DW: German troops wait 8 years for new combat boots
Since 2016 the German military — the Bundeswehr — has planned to provide troops with new combat boots. Now soldiers must wait longer to be properly equipped, something one member of parliament described as "grotesque."
German troops will have to wait until 2022 to receive new combat boots due to "limited production capacity in industry," media reported.
The inability of the Bundeswehr to equip soldiers with basic footwear adds to a series of scandals over lack of equipment and questions over combat readiness in the NATO member.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: Not being able to provide new combat boots is the least of the problems for the German military — the Bundeswehr .... It’s High Time for Germany to Fund, and Fix, Its Military (Daniel DePetris, Defense One).
Battles have been started over the lack of boots.
ReplyDeleteWhy is Merkel the Merciless playing with fire?
Is the old war-cow that foolish?
I remembered reading somewhere that Germany spends a great deal on its military. I looked it up. Sure enough Germany clocks in at 49.50 billion in military spending ranking it at number 8 in the world. Funding does not seem to be the problem. It would appear that the problem lies with allocation.
ReplyDeleteGermany is a member of NATO making us responsible for their defense. I'd hate to have to go to war alongside such an ill prepared "ally." Unless things like this are changed and quickly I think our leaders need to rethink our participation in NATO.
Perhaps there is some kind of pressure we can apply to Germany to incentivize them to get their military up to a reasonable fighting capability as it is hard to envision a military where they have to wait eight years to get new combat boots is going to be ready for or capable of major combat operations. Then again our own military is rife with problems as well. As such, I am not sure how we can even begin to assist Germany with theirs or to otherwise pressure them to make the necessary changes as American power is very, very limited in areas like this.
To me things like this tend to confirm that we need to rethink our participation in NATO. POTUS is correct when he says other nations need to do more but IMHO he does not go nearly far enough.
B Poser did not dig deep enough.
ReplyDeleteMattis writes that he served ‘as long as I could,’ warns of a leader not committed to working with allies
ReplyDeleteIn a book excerpt, the former defense secretary says he left the Trump administration “when my concrete solutions and strategic advice, especially keeping faith with our allies, no longer resonated.”
Anon (10:31AM),
ReplyDeleteIt is my contention that an "ally" who cannot invest properly in their military personnel to provide them with reliable footwear may not be a reliable ally and if they cannot make such basic allocations perhaps the "alliance" needs to be rethought. In my experience, people who cannot do the little things properly tend to have trouble doing the big things properly as well.
Such improper allocations would tend to suggest to me incompetence, corruption, or perhaps some combination of these. Entangling oneself with such people is problematic at best.
You say I did not dig deep enough, It would be helpful if you explained what I missed.
Anon (10:31AM),
The topic of the post is Germany's failure to supply its military personnel with the proper footwear and having to wait 8 years to get new boots. I have stayed on this topic and pointed out that someone who cannot properly allocate resources to their armed forces in such a basic manner may not be a reliable ally. Even without other evidence, this is a cause for concern.
Pointing this out hardly makes me a "misfit." IMHO it shows that I am a thoughtful American who is deeply concerned with our national security.
Anon # 10:11 accuses Merkel of "playing with fire." IMHO he or she is spot on. As we are allied with Germany, Ms. Merkel plays with fire and we (Americans) run the risk of getting severely burned.
As to "trolls," I am staying on topic and not insulting anyone. As such, I cannot be considered by any thoughtful analysis to be trolling. As for the "Russian" allegation, Russia is not being discussed here. I've already dealt with this particular slander elsewhere. By changing the subject unnecessarily perhaps to stifle discussion or to insult this would by definition make you a troll. If you can stay on topic and offer useful insight, I am all eyes. Otherwise don't waste time.
Poster do not attempt to justify what you post, or, convince that Anon of anything. His sole function on this site is to insult and he will never be swayed to the right side of things no matter the effort expended by sensible people.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete"Germany is a member of NATO making us responsible for their defense. I'd hate to have to go to war alongside such an ill prepared "ally." Unless things like this are changed and quickly I think our leaders need to rethink our participation in NATO."
that is serving Putin interest!! russian troll!!
Dear B Imposter,
ReplyDeleteA defense budget starts with a threat analysis provided by a states intelligence services and military.
If there is a new threat, the military looks at whether they can meet it with current training, doctrine and weapons, or if they need to change. If the new threat cannot be countered by training or doctrine, then they develop or improve a weapon system.
To meet a threat you need a mix of weapons and unit types. Merely spending x amount on a few weapons does not cut it.
