International [NATO News] What Sweden brings to NATO as its Newest Member

Germany's lack of military readiness 'dramatic,' says Bundeswehr commissioner
The German parliament's military commissioner has published a report sharply critical of Germany's combat-readiness.

42662282_303.jpg

Germany's military has deteriorated in recent years amid budget cuts and poor management, according to a report published on Tuesday by Parliamentary Armed Forces Commissioner Hans-Peter Bartels.

The call on politicians to double-down on reforms and increase funding came in the same week a Defense Ministry paper revealed German soldiers did not have enough protective vests, winter clothing or tents to adequately take part in a major NATO mission.

What's wrong with the Bundeswehr?
  • Bartels pointed to "big gaps" in personnel and equipment. At the end of 2017, no submarines and none of the air force's 14 large transport planes were available for deployment due to repairs.
  • Other equipment, including fighter jets, tanks and ships, was outdated and in some cases not fully operational because of bad planning or a lack of spare parts. Some air force pilots were unable to train because too many aircraft were being repaired.
  • Soldiers have experienced increasing levels of stress and there was a lack adequate leadership due to some 21,000 vacant officer posts.
  • The report said the government needed to pursue reforms "with greater urgency" and increase defense spending.
  • A lack of funding and inefficient management structures and planning were behind the problems. Germany has cut defense spending since the end of the Cold War. In 2017, it spent about 1.2 percent of its economic production in 2017 on the armed forces, which is below the 2 percent target recommended by the NATO alliance.
42655581_401.jpg

Parliamentary Armed Forces Commissioner Hans-Peter Bartels handed over a copy of the report to the Bundestag President Wolfgang Schäuble


Bundeswehr Chief of Staff reacts: Volker Wieker defended the military, saying "no complaints have come to my ear either in Germany or from our allies." He did however admit that combat-readiness needed to be improve.

Bad timing: Bartels, a member of the center-left Social Democrats (SPD), said the meager state of the military was particularly bad because Germany has committed more troops to NATO and missions in Mali and Iraq. "Tasks for which there are supposed to be additional people and equipment in future are already upon us", he said.

Germany's spending promise: Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives and the SPD have committed to improving the Bundeswehr's equipment and increasing defense spending to meet NATO targets in their coalition deal. SPD rank-and-file are currently voting on whether to accept the agreement and form a new government.

Two-percent-goal controversial: On Monday, the parliamentary leader of the Christian Social Union (CSU), Alexander Dobrindt, said it would be a "mistake" if Germany failed to meet NATO's two-percent-goal by 2024. Acting SPD leader Andrea Nahles later said the coalition agreement only referred to a "target range" for defense spending, "but did not explicitly name the two-percent-goal."

Allies expect more: Some of Germany's NATO allies have repeatedly criticized alliance members who fail to spend at least 2 percent of GDP on defense. US President Donald Trump raised the criticism at a NATO summit in 2017 and Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki has said those countries that do not meet the NATO target threaten the alliance's "unity."

https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-lack...mmissioner/a-42663215?maca=en-Twitter-sharing
 
German's military has less than half its best fighter jets, none of its submarines, and 21,500 unfilled jobs
Reporting by Andrea Shalal and Reuters TV; editing by Ed Osmond | Jan. 30, 2019

5aecbe6819ee8629048b4dba-1334-667.jpg

BERLIN (Reuters) - Less than half Germany's Eurofighter and Tornado fighter jets and none of its six submarines were ready for combat in 2018, a report said on Tuesday, expressing frustration about gaps in urgently needed equipment and personnel.

Germany is the second largest provider of troops in NATO, but the United States and other NATO members have been pressing it to increase its military spending for the alliance.

The annual assessment by the parliamentary ombudsman for the armed forces painted a grim picture of problems facing the German military five years after Russia's 2014 annexation of Ukraine's Crimea region galvanized NATO members to beef up their military readiness.

"Immediate action is needed. It is absolutely critical that procurement be accelerated," said the ombudsman, Hans-Peter Bartels. "Soldiers need this equipment now to do their jobs."

For instance, he said, the military had to scrounge for enough night vision goggles, body armor and other equipment to be able to lead NATO's rapid response troop in 2019, just as it had in 2015.

"We have a need for 48,000 night vision goggles, but they're only buying 4,000 a year. It will take way too long to get them all," Bartels told reporters, adding that many soldiers saw the military as "a bureaucratic monster."

A defiant Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen said steps were under way to retool the German military after 25 years of decline following the end of the Cold War.

"This is a battle on many, many fronts that requires patience," she said.

