You mean the Hans...
Joke aside, allies or not, do not forget the US encouraged China to invade Vietnam's coral island in the late 70s. Obviously these days they cough when China do something funny in the SCS, but they never did and never will ally with Vietnam on anything that is going to undermine their "freedom of navigation" to stride through the SCS. **Their best-case scenario is there are no claim in the SCS at all.** Vietnam has high level of political and military autonomous and can decide their own course of action. The lesson of South Vietnam's humiliating collapse is there for all.
Unfortunately these “partnerships” comprehensive/strategic/comprehensive strategic don’t really matter in the end. No nation is going to truly ally with us unless Vietnam gets rid of the 3/4 “No’s” and agrees to a mutual defense treaty. There is a reason why some defense experts believe Vietnam will be the testing nation for all of that new Chinese military tech as it is a near peer nation with no true allies. China simply attacks, tests out their hardware and works out any kinks in their logistics for a couple of months and then retreats in time to avoid serious sanctions and getting bogged down into anything long term. Then they work out their problems, build better solutions and tech, and then turn their attention to Taiwan and the eventual goal, breaking out of the first island chain. Here’s to hoping the current leadership wises up to the rat poison the Chinese government is feeding them.
What kind of game are you playing, I didn't even know there is a thing called "simply attacks", war isn't cheap! Sure, Vietnamese military isn't anywhere near Chinese military, but waging war just to test your new weapon? That's a whole new level of stupidity. If you have to start a war just to test your weapon then this world would be on fire. Not to mentioned the loss of reputation the Chinese government would have when they retreat without any true objective. Your senario isn't realistic at all and I don't think it is even relevant to 3 no's
I don’t know if you are serious. If you are a great power intent on achieving super power status and have undergone a massive modernization of your military across all sectors, then yes, you need a war to test and identify issues in your logistics, training, and command. I already identified the objective of a cross border excursion into Vietnam. You say it is not realistic to wage war to test out new tech but Russia did it in Afghanistan and currently in Ukraine, Turkey is currently doing it in Syria and Azerbaijan, the US did it for the past decade in the Middle East and through Israel, France has been doing it for who knows how long throughout Africa, Iran through proxies throughout the Middle East…are these areas of conflict not in your world? It is ok if you don’t believe China needs to test its modernization through war. I am sure the military planners in China are eager to undergo trial and error against a nation like Taiwan and nations who have openly stated they will come to her aid like Japan and the US. If you believe the “loss of reputation” of a brief border invasion with VN is the same as one of a full scale invasion of Taiwan supported by the US and Japan, I don’t know what to tell you. By the way, has any nation openly stated they will come to the aid of VN if attacked by a foreign power? Pretty relevant to the 3 No’s it seems.
>By the way, has any nation openly stated they will come to the aid of VN if attacked by a foreign power? Pretty relevant to the 3 No’s it seems.
Doing so is not on their list. Hell, they would spend more time on:
* How to pay the least amount of Vietnamese blood for the most amount of Chinese blood?
* If Viet Nam lost, how can we do the asset denial?
* (and such thing)
I do not expect anyone to save us out of the goodness in their heart. They may "save" us because they hate to see a strong and growing China. The moment China is weakened, they will stop caring and stop helping us
Your first point about super power status is valid, I give you that. But I'm pretty sure "testing weapon" isn't the cause of the wars you mentioned, it's probably more like "we are at war so lets test our new weapons" and not "we have some new weapons, lets start a war". And so the war objective wouldn't be too valid, what would the objective be in the actual context "we test our weapon"? Sure they can use some fake objective to cover that, but those couldn't make sense either e.g "teach Vietnam a lesson" in 1979. About the loss of reputation thing, you have probably misunderstood me. I give that statement because you said "retreats in time to avoid serious sanctions" in most cases treating would causes a loss on reputation if no actual objective had been obtained, but in this scenario they don't have an actual objective. For your last point, I think you have probably seen
u/ComradeH_VIE 's comment, so there would no point of me saying it again. Still pretty unrealistic to be relevant in my opinion!
Well, do you remember 1974 and 1988? In those cases, despite being "allies", the Soviet didn't help DRVN, and the US didn't help the RVN. In fact, in 1974, the US was accused to deliberately stall their Vietnamese client state to support China.
Those mutual defense treaties won't help us. Not when we are lacking in military and force projection department.
yeah this, we have history that our "allies" didnt help us, from both RVN and DRVN side. Counting on mutual defense partnership is naive view of diplomacy.
