German defence woes (latest from The Times)

A good summary of the issues at hand from "War on the Rocks":

Extract:


Another extract:

(My comment: Yeah right, tell that to the Kremlin!)

The lightbulb moment - at least for the author of this piece:

View attachment 574976

A key phrase in that is "someone else — NATO and the United States — were holding a military umbrella over us, which allowed us the luxury of discounting military might".

The problem of course is that due to factors of size and geography, Germany are the core of NATO in Europe. Germany are counting on "NATO" to hold an umbrella over them, while the rest of Europe are counting on Germany to be the ones holding the umbrella. If the German army can't hold back the Russian hordes, then I don't think the armed might of Slovenia is going to do much to tip the balance.
 
A key phrase in that is "someone else — NATO and the United States — were holding a military umbrella over us, which allowed us the luxury of discounting military might".

The problem of course is that due to factors of size and geography, Germany are the core of NATO in Europe. Germany are counting on "NATO" to hold an umbrella over them, while the rest of Europe are counting on Germany to be the ones holding the umbrella. If the German army can't hold back the Russian hordes, then I don't think the armed might of Slovenia is going to do much to tip the balance.
I really do think that 1945 is coming to Haunt Europe
 
A key phrase in that is "someone else — NATO and the United States — were holding a military umbrella over us, which allowed us the luxury of discounting military might".

The problem of course is that due to factors of size and geography, Germany are the core of NATO in Europe. Germany are counting on "NATO" to hold an umbrella over them, while the rest of Europe are counting on Germany to be the ones holding the umbrella. If the German army can't hold back the Russian hordes, then I don't think the armed might of Slovenia is going to do much to tip the balance.
It's why the Poles are building up their forces and trying to tie in the US as much as possible.
 
It's why the Poles are building up their forces and trying to tie in the US as much as possible.
And also why they are changing their laws to allow full military assistance to allied fmns on Polish soil. There is no such thing as a military Schengen agreement, as any stressed out G4/J4 SO will tell you.
 
A good summary of the issues at hand from "War on the Rocks":

I thought this hit the nail on the head...

"We’ve intellectually — and practically — disarmed."

You can't reverse that process over night. It will require a complete change in attitude to even begin to halt the process.
 
This is one of the special features of the national budget in Germany.
At the beginning of the year, the Ministry of Defence handed over a long list of projects to parliament; this must be done for all procurements over 25 million euros, as these must be approved separately by parliament. There, too, were a whole series of projects with the remark that the financing was not secured.
What is new now is that the Ministry of Defence also wants to submit procurement measures to the budget committee whose financing is still not secured.
Normally, procurements that are financially secured are listed with chapter numbers in the various sections of the budget; for the Bundeswehr, this is section 14.

For all projects for which this is not the case, the note "federal budget" has now been entered. It is not yet foreseeable how and whether parliament and the budget committee will react to this.

Currently in question are:

the SIGINT system PEGASUS
the P-8 Poseidon
the further development of the GTK Boxer for Joint Fire Support Teams
Attachments for assault rifles such as optics and LLM
the FCAS
the MGCS
air-transportable air traffic control systems
new radars for the air surveillance of Germany
The submarine class 212CD
New tankers for the Bundesmarine
new RHIB's
new so-called "Flottendienstboote" to replace the Oste class, ships for ELINT/SIGINT etc.

and some other, also not so important, procurements.
A bit more here
 
A bit more here
There's a bit more to it than that. After all, it is an election year and some MPs probably believe that they can no longer stick their snouts in the trough if there are major discrepancies.

Here is a blog by a journalist who cannot be accused of reporting in the same "quality" as "Der Spiegel".
Translation attached:
Actually, it is already the Whitsun break - but on this Friday before the long weekend, members of the governing coalition fired a salvo at Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer: the budget and defence policy spokespersons of the CDU/CSU and SPD opposed Kramp-Karrenbauer's plans for Bundeswehr procurement this year.

The background to this is the intention of the Ministry of Defence to submit numerous armament projects to the budget committee of the Bundestag for approval before the summer break, even though many of them have not yet been financially secured in the budget. The tricky thing is that the Defence Ministry also marked some defence procurements as questionable because the financing ... from the individual budget 14 is not secured - although the funds have already been allocated in the current defence budget for this year.

This approach enraged the coalition MPs, who wrote a letter to Kramp-Karrenbauer on (today's) Friday. The letter is worth documenting in its wording:

Dear Federal Minister,
In a letter dated 7 May 2021, your Parliamentary State Secretary Thomas Silberhorn informed us about the 25 million euro bills planned until the summer recess. For 15 of the 35 planned bills, it was pointed out that the financing from the individual budget 14 was not secured.
For the majority of these 15 bills, corresponding funds have already been budgeted in the 2021 defence budget as well as in the current financial planning and shown accordingly in the classified explanatory notes. Therefore, we cannot understand why funding from Section 14 is no longer feasible.
We therefore ask you - based on the Classified Explanatory Notes on the 2021 Defence Budget - for a detailed explanation of how the funds approved by Parliament for these projects were used or reallocated. This requires a presentation - agreed with the Federal Ministry of Finance - of the committed and uncommitted funds within chapters 1404 and 1405, broken down by title and subdivided according to measures, which extends to the 54th and 55th financial plans (in accordance with the decision on the basic parameters 2021) and also shows the notified funds as a basis for the financial planning.
Both the lack and delay of communication and the insufficient quality of the answers to the questions from the parliamentary floor are astonishing.
Finally, we would like to point out once again that the planned conclusion of contracts or their possible necessary prioritisation will not take place without parliament. In order to still be able to guarantee a treatment of the planned 25 million euro bills in this legislative period, we ask for a response by Friday, 28 May 2021.