But General Eberhard Zorn, chief of staff of the Bundeswehr, told the RND German newspaper chain it was time to embrace quicker "80-percent solutions" instead of gold-plated programs that took 15 years to deliver.

A new NATO target to have 30 land battalions, 30 air fighter squadrons and 30 ships ready to deploy within 30 days of being put on alert added urgency to the situation.

Personnel shortages persisted, the report said, noting that 21,500 jobs remained unfilled, while the number of new people entering the armed forces fell by 3,000 to 20,000, a record low.

"It's very, very grim," said Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, a top lawmaker with the pro-business Free Democrats.

Bartels urged adoption of leaner management techniques that fostered more accountability, and said a decision to make the overburdened procurement agency responsible for maintenance of all weapons should be reversed.

A more than 10-fold increase in the cost of repairing the German navy's "Gorch Fock" tall sailing ship which has generated headlines was an example of the military's "wasteful use of resources and time," he said.

https://www.businessinsider.com/r-german-military-requires-urgent-action-parliamentary-report-2019-1
 
Last edited:
That's why they've been increasingly close to France, froggies have the military, Germans have the money.
Of course the rest of Europe should join in and share the benefits... but we're torn apart by idiots.
 
Germany on course to miss defence spending target yet again
By Tobias Buck and Guy Chazan in Berlin | March 18, 2019

http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.upp-prod-us.s3.amazonaws.com%2F92b541c4-4982-11e9-bde6-79eaea5acb64

Angela Merkel, German chancellor, passes a German battalion in Berlin.
The finance ministry's framework budget for 2020-2023 means military spending will fall significantly short of defence ministry demands



Germany is on course to miss its self-declared target for defence spending in a development that threatens to trigger a new row with the US and raise further questions over Berlin’s military contribution to Nato.

Angela Merkel’s government agreed last year to raise the German military budget to 1.5 per cent of gross domestic product by 2024 — a marked increase but still short of the official Nato target of 2 per cent. But the 1.5 per cent target is now under threat after Olaf Scholz, the Social Democrat (SPD) finance minister, rebuffed plans for an ambitious increase in military spending in the years ahead, citing a worsening economic outlook.

According to Mr Scholz’s framework budget plan for 2020-2023, which is due to be agreed in cabinet on Wednesday, military spending will fall significantly short of defence ministry demands. A finance ministry official said on Monday that there would be a “notable increase” in the defence spending quota from 1.25 per cent of GDP last year to 1.37 per cent in 2020 but that it would fall in the following years, returning to 1.25 per cent by 2023. “In the next few years we will have to proceed cautiously,” the official said.

Defence analysts and lawmakers from Ms Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union on Monday voiced alarm at the expected shortfall. “We are running into a general credibility problem within Nato,” said Claudia Major, a defence analyst at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs. “We told our allies we would spend 1.5 per cent of GDP. They accepted this — and now we are calling the target into question. The political signal this sends is terrible.”

Henning Otte, a CDU member of parliament and his party’s defence spokesman, said: “We have to stand by our planned increase in defence spending . . . Our readiness to spend 1.5 per cent of GDP on defence, which we recently notified to Nato, is a minimum target. In future we will have to spend even more.”

Some experts also warned a departure from the goal would deal a blow to the long-running effort to restore the German military’s capabilities after decades of under-investment: “A defence budget of 1.5 per cent of GDP is what is needed to fix the shortfalls that have emerged. To cut back on that means cutting back on the operational capability of the Bundeswehr,” said Hans-Peter Bartelsm the armed forces commissioner of the German parliament.

The timing of Mr Scholz’s budget proposal is sensitive, coming ahead of next month’s Nato meeting in Washington to celebrate the alliance’s 70th anniversary. Recent Nato gatherings have been marred by angry spats over defence spending, with US president Donald Trump singling out Germany for particular criticism. According to the latest calculation by Nato itself, Berlin spent 1.23 per cent of GDP on defence last year.

Like all Nato members, Germany is officially committed to moving towards a figure of 2 per cent but has set itself 1.5 per cent as an interim target. Ms Major said it was still possible to bring the defence budget back into line with the 1.5 per cent commitment, but expressed doubt that Berlin was willing to expend the political capital: “Of course it is still possible to reach the 1.5 per cent goal. But the message we are sending now is that we lack the political will to achieve that goal. And if we lack the political will now, why should we have the political will a year or two from now?”

The 1.5 per cent target was formally agreed last year between Germany’s ruling parties — including the centre-left SPD. But the latest budget controversy has sown doubt among CDU leaders over whether the SPD is truly committed to higher defence spending.

