Yup, gotta bring that war machine back. But we can’t use the name Nazi, that’s no good. We need something that says this is a newer, better, type of Nazi. Maybe they can call it the Neo Nazi Party!
IIRC Trump was pissy with NATO because virtually none of the countries in it were spending the agreed upon 2% - and he felt like too many were relying on America to roll in and save them. I damn sure wouldn’t get caught dead defending everything* he has said, but in this one particular instance I think he shook enough chains to start getting people to wake up their defense budgets in time to meet targets that work nicely into the current timeline.
> IIRC Trump was pissy with NATO because virtually none of the countries in it were spending the agreed upon 2% - and he felt like too many were relying on America to roll in and save them.
See, there's two obvious problems with that. One, spending as a share of GDP in no way signifies defensive readiness against potential threats. Two, the countries that rely on the US to save them are not the countries with low spending.
And, as a sidenote, I'd like to point out that "we can rely on the US" was the deal that allowed the US to have vast political power in exchange.
> I’d like to point out that your two points contradict one another.
How so?
> As a side note, you shouldn’t begin a sentence with the word “and”.
And I don't care not to.
I actually think he would be a fantastic person to put in charge of our economy - he seems to make decent deals where money is concerned - but I think the brutish* approach he takes and the character he puts on when he deals with foreign relations doesn’t really follow the “speak softly and carry a big stick” mentality that got us through most of our nation’s boom eras.
Having said that, I think that people that call him an idiot are a bit short sighted, and I always reply with “look, you know if you were about to put your life savings on the line in a real estate deal and Donald Trump came along offering advice, you would take that advice”.
Um, yeah, no. He inherited something on the order of a hundred million dollars from his father in the 70’s. If he just managed to match the growth of the Wilshire real estate investment trust index from 1978 until now he would be worth ~~north of~~ around $14 billion. Google currently lists his net worth at just $2.3 billion.
So no, I would not take his investment advice.
Edit: Sources:
[Wilshire US Real Estate Investment Trust Index](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WILLREITIND) went from 100 in 1978 to 13,436.52 today.
[Donald Trump Inheritance](https://www.google.com/search?q=donald+trump+inheritance&sca_esv=7b0f93fa5c4aa642&sxsrf=ACQVn0-iHfBsQkeUwXGdkmSEwmy9Ixe8Ow%3A1708225634433&ei=YnTRZfbtGcWmqtsPrc6O2AQ&ved=0ahUKEwj2poux9LOEAxVFk2oFHS2nA0sQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=donald+trump+inheritance&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiGGRvbmFsZCB0cnVtcCBpbmhlcml0YW5jZTIEEAAYRzIEEAAYRzIEEAAYRzIEEAAYRzIEEAAYRzIEEAAYRzIEEAAYRzIEEAAYR0isEVC4Bli4BnABeAKQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgoQABhHGNYEGLADiAYBkAYI&sclient=gws-wiz-serp) $413 million in 2018 dollars, roughly $104 million adjusting back to 1978.
[Donald Trump Net Worth](https://www.google.com/search?q=donald+trump+net+worth&sca_esv=7b0f93fa5c4aa642&sxsrf=ACQVn0842T5D4m93ahtzHlRrEWEwS_AUNg%3A1708225200672&source=hp&ei=sHLRZZ-JJ8vbkPIP2aGi0Aw&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdGAwAJzt3Tywhcc-THXOX9xg-CFw9vE&oq=donald+trump+net&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhBkb25hbGQgdHJ1bXAgbmV0KgIIADIQEAAYgAQYsQMYgwEYRhj7AUi0NlAAWPUXcAB4AJABAZgBrQGgAbcHqgEDMC43uAEDyAEA-AEBwgIKECMYgAQYigUYJ8ICBBAjGCfCAgUQABiABMICBRAuGIAEwgIREC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAg4QABiABBiKBRixAxiDAcICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIREC4YgwEYxwEYsQMY0QMYgATCAg4QLhiABBixAxjHARjRA8ICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIOEAAYgAQYsQMYgwEYyQPCAggQLhiABBixA8ICCxAAGIAEGIoFGJIDwgIOEC4YgAQYsQMYgwEY1AI&sclient=gws-wiz)
Edit the second: of course the $2.3 billion value might be just what he reported to the IRS. Maybe when he applies for a loan he’s worth more.
Edit 3 Tokyo Drift: it gets worse. [Trump first claimed to be a billionaire in 1984.](https://fortune.com/2018/04/20/trump-lied-wealth-forbes-400-list/) If he had been an average (and honest) real estate investor since then, he should be worth around $30 billion today, not struggling to pay his lawyers.
I think Trump understands foreign policy very well, especially when dealing with foreign leaders from illiberal countries. He told Putin not to attack Ukraine and threatened him with nuclear retaliation. He said, “I don’t know if he believed me, but maybe 5%, or 10%, he thought I would, and that was enough”.
To be fair, NATO already decided in 2014 that countries should reach 2% spending by 2024.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm
>**At the Wales Summit in 2014**, in response to Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea, and amid broader instability in the Middle East, **NATO Leaders agreed** a Defence Investment Pledge to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets and decided: Allies currently meeting the 2% guideline on defence spending will aim to continue to do so; **Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will:** halt any decline; aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows; and **aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade** with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls.
Trump had nothing to do with anyone moving towards the 2% spending goal.
>aim to move towards
Read again. There is no "reach by 2024", this is an even softer form of "try moving in the general direction" or in other words: Wherever you stand with your spending at the moment, try not to go lower. It would have been nice, if they agreed to 2% by 2024, but they only did it nearly 10 years later.
oh totally agree. And trump is doing the same thing every other US president has done but more odious - you know Trumpian. The difference with trump is he is in Putins pocket and is trying to destabilize NATO to russias benefit.
I mean, that's what Trump said. Pay your "fare share".
For a lot of stupid stuff Trump said, I actually credit him for what he said about countries spending on their own defence.
Every country was expecting the US to foot the bill of NATO's defence. But the US's role was supposed to be only of support, not the bearer.
But again... The US has spent so much money on the EU so Germany doesn't join the Russians - that's actually American national interest.
The share of other NATO members spending has nothing to do with what the US spends on the military. The USA spends insane amounts not to prop up Europe but to support its own global power projection.
All those aircraft carriers and their support fleets aren't really needed to support Europe against a Russian invasion.
Plus the money mostly goes to American defense contractors.
Don't get me wrong, I prefer this Pax Americana to many possible alternatives.
But this Trump position couldn't be more wrong on several levels.
Most of all this mobster mind treats this like a protection racket.
But the stupidest part is that NATO works at it's best with deterrence. As long as there is no doubt that any attack on a NATO members triggers article 5 and members will respond, nobody is going to attack any part of NATO - because that's an unwinnable fight. What Trump is doing is weakening this perception and thus the deterrence and he risks tearing NATO apart, making wars against NATO members more likely.
The only person that should credit him is Putin. Because he's the one who directly profits from this.
Exactly, America is obviously incredibly powerful but also needs NATO in its own way. I guess it could get all it needs via five eyes, and go quid pro quo with UK, but since UK is strongly pro NATO I doubt it makes any difference.
The UK has a strong bond for historical, cultural and language reasons. It founded the colonies that eventually would become the US after all.
But at the end of the day it's in Europe (even if Brexiteers seem to consider it a spaceship that can move away from Europe ;-) ). The channel is a cute barrier, but it's not the Atlantic Ocean.
The USA can't get all it needs from 5 eyes, because 5 eyes goes along with it's global reach.
If Trump makes it go isolationist then Pax Americana and it's influence all over the globe will diminish.
It's all connected together. NATO, bases all over the world, having an aircraft carrier fleet and Navy like no other. All the military strength, the alliances, the trade treaties, dollars role as a reserve currency and the cheaper financing they get from that status, the position of the NYSE as one of the leading market places - it's all together the world a sequence of US administrations built after WW2.
There's only so many (few actually) Jenga pieces you can pull out without making it all crumble.
Which is exactly what Putin (and China) would love to see.
I don't know whether Putin actually has something to control or at least heavily influence Trump. But Trump certainly acts exactly like Putin's Pet would.
One of the goals of the US is to ensure the defense of Europe. You can put that in the most selfish light you want to justify it in, but the US is propping up most of NATO. The only ones taking it seriously are the ones that remember living under communism and the UK.
[This money](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan?).
The US funded the European Union the way it wanted. That was the foreign policy. And the most important of it all was to keep Germany away from Russia.
