Germany decides to leave history in the past and prepare for war
-
Well, in reality its only a step back into the 80s when the Bundeswehr was quiet well armed, and one shouldn't forget that the conscription was only put on hold in 2010 and never really abolished.
-
Germany is pretty confused. They continued doing lucrative business with putin even long after he invaded Ukraine for the first time, but now they are arming against him. If they could only have stopped themselves from funding the russian military for decades then maybe they wouldn’t need to be funding theirs now.
Hopefully those soldiers won’t be deployed to build nord stream 3 in a couple of years.
-
You could say Germany isn't unique though. The US is also split between those who want to be friendly with Russia (Republicans) and those who don't (Democrats).
With Germany I guess Merkel believed that business ties with Russia would persuade Russia to not threaten Europe, but now that theory has been disproven, so Germans seem to be more supportive of the idea of cutting ties with Russia and boosting Germany's defence spending.
-
Europe doesn't exist anymore after WW3.
-
MAD only works if all sides have nuclear anxiety and the existence of nuclear weapons doesn't rule ballistic weapons out of existence, especially for countries without nuclear weapons (see Ukraine). I'm not advocating for nuclear proliferation here.
The equilibrium of MAD (as in "The only way to win is not to play") might be relevant for countries with nuclear weapons (i.e. Russia, USA, China), but telling the Ukraine defense that "The only way to win is not to play" is insulting and privileged.
Germany does not intend to test how far Russia is going with ballistic weapons and cannot rely solely on the power of MAD's equilibrium from France, NATO or USA.
-
Is international law propaganda now?
No international law is international law.
The international court is interpreting international law.
Crying about Germany's support of a genocide while the Internation Court of Justice (and thus international law) disagrees -and lists factual reasons for their decision- however is a lie.
What do you call a lie spread to further your agenda again?
-
No, there isn't a contradiction in the argument. There is one in reality: There is no independent authority (police force/judical system) making countries accountable for breaking the law. We tried to build something comparably up but on the judical side of things but those still lack the ability to enforce their rulings.
So it boils down to "fortifying your door" and being able to defend it against the few people really determined to tear it down.
-
so you say there is no way to prevent ww3?
-
but telling the Ukraine defense that “The only way to win is not to play” is insulting and privileged.
now you are derailing the argument
btt
The equilibrium of MAD (as in “The only way to win is not to play”) might be relevant for countries with nuclear weapons (i.e. Russia, USA, China),
But all i hear is we need more conventional weapons to defend against russia?
Still wanna know how that increases the peace?
-
"Conventional" weapons make a defensive war less deadly to civilians and more expensive for the other side.
-
The ICJ has not ruled that genocide isn’t happening though, has it. Please show me where it does and I will happily wait. It has ruled that there is a plausible case for genocide and that Israel must take steps to prevent it. That is why the case is ongoing. The fact that you’re misrepresenting this ruling as a dismissal of genocide claims is, in fact, disinformation.
Germany is one of Israel’s largest arms suppliers. War crimes and crimes against humanity don’t only require bombs and bullets—they also require the financial and logistical infrastructure that Germany helps provide during the assault on Gaza.
People have a right to live in safety and dignity. That includes Palestinians, who are being systematically displaced, starved, and slaughtered. Germany’s repression of peaceful protest against this is another sign of its complicity.
If you’re truly so invested in “factual reasons,” then you should engage with the actual content of international rulings and human rights reports rather than dismissing criticism as propaganda. It's an irresponsible way to conduct online discourse.
-
Economic sanctions is one alternative. See North Korea. It doesn't work very well against Russia because they do have a lot of resources and their population is used to scarcity.
This tactic would be more efficient against, say USA, because quite frankly, the western lifestyle is not self-sufficient.Another alternative is to use Putin's own "special military operations" where instead of fighting a war front to front, they attack specific targets or throw people out of windows.
This is difficult for Europe to do, because we like to align with each other before doing anything serious. That way, actual democracies are not fit to do this kind of stuff in comparison to a dictatorship, but it's possible if anyone feels it's necessary.
However it rarely has a positive outcome. It's like flipping the table and hoping something better comes up.Overall, all agressive behavior leads to a losing position. Nobody has ever won a war or even a street fight. Both sides lose. The victory goes to those who wins the peace. So that's what Europes is constantly trying to do by diplomacy.
Even if I dislike spending ressources on military, it might make sense to armour up, just to keep a seat at the table of peace negotiation.
-
So your solution is to do nothing and die (Very likely literally)?
-
I don't have a solution, but unlike the militarist I don't pretend to have one.
-
Correct. They have ruled that Germany is not taking part in it. Because 91% of the deliveries to Israel for years consist of ships, anti-air and torpedos for their submarines (while the remaining stuff is armor, armored glass, protective gear -funny how helmets are a joke when delivered to Ukraine but a weapon to genocide Palestinians when they are going to Israel, isn't it?- etc and in fact all "weapons" that are potentially to be used in Gaza were in fact reduced to zero.
Yet the narrative is important and so you will always return to "Germany being a big supplier for Israel", constantly ignoring that we know what they actually supplied.
If you are so keen on "factual reasons" please tell me were my facts are wrong or how Israel is dropping corvettes on Gaza. (Yes that phrasing is polemic to make a point. You are free to do the same, if you actually have a point beyond I don't want to acknowledge what doesn't fit my narrative.
-
“Conventional” weapons make a defensive war less deadly to civilians
How?
and more expensive for the other side.
If this counts then there must be a diplomatic solution mustn't it? because a war is always more expensive.
-
Now you are pretending to be dumb, aren't you?
Being able to properly defend themselves so an aggressor will not risk attacking in the first place will prevent a war.
Showing how helpless you are and asking an aggressor nicely to respect that and not invade you will not.
It actually is that easy.
-
This comment is absolute proof Germany is already fully fascist.
-
"Fascism is when someone argues with actual facts that don't support my narrative."
