Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

HappySkullsplitter t1_j4xyozu wrote

Only if Germany matches the US commitment 1:1

40

lochlainn t1_j4ymxj8 wrote

The US has 3.5k M1's in long term storage.

Germany can barely keep its own military funded and running and says it won't be able to meet NATO GDP requirements set in 2014 until 2031.

They're bitches who expect everyone else to pony up but won't do it themselves.

Edit: 2006, not 2014.

35

lollypatrolly t1_j4yopf7 wrote

This isn't about stockpiles or military readiness, it's about political will. Germany is merely being asked to approve Leopard export from allied nations as well as supply a symbolic number of them. In practical terms this is extremely easy to make happen, the only barrier to doing so is cowardice and indecision from German policy makers.

28

Zestyclose-Basket-88 t1_j518ti1 wrote

In Germanys defense they’re a lot closer to Russia than the U.S. if I was them I’d want to be as far down on Putins shit list as possible

−1

akaasa001 t1_j523eo7 wrote

Except that Germany has the power and protection of NATO. I don't think Germany is worried too much about Russia, but who k ows what rolls around in their heads. You could be right lol

1

IAmAPaidActor t1_j587ng2 wrote

In Germany’s defense is the United States. Russia wouldn’t make it fifty miles into Poland without being crushed.

Edit: Russia would run out of fuel before they made it to the German border.

1

jens-2420 t1_j4z899x wrote

Why not think about it? Should some country deliver Leopards, who will have to supply parts, maintenance? KMW, Rheinmetall - so that would force the German government to accept that.

−2

jens-2420 t1_j4yxdby wrote

You are too emotional her, I guess. Couch potato in war topics?

Sending heavy tanks means building up a huge supply and maintenance structure in Ukraine. Even in Germany many of the Leopards are not working for maintenance reasons.

Simple solutions are not always solutions.

−8

BUKKAKALYPSE_NOW t1_j4z9tx1 wrote

And sending multiple types of tanks instead of just one as Scholz proposes will be sure to simplify maintenance and supply lines right?

9

jens-2420 t1_j4zfbkz wrote

Mr. Scholz did not propose that. His opinion is to send no heavy tanks at all.

3

sulris t1_j4yx1z4 wrote

Yeah didn’t I read that the military kept asking for no more new tanks, that the military wanted to shift that money into purchasing different systems but that Congress kept mandating the production of new tanks to keep the jobs flowing in their districts. I thought we were swimming in unwanted excess tanks.

3

jared555 t1_j4z78aa wrote

I thought we mostly weren't providing M1's due to fairly extreme fuel usage and maintenance requirements?

3

lochlainn t1_j4z92ex wrote

Nope.

The M1 has high fuel requirements, but someone in this thread already already pointed out that there is Soviet era equipment on the field on both sides with comparable requirements.

And the M1 has fairly low maintenance needs, and is extremely field repairable. IIRC, you can swap turrets and engine packages in the field fairly quickly.

Egypt and Saudi Arabia have fielded them for a while now, and Poland has had their training unit running for a bit, and nobody has come up with any maintenance stoppages that require US support to overcome that I've heard of.

5

jens-2420 t1_j4z82ii wrote

There were no requirements. That is an old Trump fake.

−4

lochlainn t1_j4z9p5z wrote

False.

Trump merely pointed out that the majority NATO was failing to meet them. At the time, only 5 did: the US, UK, Greece, Estonia, and Poland.

As of 2022, 9 of the 30 do. France and Germany, notably, don't as of the beginning of the year.

17

jens-2420 t1_j4zo496 wrote

Still: There was was no requirement to spend these 2% of GDP, just a perspective. Trump and others made a „contract to pay 2% to the USA“ of that.

−2

AlwaysDeadAlwaysLive t1_j505aud wrote

Yes there is a requirement. All NATO countries agreed in 2006 to the 2% of GDP target.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/02/16/military-spending-by-nato-members

10

jens-2420 t1_j505v4t wrote

It was not a pledge, but a vague declaration of intent. Read the following article.

0

SubtiltyCypress t1_j50g57z wrote

All you do is try to defend Germany doing nothing 🙄

8

jens-2420 t1_j50h7vo wrote

https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/themen/krieg-in-der-ukraine/lieferungen-ukraine-2054514

Plus several billion in funds, 750,000 Ukrainians fled to Germany, are housed, schooled and funded.

Btw: The population of Germany grew from 82 million to 84.5 million in two years, in spie of declining birth rates.

100 billion Euros extra fund for Bundeswehr, 200 billion for energy prices, after 100 billion for Corona in the last two years.

Federal budget in Germany is half of US military budget. Consider that.

−2

lochlainn t1_j51i0od wrote

This has nothing to do with Ukraine, or energy prices. You aren't the only ones experiencing winter.

This is a treaty you've been in since post WWII. You agreed to the terms in 2006.

Stop whining "we're spent out". Germany is the richest economy in the EU. If Greece and Estonia can do it, if the UK can do it, you can fucking do it, you sad sacks.

Your government let your military go to shit in favor of cowering under the US's shield, and now your coziness with Russia is coming out.

You have no excuses for this. It's not a new requirement, it's not an emergency requirement, you've literally been a deadbeat debtor on this for decades.

3