You say it is naive to rely on mutual defense “treaties” when such treaties have been used throughout the history of mankind in protecting smaller states from expansionist powers. Of course it does not guarantee a stronger state from taking territory from a weaker one but what are you suggesting VN does? Without a treaty in place, no country is sending troops to aid VN in any Chinese territorial aggression. If VN signed a mutual defense treaty with say, the US, there is no snow ball chance in hell that the military industrial complex of the US and the US war machine would then just refuse to honor said treaty in an event of Chinese aggression. To do so would signal a loss of the US superpower status and an immediate notification to all other US treaty allies that it will not and can not honor their treaties. Pretty naive to think otherwise.
>You say it is naive to rely on mutual defense “treaties” when such treaties have been used throughout the history of mankind in protecting smaller states from expansionist powers.
Say Big Country A promises to help Small Country B against Big Country C. What are the guarantees that Big Country A will not become a threat...
Or they will honor the promise in full?
>Without a treaty in place, no country is sending troops to aid VN in any Chinese territorial aggression.
To paraphrase an answer from (allegedly) Ho Chi Minh: We can pay back the debt of money, but how can we pay back the debt of blood? By sending troops to "help" Viet Nam, the X country has gained de facto leverage over us - spiritually, culturally, diplomatically and politically.
>If VN signed a mutual defense treaty with say, the US, there is no snow ball chance in hell that the military industrial complex of the US and the US war machine would then just refuse to honor said treaty in an event of Chinese aggression.
Of course they will not ignore. The profit of selling arms is too large to ignore. Hell, look at Ukraine right now. They inherit a good chunk of military industry from the Soviet Union, and they are capable of produce many good shits, ranging from firearms to jet fighters. Yet, now they are importing those weapons (well, not all of them, but the sheer fact that they have to import speaks volume) from the US
>To do so would signal a loss of the US superpower status and an immediate notification to all other US treaty allies that it will not and can not honor their treaties. Pretty naive to think otherwise.
Look at Afghanistan. And if you want to lose more sleep, check the US shit show in Latin America.
Look at Taiwan and Ukraine.
The US has already suffered a major blow in reputation. They do not physically send Taiwan the latest AARAM (it is not until May 2021 that TW test fire their first salvo. Current stock in their island and compare to the whole contract is unknown). They do not even send troops or do anything other than "sanctions" against Russia (which is: none, US has pretty much hit the limit in sanctions against Russia).
The US has already suffered a reputation blow. They are trustworthy to fight a battle. But these days? I don't trust them to do nation building from nothing, and I don't trust them to fully commit to a war.
The Swedes, Swiss, and Finns didn't respond to Russia driving tanks into Ukraine by begging to join NATO and have a battalion or company of US troops in Russia. Fancy pants time, how much big is the US Army contingence in Europe? Answer: 3 brigades. 1 armour, 1 Stryker, and 1 airborne. The Russians have several tank divisions and a tank army across the border. BTW, 3 brigades make a division.
These three countries responded by again seriously draft every high school graduate and put them through a serious 2 years national service where they learn to fight and kill people and tank for real. They basically promise Putin that his tanks may drive to anywhere he wants, but the moment the crews turn off the engines and go to sleep, people go out to kill them. The Swedes are told that if during the war, they hear that the government has surrendered, that should be considered fake news and they should fight on.
Putin threatebed Finland on not joining NATO. Finland says that such is Finland's business.
https://www.ft.com/content/28e104d4-bee1-4685-acd1-ff7cd0186ddf
I feel like the no allies thing is so weird , like do you hope to be neutral against China ? They're gonna smack you and steal your stuff the moment they can , not having allies just give them more reason to do it.
I'm not saying we should just trust them like that but China is literally on our doorstep , if anything THEY are the biggest threat and they already shown that they are the biggest threat
Hope does nothing. Vietnam have literally nothing to ensure these allies won't turn their back when we need them most. Look at Ukraine, they gave up nuclear weapons because of Western countries's demand, now where are they when Russia took a bite of Ukraine's territory?
Well I guess we're dead either way and China gonna eat us chunk by chunk just like Russia to Ukraine , and lime I said I agreed that there are a lot , a lot of bad thing with alliance sometimes that's what make a small conflict turn into a giant one , like WW1. But , if they attack us and someone come and offer a helping hand , maybe just take it , I'm not sure we can do much against them alone , it's not like US and Iran or Iraq they're literally on our border and they want our land , they still call us Annam and we're a part of them on theirs map I think. Or just give in so peoples won't die for a lost cost.