The tone set by CDU MPs Eckhardt Rehberg (Budget) and Henning Otte (Defence) and SPD MPs Dennis Rohde (Budget) and Siemtje Möller (Defence) is already quite clear.

In the case of Rehberg, Rohde* and Möller, there is an additional dimension to the perceived fundamental affront to the parliament's budgetary rights: these three MPs come from coastal states with their shipyard industry. And in the current budget, money has already been allocated for the replacement of the aged fleet service boats Oker, Alster and Oste (photo above). The new construction of such ships with their reconnaissance and surveillance technology is, for all conceivable reasons, only feasible by German shipyards - both surface shipbuilding, but even more so the technology used on board are considered key national industries. The fact that the good two billion euros for this are in the budget, but are to be considered as not financed, is likely to have further enraged the parliamentarians.

The extensive defence procurement programme, which the Ministry of Defence wants to present in the last two weeks of the session before the summer break in June, is thus slipping again. The ministry had already put additional projects on the list that were not actually financed. But it has also put projects that seemed to have been secured back on the list under reserve.

*CORRECTION: I had overlooked the fact that Rohde also comes from the coastal region of Lower Saxony; he is a directly elected member of parliament in the Oldenburg-Ammerland constituency.

(Archive photo October 2020: The fleet service boats Oste (A52), Alster (A50) and Oker (A53) in Eckernförde - Helwin Scharn)

Translated with www.bugslator.ie (free version)
 
There's a bit more to it than that. After all, it is an election year and some MPs probably believe that they can no longer stick their snouts in the trough if there are major discrepancies.

Here is a blog by a journalist who cannot be accused of reporting in the same "quality" as "Der Spiegel".
Translation attached:
Actually, it is already the Whitsun break - but on this Friday before the long weekend, members of the governing coalition fired a salvo at Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer: the budget and defence policy spokespersons of the CDU/CSU and SPD opposed Kramp-Karrenbauer's plans for Bundeswehr procurement this year.

The background to this is the intention of the Ministry of Defence to submit numerous armament projects to the budget committee of the Bundestag for approval before the summer break, even though many of them have not yet been financially secured in the budget. The tricky thing is that the Defence Ministry also marked some defence procurements as questionable because the financing ... from the individual budget 14 is not secured - although the funds have already been allocated in the current defence budget for this year.

This approach enraged the coalition MPs, who wrote a letter to Kramp-Karrenbauer on (today's) Friday. The letter is worth documenting in its wording:

Dear Federal Minister,
In a letter dated 7 May 2021, your Parliamentary State Secretary Thomas Silberhorn informed us about the 25 million euro bills planned until the summer recess. For 15 of the 35 planned bills, it was pointed out that the financing from the individual budget 14 was not secured.
For the majority of these 15 bills, corresponding funds have already been budgeted in the 2021 defence budget as well as in the current financial planning and shown accordingly in the classified explanatory notes. Therefore, we cannot understand why funding from Section 14 is no longer feasible.
We therefore ask you - based on the Classified Explanatory Notes on the 2021 Defence Budget - for a detailed explanation of how the funds approved by Parliament for these projects were used or reallocated. This requires a presentation - agreed with the Federal Ministry of Finance - of the committed and uncommitted funds within chapters 1404 and 1405, broken down by title and subdivided according to measures, which extends to the 54th and 55th financial plans (in accordance with the decision on the basic parameters 2021) and also shows the notified funds as a basis for the financial planning.
Both the lack and delay of communication and the insufficient quality of the answers to the questions from the parliamentary floor are astonishing.
Finally, we would like to point out once again that the planned conclusion of contracts or their possible necessary prioritisation will not take place without parliament. In order to still be able to guarantee a treatment of the planned 25 million euro bills in this legislative period, we ask for a response by Friday, 28 May 2021.

The tone set by CDU MPs Eckhardt Rehberg (Budget) and Henning Otte (Defence) and SPD MPs Dennis Rohde (Budget) and Siemtje Möller (Defence) is already quite clear.

In the case of Rehberg, Rohde* and Möller, there is an additional dimension to the perceived fundamental affront to the parliament's budgetary rights: these three MPs come from coastal states with their shipyard industry. And in the current budget, money has already been allocated for the replacement of the aged fleet service boats Oker, Alster and Oste (photo above). The new construction of such ships with their reconnaissance and surveillance technology is, for all conceivable reasons, only feasible by German shipyards - both surface shipbuilding, but even more so the technology used on board are considered key national industries. The fact that the good two billion euros for this are in the budget, but are to be considered as not financed, is likely to have further enraged the parliamentarians.

The extensive defence procurement programme, which the Ministry of Defence wants to present in the last two weeks of the session before the summer break in June, is thus slipping again. The ministry had already put additional projects on the list that were not actually financed. But it has also put projects that seemed to have been secured back on the list under reserve.

*CORRECTION: I had overlooked the fact that Rohde also comes from the coastal region of Lower Saxony; he is a directly elected member of parliament in the Oldenburg-Ammerland constituency.

(Archive photo October 2020: The fleet service boats Oste (A52), Alster (A50) and Oker (A53) in Eckernförde - Helwin Scharn)

Translated with www.bugslator.ie (free version)
That’s the other Oldenburg no (iOld). But it goes to the heart of my belief that Germans as such are not interested in defence structure. They are quite happy to be a NATO client and will fight tooth and nail to reduce budget. Putin must be quietly pleased.
 
Not defence but German and disbanded all the same...

In modern Germany 'far rightwing chat' no doubt being along the lines of: 'only women have vagina's', 'the Orange Man in America was not so bad', ' I agree with Israel's point of view' and 'why are so many of the new arrivals to Germany still unemployed?
 
Last edited:
Top