With a European election looming in May and four regional elections scheduled for 2019, some SPD leaders have made clear they see defence as a potentially rewarding campaign theme. “Defence is one of the few issues where there is still a clear divide between the SPD and CDU,” said Ms Major. “It looks like the SPD . . . want to present themselves as a party of peace that is opposed to arms exports . . . and that resists Trump’s demands for higher defence spending.”

https://www.ft.com/content/633f48e0-497d-11e9-bbc9-6917dce3dc62
 
Last edited:
Reduce our contributions to nato accordingly
 
Pressed by Trump over defense, Germany says it will pay more for NATO running costs
Sabine Siebold, Robin Emmott | October 11, 2019

r

RIGA/BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Germany is willing to contribute more to NATO’s running costs as long as other allies also step up to help reduce the United States’ share of funding, German Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer said on Friday.

President Donald Trump has long accused European allies, especially Germany, the biggest economy in Europe, of taking U.S. security guarantees for granted and says they need to spend much more on their own defense.

With a meeting of NATO leaders looming in December, some allies now see reform of financing for the U.S.-led military alliance as a way to preempt another round of criticism from Trump and show that they are listening to his concerns.

At some $2.5 billion a year, the budget for North Atlantic Treaty Organization headquarters, international staff and the limited number of military assets under NATO command is a small sum compared to the hundreds of billions of dollars that allies spend on their armed forces each year.

Under a proposal now being considered by NATO, the U.S. contribution to the alliance’s annual budget would fall to 16% from the current 22%, while Germany’s would rise, also to 16% from 14.8%, from 2021. Other countries would also pay more.

“We are ready to provide more money, as long as it is the same contribution as the United States,” Kramp-Karrenbauer told reporters during a trip to Latvia to meet NATO soldiers there.

She said she wanted “an agreement that covers all European countries”, though she also cautioned that some allies still had some reservations about the proposal.

All 29 NATO members currently contribute to the budget on an agreed cost-share formula, based on gross national income.

Germany’s willingness to pay more is not about “appeasing President Trump”, Kramp-Karrenbauer said, adding that it was important for all NATO allies to play their part in financing the 70-year-old transatlantic alliance.

However, Germany is far from meeting a pledge by NATO members to move towards spending 2% of their national output on defense by 2024. It has set a target of 1.5% of GDP by then, although even that is not assured.

Only seven NATO countries currently meet or exceed the 2% target - the United States, Britain, Greece, Poland and the three Baltic states, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

Trump has made defense spending a priority for the United States after years of cuts following the end of the Cold War. He has openly questioned NATO’s value to Washington.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...pay-more-for-nato-running-costs-idUSKBN1WQ1YR
 
They need to step up. The US cant be expected to cover their asses full time, if they agreed to pay a certain amount to the keeping up of NATO forces but they fail to do so I dont see why the US should have to sit back and shrug their shoulders about it. The state of their military is a joke, it needs to be fixed.
 
What to Know About the 2019 NATO Summit
By Billy Perrigo | December 2, 2019​

thumbs_b_c_8f18baa43a7a3ef0966b506b5e40e118.jpg

When the leaders of 29 countries gather in London at the NATO summit on Dec. 3, the future of military cooperation in the Western world will be top of the agenda.

That’s because, on its 70th anniversary, the military alliance’s future looks less certain than ever.

NATO was founded in the wake of the Second World War by the U.S. and the main European powers as a means of military defense against Soviet Russia. Its founding members pledged that an attack on one would be considered an attack on all, and that each ally would retaliate against the aggressor.

But the world in 2019 looks very different to how it did in 1949. NATO has been slow to adapt to a changing world, and the leaders assembling in London know it. The alliance was conceived as a defense against Russian military force, but the rise of China has shifted the balance. It matured as a forum for military cooperation and coordination, but President Donald Trump has often acted unilaterally — for instance withdrawing U.S. troops from Syria in October without consulting NATO allies. “We are currently experiencing the brain death of NATO,” French President Emmanuel Macron told the Economist in an interview published early November. “Strategically and politically, we need to recognize that we have a problem.”

So, amid celebrations and banquets to celebrate 70 years of NATO’s existence, leaders will also be discussing how to make sure it survives another decade.

When is the NATO summit?

The NATO summit will be held on December 3 and 4 at the Grove Hotel in Watford, just outside London.

Which world leaders are attending?

The leaders of NATO’s 29 member states are attending. They include President Trump, Macron, U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The full list of NATO members is: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Queen Elizabeth II will host a dinner on Dec. 3 with the world leaders and NATO officials to celebrate the alliance’s 70th anniversary.

