Support NeoGAF

[Uzzy]

Germany does need to modernise, and I'd argue to increase it's special forces and light force projection capabilities (i.e better ability to supply and support peacekeeping/light expeditionary forces outside of Continental europe) but I don't see how they could get an effective 2% of GDP given their constitutional limits on manpower and full force projection.

Maybe a missile shield?

You're talking about a country with a $1 trillion more in GDP than the UK. Unless it starts buying nuclear powered subs and nuclear powered aircraft carriers then I'm not sure what big ticket items they could go for.

Well, the future of the EU nations military procurement would involve pooling and sharing of hardware and resources. Which already takes place at some levels, such as the European Air Transport Command, the EU Battlegroups, the Franco-German Brigade and the German/Dutch Corps. So the prospect of the Germans helping to pay for some nuclear powered aircraft carriers, or other expensive hardware, might not be that far fetched.

A lot would depend on what role the EU nations want their militaries to play. The Battlegroups are a great symbol of European cooperation, but they've never actually been fully deployed. A European Border and Coast Guard has just been set up, but it's very small and underfunded at the moment, but you'd imagine that patrolling the external border in places like the Mediterranean and the Channel would be popular.

 

[ClosingADoor]

THe United States has 68 soldiers in United Nations peacekeeping missions. Italy has 1100, France 880, Spain 614, Germany and Netherlands 400, ... As for more defence speeding because of Turkey and the USA, then we need different kinds of investments. Aka defensive.

What is your point here? There have been plenty reports about material in European armies being insufficient and that an increase in spending is in order. What has this to do with what the US has in UN peacekeeping missions?

We didn't even talk about what kind of spending. But if your mission literally runs out of helmets, bulletproof vests, bullets or missiles, then it is clear there needs to be some spending on those things.

 

[Saint Gregory]

Trump already did - one of his major early campaign messages was the failed Iraq War.

Which he approved of at the time and could approve of again now for all we know. The man's opinions on these issues seems to change more frequently than the tide.

 

[superdeluxe]

Didn't Germany's defensive minister recently state that the request from the US about more spending was appropriate?


Edit: Yup

http://www.dw.com/en/us-request-for...emand-german-defense-minister-says/a-37505631

 

[Joni]

What is your point here? There have been plenty reports about material in European armies being insufficient and that an increase in spending is in order. What has this to do with what the US has in UN peacekeeping missions?

We didn't even talk about what kind of spending. But if your mission literally runs out of helmets, bulletproof vests, bullets or missiles, then it is clear there needs to be some spending on those things.

Because you brought up the need for peacekeeping, where European nations have a stronger presence. The US likes to spend a lot on military, but they also do tend to act on their own with it. So if they want to do that, we shouldn't be forced to follow.
And I suggest that European nations shouldn't spend their money on on big highly modernized armies, and we certainly don't need to spend billions more. It is costing a lot of money and we're not even making the world better.

 

[tomtom94]

Here in the UK I can confirm most people thought 2% of GDP was a binding commitment, it was a big thing at the last election for both the Tories and UKIP.

 

[Muffin1611]

Didn't Germany's defensive minister recently state that the request from the US about more spending was appropriate?


Edit: Yup

http://www.dw.com/en/us-request-for...emand-german-defense-minister-says/a-37505631

Yeah, more spending, not so much spending that Nazi Germany would be jealous.

 

[Joni]

Here in the UK I can confirm most people thought 2% of GDP was a binding commitment, it was a big thing at the last election for both the Tories and UKIP.

Your politicians lied to justify their big expenses. That is all.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Because you brought up the need for peacekeeping, where European nations have a stronger presence. The US likes to spend a lot on military, but they also do tend to act on their own with it. So if they want to do that, we shouldn't be forced to follow.
And I suggest that European nations shouldn't spend their money on on big highly modernized armies, and we certainly don't need to spend billions more.

No, you said the EU doesn't need more military spending because they don't invade countries. But the military is used for more, and in those things they are facing problems under current spending, so it is necessary to increase it there at least.

This doesn't mean that we should just follow the US in everything they say and every country needs 2%, but some EU countries do need to increase their budgets and luckily that is happening.

 

[Shiggy]

Here in the UK I can confirm most people thought 2% of GDP was a binding commitment, it was a big thing at the last election for both the Tories and UKIP.

In the UK most people also thought that Brexit would be a good thing.