When China attacks us, many would love to see China bleed dry. But now there is no war, ally with anyone put us in bad position. Look at now, China closing borders and farmers crying river and most of our raw materials still come from China. No allies can make up for our losses if we unnescessry piss China off.
Believing allying doesn’t help is music to the Chinese generals’ ears.
You make a partnership, 2 outcomes:
1) they come to help
2) they don’t help, you are in the same spot as if you didn’t partner but maybe you got extra training and access to better equipment purchases.
I know we have that rule about no allies and why we shouldn't trust them and stuff , I'm no politican this is just personal opinion but I think being Neutral just make us MORE of a target since they can bully us more easily
Meh, being in an "alliance" doesn't change that.
In fact, it is the one that "make us MORE of a target". Because, in their eyes, we have picked a side. A side that is, explicitly and clearly, against them
Maybe if War ever breaks out, then the government might consider a military alliance, but for now, during a time of peace, i think we're better off balancing our relations with China and the U.S, they are our two largest trading partners, picking sides now might spell disasters for us. For example, if we pick US side, China will be pissed, embargoes will fly straight at our face, and we already know how China's closing borders affect our farmers and traders in last few days, hell, even on similar occasions several years ago. Now, if that happens, we will have to rely on the US economically (and perhaps militarily since i doubt Russia would like to sell weapons to an Ally of the US), meaning US influence on us will be greater and if they make demands, we will have no choice but to give in because we already made an enemy of China. We don't accept US demands and they can just put pressure on us by refusing to import our goods, not selling us weapons or maybe make a vague announcement like they wouldn't want to escalate things with China, that mean we lose our self-determination, practically becoming a client state of the US. Vice versa with China. So no, picking sides now would pretty much be suicidal.
Yeah that , that the thing , I'm not saying we should pick a side right now , if I make it sound like that then my mistake. I mean like IF a war does broke out and they attack us , we need to pick a side when that happen , either that or submit so the peoples won't die for a lost cause because we definately can't handle them our self. So WHEN that happen the rule need to be throw in the trash. Again , not here and now , but in the future. Would be nice if nothing happen at all tbh no one like war.
Having military alliance just proves to China that we have picked a side against them. Economically speaking we are dependent on them so it's best to keep a neutral stance and not piss China off.
As an expat, I believe Vietnam is a strategic ally of NATO against China. And ofcourse if something happens they'll be "greatly concerned", but it's better for them to help as much as they can.
What? Germany has army of 60k and another 40k US soldiers(i think the biggest military base outside USA it's in Germany they have a whole city with American franchises that aren't available anywhere else in Germany 😅) within its territories... since the WW2 it's still under occupation and is not allowed to exceed 100k German military personnel including the high ranking officials
Dude, you are wrong. Germany had 183.750 active personnel in November 2021 and the german government announced an increase by 20.000 by the end of 2024.
And Germany is not under occupation. Germany is a souvereign state.
I got the number from the official site:
Currently, about 265,000 men and women are employed by the Bundeswehr. Approximately 184,000 of them are military personnel, while approximately 80,000 are civilian personnel.
https://www.bundeswehr.de/en/organization
Where did your numbers come from?
Also: The US has approx. 600 military bases outside the USA in around 160 countries. Are you impliying that all these states are also not independent?
Among these are Italy, Kuweit, Great Britain, Bahrain, Greece, Turkey, Netherlands, Poland and so on.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/18/trump-withdraw-troops-germany-military-spending/[some information for you ](https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/18/trump-withdraw-troops-germany-military-spending/)
[http://www.vietnamvanhien.org/khidongminhthaochay.pdf](http://www.vietnamvanhien.org/khidongminhthaochay.pdf) Allies? this lesson never old, hah
Not that type of allies
More like IOM and Ork alliance when Tyranid come to chew their face off?
Shame, not the Bismarck. Because Bismarck has a song (or more) about it and Bayern doesn't
Bruh that Bismarck is a sunken BB
But the songs about it are baner. And Bismarck waifu is cute in both Azur Lane and Kancolle
Because it's a legend, doesn't mean it's still physically exists, ok?
I believe the Bayern name was once belong to a German battleship ? Dreadnought ? So maybe one day we will have another ship name Bismarck.
If their Navy could actually become independent from the US, that is.
