Russian invasion of Ukraine

[zealo]

@KrayZ33

A lot of people don't vote "for" parties in two party systems, but against what they would prefer even less of the options that are at hand.

It's why the election in 2020 in the US had voter turnout not seen in decades, despite Biden not really being an all that amazing candidate.

[KrayZ33]

@KrayZ33

A lot of people don't vote "for" parties in two party systems, but against what they would prefer even less of the options that are at hand.

It's why the election in 2020 in the US had voter turnout not seen in decades, despite Biden not really being an all that amazing candidate.

Either way, they throw their vote towards someone that they don't want to be president either, instead of voting for what they actually want, even if that party/president loses the election. That's why the 2 party system came into place in the first place, most likely. At least that's how I see it. (but I'm not going to pretend I know the political history of that country to a reasonable extent from before the year 2000, it's just what I assume would happen if you do it like that)

[Elder Millennial]

The explanation is pretty simple:
Germany doesn't want to take a leading role on anything but economic matters.

And literally, and I mean literally nobody is asking them to take the lead on anything.

Poland, Finland, Spain have all said "We will provide the tanks." What Germany is doing is BLOCKING these deliveries.

Half of Europe is running Leopard 2 tanks, Germany has been selling them left and right to NATO and NATO aligned countries, but when Germany sells these tanks it comes with a contractual re-sale export restriction. That contractual clause is controlled by the German state.

The German industry (the manufacturers like Rhinemetall) have been saying since spring that they have the production capacity to supply Ukraine with all sorts of shit, but they of course need permission first to ramp up the production, and other countries that have been buying tanks and equipment from Germany have been for a while saying that "We will give them the tanks, the training and the spare parts from our own stocks". What's missing is the German government lifting the export restriction.

So this line that "We only want to do this as part of a coalition" and bla bla bla is literal horseshit.

Germany is single handed blocking the tank deliveries. We got to the point where people aren't even asking Germany to give any tanks, just for Germany to allow others to supply the tanks, and they are blocking even that.

I think this also ties into one of the many reasons why now Poland is looking at Korea for tanks. I'm pretty sure the government in Warsaw is now thinking if they were in Ukraine's position after buying all that German gear, will the German government block spare parts, replacements and munitions "to give peace a chance"?

Because I honestly think that THIS German government would very much try.

[Kralljin]

1. Germany isn't lead just by it's people imho, it's lead by companies alongside them and while it's not as bad as in other countries, you can bet your ass that there is enough "pressure" (aka bribes that are disguised as something else) on politicians to prevent that.
Misinformation reigns supreme just like in any other country.

And selling weapons to other nations aren't a business decision?

Sorry, but i fail to see that argument as an explanation why Germany has NOT delivered weapon systems.
If any Nation wants to send German made equipment to Ukraine, then they'll have to restock, at which point german companies can make quite the profit.

You can make an argument about rising energy costs as "recoil" of that, but then you'd have at best a opposing situation where any company involved in weapons manufacture making a profit vs. those that are just getting fucked by rising energy cost.

Check out stock for Rheinmetall, that thing doubled its value the day Russia invaded Ukraine.

2. People that vote are old. Young people hardly vote in this country. Old voters will vote for what they voted for during their whole life. It almost doesn't matter if they are aligning differently now, than what they stood for back then.

As far as i know, the younger generation is more present in parties such as the Green party - where weapon deliveries has been a very tough sell up until Putin invaded Ukraine (and still is, to be frank).

Just because some of the Greens ministers are arguing for weapon deliveries, doesn't mean their entire party is backing them.
It's also easy to argue for those when you know that Scholz as Chancellor will not go along as easily, i doubt if it came solely down to Green's, they would deliver all the stuff Ukraine wants - because they were also pushing against it before and have argued against weapon deliveries in crises areas for a long time.

Hardcore old farts vote for the AFD now though.

I'd say that is partially circumstancal, AFD is strong in the east, the east's population is on average much older because young people either are leaving or have left after reuinification.