 

[PdotMichael]

Yeah, more spending, not so much spending that Nazi Germany would be jealous.

Even ignoring that stuff.

The USA doesn't have any rights to determine the federal budget of a sovereign state.

 

[Joni]

No, you said the EU doesn't need more military spending because they don't invade countries. But the military is used for more, and in those things they are facing problems under current spending, so it is necessary to increase it there at least.

This doesn't mean that we should just follow the US in everything they say and every country needs 2%, but some EU countries do need to increase their budgets and luckily that is happening.

The helmet thing can easily be solved by shifting military budget. I refuse to believe there is a European country out there that simply can't afford those helmets, it just gets more attention with pretty pricey jets so it is likes to spend on those.

 

[KevinRo]

Good. I say we pull our bases out of Germany too.

 

[Shiggy]

Good. I say we pull our bases out of Germany too.

Already happened and happening. But it's in the interest of the USA to keep Rammstein.

 

[SecretMoblin]

Even ignoring that stuff.

The USA doesn't have any rights to determine the federal budget of a sovereign state.

No NATO ally is having its budget "determined" by the U.S.

Here in the UK I can confirm most people thought 2% of GDP was a binding commitment, it was a big thing at the last election for both the Tories and UKIP.

It wasn't binding, but it's a lame diplomatic "out" to agree with your allies that you're going to aim to increase your spending to roughly equivalent levels and then when confronted about it go "whoa whoa whoa, it wasn't technically a promise!"

Fact is NATO allies are content with the status quo, as it lets them tell their constituents that they're using public funds for more politically palatable spending while using the age-old cudgel of the U.S.'s defense spending to spank the politically unpopular U.S.

It's not going to significantly change.

 

[kmag]

Good. I say we pull our bases out of Germany too.

Oh no. Not the bases

 

[PdotMichael]

Getting rid of the Ramstein Air Base will totally hurt Germany and not the USA and their oversea adventures!

 

[Dehnus]

Germany and other EU countries do need to spent a bit more on defense, but the 2% is not necessary for all. To reach it on paper, just put some of those refugee programs and stuff under your defense budget I guess.

It's not necessary at all! The USA is just spending far to much to feed the lobbies from the defence industry public money.

LikeI told someone else here once, when he wend on and on about "carrying the bill all by himself."

"NOBODY ASKED YOU TOO!"

They asked the USA to have a good military, not batshit insane, gargantuan and very ineffective with most of it's hardware never used in it's lifetime or rusting away in deserts. Infact the aircraft carriers are more a projection of power and to get diplomatic pressure on another country. It has very little to do with actual war, as the Aircraft carriers are only very rarely used for them. They are more a "show of strenght" or projection of power.


Nobody would mind in the world, if the USA goes back to 2% of it's GDP in spending. But I see that as unobtainable with the crazies in the Republican party and the lobbies running rampant in Washington. But a 2.8% should be possible, with the savings going back into veteran care and better condition and wages for soldiers or people working in the military. Secondary working benefits and the likes.

But even that is considered "weak" as it doesn't make your penis look as long as a disaster of a plane like the "JSF! WOOHOOOO!". The USA basically is addicted to penis extenders.

 

[Dehnus]

Agreed they should spend more but arguably there should be an itemized list at least initially of what cost they are covering

And the list should not be made by the USA! Or else we'll all be forced to buy crappy engineered stuff from Boeing, Lockheed and others like them, with "maintenance contracts" that would last for decades. If they are to spend, it should be free for Germany to invest in French Aeroplanes for instance, or Swedish ones.

I do not trust those Lobbycrats in Washington one bit with this stuff.

 

[diehard]

Germany complaining that they are having to spend to clean up after a war is hilariously ironic.

 

[Gabriel_Logan]

Germany complaining that they are having to spend to clean up after a war is hilariously ironic.

Its kinda tacky after all the money the US spent rebuilding Europe during the Marshall plan.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Its kinda tacky after all the money the US spent rebuilding Europe during the Marshall plan.

There is an important difference though.

The Marshall Plan was the humanitarian, development and economic aid that was needed.

Gabriel is referring to the refugee crisis caused by the political instability the US left behind, because they didn't provide the needed humanitarian, development and economic aid.

 

[Lynn616]

U.S. should cut it`s NATO spending. Spend the money on better health care.

 

[pa22word]

There is an important difference though.

The Marshall Plan was the humanitarian, development and economic aid that was needed.

