One of the stranger aspects of the slow-motion crisis over Ukraine caused by Russian provocations and aggression is the uneven response from NATO members. While Alliance states located closer to Russia, which experienced Moscow’s occupation during the Cold War, generally have taken the threat of aggressive Kremlin moves seriously – Poland and Estonia especially – the reaction of some NATO members has been lackluster. In particular, responses in Germany to the Ukraine crisis have been tepid, to use charitable language, and excessive sympathy for Moscow’s actions and attitudes is so commonplace that Germans have a word – Russlandversteher – for it.

Why Germany displays such misplaced sympathy for Russia, despite Kremlin misconduct in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, is a complex issue that is rooted deeply in German history, and cannot be divorced from the broader tendency to anti-Americanism that has become vocal in recent years. That said, Germany’s unwillingness to do much to deter Russian aggression may not matter significantly since, frankly, the German military is in such a dilapidated and unready state that there is little it could do at present to bolster NATO defenses in Eastern Europe, as I’ve advocated, even if Berlin wanted to. The sorry state of the Bundeswehr is now attracting the attention of American observers who ordinarily pay scant attention to such things, but in truth, Germany’s serious punching below its weight in the Atlantic Alliance in any military terms is hardly news, and has been NATO’s dirty little secret for years.

It is a shocking fact that the European Union’s economic and political powerhouse matters so little in defense. While the Bundeswehr is the fourth-largest military in the EU, with about 180,000 active duty personnel, that is smaller than the militaries of France, Italy, and Britain, all of which Germany dwarfs in both economy and population. Despite the strength of that economy, Germany spends only 1.35 percent of its GDP on defense, far below NATOs alleged requirement for two percent devoted to the military. As a result, the Bundeswehr is facing serious problems with outmoded equipment and low readiness.

Not to mention that young Germans don’t want to join the forces. Germany maintained the draft until 2011, but optimistic projections about recruitment after the suspension of conscription have not been met, resulting in a building manpower crisis. Under Ursula von der Leyen, the country’s first female defense minister, the Bundeswehr is embarking on a glossy five-year, 100 million Euro ad blitz, termed an “attractiveness offensive,” to encourage volunteers. But the ridiculous commercials, which portray life in uniform as a hipster paradise of cool dorms with flat screen TVs plus outstanding gender-neutral child care – anything resembling the actual military is notably absent – have been met with derision and laughter, and rightly so.

The two-decade decline of the Bundeswehr as a serious fighting force is remarkable and alarming. At the Cold War’s end, little more than twenty years ago, the German Army’s active strength included twelve divisions with thirty-six maneuver brigades, while today it possesses three divisional headquarters controlling eight maneuver brigades (one of which is half-French), most of which are not capable of deploying as fighting units. In the whole army there are only four battalions each of tanks and field artillery. This is not a force the Russians need to lose sleep over.

Quote from: Raptorx7 on January 16, 2015, 02:23:29 PM

Quote from: Dustin xLilD on January 16, 2015, 02:18:43 PM

Quote from: Raptorx7 on January 16, 2015, 02:10:18 PM

Quote from: Dustin xLilD on January 16, 2015, 02:08:46 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on January 16, 2015, 02:03:54 PM

Why shouldn't they have it? Should they not be on an equal playing field as many other countries?

No because that would directly limit the United States from projecting its power and influence.

How would it prevent us from projecting power?

I agree with them not having one, but this I am not sure about. It would certainly destabilize the region, but it wouldn't directly limit our influence. We have a carrier group near the Persian Gulf at all times, and various military bases in Kuwait for example, our projection isn't going anywhere in th region.

Yes, but a nuclear state essentially means that regime changes are completely out of the question, for the obvious reason that you cannot go to war with a nuclear state.

I have confidence in our military that we could stop a nuclear Iran with a single nuclear weapon from launching, and I bet our military leaders are to. Iran would be no where near as much as a nuclear threat as say Russia is, which has multiple ways of firing nuclear weapons, silos, mobile ballistic missile carriers, and submarines.

Regime change wouldn't be outside of reality either because they wouldn't use a nuke on there own country unless they have completely lost it. The people of Iran all don't agree with the extremist views of there leadership, a revolution would not be impossible.

Is it still not a risk to US dominance though?

Quote from: Mad Max on January 16, 2015, 02:03:54 PM

Why shouldn't they have it? Should they not be on an equal playing field as many other countries?

No because that would directly limit the United States from projecting its power and influence.

Yes, obviously

Where are the pravy sector stationed Raptor?

All I understood from that was 'BLACK' and 'GUY', therefore you must he talking about killing a shiny black guy. Shame on you OP