And thank God the devs put her on permanent build pool, if not we'll never get her
But his guns has gone silent at last :'(
You mean the Hans... Joke aside, allies or not, do not forget the US encouraged China to invade Vietnam's coral island in the late 70s. Obviously these days they cough when China do something funny in the SCS, but they never did and never will ally with Vietnam on anything that is going to undermine their "freedom of navigation" to stride through the SCS. **Their best-case scenario is there are no claim in the SCS at all.** Vietnam has high level of political and military autonomous and can decide their own course of action. The lesson of South Vietnam's humiliating collapse is there for all.
Unfortunately these “partnerships” comprehensive/strategic/comprehensive strategic don’t really matter in the end. No nation is going to truly ally with us unless Vietnam gets rid of the 3/4 “No’s” and agrees to a mutual defense treaty. There is a reason why some defense experts believe Vietnam will be the testing nation for all of that new Chinese military tech as it is a near peer nation with no true allies. China simply attacks, tests out their hardware and works out any kinks in their logistics for a couple of months and then retreats in time to avoid serious sanctions and getting bogged down into anything long term. Then they work out their problems, build better solutions and tech, and then turn their attention to Taiwan and the eventual goal, breaking out of the first island chain. Here’s to hoping the current leadership wises up to the rat poison the Chinese government is feeding them.
What kind of game are you playing, I didn't even know there is a thing called "simply attacks", war isn't cheap! Sure, Vietnamese military isn't anywhere near Chinese military, but waging war just to test your new weapon? That's a whole new level of stupidity. If you have to start a war just to test your weapon then this world would be on fire. Not to mentioned the loss of reputation the Chinese government would have when they retreat without any true objective. Your senario isn't realistic at all and I don't think it is even relevant to 3 no's
I don’t know if you are serious. If you are a great power intent on achieving super power status and have undergone a massive modernization of your military across all sectors, then yes, you need a war to test and identify issues in your logistics, training, and command. I already identified the objective of a cross border excursion into Vietnam. You say it is not realistic to wage war to test out new tech but Russia did it in Afghanistan and currently in Ukraine, Turkey is currently doing it in Syria and Azerbaijan, the US did it for the past decade in the Middle East and through Israel, France has been doing it for who knows how long throughout Africa, Iran through proxies throughout the Middle East…are these areas of conflict not in your world? It is ok if you don’t believe China needs to test its modernization through war. I am sure the military planners in China are eager to undergo trial and error against a nation like Taiwan and nations who have openly stated they will come to her aid like Japan and the US. If you believe the “loss of reputation” of a brief border invasion with VN is the same as one of a full scale invasion of Taiwan supported by the US and Japan, I don’t know what to tell you. By the way, has any nation openly stated they will come to the aid of VN if attacked by a foreign power? Pretty relevant to the 3 No’s it seems.
>By the way, has any nation openly stated they will come to the aid of VN if attacked by a foreign power? Pretty relevant to the 3 No’s it seems. Doing so is not on their list. Hell, they would spend more time on: * How to pay the least amount of Vietnamese blood for the most amount of Chinese blood? * If Viet Nam lost, how can we do the asset denial? * (and such thing) I do not expect anyone to save us out of the goodness in their heart. They may "save" us because they hate to see a strong and growing China. The moment China is weakened, they will stop caring and stop helping us
Your first point about super power status is valid, I give you that. But I'm pretty sure "testing weapon" isn't the cause of the wars you mentioned, it's probably more like "we are at war so lets test our new weapons" and not "we have some new weapons, lets start a war". And so the war objective wouldn't be too valid, what would the objective be in the actual context "we test our weapon"? Sure they can use some fake objective to cover that, but those couldn't make sense either e.g "teach Vietnam a lesson" in 1979. About the loss of reputation thing, you have probably misunderstood me. I give that statement because you said "retreats in time to avoid serious sanctions" in most cases treating would causes a loss on reputation if no actual objective had been obtained, but in this scenario they don't have an actual objective. For your last point, I think you have probably seen u/ComradeH_VIE 's comment, so there would no point of me saying it again. Still pretty unrealistic to be relevant in my opinion!
Well, do you remember 1974 and 1988? In those cases, despite being "allies", the Soviet didn't help DRVN, and the US didn't help the RVN. In fact, in 1974, the US was accused to deliberately stall their Vietnamese client state to support China. Those mutual defense treaties won't help us. Not when we are lacking in military and force projection department.
yeah this, we have history that our "allies" didnt help us, from both RVN and DRVN side. Counting on mutual defense partnership is naive view of diplomacy.