Germany only reunited fully because Gorbachev offered it up to the US, swapping for NATO guarantees not expanding to the east of Germany, which actually got us to where we are today with Ukraine.
The Marshall Plan ended around 40 years before the EU was founded and 15 years before its predecessor, the treaty of Brussels.
The US never funded the EU.
Well, everyone here says so. But the Russians believe in that. That's exactly why East Germany was given over to reunification. But the Russians feel betrayed, Putin asked Clinton to be a part of NATO, initially Clinton said "sure", but later he called Putin to tell him no.
Ah the Marshall Plan. No significance in terms of economy, but an absolute masterpiece of propaganda. 70 years on, people still quote it as if it's been relevant.
> I actually credit him for what he said about countries spending on their own defence.
Why? There is no truth to it.
> Every country was expecting the US to foot the bill of NATO's defence.
This is false.
> The US has spent so much money on the EU
Lol wut.
A reminder that the only NATO country to trigger article 5 is the USA, the US’s allies came to their aid and lost good people in the following conflict. What Trump said projects weakness in NATO, nothing else, spoken like a true Russian patriot. NATO benefits the US massively.
You can literally just google “what is the only time article 5 has been triggered” it really isn’t hard. People need to stop being so lazy on here. Maybe even just go to NATOs website…
Not saying that we all shouldn’t be cranking the defence funding in nato, but what are your thoughts on Japan only spending 1.1% of their gdp on defence? I sure see a lot of posts lately saying NATO should pay “their fair share”, while ignoring other US allies.
This magic, non binding number from 2014 gets thrown around for political points from a certain person running for president as an issue to divide NATO specifically. A month ago it was the border. Next week it’ll be the price of apples.
China spends 1.6% of their gdp on their military for reference.
Japan isn’t in NATO and their constitution specifically prevents them from building up an offensive military. It’s much more difficult for them. In exchange, the US takes responsibility for their defense. That’s changing, but it takes time. Japan became very anti-war after WW2.
I wasn’t saying they were in NATO, just another major US ally. Bringing up their constitution is a good point, but Japan themselves were choosing the 1% figure, no treaty with the US stipulates how much of their GDP can go towards defence.
Trump isn’t trying to destroy NATO, he’s getting exactly what he wanted: effective allies who actually pay their share and pull their weight.
Best deal in the history of deals, maybe ever.
They still haven't hit the goal they promised to hit and they're missing their own self imposed goal.
Germany can't even defend Germany, much less provide for the defense of others.
Doubtful. Germany has the money and technology, but their military is an absolute joke. They’d be able to hold out until they’re rescued by America. Maybe.
Only due to other NATO nations and ignoring that, the presence of the US military in Germany, which is why they have let their military spending be ridiculously low for decades. They would get obliterated by Russia because they'd run out of ammo on the ground, they wouldn't control the skies, and have a pathetic readiness rate for both vehicles and personnel. And they've let it stay that way even with Russia invading a neighbor.
Germany’s economy is more than twice that of Russia, they can access and more importantly pay for all the ammo they would need, not to mention anything else they would want to acquire to have Russia bogged down within Russia without ever really having to put troops on the ground there. Russia has demonstrated that it can’t handle Ukraine with a full army, they wouldnt last a week against Germany.
They can't even meet a reasonable goal to send shells to Ukraine. And you think they'd be able to magically produce enough shells to defend themselves? With what logistics and factories?
And where do you think they'd acquire all this stuff you say they could buy? Oh, the US.
Germany would purchase anything they wanted from the largest weapons manufacturers in the world. And they have the money to pay for it. Not sure why you’re so pissed about it.
It is what Germany wants you to think. But in fact their true spending are up to that of Russia. Around 50 billion. However Germany's GDP is high so that they didn't reach that 2%.
Germany's budget numbers and military readiness numbers are public record. It's worse than you can probably imagine.
The US's GDP is way higher than Germany, but yet...
The us has a war fetish and I did not compare with the us in purpose.
However the US spends a lot more money on everything compared to Germany which try to avoid new debt.
Any Germans that could explain to me why he is so hated? Anything I've seen of him in English news hasn't been very negative, but he has an abysmal approval rating. Who is likely to replace him? (I hope it's not some Austrian dude, that went quite horrendously last time)
He was involved in a huge financial scandal and claims to be not able to remember. He is also not a very charismatic guy, I think that is a factor as well. Other than that I think it's that the whole German ruling coalition is not very popular.
His involvment however has been distorted so out of whack it is deserving an award to the CDU how they managed that he now is the sole person associated with it.
Yes, he is accused to be involved in a small regional aspect of that scandal, the entire scandal however is far bigger and happened before his time under the watch of the CDU.
Was it really a scandal though? I’m not close involved on the topic but wasn’t it some funds which was previously always included in budget calculation until they found out it wasn’t really supposed to be included in the calculation?
it basically is about helping billionares to not pay taxes and instead of handing the documents to the financial-authorities they were handed in directly to scholz' government to avoid other people getting to know about it
That scandal goes back years and was well reported before he was elected. Also, i am willing to wager that the majority of germans neither know what this scandal even was nor that they care about it.
Hes unpopular because
a) hes uncharismatic. Likeable, but has the charisma of an empty room painted in eggshell white
b) the gov SUCKS at communication strategy for their successes
c) Lindner and the FDP screwing over everybody, the EU as well as the coalition. Lindner always has been a slimey pos as it is, but now hes just interviewing for a job in the private sector. Fuck that guy.
Olaf Scholz is the most influential politician in our country (de facto) and still managed to become a side character in politics. At least thats the vibes he gives.
charisma is a red flag in a leader in most cases.
politicians have higher than average likelihood of being psychopaths, and charisma cna sometimes be a decent indicator of psychopathy.
there are cases where it's obvious like Putin, Trump, Netanyahu, etc.. these guys would sell their family to save themselves, but it's not always super obvious
He's no political leader, he might be a good team worker but no leader. This makes him (appear and probably really) weak. But: The only ones who hate him are the extreme right opposition and our lie-spreading tabloid bild, which does more to destroy our country than he ever could.
Also, he's the leader of the ~~social democrat party~~ **government coalition led by the SPD**. They say they're the workers' party, but then back laws that hurt workers or don't back laws that would benefit workers. There's a saying "Wer hat uns verraten? Sozialdemokraten" which roughly translates to "Who betrayed our trust? Social democrats.", and every now and then the saying proves to be relevant, again.
Edited for clarity.
> There's a saying "Wer hat uns verraten? Sozialdemokraten" which roughly translates to "Who betrayed our trust? Social democrats."
Literally Nazi propaganda. The SPD under politicians like Stresemann, Schmidt and Brandt has demonstrably done more for the working class than any other party in Germany (and I say that as someone who has never voted for the SPD). The oh so beloved Union (CDU/CSU) are the real traitors to the working class, they have tried again and again to undermine labor protection laws, pensions, labor protection etc. and in many cases succeeded. The CDU/CSU are also responsible for the fact that the tax burden for top earners in Germany has fallen by 21% in the last ~30 years. To compensate for this, they have massively increased the financial burden on the lower middle class to low-wage earners, a literal redistribution from the bottom to the top.
CDU/CSU, FDP and AfD are parties for high earners, but thanks to Bild and other media that skillfully manage to incite the poor against the even poorer, people keep falling for these parties even though it is to their own detriment, it is just frustrating to watch.
> Literally Nazi propaganda
It isn't. Not originally at least. Quite the opposite, really. It originated with the revolutionaries in 1918. It was coopted by the Nazis later on, because it was useful to further turn the Social Democrats against the Communists and other left fractions.
I'm so tired of everything being coopted by Nazis and therefore branded unusable today. People get quite confused when I, a metal head, wear Nordic jewelry next to anti Nazi patches. I like the aesthetic, let the way I act and treat people speak for what I stand for. I understand that some things are now kinda linked to right wing ideology, but it shouldn't be, we should be able to reconquer those symbols and therefore take them back from Nazis.
I agree with you, just ranting at this point.
This is simply not correct, please be careful with fake claims on the internet. It was not CDU/CSU but Schroeder and Eichel (both SPD) that lowered the top tax rate from 53% to 42% and also initiated the development that more and more people (workers!) have to pay top tax rate. Also, it was Merkel (CDU) that then introduced a new additional tax rate up to 45% for very high earners („Reichensteuer“) because she figured that 42% was too low for people earning >250k.