See America for example. If you vote red, you always vote red, if you vote blue, you always vote blue.

I find this has a rather loose connection and while partially true, doesn't detract from the fact that german parties rarely presented themselves as "we're fine with weapon deliveries".
It's often been attempted to brush it under the table because delivering weapon systems to say Saudi Arabia may be good for business, but sure as shit is not a good look.

3. The Ukraine war before the "2nd" invasion was mostly, for a lack of a better word, unknown to most Germans. I know for a fact that you didn't hear jack shit about it after Crimea "switched sides" a week or two later.

And that stance is somehow unique to germany?
The world went along when Russia then hosted the Football world cup in 2018.

The big mistake that Germany made was its reliance for energy on Russia, but beyond that, i don't see the unique stance of Germany in that regard.

The people just don't know much about what is happening, if Ukraine required more weapons before 2014 (I don't think they did, because 2014 Ukraine wasn't the Ukraine of today, it's hard to justify -or maybe I'm going too far back and you meant the recent/2nd wave invasion?) then it's the job of a politician to actually convince the people. But with real arguments, not lies and arguments coming from the industry or whoever gives them that nice bonus money.

You said it yourself, most people didn't give a shit.
So by that, you're already fighting an uphill battle as politician, then furthermore:
1. You would've pissed off any Russia leaning group
2. You would've pissed off any pacifist group
3. You'd be going against party line of any mainstream party

At which point, good luck winning any party internal or regular elections.

Politics is frankly a business where you often can not win on your own and need the right moment to have it happen.

And literally, and I mean literally nobody is asking them to take the lead on anything.

Because the de facto difference between delivering weapons yourself and allowing others to deliver weapons you sold them is quite minimal, you have German tanks in Ukraine either way.

Else it would be pointless to even include the manufacturer in the decision process.

If a country is basically arming the enterity of a military coalition and their approval is necessary for either deployment or delivery to another nation, then that nation effectively takes on a leading role because they can decide which conflicts that military coalition can engage and to what degree.

And Germany drives this two lane course of wanting to get a big share of the arms manufacturer business (because money), but shies away from making any hard decision related to that.

I think this also ties into one of the many reasons why now Poland is looking at Korea for tanks. I'm pretty sure the government in Warsaw is now thinking if they were in Ukraine's position after buying all that German gear, will the German government block spare parts, replacements and munitions "to give peace a chance"?

Because I honestly think that THIS German government would very much try.

Bit of a strange hypothetical scenario because Poland is a Nato Member and if Poland were ever to come under attack, then you'd have article 5.
Withholding / delaying military aid would pretty much be a violation of that article 5.

It's possible of course, but that would result in Germany getting booted out of Nato.

[Elder Millennial]

Bit of a strange hypothetical scenario because Poland is a Nato Member and if Poland were ever to come under attack, then you'd have article 5.
Withholding / delaying military aid would pretty much be a violation of that article 5.

It's possible of course, but that would result in Germany getting booted out of Nato.

There's no legal mechanism for booting a country from NATO. Nevertheless if you're Poland or a Baltic country, do you want to ever take the risk? Like having a Donald Trump in the White House and an Olaf Scholz in the German chancellery?

- - - Updated - - -

Sunak has confirmed the UK will send around a dozen Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-...ost_type=share

Queue the Germans coming up with some new excuse to block Poland and Finland from giving any Leopard 2.

[Kralljin]

Nevertheless if you're Poland or a Baltic country, do you want to ever take the risk? Like having a Donald Trump in the White House and an Olaf Scholz in the German chancellery?

Comparing Scholz to Trump disingenuous.

Scholz is Merkel 2.0, which follows the idiom of "leading from behind".

[Gorsameth]

Comparing Scholz to Trump disingenuous.

Scholz is Merkel 2.0, which follows the idiom of "leading from behind".

Really? Cause Merkel often led from the front, tho that was also generally because no one else in the EU was going to lead except Macron, and no one wants him to.

[Elder Millennial]

Comparing Scholz to Trump disingenuous.