Gabriel is referring to the refugee crisis caused by the political instability the US left behind, because they didn't provide the needed humanitarian, development and economic aid.

The US spent like 2x over Marshall plan money on Afghanistan through various aid.

Europe built them an airport so they can more easily deport people.

 

[Muffin1611]

U.S. should cut it`s NATO spending. Spend the money on better health care.

Regardless how much the US would be able to cut on it's NATO spending, it wouldn't invest it in better health care.

 

[djplaeskool]

Damn.
Shade got vigorously tossed at 15 years of failed foreign policy...

 

[ClosingADoor]

The helmet thing can easily be solved by shifting military budget. I refuse to believe there is a European country out there that simply can't afford those helmets, it just gets more attention with pretty pricey jets so it is likes to spend on those.

Those other things are necessary also. Ships need replacing, aircraft need replacing. Some stuff is decades old. So it is not always just a simple shift of budget. Sometimes you just need more money after years and years of budget cuts.

It's not necessary at all! The USA is just spending far to much to feed the lobbies from the defence industry public money.

LikeI told someone else here once, when he wend on and on about "carrying the bill all by himself."

"NOBODY ASKED YOU TOO!"

They asked the USA to have a good military, not batshit insane, gargantuan and very ineffective with most of it's hardware never used in it's lifetime or rusting away in deserts. Infact the aircraft carriers are more a projection of power and to get diplomatic pressure on another country. It has very little to do with actual war, as the Aircraft carriers are only very rarely used for them. They are more a "show of strenght" or projection of power.


Nobody would mind in the world, if the USA goes back to 2% of it's GDP in spending. But I see that as unobtainable with the crazies in the Republican party and the lobbies running rampant in Washington. But a 2.8% should be possible, with the savings going back into veteran care and better condition and wages for soldiers or people working in the military. Secondary working benefits and the likes.

But even that is considered "weak" as it doesn't make your penis look as long as a disaster of a plane like the "JSF! WOOHOOOO!". The USA basically is addicted to penis extenders.

I don't see how this is relevant to my comment saying not all countries need to be at 2% but some increases might be in order for certain countries.

That the US spends too much in their military is pretty clear to all.

U.S. should cut it`s NATO spending. Spend the money on better health care.

The actual NATO budget is evenly divided and not an issue at all. Germany actually pays 15% of this compared to 22% for the US.

 

[diehard]

The actual NATO budget is evenly divided and not an issue at all. Germany actually pays 15% of this compared to 22% for the US.

Are you thinking of the U.N.? The U.S. pays for 22% of It's budget and Germany 6.4%

 

[Boney]

I seriously don't understand why people here would want to burn through public spending on the unproductive mess that is defense spending when it has stopped being a tool for legitimizing the State power for well over half a century.

 

[Dehnus]

Good. I say we pull our bases out of Germany too.

Good, then Germany moves their VW, BMW, Mercedes, Audi and Porsche Factories to Mexico.

Really want to start playing that game? It has only one end, and that is open war.

Slights back and forth, with a demagogue arsehole like Ruper Murdoch controlling the press will always lead to war. Just look at the first world war.German British were lynched in the streets as the media concocted stories about the Germans sinking civilian ships. Long before they actually did. Look it up, it is a very interesting read.

 

[Dehnus]

Are you thinking of the U.N.? The U.S. pays for 22% of It's budget and Germany 6.4%

There is a NATO budget and a Military budget. Not all military spending goes to NATO. The USA also has bases in other parts of the world. The whole reason the 2% exists is because American Lobbycratic companies from the defence industry want more money. After all how else will you force people to buy that POS JSF. For goodness sake man! The USA can turn off the JSF from a distant so it can't fly! Why would any self respecting nation buy such a crappy thing that they don't even control themselves?

 

[knitoe]

It's not necessary at all! The USA is just spending far to much to feed the lobbies from the defence industry public money.

LikeI told someone else here once, when he wend on and on about "carrying the bill all by himself."

"NOBODY ASKED YOU TOO!"

They asked the USA to have a good military, not batshit insane, gargantuan and very ineffective with most of it's hardware never used in it's lifetime or rusting away in deserts. Infact the aircraft carriers are more a projection of power and to get diplomatic pressure on another country. It has very little to do with actual war, as the Aircraft carriers are only very rarely used for them. They are more a "show of strenght" or projection of power.