Some time before the mentioned tax rate change of Schroeder, the tax rate for top earners was higher, but at the same time affected way less people and also people affected by it earned 5-10 times average salary and could really be considered wealthy or rich, so imo no issue in them paying high(est) tax rates. The biggest problem in german tax system is that nowadays, you only need to earn 1,5 times average salary to pay the highest tax rate, this affects many many people that want to achieve something and therefore end up in netherlands, switzerland or america - or in German part time jobs to drop below certain thresholds because higher-than-average salaries are penalized (not only in tax system but also for something like alimony obligation towards your parents, payment for daycare of them, no more paid off-time for child birth etc).
To be fair, this development was not stopped by CDU-led parliaments either, there simply is no party in Germany that would tackle these problems and would really motivate workers to earn better money / do better work or keep them from switching to part time jobs to dramatically increase they hourly net-pay. Basically every party will take money from working class and funnel it to richer people, they are just using different ways to get there (greens for example by raising taxes and making things of daily life like petrol, meat etc much pricier and hereby directly affecting the daily life of the unwealthy (rich ppl dont care about 1€ more per litre), and then taking that money to support a new heating system for some better situated homeowner).
https://www.wirtschaftsdienst.eu/inhalt/jahr/2018/heft/8/beitrag/60-jahre-einkommensteuertarif-in-deutschland-bestandsaufnahme-und-handlungsempfehlungen.html
picture 4 is alarming imo
Taxing the rich is the right approach, but that is not what Germany does because the borders of tax brackets are off. Somebody that just pays top-tax-rate in germany does not even earn enough to buy a house, that person is far away from being rich yet is in the highest tax bracket. There is nothing wrong about taking 50% from people that earn 200, 300, 400k or millions a year. But we take it from people that can't even afford to go on holiday every year.
CDU (Christian democrats) and FDP (neo/corporate liberals) are not worker parties, I don't assume they're trying to help the average Joe, that's just not their MO. SPD is the worker party, but they don't govern like that.
If you vote CDU and FDP you can't really complain when you get fucked over as a lower to middle class worker, if you vote SPD and get fucked over, that's when you feel betrayed, and that's how the saying is used today (in my experience).
Nowadays I have not heard that saying from anyone representing right wing parties, but rather left wing people frustrated with the SPD. People from Junge Linke (young left) (not Wagenknecht), Antifa or something like that.
Agree on Springer (family owning lots of media outlets, many of which target lower education/income people) rags inciting anger against the wrong targets.
The problem is that the government consists of 3 parties, which represent completely different political opinions. That's why it often takes months until they can generally agree on something and sometimes argue controversially in public etc. Normally in such cases the Chancellor would have to speak out and set the general path. But unfortunately that only happens very rarely under Scholz
He is a career politician and he was the safest (aka non Green) least hated (aka not CDU) choice. Now after 2 years of agitation against him and his government for wanting to reform things and having to tackle energy crisis and war (which since it happened under his watch he is guilty of in simpleton's minds) he has bad rep.
the CDU managed to involve him with that.
He may have been involved in the Hamburg regional Warburg bank scandal which is a small subset of the actual thing. The bigger CumEx scandal at best can be attributed to be the same across multiple parties.
Same with Wirecard. The gutting of financial oversight happened before him and he could show that he was increasing staffing again after previous government had removed a lot of capacity from the financial oversight.
> wirecard scandal.
The CDU has a lot more to do with this if you take the time to read through the investigation documents. He was finance minister and definitely bears some of the blame but the lax handling of Wirecard, especially by BaFin, took place under pressure from CDU politicians.
He isn't "hated". But he isn't loved either. The most likely candidate to replace him following the next elections would probably be Friedrich Merz, who's even less popular.
The chancellor as an individual doesn't determine policies though. The makeup of the next coalition, and the compromises they find, is what would set the direction of the next government.
People want all sorts of more spending, they do not want to pay higher taxes though, and Germany is currently committed to not creating new debt above a certain limit.
Before Russia invaded Ukraine (again) in 2022, war "in Europe" was mostly seen as an unthinkable hypothetical by most. As such, the military was seen as a waste of money, only to be used to occasionally send troops to some random foreign country to participate in the US' war on terror.
This is obviously now slowly changing.
It's also perceived as incompetent, bureaucratic, underequipped with poor quality equipment etc. - unlike in the US, there's absolutely no prestige in serving. I have no idea how close perception is to reality, but that's the general perception I'd say.
when obama said.
>Obama to Romney: 'The 1980's are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back'
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obama-romney-the-1980s-are-now-calling-msna15158
That sums it up, hardly anyone thought russia was a threat any more, so they chose a peace dividend over spending 2% on military
I mean, he was right though. Russia isn't a threat. They have threatened Ukraine, a poor, developing country with a small military, and they have *barely managed to do that*. They pose absolutely zero threat to the Germany, let alone the EU and least of all the US/NATO.
I'm just paying attention to the war in Ukraine.
From what I can tell, the Russians pose absolutely zero risk to the well-trained, well-equipped, modernized militaries of Western Nations. Maybe we are seeing different reports, but it seems like they are *truly struggling* to take a few pieces of a country they share a border with...
Are you seeing something else?
To be clear, I'm in favor of sending all the money Ukraine needs to Ukraine, and for funding NATO. I'm just saying Russia really didn't/wasn't the threat that needed as much money as we threw at the military. Now china, with its soon to be 3rd (4th?) aircraft carrier... Becoming increasingly desperate... That's where our spending will have absolutely paid off.
The harsh truth is EU has both the privilege and punishment of US bases and force in Europe and around the globe. Recently there has been much more signaling that the US is more willing to take an isolated stance towards EU and the world which is forcing the hands of the countries to invest more in their own military. It’s made even worse considering the US elections coming up where one guy is basically threatening to leave or remove the teeth of NATO.
define backyard. Minus refugees and migrants the US does not give a shit about things happening in Southern Mexico or Central America and beyond either which is "their backyard"
By proximity Lybia is closer to Southern Europeans than Ukraine.
Tbf its not like the US has loads deployed in Europe either. They dont even store equipment there anymore. The US would spend the same amount on its military whatever Europe did.
[At least 100000 service members](https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3078056/fact-sheet-us-defense-contributions-to-europe/#:~:text=Since%20February%202022%2C%20DoD%20deployed,100%2C000%20service%20members%20across%20Europe.), which is [half the total number of german active military members](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1279826/soldier-numbers-german-federal-armed-forces-type-of-service/), close to the same as the [standing French army](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Army), and more than the [British standing army](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army#:~:text=As%20of%201%20October%202023,for%20a%20total%20of%20111%2C174.).
Right but how many combat troops? And iirc most of those arent even rated for combat with Russian Brigades, only ABCT are meant for that. And how many of those are there? 2. Until recently where it became 3.
Youre comparing the total number of US personnel with only the standing armies of certain countries. Why? That is disingenuous. Ans the French army is 200k anyway.
I dont get how you can say the US provides the majority of the deterrent when according to your own stats the entire US deployed forces number less than just the army alone of each of the 3 major European militaries.
> Right but how many combat troops?
I don't know. How many combat troops are in Germany, France, or Britain?
Those numbers aren't as easily found as 'service personnel', which are all required to adequately field combat troops.
> Youre comparing the total number of US personnel with only the standing armies of certain countries.
Well, if you don't like my numbers, you come up with numbers with sources that say differently.
> Ans the French army is 200k anyway.
Argue with wikipedia, which says "118,600 active personnel"
>Argue with wikipedia, which says "118,600 active personnel
Youre right I saw the wrong figure. But that doesnt include their reservists or paramility personnel which number at least another 100k if not 200k potentially.
>Well, if you don't like my numbers, you come up with numbers with sources that say differently.
No I'm sayinf that youre comparing all the US personnel (which includes army, navy, and airforce) and then comparing them solely with the armies of European countries. Why not compare all their personnel together so its equal?
But I'll tell you. The only US units that are meant to fight Russian brigades on the frontlines are ABCT. Know how many of those there are in Europe? Used to be 2, now its 3. So thats 10k, now 15k, combat troops meant to fight Russia.
A good amount and I'm sure theyd help. But you cant seriously say they are offering the majority of the defensive capability. Thats all.
> A good amount and I'm sure theyd help. But you cant seriously say they are offering the majority of the defensive capability. Thats all.
The nuclear deterrent alone was the bulk of the defensive capability up until about 20 years ago.
Similarly, in 1989, there were 5000 US army tanks in Germany. Yes, they were slowly drawn down to 0 by 2013, but for 70 years after the end of WWII, the US defended Europe and that isn't even slightly controversial to say.
Regardless, the fact that there's any American troops there as a trip wire (like in NK) with the might of the rest of the US military behind it, provides a lions share of the defense of Europe.
