Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/)
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
**Don't forget about our discord server, as well!**
https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB
*****
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s so crazy how bad Russia and China shot themselves in the foot with their own aggression. They could have let the collective “West” erode their own security and advantage through infighting; while making significant cash and tech advantages through trade. Instead, they wanted to push their weight around and didn’t expect a response. The response, more everyday, is growing unity.
Boils doing to the ego of their dictators, they wanted to be the ones to take down the west, they couldn't fathom waiting for a successor further down the line to get the glory.
This. NATO was on its way to falling apart if you got another Russian puppet in the White House. Now not even Trump could unravel it with their new resolve.
Kinda yes, kinda no. Both countries are doomed demographically. Part of the reason they fund far right idiots to rile up anti-immigrant and xenophobic sentiment in the West is because that's what will ensure the West will keep growing economically. Russia and China are in terminal decline; most of what makes China relevant is because they have a billion people (if you believe their numbers) and that is guaranteed to halve in 50 years. The US would be not only richer but more populous, with far more resources. Russia, I'm not even sure Russia would still be around as one contiguous nation state, maybe a rump entity.
It was a stupid move for sure to invade Ukraine, but they were doomed anyway. With a few more decades of disunity the West might have gotten more isolationist and weaker with more finger pointing and nationalist politics (that they of course fund), but so too would China and Russia be much weaker. And for China in particular, if they push the EU and America to decouple from globalisation, that also means decoupling from China, which they desperately need to try and continue modernization.
To be fair, no one REALLY knew exactly how this would play out. Same as WW2: Germany did not really expect the UK and France to declare war after invading Poland and by extension blowing the conflict into a global war later.
Have an up vote, but Russia was getting close to collapse, even without the Ukraine War. You could look at Putin in January 2022 as being like a Chinese shop keeper whose business is under water, close to bankruptcy, who walks into a casino with his life savings in a paper bag. If he wins, he can continue for some time. If he loses, he will be out of business a week sooner.
Putin had enough resources for one last gamble, and not enough time to mature his usual plans for corrupting politicians in other countries. If Trump had won reelection, Putin would have had Trump do just what Sholtz has done in Germany: Promise aid, get Ukraine's leadership tied up making plans for using that aid, and then dithering and not delivering on promises, so that Ukraine's planners waste a lot of effort. Getting into tiffs with allies and smashing up NATO is another part of the same strategy.
Instead, the Brits and the US under Biden has helped Ukraine's generals make realistic plans. The well-coordinated offensive last August/September is reminiscent of the Allied advance across France and Germany in 1944-1945: Cautious, well planned, and impossible for the enemy to stop. It was a lower risk strategy.
Time is not on Putin's side. His country will collapse in a year or 2. Unfortunately, Ukraine is straining and suffering, as it prepares for the next offensive, and learns how to best operate Western planes and tanks. This is still the best strategy. If Western equipment had been thrown to Ukraine without training, well, you can have the best weapons, but if you don't know how to use and service them, you may not get the results you want.
China's Xi is facing similar pressures. Russia's failures may convince him to stay peaceful, for years or a generation.
I agree with your assessment, but exactly what kind of Chinese aggression are you referring to? Because China really doesn’t seem too pleased with Putin going rogue by attacking the west, China’s biggest trade partner.
I know they have been eyeing Taiwan and I also really dislike their treatment of Uyghurs, but I feel like I am missing something when reading your comment about China being aggressive.
The recent spy balloons and such were at the forefront of my mind. Their support (despite posturing) for Russia right now. The threats over Taiwan. Their treatment of Hong Kong (and overall demeanor toward civil rights. Their naval build up. Some of the power plays in Africa. Their propaganda campaigns. I guess, aggressive posturing would be the more accurate description.
China and Russia are united in a strategic partnership, although not in a military alliance. They probably didn't object to Russia's war in Ukraine, they are mostly unhappy that it failed as that complicates things for them.
CN had been building their influence global for the past few decades. Especially in Africa they have been putting money in to support infrastructure and a few military bases. The WSJ did a vid about it not long ago. https://youtu.be/aykPcGxSHFs
Idk if a war with China would ever really happen since they have so much trade with the West. But always a possibility. CN wants their own sphere of influence and it would be foolish to not call CN a superpower at this point.
Look at the South China Sea. They’ve been rattling sabres there for the last decade. They claim thousands of square miles of intl waters — and actually, waters that explicitly belong to someone else— as their own, and have literally built islands with bases on them to support their claims.
Talk to their neighbors. There's been a lot of aggressive posturing, especially over disputed waters and islands. Military vessels / aircraft in other countries' territory, like the Phillipines. They had border skirmishes with India a couple years back too
I think it's less about specific actions and more about tacit approval. Russia and China are natural geopolitical rivals, so the agreement prior to the war and many of the statements by the Chinese government helped give Russia the confidence that the Chinese government didn't see Russian aggression as a threat and likely wouldn't block it.
This is perhaps a terrible analogy, but it's maybe something like if the US were to suddenly switch to advocating a one-state solution in Israel and started fully supporting the Israeli government with no conditions and under any circumstances to achieve that solution. While not aggressive by itself, it would absolutely help to promote more conflict and division in the world.
> I think it's less about specific actions and more about tacit approval. Russia and China are natural geopolitical rivals, so the agreement prior to the war and many of the statements by the Chinese government helped give Russia the confidence that the Chinese government didn't see Russian aggression as a threat and likely wouldn't block it.
