes in kindergarten. To this end, the "rainbow portal" operated by the Ministry of Family Affairs recommends a reading book with the story of a male mermaid. "Individuality, diversity and variety" are to be taught to the little ones in this way. Childhood must no longer be an island of purposelessness and thus not a childhood in the previous sense. Politics overarches every stage of life.

At the age of 14, still a minor, every young person is to be allowed to decide freely at the registry office which sex he or she has. This is what it says in two draft laws by the Greens and the FDP that failed in the summer of 2020, and which are now being incorporated into the "self-determination law" sought by the "traffic light" majority before the parliamentary summer break.

Once again, the will to arbitrariness is celebrating triumphs, even at the cost of turning absurd. These merits were earned by the federal government's queer commissioner, the Green politician Sven Lehmann, when he recently claimed that gender identity could not in principle be examined from the outside, not even by doctors.

At the physical borders of the country, however, the same fluid principle should apply as at those of the body: the assertion defines being. Those who do not identify themselves when applying for asylum are allowed to establish their nationality by means of an affidavit. According to Interior Minister Faeser, this possibility should only be an exception in cases of emergency - but how can one prevent the exception from becoming the rule? Once again, identity politics turns identity into a chimera.

The new spirit has also already taken hold of German jurisprudence. In April, the administrative court in Mainz ruled against the city of Worms, which did not want to naturalize a Somali because he could not produce official identification documents. Witness statements from the family, the judges said, would have to suffice in emergency situations. Will such "communities of responsibility" be formed in the future on such a basis, as the FDP is pushing in family law? "Two or more persons of full age" are soon to be allowed to enter into such a relationship, provided they are not related.

In a speech at the end of April, the foreign minister clarified the epochal change that the "traffic light" wants to set in motion. "Identity in the 21st century," Annalena Baerbock explained, means "above all, civic engagement, being integrated into society." Such a definition breaks with anthropological certainties and is hardly compatible with the conditions of a liberal constitutional state.

According to this definition, identity is not shaped by the ego but by the collective, and the individual must be committed in order to attain it. Only the politically desired commitment makes a person. Only society provides individuality. Why an FDP that sees itself as a liberal party tolerates these statist maneuvers in part and welcomes them in part will have to be explained to its core constituency. It is also difficult to understand the deafening silence of the CDU and CSU, which have so far done nothing to counter the expulsion of the bourgeoisie.

So the conclusion is: The "traffic light" that wants to create a fear-free, diverse, free society is afraid of diversity and freedom.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)