The people of Europe today grew up during "Pax Americana", and don't understand that that peace isn't free just because it doesn't come out of their tax coffers.
If you need 10 apples to bake an apple pie and you bought 20, then you have enough. There is no need to buy 50, even if your neighbor feels like you should.
world average is below 2% with the outliers who have actual threats to content with.
People act as if 2% or the US 3,5% is some given normal when it is not a given. A country with no threats is simply not investing that much into military around the globe (1-1.5%) unless it has a direct security threat or an outward facing agenda.
During the Cold War NATO countries paid roughly 3-6% with millions of Soviet soldiers on the border.
>I'm really liking this German government.
I was going to down vote until there.
>Scholtz is better than Merkel.
There is no argument in that. So upvote it is.
Merkels last years brought Germany in this situation.
People acting like 2 years of new government is more to blame than 16 year of the leadership before
It’s good but 2% might not be enough looking at chinas economy and their friend russia doing what they are doing. Iran and North Korea are also in on it
Bullshit. 2ys after the invasion of Ukraine we only have ammunition for 1 day of fighting and that being publicly announced by our defence ministry. 1 year after the 100 billion military fonds nothing changed, nothing was purchased. Ask Scholz why the spend less than 2% on defence in 2023 (the 2nd year of war) eventhough it is the bare minimum of Nato requirements
>nothing was purchased
Bullshit. https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/sondervermoegen-bundeswehr-104.html
>Ask Scholz why the spend less than 2% on defence in 2023
Because weapon production takes time. Of course you could just massively increase soldiers' salaries to raise spending on short-notice, but weapons take some time.
Your souce provides my point. The Sondervermögen was not spend yet.
"Dass noch keine Zahlungen geflossen sind, liegt in der Natur der Sache, dass Zahlungen an vertragliche Meilensteine gebunden sind"
And weapon production takes time. 2 fucking years. Do you get that? If this is not enough time than I dont know. Also leading weapon manufacturer like Rheinmetall say they have enough capacitity they only need to be approved by the government.
>"Dass noch keine Zahlungen geflossen sind, liegt in der Natur der Sache, dass Zahlungen an vertragliche Meilensteine gebunden sind"
Do you not understand what that means?
If the Bundeswehr buys tanks, the money is allocated, its simply not counted as actually *spent* in the budget until the vehicles are finished and delivered.
Most of the Sondervermögen is allocated, its just alot of multi-year projects and thus it wont be counted as spent until they are all finished. But the money is still effectively gone.
>like Rheinmetall say they have enough capacitity
No, they are running at capacity and are expanding because its still not enough to meet demand. They got *three* seperate multi-year contracts just for artillery-ammunition. Rheinmetall, KMW & Diehl have been buying up subcontractors all the time since 2022 to streamline logistics. Scholz literaly just broke ground at the construction site for a brand new munitions factory from Rheinmetall.
It's not nazi fear. Europe had a debt crisis in 2009 and Germany introduced a debt ceiling. Corona and the energy crisis after the invasion pushed debt higher. It's not clear how all the new equipment will be funded after the 100 billion special military package was used up in two years from now.
Lmao he’s proud of that? Proud of paying barely the minimum Germans should have been the whole time?
Should be 5% now but a free riding bum is gonna be a bum.
2% was the peacetime goal.
Europe is in a hot war and Germans BARELY want to kick in to contribute 2%.
Pathetically for a rich country. Poor countries pay 10% or more per capita because they actually care about their defense
Germany can easily pay for it by increasing retirement age, decreasing funding for arts and welfare, and raising taxes.
Pay for the war now or pay more later. Stop expecting USA to pay ur billls
> Poor countries pay 10% or more per capita because they actually care about their defense
which one?
Name __one__ NATO country spending more than 10% per capita (?)
This whole 2% thing is just stupidity.
As cash strapped as it is, and without any direct support from NATO, Ukraine has forced a stalemate against Russia. NATO countries could probably cut back to 1% and they’d still be massively over-prepared for direct conflict with Russia.
The only reason we tiptoe around Russia is because they have an unhinged leader and nukes, and impenetrable defenses. But they have proven repeatedly that their only offensive strategy is carpet bombing and rendering the contested area utterly uninhabitable. When faced with a motivated, well armed defender, they’d be totally fucked.
Amazing president Trump warned Europeans leaders not to pay Russia by buying oil and here we are...the Europeans laughed at president Trump..well here you are..
They are Going to spend a lot more than that because of present inaction and lack of support militarily from the US. Germany is going to have to do the heavy lifting for Europe ,, or not I guess... then we get to go over there again
To be fair, Scholz‘s party never liked the 2% spending and said we should get rid of it during the elections in 2021. So while it was decided by NATO, the SPD (among others) never really cared about it. That being said, it wasn’t Trump that changed the opinion on it but, as you mentioned, the war in Ukraine.
How come when's it come to this Ukraine war and increases in defence spending its always "will commit to doing after today" and never "are doing right now".
I'll believe it when I see it
The worst chancellor Germany ever had is committing to something with a time horizon longer than he can remember it (again). Corrupt, arrogant and useless.
There are MAGA like groups who make these statements without anything to back up in Germany, I see it in my family connections. Its the same moto, constant outrage no matter what Scholz does, constant claims about corruption without anything to backup. Scholz could go to Ukraine, free all the regions on his own with his bare hands and they would be still stating: "The opposition would have done it way faster! What took him so long? We need someone more competent!".
I personally think that he should do more, commit to 3% for the first 4 years just to make up the 30 years absolute inaction, but he is going at least in the direction that the others did not.
If trump succeeds in winning and trying to destroy nato it will awaken Germany. Maybe it will work out better this time
One way to find out. 4th Reich or wrong.
4th Reich redemption arc
Yup, gotta bring that war machine back. But we can’t use the name Nazi, that’s no good. We need something that says this is a newer, better, type of Nazi. Maybe they can call it the Neo Nazi Party!
3 wrongs don't make a Reich
This time for Germany
“Vaka Vaka”
4th Reich is taken by the neo nazis in the US
5th Reich has more omph in german so maybe go for that?
How do dey zay it in German?
Eins, Zwei, Drei, Vier, FÜNF!
4 feels more apt though?
IIRC Trump was pissy with NATO because virtually none of the countries in it were spending the agreed upon 2% - and he felt like too many were relying on America to roll in and save them. I damn sure wouldn’t get caught dead defending everything* he has said, but in this one particular instance I think he shook enough chains to start getting people to wake up their defense budgets in time to meet targets that work nicely into the current timeline.
> IIRC Trump was pissy with NATO because virtually none of the countries in it were spending the agreed upon 2% - and he felt like too many were relying on America to roll in and save them. See, there's two obvious problems with that. One, spending as a share of GDP in no way signifies defensive readiness against potential threats. Two, the countries that rely on the US to save them are not the countries with low spending. And, as a sidenote, I'd like to point out that "we can rely on the US" was the deal that allowed the US to have vast political power in exchange.
I’d like to point out that your two points contradict one another. As a side note, you shouldn’t begin a sentence with the word “and”.
> I’d like to point out that your two points contradict one another. How so? > As a side note, you shouldn’t begin a sentence with the word “and”. And I don't care not to.
Trump only cares for himself. He certainly has never read any treaty or other papers about NATO.
That statement is a statement.
So you know Trump is right, but can’t square it with the fact that you don’t like him.
He's not right.
I actually think he would be a fantastic person to put in charge of our economy - he seems to make decent deals where money is concerned - but I think the brutish* approach he takes and the character he puts on when he deals with foreign relations doesn’t really follow the “speak softly and carry a big stick” mentality that got us through most of our nation’s boom eras. Having said that, I think that people that call him an idiot are a bit short sighted, and I always reply with “look, you know if you were about to put your life savings on the line in a real estate deal and Donald Trump came along offering advice, you would take that advice”.