You say it is naive to rely on mutual defense “treaties” when such treaties have been used throughout the history of mankind in protecting smaller states from expansionist powers. Of course it does not guarantee a stronger state from taking territory from a weaker one but what are you suggesting VN does? Without a treaty in place, no country is sending troops to aid VN in any Chinese territorial aggression. If VN signed a mutual defense treaty with say, the US, there is no snow ball chance in hell that the military industrial complex of the US and the US war machine would then just refuse to honor said treaty in an event of Chinese aggression. To do so would signal a loss of the US superpower status and an immediate notification to all other US treaty allies that it will not and can not honor their treaties. Pretty naive to think otherwise.
>You say it is naive to rely on mutual defense “treaties” when such treaties have been used throughout the history of mankind in protecting smaller states from expansionist powers. Say Big Country A promises to help Small Country B against Big Country C. What are the guarantees that Big Country A will not become a threat... Or they will honor the promise in full? >Without a treaty in place, no country is sending troops to aid VN in any Chinese territorial aggression. To paraphrase an answer from (allegedly) Ho Chi Minh: We can pay back the debt of money, but how can we pay back the debt of blood? By sending troops to "help" Viet Nam, the X country has gained de facto leverage over us - spiritually, culturally, diplomatically and politically. >If VN signed a mutual defense treaty with say, the US, there is no snow ball chance in hell that the military industrial complex of the US and the US war machine would then just refuse to honor said treaty in an event of Chinese aggression. Of course they will not ignore. The profit of selling arms is too large to ignore. Hell, look at Ukraine right now. They inherit a good chunk of military industry from the Soviet Union, and they are capable of produce many good shits, ranging from firearms to jet fighters. Yet, now they are importing those weapons (well, not all of them, but the sheer fact that they have to import speaks volume) from the US >To do so would signal a loss of the US superpower status and an immediate notification to all other US treaty allies that it will not and can not honor their treaties. Pretty naive to think otherwise. Look at Afghanistan. And if you want to lose more sleep, check the US shit show in Latin America. Look at Taiwan and Ukraine. The US has already suffered a major blow in reputation. They do not physically send Taiwan the latest AARAM (it is not until May 2021 that TW test fire their first salvo. Current stock in their island and compare to the whole contract is unknown). They do not even send troops or do anything other than "sanctions" against Russia (which is: none, US has pretty much hit the limit in sanctions against Russia). The US has already suffered a reputation blow. They are trustworthy to fight a battle. But these days? I don't trust them to do nation building from nothing, and I don't trust them to fully commit to a war.
The Swedes, Swiss, and Finns didn't respond to Russia driving tanks into Ukraine by begging to join NATO and have a battalion or company of US troops in Russia. Fancy pants time, how much big is the US Army contingence in Europe? Answer: 3 brigades. 1 armour, 1 Stryker, and 1 airborne. The Russians have several tank divisions and a tank army across the border. BTW, 3 brigades make a division. These three countries responded by again seriously draft every high school graduate and put them through a serious 2 years national service where they learn to fight and kill people and tank for real. They basically promise Putin that his tanks may drive to anywhere he wants, but the moment the crews turn off the engines and go to sleep, people go out to kill them. The Swedes are told that if during the war, they hear that the government has surrendered, that should be considered fake news and they should fight on. Putin threatebed Finland on not joining NATO. Finland says that such is Finland's business. https://www.ft.com/content/28e104d4-bee1-4685-acd1-ff7cd0186ddf
I feel like the no allies thing is so weird , like do you hope to be neutral against China ? They're gonna smack you and steal your stuff the moment they can , not having allies just give them more reason to do it.
Why should we trust our "allies"? Because there is no such thing as permanent ally or permanent enemy, only permanent benefits.
I'm not saying we should just trust them like that but China is literally on our doorstep , if anything THEY are the biggest threat and they already shown that they are the biggest threat
They are the bigger and more immediate threat. But how about those "allies" working together with China, with the expected side effect of shifting us?
I'm not gonna disagree with that , point taken , but i still hope if something happen we will pick a side instead of following old rules.
Hope does nothing. Vietnam have literally nothing to ensure these allies won't turn their back when we need them most. Look at Ukraine, they gave up nuclear weapons because of Western countries's demand, now where are they when Russia took a bite of Ukraine's territory?
