UK Urges Germany To Pull Its Weight More On Defence

imperialman

Admiral
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
1,028
Location
Glasgow
UK Urges Germany To Pull Its Weight More On Defense

By Gareth Jones/Reuters
Source: AWIN First

May 03 , 2012

Britain urged Germany on Wednesday to beef up its contribution to European defense and security, in line with its economic might, as the United States focuses increasingly on the Asia-Pacific region.

British Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said he did not expect Germany, Europe’s largest economy, to spend more money in a time of general belt-tightening but said there was ample scope to improve the effectiveness of its forces.

“Due to Germany’s historic reluctance to deploy and operate overseas, I think it is self-evident that there is still huge potential in German defense structures to deliver more usable firepower to the (NATO) alliance,” he told reporters.

Article lives here: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_05_03_2012_p0-453997.xml&p=1

I tend to agree with Mr Hammond on this matter, though, I'm curious about what the opinion of other OT'ers may be on this issue.
 
Plus a bit of "No fair! Germany is getting ahead by doing something reasonable. They should have to face the same problem's we're giving ourselves!"
 
I interpret this as:

"Help, please pay for the projects we have started and now realise we can not afford!"

"If you were to rename that carrier "Herr Bismark", we might be able to help!"

I don't think he's asking for help to pay for the new projects, I think he's asking for Germany to contribute to joint responsibilities, whatever they may be.
 
And the responsibilities are then determined by British interests, yes?

The Federal Defense Force is constitutionally a defense force only, so I see the current involvement in Afghanistan or Yugoslavia as a huge compromise already. Just because nations like the UK think it's necessary to have a response force to an Argentinian invasion of the Falklands doesn't mean that Germany has to pay for it.
 
And the responsibilities are then determined by British interests, yes?

The Federal Defense Force is constitutionally a defense force only, so I see the current involvement in Afghanistan or Yugoslavia as a huge compromise already. Just because nations like the UK think it's necessary to have a response force to an Argentinian invasion of the Falklands doesn't mean that Germany has to pay for it.

I don't think the minister is asking for financial help to defend the Falklands, I think what's being implied is that Germany could contribute more forces to deployments the federal government agree with in order to reduce the burden on allied forces.
 
Where, exactly? Afghanistan? We're already scheduled to move out of there in the next two years, so I don't think any change will matter much.

And I really hope we're not going into any of these adventures you like to call "defense" again in the future.
 
Where, exactly? Afghanistan? We're already scheduled to move out of there in the next two years, so I don't think any change will matter much.

And I really hope we're not going into any of these adventures you like to call "defense" again in the future.

Again, I am simply saying that I believe Germany should contribute more to operations that it agrees with. I am not saying it should agree to deploy on all operations. Germany has the ability to contribute more even within the framework of the EU and its battlegroup plans but simply doesn't yet it was fundamental in creating the concept.
 
What exactly do they mean by "European defense and security"? Is anybody threatening Europe or its interests?
 
Is anybody threatening Europe or its interests?
The Greeks and other Europeans?
 
Again, I am simply saying that I believe Germany should contribute more to operations that it agrees with. I am not saying it should agree to deploy on all operations. Germany has the ability to contribute more even within the framework of the EU and its battlegroup plans but simply doesn't yet it was fundamental in creating the concept.

For defensive warfare against the USSR. They have no interest in expeditionary warfare - which is what Hammond is effectively asking of them - given that they have almost zero overseas interests in the way that Britain and France have then.
 
Again, I am simply saying that I believe Germany should contribute more to operations that it agrees with. I am not saying it should agree to deploy on all operations. Germany has the ability to contribute more even within the framework of the EU and its battlegroup plans but simply doesn't yet it was fundamental in creating the concept.
It agreed to the current operations to the extent it contributes now. Also, keeping with the OP again, I don't know how any of the current operations constitute "defense".

Could you be more precise what you're referring to with "within the framework of the EU"? How far does military cooperation within the EU go? I don't know anything here.

For defensive warfare against the USSR. They have no interest in expeditionary warfare - which is what Hammond is effectively asking of them - given that they have almost zero overseas interests in the way that Britain and France have then.
Exactly. Germany is totally confused of what it's place in the NATO should be, mainly because the NATO itself doesn't know what its purpose is. It seems that it's heading into a loose coordinative institution for voluntary expeditionary wars, and that's rather far away from the original defense aspect.

Neither the German public nor its politicians seem to be overly positive to this development, and the constitutional grounds are quite shaky anyway (although apparently preemptive measures are now okay to a certain degree). So you're asking for an extension of funding for something that Germany already has its problems with in its current dimension.
 
Germany has zero external threats at the moment and spends about 1.5% of GDP for military purposes. Looks reasonable.
 
How about no? It's bad enough that we constantly let ourselves drag in all sorts of stupid missions.
 
Germany has zero external threats at the moment and spends about 1.5% of GDP for military purposes. Looks reasonable.

Germany's interests don't end at the borders of Europe. Germany must be ready to defend it's assets, citizens and interests overseas just as any other major nation. Germany's resources don't spawn out of nothing, but are imported from around the world. Secondly, German citizens visit countries around the world frequently either as part of their work, as development aid workers or plain tourists. Germany needs to protect these citizens against potential hostile state or non-state actors.

My point is, Germany must be able to protect it's vital economic and strategic interests overseas if necessary with military means, preferably in cooperation with allied nations (but with sharing their fair size of the burden given the size of their military), but if necessary all alone. I'm not a fan of throwing their weight around with Leopard 2s and Fallschirmjäger to force foreign countries to do what they want. But they should be able to enforce their interests if the situation demands a military solution (like reopening/securing vital trade routes that are distrupted by hostile states/non-state actors).
 
Germany's interests don't end at the borders of Europe. Germany must be ready to defend it's assets, citizens and interests overseas just as any other major nation. Germany's resources don't spawn out of nothing, but are imported from around the world. Secondly, German citizens visit countries around the world frequently either as part of their work, as development aid workers or plain tourists. Germany needs to protect these citizens against potential hostile state or non-state actors.

My point is, Germany must be able to protect it's vital economic and strategic interests overseas if necessary with military means, preferably in cooperation with allied nations (but with sharing their fair size of the burden given the size of their military), but if necessary all alone. I'm not a fan of throwing their weight around with Leopard 2s and Fallschirmjäger to force foreign countries to do what they want. But they should be able to enforce their interests if the situation demands a military solution (like reopening/securing vital trade routes that are distrupted by hostile states/non-state actors).

Two years ago the German president resigned because he dared to suggest something like this. So this is not going to happen.
 
Didn't you guys fight two world wars, and see 112 million people dead over the idea that no, Germany is not allowed to secure it's interests and resources beyond it's borders?
 
Two years ago the German president resigned because he dared to suggest something like this. So this is not going to happen.

Perhaps the German population, quite simply, see this issue differently to that of the UK, France etc.
 
Top Bottom