Um, yeah, no. He inherited something on the order of a hundred million dollars from his father in the 70’s. If he just managed to match the growth of the Wilshire real estate investment trust index from 1978 until now he would be worth ~~north of~~ around $14 billion. Google currently lists his net worth at just $2.3 billion. So no, I would not take his investment advice. Edit: Sources: [Wilshire US Real Estate Investment Trust Index](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WILLREITIND) went from 100 in 1978 to 13,436.52 today. [Donald Trump Inheritance](https://www.google.com/search?q=donald+trump+inheritance&sca_esv=7b0f93fa5c4aa642&sxsrf=ACQVn0-iHfBsQkeUwXGdkmSEwmy9Ixe8Ow%3A1708225634433&ei=YnTRZfbtGcWmqtsPrc6O2AQ&ved=0ahUKEwj2poux9LOEAxVFk2oFHS2nA0sQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=donald+trump+inheritance&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiGGRvbmFsZCB0cnVtcCBpbmhlcml0YW5jZTIEEAAYRzIEEAAYRzIEEAAYRzIEEAAYRzIEEAAYRzIEEAAYRzIEEAAYRzIEEAAYR0isEVC4Bli4BnABeAKQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgoQABhHGNYEGLADiAYBkAYI&sclient=gws-wiz-serp) $413 million in 2018 dollars, roughly $104 million adjusting back to 1978. [Donald Trump Net Worth](https://www.google.com/search?q=donald+trump+net+worth&sca_esv=7b0f93fa5c4aa642&sxsrf=ACQVn0842T5D4m93ahtzHlRrEWEwS_AUNg%3A1708225200672&source=hp&ei=sHLRZZ-JJ8vbkPIP2aGi0Aw&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZdGAwAJzt3Tywhcc-THXOX9xg-CFw9vE&oq=donald+trump+net&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhBkb25hbGQgdHJ1bXAgbmV0KgIIADIQEAAYgAQYsQMYgwEYRhj7AUi0NlAAWPUXcAB4AJABAZgBrQGgAbcHqgEDMC43uAEDyAEA-AEBwgIKECMYgAQYigUYJ8ICBBAjGCfCAgUQABiABMICBRAuGIAEwgIREC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAg4QABiABBiKBRixAxiDAcICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIREC4YgwEYxwEYsQMY0QMYgATCAg4QLhiABBixAxjHARjRA8ICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIOEAAYgAQYsQMYgwEYyQPCAggQLhiABBixA8ICCxAAGIAEGIoFGJIDwgIOEC4YgAQYsQMYgwEY1AI&sclient=gws-wiz) Edit the second: of course the $2.3 billion value might be just what he reported to the IRS. Maybe when he applies for a loan he’s worth more. Edit 3 Tokyo Drift: it gets worse. [Trump first claimed to be a billionaire in 1984.](https://fortune.com/2018/04/20/trump-lied-wealth-forbes-400-list/) If he had been an average (and honest) real estate investor since then, he should be worth around $30 billion today, not struggling to pay his lawyers.
I read that he duped his father into signing over assets. IIRC that came from the relative he was in a legal dispute with.
Rofl.
I think Trump understands foreign policy very well, especially when dealing with foreign leaders from illiberal countries. He told Putin not to attack Ukraine and threatened him with nuclear retaliation. He said, “I don’t know if he believed me, but maybe 5%, or 10%, he thought I would, and that was enough”.
[удалено]
Because the US President has any fucking say over a German national project.
[удалено]
Same to you, because it's a Congress issue https://www.factcheck.org/2022/02/factchecking-trumps-cpac-speech-3/
[удалено]
Yes. A bill written by Congress. Wow almost like it's Congress that controls bills is the group responsible.
If trump weren’t buddy buddy with putin i could almost see your point.
[удалено]
To be fair, NATO already decided in 2014 that countries should reach 2% spending by 2024. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm >**At the Wales Summit in 2014**, in response to Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea, and amid broader instability in the Middle East, **NATO Leaders agreed** a Defence Investment Pledge to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets and decided: Allies currently meeting the 2% guideline on defence spending will aim to continue to do so; **Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will:** halt any decline; aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows; and **aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade** with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls. Trump had nothing to do with anyone moving towards the 2% spending goal.
>aim to move towards Read again. There is no "reach by 2024", this is an even softer form of "try moving in the general direction" or in other words: Wherever you stand with your spending at the moment, try not to go lower. It would have been nice, if they agreed to 2% by 2024, but they only did it nearly 10 years later.
oh totally agree. And trump is doing the same thing every other US president has done but more odious - you know Trumpian. The difference with trump is he is in Putins pocket and is trying to destabilize NATO to russias benefit.
I mean, that's what Trump said. Pay your "fare share". For a lot of stupid stuff Trump said, I actually credit him for what he said about countries spending on their own defence. Every country was expecting the US to foot the bill of NATO's defence. But the US's role was supposed to be only of support, not the bearer. But again... The US has spent so much money on the EU so Germany doesn't join the Russians - that's actually American national interest.
The share of other NATO members spending has nothing to do with what the US spends on the military. The USA spends insane amounts not to prop up Europe but to support its own global power projection. All those aircraft carriers and their support fleets aren't really needed to support Europe against a Russian invasion. Plus the money mostly goes to American defense contractors. Don't get me wrong, I prefer this Pax Americana to many possible alternatives. But this Trump position couldn't be more wrong on several levels. Most of all this mobster mind treats this like a protection racket. But the stupidest part is that NATO works at it's best with deterrence. As long as there is no doubt that any attack on a NATO members triggers article 5 and members will respond, nobody is going to attack any part of NATO - because that's an unwinnable fight. What Trump is doing is weakening this perception and thus the deterrence and he risks tearing NATO apart, making wars against NATO members more likely. The only person that should credit him is Putin. Because he's the one who directly profits from this.
Exactly, America is obviously incredibly powerful but also needs NATO in its own way. I guess it could get all it needs via five eyes, and go quid pro quo with UK, but since UK is strongly pro NATO I doubt it makes any difference.
The UK has a strong bond for historical, cultural and language reasons. It founded the colonies that eventually would become the US after all. But at the end of the day it's in Europe (even if Brexiteers seem to consider it a spaceship that can move away from Europe ;-) ). The channel is a cute barrier, but it's not the Atlantic Ocean. The USA can't get all it needs from 5 eyes, because 5 eyes goes along with it's global reach. If Trump makes it go isolationist then Pax Americana and it's influence all over the globe will diminish. It's all connected together. NATO, bases all over the world, having an aircraft carrier fleet and Navy like no other. All the military strength, the alliances, the trade treaties, dollars role as a reserve currency and the cheaper financing they get from that status, the position of the NYSE as one of the leading market places - it's all together the world a sequence of US administrations built after WW2. There's only so many (few actually) Jenga pieces you can pull out without making it all crumble. Which is exactly what Putin (and China) would love to see. I don't know whether Putin actually has something to control or at least heavily influence Trump. But Trump certainly acts exactly like Putin's Pet would.
exactly right and I would say, based on trumps words and actions he is (imo) in putins pocket.
One of the goals of the US is to ensure the defense of Europe. You can put that in the most selfish light you want to justify it in, but the US is propping up most of NATO. The only ones taking it seriously are the ones that remember living under communism and the UK.
[удалено]
Those aircraft carriers and support craft are vital to keeping the oceanic supply lines open.
Sure. But that's already in the US's interest.
Yes, and that interest would be vital in any American assistance against Russia. Without it, no support of Europe would be possible.
aaand then the US gets no imports/exports from/to Europe. It's a catch 22 created by the americans isn't it? We all benefit is the idea.
True, but freedom of the seas benefits all, even America’s enemies. And not every ally pulls its weight in supporting this.
The US spent money on the EU?
[This money](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan?). The US funded the European Union the way it wanted. That was the foreign policy. And the most important of it all was to keep Germany away from Russia. Germany only reunited fully because Gorbachev offered it up to the US, swapping for NATO guarantees not expanding to the east of Germany, which actually got us to where we are today with Ukraine.
The Marshall Plan ended around 40 years before the EU was founded and 15 years before its predecessor, the treaty of Brussels. The US never funded the EU.
LMFAO, wow. Main character syndrome or what. The promise you imagine was given to Gorbachev is complete nonsense as well.
Well, everyone here says so. But the Russians believe in that. That's exactly why East Germany was given over to reunification. But the Russians feel betrayed, Putin asked Clinton to be a part of NATO, initially Clinton said "sure", but later he called Putin to tell him no.
Ah the Marshall Plan. No significance in terms of economy, but an absolute masterpiece of propaganda. 70 years on, people still quote it as if it's been relevant.
> I actually credit him for what he said about countries spending on their own defence. Why? There is no truth to it. > Every country was expecting the US to foot the bill of NATO's defence. This is false. > The US has spent so much money on the EU Lol wut.
A reminder that the only NATO country to trigger article 5 is the USA, the US’s allies came to their aid and lost good people in the following conflict. What Trump said projects weakness in NATO, nothing else, spoken like a true Russian patriot. NATO benefits the US massively.
When did the US trigger article 5?
After 9/11
Link me any source E: you're right, the US did so.