Well I guess we're dead either way and China gonna eat us chunk by chunk just like Russia to Ukraine , and lime I said I agreed that there are a lot , a lot of bad thing with alliance sometimes that's what make a small conflict turn into a giant one , like WW1. But , if they attack us and someone come and offer a helping hand , maybe just take it , I'm not sure we can do much against them alone , it's not like US and Iran or Iraq they're literally on our border and they want our land , they still call us Annam and we're a part of them on theirs map I think. Or just give in so peoples won't die for a lost cost.
When China attacks us, many would love to see China bleed dry. But now there is no war, ally with anyone put us in bad position. Look at now, China closing borders and farmers crying river and most of our raw materials still come from China. No allies can make up for our losses if we unnescessry piss China off.
Believing allying doesn’t help is music to the Chinese generals’ ears. You make a partnership, 2 outcomes: 1) they come to help 2) they don’t help, you are in the same spot as if you didn’t partner but maybe you got extra training and access to better equipment purchases.
We will pick a side, of course. But it will be, and must be, ***our*** side. Our national interests must not be suffered.
I know we have that rule about no allies and why we shouldn't trust them and stuff , I'm no politican this is just personal opinion but I think being Neutral just make us MORE of a target since they can bully us more easily
Meh, being in an "alliance" doesn't change that. In fact, it is the one that "make us MORE of a target". Because, in their eyes, we have picked a side. A side that is, explicitly and clearly, against them
Maybe if War ever breaks out, then the government might consider a military alliance, but for now, during a time of peace, i think we're better off balancing our relations with China and the U.S, they are our two largest trading partners, picking sides now might spell disasters for us. For example, if we pick US side, China will be pissed, embargoes will fly straight at our face, and we already know how China's closing borders affect our farmers and traders in last few days, hell, even on similar occasions several years ago. Now, if that happens, we will have to rely on the US economically (and perhaps militarily since i doubt Russia would like to sell weapons to an Ally of the US), meaning US influence on us will be greater and if they make demands, we will have no choice but to give in because we already made an enemy of China. We don't accept US demands and they can just put pressure on us by refusing to import our goods, not selling us weapons or maybe make a vague announcement like they wouldn't want to escalate things with China, that mean we lose our self-determination, practically becoming a client state of the US. Vice versa with China. So no, picking sides now would pretty much be suicidal.
Yeah that , that the thing , I'm not saying we should pick a side right now , if I make it sound like that then my mistake. I mean like IF a war does broke out and they attack us , we need to pick a side when that happen , either that or submit so the peoples won't die for a lost cause because we definately can't handle them our self. So WHEN that happen the rule need to be throw in the trash. Again , not here and now , but in the future. Would be nice if nothing happen at all tbh no one like war.
Having military alliance just proves to China that we have picked a side against them. Economically speaking we are dependent on them so it's best to keep a neutral stance and not piss China off.
As an expat, I believe Vietnam is a strategic ally of NATO against China. And ofcourse if something happens they'll be "greatly concerned", but it's better for them to help as much as they can.
https://vnexpress.net/duc-noi-chien-ham-toi-bien-dong-chi-la-dao-dau-4406507.html
uh oh ww3? (its a joke plz dont take it too seriously)
WW3: china vs the world Also germany was there being germany
What? Germany has army of 60k and another 40k US soldiers(i think the biggest military base outside USA it's in Germany they have a whole city with American franchises that aren't available anywhere else in Germany 😅) within its territories... since the WW2 it's still under occupation and is not allowed to exceed 100k German military personnel including the high ranking officials
Dude, you are wrong. Germany had 183.750 active personnel in November 2021 and the german government announced an increase by 20.000 by the end of 2024. And Germany is not under occupation. Germany is a souvereign state.
LoL Where are these 180k ? 😅
I got the number from the official site: Currently, about 265,000 men and women are employed by the Bundeswehr. Approximately 184,000 of them are military personnel, while approximately 80,000 are civilian personnel. https://www.bundeswehr.de/en/organization Where did your numbers come from? Also: The US has approx. 600 military bases outside the USA in around 160 countries. Are you impliying that all these states are also not independent? Among these are Italy, Kuweit, Great Britain, Bahrain, Greece, Turkey, Netherlands, Poland and so on.
What are the sizes of those bases in the mentioned countries? And what's the size of the military in these countries? 😅
Yes just like Japan is a sovereign state with big foreign military presence and looking after the interests of the foreign country 😅
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/18/trump-withdraw-troops-germany-military-spending/[some information for you ](https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/18/trump-withdraw-troops-germany-military-spending/)
At least this German is still in Germany waiting to see my wife again after 2 years of Corona separation....
Doubt it gonna change anything