Scholz is Merkel 2.0, which follows the idiom of "leading from behind".

I wasn't comparing. I was highlighting two sides of the same problem. A potentially unreliable NATO.

If you're Poland or a Baltic country, what will you do if you are under attack while the US is run by an administration that wants to undermine NATO, likes Putin and is unwilling to go to war for you, while Germany is lead by a government that is unwilling to take any responsibility for anything and falls back to appeasement as its first instinct?

Do you want to be dependent on German arms then?

You've missed my point so many times by now, I'm starting to think it's intentional.

[KrayZ33]

There's no legal mechanism for booting a country from NATO. Nevertheless if you're Poland or a Baltic country, do you want to ever take the risk? Like having a Donald Trump in the White House and an Olaf Scholz in the German chancellery?

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing happened during this invasion that would make Germany look like it would hesitate to assist NATO allies during a defensive war.
If you think otherwise, think again... because it's silly. The leaders of Germany unwilling to allow Leopard tanks to be sent to Ukraine has nothing to do with it.
You are questioning the reliability of a country that has no legal obligation to assist Ukraine, but does so anyways, in huge amounts as well.
On top of that, it supplies NATO countries with Leopard 2 tanks for free...or semi-free, they gave up their shitty Soviet-era tanks to Ukraine and got/get Leopard 2 tanks instead - paid by Germany.

Do you also doubt France and their position in NATO?

[Kralljin]

Really? Cause Merkel often led from the front, tho that was also generally because no one else in the EU was going to lead except Macron, and no one wants him to.

Eh, not really.

For example, back during Schröder's day, a decree was made that Germany will phase out Nuclear energy until 2022.
Then in 2010, Merkel delayed that decree for another 12 years.
Then in 2011 Fukushima happened.
Merkel made a U-Turn and pulled out the original plan that germany stops doing Nuclear in 2022.

Merkel, at least internally, rarely committed to anything and often seemed to wait out where the wind the is blowing from and then chose her position (which she also changed as the wind turn again).

I call Scholz Merkel 2.0 because Merkel often employed during elections a strategy of not even addressing any opponents or any real policy stances, Scholz during 2021 elections employed a similiar strategy of not really committing to anything (except raising minimum wage) and also ignoring his opponents.
Which worked out because both CDU and Green stumbled over their candidates incompetence.

The whole energy crisis is arguably a good example, she didn't take it in a much different direction (despite some early promises about doing something climate change), but basically doubled down on the depedence on Russia established by the previous government and didn't even reconsider her stance after 2014 when Russia invaded crimea.
Despite the fact that Merkel should really know what sort of assbag Putin is, as once during a photo shoot with her a dog stumbled into the room and Merkel has a fear of dogs.

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/12/e...dog/index.html

I wasn't comparing. I was highlighting two sides of the same problem. A potentially unreliable NATO.

If you're Poland or a Baltic country, what will you do if you are under attack while the US is run by an administration that wants to undermine NATO, likes Putin and is unwilling to go to war for you, while Germany is lead by a government that is unwilling to take any responsibility for anything and falls back to appeasement as its first instinct?

The point is that the relation between Poland and Germany is different than the one between Germany and Ukraine.
If Germany refuses to sent aid to the poles, then Nato is effectively dead to the Germans, an alliance they cannot afford to lose because when it comes to defensive, they are completely reliant on the US and other western Allies.
At which point they would have to jump into the bed with Putin, and unless you can sufficiently defend yourself against him, you'll be on the next menu.

I cannot outrule on the basis that it's physically possible, but abandoning a Nato Ally is something entirely different than refusing to send certain weapons to another nation.

Let's not also forget that the threat of buying Tanks from another nation may be a political ploy, it's not like it's foreign to the poles use germany as a "scapegoat", considering they only recently demanded reparations for the polish dead in WW2.