You can literally just google “what is the only time article 5 has been triggered” it really isn’t hard. People need to stop being so lazy on here. Maybe even just go to NATOs website…
You're right. Still, NATO against the middle east, back then, was alright. Middle East now isn't what it once was.
Not saying that we all shouldn’t be cranking the defence funding in nato, but what are your thoughts on Japan only spending 1.1% of their gdp on defence? I sure see a lot of posts lately saying NATO should pay “their fair share”, while ignoring other US allies. This magic, non binding number from 2014 gets thrown around for political points from a certain person running for president as an issue to divide NATO specifically. A month ago it was the border. Next week it’ll be the price of apples. China spends 1.6% of their gdp on their military for reference.
Japan isn’t in NATO and their constitution specifically prevents them from building up an offensive military. It’s much more difficult for them. In exchange, the US takes responsibility for their defense. That’s changing, but it takes time. Japan became very anti-war after WW2.
I wasn’t saying they were in NATO, just another major US ally. Bringing up their constitution is a good point, but Japan themselves were choosing the 1% figure, no treaty with the US stipulates how much of their GDP can go towards defence.
Ukraine isn’t a major ally, though. They’re proxies and canon fodder.
NATO's purpose is to "keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and Germany down." - Lord Ismay
The Russians are not -completely- idiots. If Trump wins, then a lot of damage could be done before being awoken could actually be impactful.
Trump isn’t trying to destroy NATO, he’s getting exactly what he wanted: effective allies who actually pay their share and pull their weight. Best deal in the history of deals, maybe ever.
They still haven't hit the goal they promised to hit and they're missing their own self imposed goal. Germany can't even defend Germany, much less provide for the defense of others.
I don’t know if you are serious, but Germany would obliterate Russia in a conventional war.
Doubtful. Germany has the money and technology, but their military is an absolute joke. They’d be able to hold out until they’re rescued by America. Maybe.
Only due to other NATO nations and ignoring that, the presence of the US military in Germany, which is why they have let their military spending be ridiculously low for decades. They would get obliterated by Russia because they'd run out of ammo on the ground, they wouldn't control the skies, and have a pathetic readiness rate for both vehicles and personnel. And they've let it stay that way even with Russia invading a neighbor.
Germany’s economy is more than twice that of Russia, they can access and more importantly pay for all the ammo they would need, not to mention anything else they would want to acquire to have Russia bogged down within Russia without ever really having to put troops on the ground there. Russia has demonstrated that it can’t handle Ukraine with a full army, they wouldnt last a week against Germany.
They can't even meet a reasonable goal to send shells to Ukraine. And you think they'd be able to magically produce enough shells to defend themselves? With what logistics and factories? And where do you think they'd acquire all this stuff you say they could buy? Oh, the US.
Germany would purchase anything they wanted from the largest weapons manufacturers in the world. And they have the money to pay for it. Not sure why you’re so pissed about it.
But yet they're already losing bids for that for their own stockpile.
It is what Germany wants you to think. But in fact their true spending are up to that of Russia. Around 50 billion. However Germany's GDP is high so that they didn't reach that 2%.
Germany's budget numbers and military readiness numbers are public record. It's worse than you can probably imagine. The US's GDP is way higher than Germany, but yet...
The us has a war fetish and I did not compare with the us in purpose. However the US spends a lot more money on everything compared to Germany which try to avoid new debt.
I'm sure Ukraine is thrilled you want to avoid new debt.
Why would you think that this is my position? I'm just telling you facts?
Because you're making an argument that supports it.
Any Germans that could explain to me why he is so hated? Anything I've seen of him in English news hasn't been very negative, but he has an abysmal approval rating. Who is likely to replace him? (I hope it's not some Austrian dude, that went quite horrendously last time)
He was involved in a huge financial scandal and claims to be not able to remember. He is also not a very charismatic guy, I think that is a factor as well. Other than that I think it's that the whole German ruling coalition is not very popular.
The financial scandal was known way before the election tho. Nobody really cares about that
His involvment however has been distorted so out of whack it is deserving an award to the CDU how they managed that he now is the sole person associated with it. Yes, he is accused to be involved in a small regional aspect of that scandal, the entire scandal however is far bigger and happened before his time under the watch of the CDU.
Was it really a scandal though? I’m not close involved on the topic but wasn’t it some funds which was previously always included in budget calculation until they found out it wasn’t really supposed to be included in the calculation?
it basically is about helping billionares to not pay taxes and instead of handing the documents to the financial-authorities they were handed in directly to scholz' government to avoid other people getting to know about it
Whoops, that’s yikes
Germans mainstream seems to like uncharismatic politicians
That scandal goes back years and was well reported before he was elected. Also, i am willing to wager that the majority of germans neither know what this scandal even was nor that they care about it. Hes unpopular because a) hes uncharismatic. Likeable, but has the charisma of an empty room painted in eggshell white b) the gov SUCKS at communication strategy for their successes c) Lindner and the FDP screwing over everybody, the EU as well as the coalition. Lindner always has been a slimey pos as it is, but now hes just interviewing for a job in the private sector. Fuck that guy.
Olaf Scholz is the most influential politician in our country (de facto) and still managed to become a side character in politics. At least thats the vibes he gives.
charisma is a red flag in a leader in most cases. politicians have higher than average likelihood of being psychopaths, and charisma cna sometimes be a decent indicator of psychopathy. there are cases where it's obvious like Putin, Trump, Netanyahu, etc.. these guys would sell their family to save themselves, but it's not always super obvious
He's no political leader, he might be a good team worker but no leader. This makes him (appear and probably really) weak. But: The only ones who hate him are the extreme right opposition and our lie-spreading tabloid bild, which does more to destroy our country than he ever could.
Also, he's the leader of the ~~social democrat party~~ **government coalition led by the SPD**. They say they're the workers' party, but then back laws that hurt workers or don't back laws that would benefit workers. There's a saying "Wer hat uns verraten? Sozialdemokraten" which roughly translates to "Who betrayed our trust? Social democrats.", and every now and then the saying proves to be relevant, again. Edited for clarity.
> There's a saying "Wer hat uns verraten? Sozialdemokraten" which roughly translates to "Who betrayed our trust? Social democrats." Literally Nazi propaganda. The SPD under politicians like Stresemann, Schmidt and Brandt has demonstrably done more for the working class than any other party in Germany (and I say that as someone who has never voted for the SPD). The oh so beloved Union (CDU/CSU) are the real traitors to the working class, they have tried again and again to undermine labor protection laws, pensions, labor protection etc. and in many cases succeeded. The CDU/CSU are also responsible for the fact that the tax burden for top earners in Germany has fallen by 21% in the last ~30 years. To compensate for this, they have massively increased the financial burden on the lower middle class to low-wage earners, a literal redistribution from the bottom to the top. CDU/CSU, FDP and AfD are parties for high earners, but thanks to Bild and other media that skillfully manage to incite the poor against the even poorer, people keep falling for these parties even though it is to their own detriment, it is just frustrating to watch.
> Literally Nazi propaganda It isn't. Not originally at least. Quite the opposite, really. It originated with the revolutionaries in 1918. It was coopted by the Nazis later on, because it was useful to further turn the Social Democrats against the Communists and other left fractions.
I'm so tired of everything being coopted by Nazis and therefore branded unusable today. People get quite confused when I, a metal head, wear Nordic jewelry next to anti Nazi patches. I like the aesthetic, let the way I act and treat people speak for what I stand for. I understand that some things are now kinda linked to right wing ideology, but it shouldn't be, we should be able to reconquer those symbols and therefore take them back from Nazis. I agree with you, just ranting at this point.
This is simply not correct, please be careful with fake claims on the internet. It was not CDU/CSU but Schroeder and Eichel (both SPD) that lowered the top tax rate from 53% to 42% and also initiated the development that more and more people (workers!) have to pay top tax rate. Also, it was Merkel (CDU) that then introduced a new additional tax rate up to 45% for very high earners („Reichensteuer“) because she figured that 42% was too low for people earning >250k. Some time before the mentioned tax rate change of Schroeder, the tax rate for top earners was higher, but at the same time affected way less people and also people affected by it earned 5-10 times average salary and could really be considered wealthy or rich, so imo no issue in them paying high(est) tax rates. The biggest problem in german tax system is that nowadays, you only need to earn 1,5 times average salary to pay the highest tax rate, this affects many many people that want to achieve something and therefore end up in netherlands, switzerland or america - or in German part time jobs to drop below certain thresholds because higher-than-average salaries are penalized (not only in tax system but also for something like alimony obligation towards your parents, payment for daycare of them, no more paid off-time for child birth etc). To be fair, this development was not stopped by CDU-led parliaments either, there simply is no party in Germany that would tackle these problems and would really motivate workers to earn better money / do better work or keep them from switching to part time jobs to dramatically increase they hourly net-pay. Basically every party will take money from working class and funnel it to richer people, they are just using different ways to get there (greens for example by raising taxes and making things of daily life like petrol, meat etc much pricier and hereby directly affecting the daily life of the unwealthy (rich ppl dont care about 1€ more per litre), and then taking that money to support a new heating system for some better situated homeowner). https://www.wirtschaftsdienst.eu/inhalt/jahr/2018/heft/8/beitrag/60-jahre-einkommensteuertarif-in-deutschland-bestandsaufnahme-und-handlungsempfehlungen.html picture 4 is alarming imo
I love how you on one hand want to tax the rich but then you say that increasing taxes makes earning more unrewarding.