Nobody would mind in the world, if the USA goes back to 2% of it's GDP in spending. But I see that as unobtainable with the crazies in the Republican party and the lobbies running rampant in Washington. But a 2.8% should be possible, with the savings going back into veteran care and better condition and wages for soldiers or people working in the military. Secondary working benefits and the likes.

But even that is considered "weak" as it doesn't make your penis look as long as a disaster of a plane like the "JSF! WOOHOOOO!". The USA basically is addicted to penis extenders.

You realize the US military is task with winning 2 wars, against major powers, at once. Thus, you need equipment on standby 24/7. If a war suddenly starts, you can't pull them out of air and it would take months / years to make new ones, even if the supply chain wasn't disrupted. By then, the war could have been lost. And, yes, lobbyists does increase the miltary budget, but most it is still agreed to by the military planners, president, congress and etc. Not like, the numbers come out of no where.

And, although, the US has 12 super carriers, only about half of them are on duty at a time. The rest are docked for repairs, crew rest after extended deployment and etc. Recently, US went months without a carrier in the Middle East for the fight against ISIS. So, they aren't just for a "show of force".

With the US offering to protect all these countries, they all can think why do we need to spend so much on weapons "rusting" away. Personally, the US doesn't need so many foreign bases. Maybe, it will encourage countries to spend more knowing without US boots on the ground, they will need to protect themself X days / months. And, it would save the US billions.

 

[Dehnus]

Those other things are necessary also. Ships need replacing, aircraft need replacing. Some stuff is decades old. So it is not always just a simple shift of budget. Sometimes you just need more money after years and years of budget cuts.


I don't see how this is relevant to my comment saying not all countries need to be at 2% but some increases might be in order for certain countries.

That the US spends too much in their military is pretty clear to all.


The actual NATO budget is evenly divided and not an issue at all. Germany actually pays 15% of this compared to 22% for the US.

You're one of the more reasonable, but there are those that feel they don't spend too much and just fall for the lobby hook line and sinker. Look at the combined budget for NATO and divided that per capita of the countries involved. There is no need for the rest of Europe to "project power" like the USA does at the moment. Heck there is no need for the USA to do it either.

In fact everybody would be happier and sleep easier if you spend a bit less on it.

 

[Lautaro]

I seriously don't understand why people here would want to burn through public spending on the unproductive mess that is defense spending when it has stopped being a tool for legitimizing the State power for well over half a century.

Its crazy, everyone seems to be fixated in "we are spending more than Europe, its so unfair!". Was this a controversial issue before or it was only brought up by the Trump administration recently?

 

[chadskin]

U.S. should cut it`s NATO spending. Spend the money on better health care.

Blaming NATO for a terrible health care system never ceases to amuse me.

If health care were a priority to American voters, Bernie Sanders would be president right now, not the guy who wants to kill the ACA and raise defense spending by a further $50bn. ¯\_(&#12484_/¯

 

[Funky Papa]

Blaming defence spending for the sorry state of American healthcare is well beyond missing the point.

But I'm sure that Germany could build some baller ass Leopard with that kind of dosh. May as well call AMG for the engine and suspension tuning.

 

[Dehnus]

You realize the US military is task with winning 2 wars, against major powers, at once. Thus, you need equipment on standby 24/7. If a war suddenly starts, you can't pull them out of air and it would take months / years to make new ones, even if the supply chain wasn't disrupted. By then, the war could have been lost.

And, although, the US has 12 super carriers, only about half of them are on duty at a time. The rest are docked for repairs, crew rest after extended deployment and etc. Recently, US went months without a carrier in the Middle East for the fight against ISIS. So, they aren't just for a "show of force".

With the US offering to protect all these countries, they all can think why do we need to spend so much on weapons "rusting" away. Personally, the US doesn't need so many foreign bases. Maybe, it will encourage countries to spend more knowing without US boots on the ground, they will need to protect themself X days / months. And, it would save the US billions.

You would bankrupt yourself if that happened. You couldn't even maintain 2 wars against poor countries. Every war will always become an invasion if your successful and if you maintain your presence it would become a guerilla war. That in itself shows the stupidity of it. You would not be able to maintain 2 wars like that, and the costs alone would ruin you. Unless you nuke the whole place, but really then you don't even need a boots on the ground do you?