All Merciless Merkel has done is put the German military on life support. The horrid bitch should have fully funded all the different units and weapons system before obligating the German people for more expense like bringing welfare cases.
This is about money. Not enough spent in the right places.
Madcow Merkel is to blame.
"His sole function on this site is to insult "
ReplyDeleteFunny
I do it insult
James
Feldhake
Russinsocal
Lori and many others.
You, RH, are fair game. You an unmitigated socialist black hole.
Anon (12:30PM),
ReplyDeleteActually Germany has done a fine job under Merkel and likely previous leaders serving "Russian interests." The extensive economic ties between Germany and Russia have been well documented on this blog, in the comment sections of this blog, and elsewhere. There is a wealth of information available on this.
For example, the extreme dependence on Russia for oil and gas is going to make it problematic at best for them to be of much practical benefit in a conflict with Russia. In fact, I have hypothesized that they may have chosen constructive relations with Russia over constructive relations with us. In any conflict with Russia and if we are going to fight alongside them, I would suggest keeping a close eye on them, at least their leaders, you turn you back on them and you find a knife in it!!
I didn't mention Russia. You were the one that brought this up. I was actually thinking more along the lines of Islamic terrorists and the veritable army that Merkel and company appear to have pretty much allowed in unopposed. Frankly, IMHO, among the best ways to serve to serve Russian interests would be to keep Merkel and those like her in power. As our influence over Germany is limited at best, perhaps it is time to cut our ties. IMHO, if Germany were to elect a "German Trump" to a leadership position this might be someone we may be able to work with.
As Germany does not appear to be allocating resources properly towards their defense, trustworthiness appears questionable at best, and the close ties of the leadership to Russia would tend to cause them to be a net drain should conflict with Russia actually ensue, at this point, I have trouble understanding how remaining yoked to such an "ally" advances our interests. As for advancing Russian interests, Merkel has done plenty of that it would appear at the expense of ours so the talking point of advancing Russian interests by changing the nature of our "alliance" with Germany does not hold up under scrutiny.
In fact, by making clear that we are going to rethink this and we mean it this may be just what is needed to wake up the German people and the German leadership. Now an empowered Germany would not advance Russian interests. If they refuse to make the necessary course corrections, at least we can cut our losses.
Essentially keeping things as they are as you seem to suggest is exactly what I think Russia wants as this would advance their interests. Changing things as I suggest does not do so. If we MUST go to war with Russia, I think it best not to do so with a weak and unreliable "ally."
Not sure why you even mentioned Russia here as I did not. Since you did decide to mention Russia and it is relevant to the readiness of the German military as Russia is a neighbor they had quarrels with in the past, I addressed the issue. Essentially committing to defend an unreliable "ally" does not advance our interests. Should we have to fight against a major power like Russia I think it would be best not to be yoked to such an unreliable ally in such an event.
Furthermore, as they don't seem combat ready and there seems to be ample reason to doubt their trustworthiness, allying with them runs a risk of allowing them to pull us into a conflict with a country such as Russia. I question whether such a risk is acceptable. In the final analysis, IMHO keeping the status quo definitely advances Russian interests. You seem to suggest he opposite. Changing the nature of the "alliance" with Germany may wake up the German people and the German leaders. Without America as the b!tch boy they may make the proper adjustments. Frankly we'd be more secure with a strong and allied Germany that respects us than the current situation. If Germany doesn't change course, we cut our losses. For Russian interests there's little better than Merkel and company!!
B Poser,
ReplyDeleteYou bore people.
Most people do not read your voluminous scat.
Anon (12:54PM),
ReplyDeleteI essentially agree with everything you typed. The imposter insult is unnecessary. Not enough money spent in the right places is an apt statement even though I might have used misallocation of resources. Nevertheless it conveys the same point. As the German military is on "life support," their reliability is questionable at best. As to what is done with an unreliable ally, is a matter of debate. I agree this is the primarily the fault of the German leadership and as the head the "madcow" as you call her she would probably be in line for the bulk of the blame. Thank you for the reply.
Anon (1:30PM),
Perhaps I bore you because you do not wish to invest the time or effort to properly analyze things. As to what "most people" do I do not know. The reason the posts are sometimes long is because they convey careful analysis. This does not lend itself well to talking points. As you admit you did not invest the time to actually read the post, you would not be able to determine if it is "voluminous scat" or not. I would suggest taking the time to actually read the posts before commenting.
With that said I am open to constructive criticism. Perhaps my posts are to long. I shall work on finding ways to make them more concise.
People in the past, would find it strange that now we want the Germans to have a stronger military
ReplyDelete