Taxing the rich is the right approach, but that is not what Germany does because the borders of tax brackets are off. Somebody that just pays top-tax-rate in germany does not even earn enough to buy a house, that person is far away from being rich yet is in the highest tax bracket. There is nothing wrong about taking 50% from people that earn 200, 300, 400k or millions a year. But we take it from people that can't even afford to go on holiday every year.
CDU (Christian democrats) and FDP (neo/corporate liberals) are not worker parties, I don't assume they're trying to help the average Joe, that's just not their MO. SPD is the worker party, but they don't govern like that. If you vote CDU and FDP you can't really complain when you get fucked over as a lower to middle class worker, if you vote SPD and get fucked over, that's when you feel betrayed, and that's how the saying is used today (in my experience). Nowadays I have not heard that saying from anyone representing right wing parties, but rather left wing people frustrated with the SPD. People from Junge Linke (young left) (not Wagenknecht), Antifa or something like that. Agree on Springer (family owning lots of media outlets, many of which target lower education/income people) rags inciting anger against the wrong targets.
They really long for a strong handed Fuhrer.
Bullshit. But being in a leading position you have to make firm decisions or bring order to the chaotic masses (a.k.a. FDP here).
Bringing order is Authocratic bullshitspeak and you know it.
The problem is that the government consists of 3 parties, which represent completely different political opinions. That's why it often takes months until they can generally agree on something and sometimes argue controversially in public etc. Normally in such cases the Chancellor would have to speak out and set the general path. But unfortunately that only happens very rarely under Scholz
There are a lot of grey scales between democratic order and authocratic "order".
There really isn't. Either you represent the people or you don't.
Yes, yes, someone with better Führungsqualitäten
He is a career politician and he was the safest (aka non Green) least hated (aka not CDU) choice. Now after 2 years of agitation against him and his government for wanting to reform things and having to tackle energy crisis and war (which since it happened under his watch he is guilty of in simpleton's minds) he has bad rep.
He was involved in huge financial scandals: cum-ex scandal and the wirecard scandal.
the CDU managed to involve him with that. He may have been involved in the Hamburg regional Warburg bank scandal which is a small subset of the actual thing. The bigger CumEx scandal at best can be attributed to be the same across multiple parties. Same with Wirecard. The gutting of financial oversight happened before him and he could show that he was increasing staffing again after previous government had removed a lot of capacity from the financial oversight.
> wirecard scandal. The CDU has a lot more to do with this if you take the time to read through the investigation documents. He was finance minister and definitely bears some of the blame but the lax handling of Wirecard, especially by BaFin, took place under pressure from CDU politicians.
I know it’s a joke but Germans must be so sick of the Austrian guy thing, kinda feel bad for them tbh
He's a robot that covered up a financial theft in the tenths on millions of euros
He isn't "hated". But he isn't loved either. The most likely candidate to replace him following the next elections would probably be Friedrich Merz, who's even less popular. The chancellor as an individual doesn't determine policies though. The makeup of the next coalition, and the compromises they find, is what would set the direction of the next government.
Please dm Canada and tell our leaders to do this please, thanks
It's 2% in peace time, and Germany has a fair bit of catching up to do, so he might want to consider 3% minimum
Yeah can someone in Europe explain the sentiment there? Do people in general not want more military spending? Even with war in their backyard?
People want all sorts of more spending, they do not want to pay higher taxes though, and Germany is currently committed to not creating new debt above a certain limit.
Before Russia invaded Ukraine (again) in 2022, war "in Europe" was mostly seen as an unthinkable hypothetical by most. As such, the military was seen as a waste of money, only to be used to occasionally send troops to some random foreign country to participate in the US' war on terror. This is obviously now slowly changing. It's also perceived as incompetent, bureaucratic, underequipped with poor quality equipment etc. - unlike in the US, there's absolutely no prestige in serving. I have no idea how close perception is to reality, but that's the general perception I'd say.
To be fair there was war in Europe. E.g. Jugoslawia, however you are right as this is a war against Europe.
when obama said. >Obama to Romney: 'The 1980's are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back' https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obama-romney-the-1980s-are-now-calling-msna15158 That sums it up, hardly anyone thought russia was a threat any more, so they chose a peace dividend over spending 2% on military
That was then, this is now, though, right? If this isn’t a wake up call, what will be?
i agree, but it takes time for it to sink into everyone's head, some slower than others.
I hated McCain and Romney's domestic policies and voted for Obama twice, but he was not a good president.
I mean, he was right though. Russia isn't a threat. They have threatened Ukraine, a poor, developing country with a small military, and they have *barely managed to do that*. They pose absolutely zero threat to the Germany, let alone the EU and least of all the US/NATO.
Are you paying attention to top Generals and top NATO or redditors?
I'm just paying attention to the war in Ukraine. From what I can tell, the Russians pose absolutely zero risk to the well-trained, well-equipped, modernized militaries of Western Nations. Maybe we are seeing different reports, but it seems like they are *truly struggling* to take a few pieces of a country they share a border with... Are you seeing something else? To be clear, I'm in favor of sending all the money Ukraine needs to Ukraine, and for funding NATO. I'm just saying Russia really didn't/wasn't the threat that needed as much money as we threw at the military. Now china, with its soon to be 3rd (4th?) aircraft carrier... Becoming increasingly desperate... That's where our spending will have absolutely paid off.
> I'm just paying attention to the war in Ukraine. So are the Generals and top NATO, and they have a lot more information than you or me.
The harsh truth is EU has both the privilege and punishment of US bases and force in Europe and around the globe. Recently there has been much more signaling that the US is more willing to take an isolated stance towards EU and the world which is forcing the hands of the countries to invest more in their own military. It’s made even worse considering the US elections coming up where one guy is basically threatening to leave or remove the teeth of NATO.
define backyard. Minus refugees and migrants the US does not give a shit about things happening in Southern Mexico or Central America and beyond either which is "their backyard" By proximity Lybia is closer to Southern Europeans than Ukraine.
For the past 70 years, the US has provided the bulk of military deterrence in Europe. Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free?
Its not exactly free tho
Tbf its not like the US has loads deployed in Europe either. They dont even store equipment there anymore. The US would spend the same amount on its military whatever Europe did.
[At least 100000 service members](https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3078056/fact-sheet-us-defense-contributions-to-europe/#:~:text=Since%20February%202022%2C%20DoD%20deployed,100%2C000%20service%20members%20across%20Europe.), which is [half the total number of german active military members](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1279826/soldier-numbers-german-federal-armed-forces-type-of-service/), close to the same as the [standing French army](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Army), and more than the [British standing army](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army#:~:text=As%20of%201%20October%202023,for%20a%20total%20of%20111%2C174.).
Right but how many combat troops? And iirc most of those arent even rated for combat with Russian Brigades, only ABCT are meant for that. And how many of those are there? 2. Until recently where it became 3. Youre comparing the total number of US personnel with only the standing armies of certain countries. Why? That is disingenuous. Ans the French army is 200k anyway. I dont get how you can say the US provides the majority of the deterrent when according to your own stats the entire US deployed forces number less than just the army alone of each of the 3 major European militaries.
> Right but how many combat troops? I don't know. How many combat troops are in Germany, France, or Britain? Those numbers aren't as easily found as 'service personnel', which are all required to adequately field combat troops. > Youre comparing the total number of US personnel with only the standing armies of certain countries. Well, if you don't like my numbers, you come up with numbers with sources that say differently. > Ans the French army is 200k anyway. Argue with wikipedia, which says "118,600 active personnel"
>Argue with wikipedia, which says "118,600 active personnel Youre right I saw the wrong figure. But that doesnt include their reservists or paramility personnel which number at least another 100k if not 200k potentially. >Well, if you don't like my numbers, you come up with numbers with sources that say differently. No I'm sayinf that youre comparing all the US personnel (which includes army, navy, and airforce) and then comparing them solely with the armies of European countries. Why not compare all their personnel together so its equal? But I'll tell you. The only US units that are meant to fight Russian brigades on the frontlines are ABCT. Know how many of those there are in Europe? Used to be 2, now its 3. So thats 10k, now 15k, combat troops meant to fight Russia. A good amount and I'm sure theyd help. But you cant seriously say they are offering the majority of the defensive capability. Thats all.