You see my comments as an attack, but it is more a point to show you you CAN save money and spend less. I am even asking you to. Your soldiers deserve better treatment, as do your veterans. But also your citizens. I see your military spending and your requirement to force us in Europe to spend shitttons to pay your military industrial complex incredibly infuriating. It is just to project power and to make people fear you, heck or even use you.

Nobody says you cannot help out a friend, but the 3.8% you spend on it is insane! It only serves to make certain people feel big in government and to fatten the fat pigs of the military industrial complex. I'm not talking about basic helmets, guns and tanks here. I'm talking about propaganda purchases and equipment that could have been unified as one purchase and type of equipment. Buy one type of plane for each role, rather than 200 of that brand, 150 of the other brand.. for instance.

But in any case, the whole reason it is there is to project power, as with an actual war you'd not be able to keep it up. Nobody is, an invading army is always repelled in the end... unless you're willing to do some really horrible shit. In which case... yeah... you wouldn't be my ally anyway. (We're talking about genocide and displacement then).

Anyhow, I'm going for a walk, this stuff infuriates me as I really dislike companies like Lockheed Martin, their corruption cost my country millions. Yet till this day, they keep getting away with it. So sorry to but out, it is a hot topic for me... maybe a bit too hot.

Have a great war kids, and remember, only to light up your rockets on New Years Eve, or in your case, Fourth of July .

 

[Lynn616]

Blaming NATO for a terrible health care system never ceases to amuse me.

If health care were a priority to American voters, Bernie Sanders would be president right now, not the guy who wants to kill the ACA and raise defense spending by a further $50bn. ¯\_(&#12484_/¯

I just stated that I would prefer the U.S. spent less on NATO That money could be used for a number of programs not just health care.

 

[chadskin]

I just stated that I would prefer the U.S. spent less on NATO That money could be used for a number of programs not just health care.

Other than a few hundred million USD towards the NATO budget, the US doesn't spend money on NATO. It spends money on its military.

 

[superdeluxe]

Its crazy, everyone seems to be fixated in "we are spending more than Europe, its so unfair!". Was this a controversial issue before or it was only brought up by the Trump administration recently?

It's been an issue for awhile. It's not new.

Ash Carter: http://breakingdefense.com/2016/06/...-carter-to-nato-russia-note-the-new-brigades/

Chuck Hagel:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...0ab83c-d1f5-11e3-937f-d3026234b51c_story.html

Robert Gates:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/10/nato-dismal-future-pentagon-chief

 

[Frankfurter]

Didn't Germany's defensive minister recently state that the request from the US about more spending was appropriate?


Edit: Yup

http://www.dw.com/en/us-request-for...emand-german-defense-minister-says/a-37505631

Just a reminder, it's election year over here Defense minister is from the CDU (conservatives, led by Merkel), Gabriel is from the SPD (social democrats), which is the junior partner in the coalition.

 

[dragonelite]

Just use a 3 million dollar middle to shot down illegal drones Germany. One way to spend that 2%.

 

[DrSlek]

With that kind of money Germany could refloat and refit the Bismark.....actually that'd be kinda cool.


DO IT, GERMANY!

 

[Lynn616]

Other than a few hundred million USD towards the NATO budget, the US doesn't spend money on NATO. It spends money on its military.

OK? Then by that logic all NATO nations are just spending money on their own military.

 

[knitoe]

You would bankrupt yourself if that happened. You couldn't even maintain 2 wars against poor countries. Every war will always become an invasion if your successful and if you maintain your presence it would become a guerilla war. That in itself shows the stupidity of it. You would not be able to maintain 2 wars like that, and the costs alone would ruin you. Unless you nuke the whole place, but really then you don't even need a boots on the ground do you?

You see my comments as an attack, but it is more a point to show you you CAN save money and spend less. I am even asking you to. Your soldiers deserve better treatment, as do your veterans. But also your citizens. I see your military spending and your requirement to force us in Europe to spend shitttons to pay your military industrial complex incredibly infuriating. It is just to project power and to make people fear you, heck or even use you.

Nobody says you cannot help out a friend, but the 3.8% you spend on it is insane! It only serves to make certain people feel big in government and to fatten the fat pigs of the military industrial complex. I'm not talking about basic helmets, guns and tanks here. I'm talking about propaganda purchases and equipment that could have been unified as one purchase and type of equipment. Buy one type of plane for each role, rather than 200 of that brand, 150 of the other brand.. for instance.