What are the big issues on the agenda?

The biggest issue on the agenda is what Macron was referring to in his “brain death” comments. Macron’s intervention was a thinly-veiled criticism of President Trump, the commander in chief of the U.S. military — the force that has largely underpinned NATO’s might since 1949. Trump has said the U.S. is footing too much of NATO’s military bill, and has suggested he could pull out of the alliance unless other members begin to spend 2% of their GDP on defense.

In October, Trump withdrew U.S. troops from northeast Syria, clearing the way for a Turkish incursion against Syrian Kurds in the region — longstanding allies of the U.S. in the fight against ISIS, but seen by Turkey as enemies. Trump’s move angered Macron because he refused to notify NATO members of his decision before acting on it.

The French leader has made his frustration clear at Trump’s unilateralism, and will be seeking to convince the U.S. President to think about foreign policy in terms of Western interests instead of through his America-first lens.

“You have no coordination whatsoever of strategic decision-making between the United States and its NATO allies. None,” Macron told the Economist ahead of the summit. “You have an uncoordinated aggressive action by another NATO ally, Turkey, in an area where our interests are at stake.”

But Macron likely knows that it will be difficult to change Trump’s mind. “Look, when President Trump committed to doing a certain way with his voters, he does it,” Macron told TIME in September. “I always failed changing his mind when it was about clear commitment taken during his campaign.”

What else can we expect?

After Macron’s comments about NATO’s “brain death,” prime ministers and presidents are expected to discuss in London how to save the alliance.

“I’d argue that we should reassess the reality of what NATO is in the light of the commitment of the United States,” Macron said in his interview with the Economist.

Officials including NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and German foreign minister Heiko Maas have signaled support for holding “brainstorming” talks on how to survive the coming years, in response to criticisms.

But the progress might be slow: one suggestion is to set up a “group of experts” to respond to Macron’s criticisms; they would not publish a report until after the next U.S. election.

Defense spending

At the last NATO summit in July 2018, disagreements over defense spending dominated the discussions. President Trump criticized Germany for not spending enough, and even reportedly threatened to pull out of the alliance if countries failed to meet NATO’s target to spend 2% of their GDP on defense.

Trump’s threat to pull out of the alliance left leaders stunned. But the threat had an effect: 18 months later, nine European NATO members including France and the U.K. have increased the percentage of GDP they spend on defense — though only six countries other than the U.S. are estimated to be spending at least 2% of GDP.

In London, Trump is likely to have spending high on his agenda again.

The U.K. is having an election the following week

On Dec. 12, just a week after the NATO summit, Brits go to the polls to decide whether to keep Boris Johnson as prime minister.

President Trump is close to Johnson, and the opposition Labour Party have capitalized on their relationship by portraying Johnson as willing to sell Britain’s health service to U.S. medical firms at Trump’s behest in their election campaigning.

Trump’s presence in the U.K. so close to the vote could yield unexpected outcomes. The President has a proven track record of making comments that cause upheaval in British politics. On his last U.K. visit, in June, Trump said Britain’s National Health Service should be “on the table” in future post-Brexit trade talks between the U.S. and U.K. (The NHS, which is funded by taxes, gives British people most healthcare services for free at the point of use and is one of the U.K.’s most beloved institutions.)

Then Prime Minister Theresa May pushed back on the claims — but in the ongoing election campaign, Labour obtained documents showing minutes of meetings between U.S. and U.K. trade officials in which the NHS was discussed.

The rise of China

Despite Macron’s strong language ahead of the summit, NATO officials are optimistic the leaders’ meeting will yield progress on one of the key challenges faced by the alliance: the rise of China as a global economic power investing heavily in military technology.

“We hope very much and we are confident that leaders will launch a comprehensive roadmap to address new technologies and to maintain our technological edge,” said Edward Ferguson, the top defense official at Britain’s Washington embassy, ahead of the summit. “We will need to consider the challenges that China, as well as Russia, present to the alliance. Just as NATO needs to understand and respond to the threat of Russian novel weapons… so we must adapt to disruptive technologies where China is seeking to become a world leader, including in areas such as artificial intelligence, automation, machine learning, quantum computing.”

One of those areas is 5G, an area dominated by Chinese firms like Huawei. NATO leaders are expected to “agree an update to our baseline requirement” regarding the telecoms technology, which some security experts have said, if built by Huawei, could allow China to snoop on Western military technology.

NATO goes to space

Another new area is space. In August, Trump said the U.S. would set up a new “Space Command” to counter Russian and Chinese threats in orbit.