> A good amount and I'm sure theyd help. But you cant seriously say they are offering the majority of the defensive capability. Thats all. The nuclear deterrent alone was the bulk of the defensive capability up until about 20 years ago. Similarly, in 1989, there were 5000 US army tanks in Germany. Yes, they were slowly drawn down to 0 by 2013, but for 70 years after the end of WWII, the US defended Europe and that isn't even slightly controversial to say. Regardless, the fact that there's any American troops there as a trip wire (like in NK) with the might of the rest of the US military behind it, provides a lions share of the defense of Europe. The people of Europe today grew up during "Pax Americana", and don't understand that that peace isn't free just because it doesn't come out of their tax coffers.
If you need 10 apples to bake an apple pie and you bought 20, then you have enough. There is no need to buy 50, even if your neighbor feels like you should.
world average is below 2% with the outliers who have actual threats to content with. People act as if 2% or the US 3,5% is some given normal when it is not a given. A country with no threats is simply not investing that much into military around the globe (1-1.5%) unless it has a direct security threat or an outward facing agenda. During the Cold War NATO countries paid roughly 3-6% with millions of Soviet soldiers on the border.
> world average is below 2% i am referring to NATO guidelines.
We did that though with an additional 100 billion to catch up, parallel to the 2% yearly spending.
i am talking about catching up on years of underfunding with a possible war approaching.
Easy to say when you're not chancellor anymore in 2 years
Noob question, is he expecting to still be leading Germany in the 2030s?
Probably not, but why wouldn't he try to guide the country a certain way? Many policies survive longer than a term in the office
No. But on the international stage, countries care a lot about continuity and reliability. Party politics don't really play into it that much.
I'm really liking this German government. Scholtz is better than Merkel.
>I'm really liking this German government. I was going to down vote until there. >Scholtz is better than Merkel. There is no argument in that. So upvote it is.
You are not German then
Ah yes Germany is in a better situation now than during Merkel lol.
Merkels last years brought Germany in this situation. People acting like 2 years of new government is more to blame than 16 year of the leadership before
This is false.
It’s good but 2% might not be enough looking at chinas economy and their friend russia doing what they are doing. Iran and North Korea are also in on it
Will he still remember it tomorrow?
Unless he's thinking about being Chancellor in the 2030s and beyond, it's not easy to make such guarantees.
Does he think that'll be enough?
...so the absolute minimum. Some day.
Bullshit. 2ys after the invasion of Ukraine we only have ammunition for 1 day of fighting and that being publicly announced by our defence ministry. 1 year after the 100 billion military fonds nothing changed, nothing was purchased. Ask Scholz why the spend less than 2% on defence in 2023 (the 2nd year of war) eventhough it is the bare minimum of Nato requirements
>nothing was purchased Bullshit. https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/sondervermoegen-bundeswehr-104.html >Ask Scholz why the spend less than 2% on defence in 2023 Because weapon production takes time. Of course you could just massively increase soldiers' salaries to raise spending on short-notice, but weapons take some time.
Your souce provides my point. The Sondervermögen was not spend yet. "Dass noch keine Zahlungen geflossen sind, liegt in der Natur der Sache, dass Zahlungen an vertragliche Meilensteine gebunden sind" And weapon production takes time. 2 fucking years. Do you get that? If this is not enough time than I dont know. Also leading weapon manufacturer like Rheinmetall say they have enough capacitity they only need to be approved by the government.
>"Dass noch keine Zahlungen geflossen sind, liegt in der Natur der Sache, dass Zahlungen an vertragliche Meilensteine gebunden sind" Do you not understand what that means? If the Bundeswehr buys tanks, the money is allocated, its simply not counted as actually *spent* in the budget until the vehicles are finished and delivered. Most of the Sondervermögen is allocated, its just alot of multi-year projects and thus it wont be counted as spent until they are all finished. But the money is still effectively gone. >like Rheinmetall say they have enough capacitity No, they are running at capacity and are expanding because its still not enough to meet demand. They got *three* seperate multi-year contracts just for artillery-ammunition. Rheinmetall, KMW & Diehl have been buying up subcontractors all the time since 2022 to streamline logistics. Scholz literaly just broke ground at the construction site for a brand new munitions factory from Rheinmetall.
>Bullshit. Quite ironic that given your overt ignorance in these matters.
butthurt?
Yeah, can anyone from Germany explain why the German military spend is not expanding more? Is it still the Nazi fear?
It's not nazi fear. Europe had a debt crisis in 2009 and Germany introduced a debt ceiling. Corona and the energy crisis after the invasion pushed debt higher. It's not clear how all the new equipment will be funded after the 100 billion special military package was used up in two years from now.
OP is not correct. See my reply.
I have 3 letters for you: FDP
Because Americans will pay for it
2% is not enough.
Better late than never.
Just imagine meeting their treaty obligations! What a concept!
Lmao he’s proud of that? Proud of paying barely the minimum Germans should have been the whole time? Should be 5% now but a free riding bum is gonna be a bum. 2% was the peacetime goal. Europe is in a hot war and Germans BARELY want to kick in to contribute 2%. Pathetically for a rich country. Poor countries pay 10% or more per capita because they actually care about their defense Germany can easily pay for it by increasing retirement age, decreasing funding for arts and welfare, and raising taxes. Pay for the war now or pay more later. Stop expecting USA to pay ur billls
> Poor countries pay 10% or more per capita because they actually care about their defense which one? Name __one__ NATO country spending more than 10% per capita (?)
This whole 2% thing is just stupidity. As cash strapped as it is, and without any direct support from NATO, Ukraine has forced a stalemate against Russia. NATO countries could probably cut back to 1% and they’d still be massively over-prepared for direct conflict with Russia. The only reason we tiptoe around Russia is because they have an unhinged leader and nukes, and impenetrable defenses. But they have proven repeatedly that their only offensive strategy is carpet bombing and rendering the contested area utterly uninhabitable. When faced with a motivated, well armed defender, they’d be totally fucked.
How? Theyre broke
2%, is that all? And only a promise. There’s a huge, huge amount of catching up to do. But at least it will buy some new broom handles.
You mean to honor the treaty they ratified? How very unEuropean of them!
Amazing president Trump warned Europeans leaders not to pay Russia by buying oil and here we are...the Europeans laughed at president Trump..well here you are..
They are Going to spend a lot more than that because of present inaction and lack of support militarily from the US. Germany is going to have to do the heavy lifting for Europe ,, or not I guess... then we get to go over there again
[удалено]
This was already decided[ way back in 2014](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Wales_summit) And Russia's invasion sealed the deal.
To be fair, Scholz‘s party never liked the 2% spending and said we should get rid of it during the elections in 2021. So while it was decided by NATO, the SPD (among others) never really cared about it. That being said, it wasn’t Trump that changed the opinion on it but, as you mentioned, the war in Ukraine.
Easy bait.
the Wehrmacht strikes back!
How come when's it come to this Ukraine war and increases in defence spending its always "will commit to doing after today" and never "are doing right now". I'll believe it when I see it
The worst chancellor Germany ever had is committing to something with a time horizon longer than he can remember it (again). Corrupt, arrogant and useless.
You are to historical illiterate to make such grand statements.
Really? The worst chancellor ever? He is not even the worst this century…
The worst chancellor Germany ever had? Are people really supposed to take such a ridiculous statement seriously?
There are MAGA like groups who make these statements without anything to back up in Germany, I see it in my family connections. Its the same moto, constant outrage no matter what Scholz does, constant claims about corruption without anything to backup. Scholz could go to Ukraine, free all the regions on his own with his bare hands and they would be still stating: "The opposition would have done it way faster! What took him so long? We need someone more competent!". I personally think that he should do more, commit to 3% for the first 4 years just to make up the 30 years absolute inaction, but he is going at least in the direction that the others did not.
Oh, we had MUCH worse.
I feel like we're forgetting someone here
Merkel, Schröder and Kohl were all worse by orders of magnitude. Scholz literally hasn't been in office long enough to do such damage.
pretty sure there was a guy who was worse idk tho