But in any case, the whole reason it is there is to project power, as with an actual war you'd not be able to keep it up. Nobody is, an invading army is always repelled in the end... unless you're willing to do some really horrible shit. In which case... yeah... you wouldn't be my ally anyway. (We're talking about genocide and displacement then).

It has been US war doctrine since WWII to be able to win 2 wars against "super powers" at once. Why. Because, that's what happens in WWI and WWII. Sure, maybe, the doctrine doesn't apply anymore, but history tends to repeat... And, what you are talking about is "nation building" which is not what the US military is built to do. That's been recently and I agree the US should not be doing. No more "world policemen" BS. Not a US national interest, don't interfere unless there is some sort "world" consensus.

There are many ways to save money. As I already mention, billions could be save my reducing amount of foreign military bases. Instead of 5 in the UK, how about 1-2. Same with Germany and you can go down the list. Less / no US boots station, maybe, it nudges the local nation to spend more to product themselves. Seems like a win win for everyone.

The US wants to have the techical advantage thus they are gotta spend. Do you spend on $$$$$ 5th stealth fighter, need against super powers with advanced air defense while has little uses against small countries, ISIS and etc without air defense, or save and spend on $$$ 4th gen fighters, great against small militaries but will be shoot down against "super" ones. Given the US war doctrine, it's obvious which one they will always choose.

 

[kmag]

OK? Then by that logic all NATO nations are just spending money on their own military.

That's exactly right. That's literally what has happens

Nato doctrine especially during the cold war dictated some of the nature of that spend.

The Royal Navy had primarily an Anti-Submarine Warfare responsibility in the North Sea so spent disproportionate amounts on ASW technology including the ski-jump carriers. The German navy was to play a harrying role in the Baltic sea, so concentrated on fast frigates and diesel electric subs.

The British and German Armies kept large armoured vehicle battalions because that was their responsibilities in the NATO order of battle if the Soviets attacked through the North German plain.

It's also the same reason both German and RAF air forces were disproportionately made up of Tornado fighter/bombers. The Tornado was specifically designed for low level high speed incursions against advancing Soviet forces, that was really it's sole purpose.

These days there's no real assigned responsibilities in the same way, Nato countries just spend money on their own forces, and pay a separate additional amount for the running of NATO.

Germany, the UK, France and the rest could each spend 5% of GDP on defense it would not affect how much the US spends. There's no saving to be had here. The US spends ridiculous amounts on defense not because it needs to but because it's essentially corporate, political and social welfare. Most defense spending is domestic, fuels domestic companies and domestic employment in politicians constituencies.

 

[Maztorre]

Perhaps Germany could massively invest in defense against monitoring of their domestic government by their "allies" in the US intelligence agencies and claim that as their 2% of GDP.

 

[iamblades]

I'm sympathetic to the argument that 'we can't really spend 2% without wasting money because we don't have much of a navy or a long range strategic bombing program', but then you better be prepared to supply what you do have when there is an operation.

You absolutely can't refuse to spend the money, end up having to get basic shit like small arms ammunition from the US and then act surprised when they question your commitment to the alliance.

The fact that they pay for the logistical support isn't really the point. The point is that an alliance is supposed to have redundancies if it is going to be effective and robust. As it is, the entire rest of NATO can't replace the logistics of the US. That is not a healthy state for an alliance to be in.

 

[Xando]

Blaming defence spending for the sorry state of American healthcare is well beyond missing the point.

But I'm sure that Germany could build some baller ass Leopard with that kind of dosh. May as well call AMG for the engine and suspension tuning.

Screw the Leopard we're gonna create Tiger 2.0s.
With 2% we're gonna create a wall of tanks to keep Putin out.

Seriously though 2% defence spending puts germany above Russia. That's just unrealistic since germany has next to 0 offensive ambitions. As well as i know the Bundeswehr from my time under conscription everything would just stand in the armory/garage without being used for the next 50 years

Should rather invest in intelligence services to get dirt on Trump and make him shut up

 

[The Hamburglar]

This threads hilarious. Everyone hates trump but as soon as it trumps USa vs Europe or whatever then suddenly intelligence goes out the window.

First page is littered with fuck Germany they should pay for it if they agreed which If people even bothered to read there was no agreement to 2%.

And America has been fucking up the world post ww2, yet we saw some soviet style whataboutism moaning about Libya.

Yes so Germany should spend billions on pointless shit so American citizens are happy because their leaders sell them fake nationalism.