[Gabriel]

The point is that the relation between Poland and Germany is different than the one between Germany and Ukraine.
If Germany refuses to sent aid to the poles, then Nato is effectively dead to the Germans, an alliance they cannot afford to lose because when it comes to defensive, they are completely reliant on the US and other western Allies.
At which point they would have to jump into the bed with Putin, and unless you can sufficiently defend yourself against him, you'll be on the next menu.

I cannot outrule on the basis that it's physically possible, but abandoning a Nato Ally is something entirely different than refusing to send certain weapons to another nation.

Let's not also forget that the threat of buying Tanks from another nation may be a political ploy, it's not like it's foreign to the poles use germany as a "scapegoat", considering they only recently demanded reparations for the polish dead in WW2.

The thing is; everyone in Europe either gives Ukraine enough equipment to BTFO russia, or russia takes over Ukraine and then attacks a NATO country(Baltics or Poland) next, and a lot more people will die.

Everyone should get this through their heads sooner rather than later.

[Voidism]

This whole farce makes me want Sweden to produce our own main battle tanks in the future (again). We shouldn't rely on suicidal appeasement governments for our national security (which the war on Ukraine very much is a question of).

[Elder Millennial]

Let's not also forget that the threat of buying Tanks from another nation may be a political ploy.

There is no threat, Poland is buying Korean tanks. It's not just buying them, it will be building them locally.

Once that production line is up, Germany absolutely shouldn't be surprised if pretty much everyone in Eastern Europe switches to Polish built South Korean tanks.

Throughout this entire saga Germany had to be draged along with NATO kicking and screaming. This is why everyone is fed up with them.

It's not about what they might have ultimately ended up delivering but what it usually takes to get them to do anything.

Remember when everyone was throwing every Javelin, NLAW, Stinger and RPG it could find in it's warehouses at Ukraine, Germany was sending 5000 helmets.

Endless nagging, begging, bartering, whining and frustration is required from its allies for Germany to ever do anything.

Not to mention on the issue of tanks specifically Germany is actively hindering and sabotaging its partners.

I'd be willing to bet cash money if Russia invaded Poland or Estonia tomorrow and either of them invoked article 5, the US would be willing to nuke Moscow before Berlin would get past "But, can't we just talk to the Russians?"

This war highlighted several massive issues in NATOs supply chains. Two that most stand out are the fact that Germany is an unreliable supplier and that including Switzerland in NATOs supply chains was a horrible mistake (it has a near monopoly on the manufacture of 35mm ammunition used in Bofors and Rhinemetall derived anti aircraft and IFV guns) as it has been blocking supplies since February invoking it's neutrality. Note the manufacturer of that ammo is actually Rhinemetall, it just happened to put the factories in Switzerland.

[Voidism]

There is no threat, Poland is buying Korean tanks. It's not just buying them, it will be building them locally.

Once that production line is up, Germany absolutely shouldn't be surprised if pretty much everyone in Eastern Europe switches to Polish built South Korean tanks.

Throughout this entire saga Germany had to be draged along with NATO kicking and screaming. This is why everyone is fed up with them.

It's not about what they might have ultimately ended up delivering but what it usually takes to get them to do anything.

Remember when everyone was throwing every Javelin, NLAW, Stinger and RPG it could find in it's warehouses at Ukraine, Germany was sending 5000 helmets.

Endless nagging, begging, bartering, whining and frustration is required from its allies for Germany to ever do anything.

Not to mention on the issue of tanks specifically Germany is actively hindering and sabotaging its partners.

I'd be willing to bet cash money if Russia invaded Poland or Estonia tomorrow and either of them invoked article 5, the US would be willing to nuke Moscow before Berlin would get past "But, can't we just talk to the Russians?"

This war highlighted several massive issues in NATOs supply chains. Two that most stand out are the fact that Germany is an unreliable supplier and that including Switzerland in NATOs supply chains was a horrible mistake (it has a near monopoly on the manufacture of 35mm ammunition used in Bofors and Rhinemetall derived anti aircraft and IFV guns) as it has been blocking supplies since February invoking it's neutrality. Note the manufacturer of that ammo is actually Rhinemetall, it just happened to put the factories in Switzerland.