Ahead of the summit, Secretary General Stoltenberg said NATO would follow suit by recognizing space as “a fifth operational domain,” allowing NATO members to coordinate their defensive efforts. “Nato has no intention to put weapons in space. We are a defensive alliance,” Stoltenberg said.

NATO leaders will have a chance to declare that development formally in London.

https://time.com/5741250/nato-summit-2019/
 
Last edited:
Most in NATO countries say US would aid them against Russia, but they wouldn’t step up themselves
By JOHN VANDIVER | STARS AND STRIPES | February 10, 2020

image.jpg

Most NATO members are confident the U.S. will come to their defense if attacked by Russia, but are unwilling to do the same in return

STUTTGART, Germany — Most NATO countries trust the United States to come to their defense if attacked by Russia, but few would be willing to return the favor, a new survey has found.


Majorities in 16 member states surveyed by the Pew Research Center said they believe the U.S. military would defend them if they were attacked, but only in five of the countries polled —the U.S., Netherlands, Canada, United Kingdom and Lithuania – did majorities say their country should use force to defend an ally, the survey said.

“There is widespread reluctance to fulfill the collective defense commitment outlined in Article 5 of NATO’s founding treaty,” the report said.

NATO’s Article 5, which states that an attack on one member requires a response from all, is the linchpin of the alliance that was formed 75 years ago as a collective bulwark against the Soviet Union.

Overall, member states continue to view NATO favorably, the poll found. A median of 53% in the 16 allies polled held positive views toward NATO while 27% had an unfavorable opinion.

But even in the country with the highest support for the alliance — Poland where 82% approve — only 40% said their military should come to the defense of another if attacked by Russia. Only a minority of Poles, 47%, also believed the U.S. would use force to defend them if they were attacked by Russia, the poll found.

In the U.S., 60% said America should use force to defend an ally under attack by Russia. Only the Netherlands, at 64%, was more willing to defend an ally in a similar situation.

Two other important NATO countries — Germany and France — were opposed to using military force to defend another member. In Germany, 60% said the country should not defend an ally under attack. In France, 53% held the same view.

“The belief that their country should respond to a hypothetical Russian attack on a NATO ally has become less common over time in a handful of countries,” Pew said.

Majorities in both France and Germany however, said they believed the U.S. would defend an ally under attack, the poll found.

While Germans still have a favorable view of the alliance — 57% in 2019 — that is down from 67% in 2017. Support for NATO in France dropped from 60% in 2017 to 49% in 2019.

In the U.S., attitudes toward NATO differ by political party affiliation, with Democrats more likely than Republicans to have a favorable opinion, the survey said. In 2019, 61% of Democrats had a positive view of the alliance, compared with 45% of Republicans.

In addition to the 16 member states surveyed, Pew also polled three nonmembers about the alliance. Majorities in Sweden and Ukraine had favorable opinions of NATO, while, not surprisingly, only 16% did in Russia.

https://www.stripes.com/news/europe...nst-russia-but-they-wouldn-t-step-up-1.618199
 
To the February article: I live in Poland and I'd want to see the exact method and style of questions used. I'd also like to know who they asked overall (maybe I missed it)

Polacks are in a terrible spot geographically when it comes to actions to any particular side. Their military is not considered a leviathan of any sort. Military assistance from Poland has to be auxiliary and not primary or even prim-secondary. There is also no trust in western-style espionage tactic and Polacks, by their very nature, won't "take a side" publicly as mums the word always.

And not for nothing but I'd like to know what these same questions polled as in previous admins, if available.
 
NATO members might as well pay Russia not to fuck with them at this point. Their armed forces have gotten so underfunded and understaffed that I don't even know why they bother.
 
NATO members might as well pay Russia not to fuck with them at this point. Their armed forces have gotten so underfunded and understaffed that I don't even know why they bother.

Don't worry the Anglo-Dutch alliance will see of Johnny Russian , that's if those continental types will still let us Island Apes ashore after Brexit .
 
The Russia threat is a joke now. Unless you genocide, expulsions or aparthied then annexing land of a population that doesnt like you is a bad idea. What country in NATO could Russia possibly want to mess with? I can maybe only think of the suwalki corridor strip. In order to connect Kalingrad to Belarus however it is more likely Russia could buy that or have some economic corridor there. Maybe east latvia annex as there are Russians there. That is it. It is more likely Russia would absorb former Soviet countries and make the Eurasian Union a federated state.

NATO is effectively dead anyways with traiterous anti Western islamist Turkey in it. Turkey needs to be removed from NATO. And who wants to die for part of the baltics anyways?
 
Back
Top