It definitely has shown how ready we are, and what needs to be done. I would also not oppose a Nordic-East Europe Alliance for peace and defense in the future. Clearly, Germany and to a lesser extent France (mostly vocally) are not the leaders they need to be.

[Kralljin]

I'd be willing to bet cash money if Russia invaded Poland or Estonia tomorrow and either of them invoked article 5, the US would be willing to nuke Moscow before Berlin would get past "But, can't we just talk to the Russians?"

Probably because nuking Russia means taking a gamble whether the West can take out Russia's Nuclear Arsenal before they can use it.

Disregarding that, at this point your argument has shifted from "why" to just pointing out that Germany isn't doing enough, which i largely agree on.
However, my argument still stands that this is based on the fact that any topic surrounding the military are pretty unpopular in germany.
I don't think you would see germany stepping on the brakes if the population would be, to put it bluntly, not as pacifist.

[Elder Millennial]

I don't think you would see germany stepping on the brakes if the population would be, to put it bluntly, not as pacifist.

Technically the population doesn't seem to be pacifist, not does it seem to oppose weapon deliveries. What it seems to be doing is rather deferring the decision to the Chancellery then nodding along to it.

The line seems to be "We're doing enough if the government says we're doing enough."

Look, nobody is going to hold it against Germany if Germany decides to be a pacifist. What Germany doesn't get to do is have it's cake and eat it to.

It cannot be the backbone of the European defense industry, rake in the billions of from peacetime arms sales, then suddenly go "Why can't we be friends" when bullets start flying and Russia starts a major land war in Europe.

This is why goodwill toward Germany is getting scarcer in Europe.

[Twdft]

Yeah I don't get what's going on in my chancellors brain and he doesn't really explain it to me either.

How the fuck does he think this shitshow will turn out in the long run that it would be necessary or even just the better choice to appease ruSSia? If Russia wins a NATO country will be next in a couple of years and German tanks will be used against Russia anyway. Does he want that, buy a couple years of uncertain non-direct conflict until he's out of office and make it the next chancellors problem? This is the big war of our time and it fucking frustrates me that my government is not able to accept that and act accordingly. We are already part of this war, it's just that so far Ukrainians do the fighting and dying for us.

[KrayZ33]

It cannot be the backbone of the European defense industry, rake in the billions of from peacetime arms sales, then suddenly go "Why can't we be friends" when bullets start flying and Russia starts a major land war in Europe.

This is why goodwill toward Germany is getting scarcer in Europe.

Has there been a special order for NATO to use Leopards or something? Or why do you frame it like Germany forced Leopards onto everyone and didn't allow the use of Leclerc MBTs or Challengers?
Countries buy Leopards even though Germany doesn't even build them for stock in advance (because the factories aren't allowed to do so by law). Meaning every Leopard lost will probably take like 2 years to replace.
So why does everyone do that, knowing that?

[Gabriel]

Yeah I don't get what's going on in my chancellors brain and he doesn't really explain it to me either.

How the fuck does he think this shitshow will turn out in the long run that it would be necessary or even just the better choice to appease ruSSia? If Russia wins a NATO country will be next in a couple of years and German tanks will be used against Russia anyway. Does he want that, buy a couple years of uncertain non-direct conflict until he's out of office and make it the next chancellors problem? This is the big war of our time and it fucking frustrates me that my government is not able to accept that and act accordingly. We are already part of this war, it's just that so far Ukrainians do the fighting and dying for us.

The only logical explanation is that people like him are doing it for ideological reasons.

[Kralljin]

Look, nobody is going to hold it against Germany if Germany decides to be a pacifist. What Germany doesn't get to do is have it's cake and eat it to.

I can tell you that the americans will be very pissed if they have to move all their military bases out of germany if they want to leave Nato and become a neutral state right in the middle of Europe.

Putting aside that Germany is still a massive industrial power and if they decides to fully commit to neutrality, then any dream of a european military force are going to be very difficult to fulfill.