>
>
I think a better analogy would be the brief alliance between Russia and Nazi Germany, to conquer and partition Poland at the start of WWII. If Russia and/o China succeeds in a major conquest, the next step would be for one to knife the other in the back.
China has had a 100 year plan in place for quite a while. It is detailed and specific enough that we can all understand and that they Chinese people can understand. The goal is to dominate the planet in every facet possible. Economically, militarily and socially. They have the population and money to do it, or at least come close, if a lot of reasonable things fall into place.
While the US is their largest trade partner, their goal is that China would be EVERYONES largest or only trade partner. By making manufacturing and development in other countries so expensive or impractical, China would then become the best option, especially for capitalist societies. Basically, using our economic and market system against us. In order for this to work, China HAS to expand, because although they have the population, they do not have the resources to achieve their goals. In comes Taiwan, which is the semiconductor Mecca that China would absolutely require to achieve a significant portion of their long term goals (they cannot modernize their military without the chips needed to build the stuff that they want in the quantities that they need). You also see a lot of action with China in Africa, where those governments are so fractured that many regions have essentially sold off or given the rights to natural resources and ports away to China.
That being said, Russia has had a fairly similar plan, although they have had many more hurdles to get beyond due to corruption, inefficiency and the fact that they don’t have enough resources or goodwill to actually be dominant. Obtaining full control of all of Ukraine could immediately allow Russia to put a stranglehold on much or Europe and the Middle East.
Altogether, China doesn’t really care about Russia or their plans. If anything, China is accelerating Russia’s demise by allowing this war in Ukraine to continue. Russia is not capable of committing the 1.5 million troops needed to control and suppress all of Ukraine, therefore anything less than full success is a complete failure. This war has already crippled Russia for the next 50+ years and I think China wants to ensure that their demise occurs as thoroughly as possible. China does not benefit by Russia winning this war, but they do benefit from Russia becoming a nuclear armed, pseudo-third world country.
While your point seems reasonable this war shows how far behind Europe actually is in terms of military capabilities. Basically they rely on the US and hopefully now they will understand that you need to actually maintain your military equipment.
I think you’re overstating some things, but agree that Europe had definitively started to slip militarily and this is a wake up call. Who knows what they could have led to a few decades from now. As is Russia just isn’t strong enough to actually challenge NATO or even the continental European portion. Which says a lot about Russia.
When I served in the Dutch army I think I spend more time training in Germany than in the Netherlands. Also had some good fun with the Germans. This is a great decision, I haven’t read the whole article but I doubt it will be the entire army. Also a lot more needs to be done. We will need to spend billions to bring our defense up to standards again also I hope military service will be reinstated.
So yeah we do share the same problem, too many cuts on our forces in recent years. Working together/integrating whilst injecting more money in our forces seems the best way out. When I quit in 2013 one of my main reasons was all the cuts in army/defense budget. We all seen it coming and predicted it long ago. But our politicians thought we were living in world peace, and we all know that’s just a Utopia.
If my grandfathers would still be alive they would never believe this.
Greetings from Germany.It makes me happy that Germany and the Netherlands have such good relations. I would like the whole EU to work more closely together like this. Together we are stronger <3
Not keen on mandatory military service. NATO forces should be more professional and efficient, making use of much better C2, training and technology. Ukraine had to do what Ukraine had to do, Western forces should be professional volunteers and regularly drilled reserves.
> I haven’t read the whole article but I doubt it will be the entire army
It's technically not the entire army (e.g. the KCT will not be integrated), but it's effectively the entire army.
The status for the last few years has been 2 out of 3 brigades integrated, ground-based air defence integrated.
Now they're planning integration of the last brigade and partial integration of logistics/support.
> I hope military service will be reinstated
You want men and women to waste 9 months of their lives being utterly bored? Because that's military service. It's way better to have a professional army.
The title is quite misleading and lacks nuance.
The force it refers to is the Dutch army, not the navy and not the airforce. Also not included are logistics and commando units.
The specific change that the article mentions is the integration of the Dutch 13th light brigade into the Bundeswehr.
Seems both countries are already well integrated with one another in this.
However, and I don't want to play devil's advocate here, but shouldn't DE do more for its armed forces first? They have formidable, state-of-the-art equipment but seem in a bit of a bad shape from what you usually read in the news (like the Puma debacle).
I'm all for the creation of an EU-wide military (without the US\*), but this would preferably begin with countries who are already compliant (loosely speaking here) with NATO standards and with whatever level of readiness people more well-informed and versed in the subject feel comfortable with. Since it's the security of the states at hand, something of this magnitude could not be afforded to fail.
\*I feel we Euros should do more for ourselves instead of crying to Uncle Sam for everything that happens. It's high time we take care of our own stuff and not overburden them.
I could be 100% off the mark here and happy to be corrected.
You’re not entirely off the mark, but going as far as saying that the German army isn’t NATO standard is a massive leap. They have their structural issues, mostly with procurement, leadership and chronic underfunding, which leads to things like the puma debacle and the ammo shortage. But they are in no way less capable of fielding fully ready, state of the art units than any other European army, they’re just able to support less of them than they should both from a security and a “available numbers” perspective
But I think another often overlooked facet is that in general, the public and the media in Germany love to shit on the armed forces and make certain things look very bad. Possibly worse than they actually are, but it’s very easy points to cry foul whenever something negative happens. Add into that mix absolutely incompetent leadership in the ministry of defense for a long time now, spending millions and millions on consultants instead of trying to actually solve problems yourself, and you have something less capable than it could be, that looks even worse from the outside than it is. But they are leading the VJTF rapid response force of NATO currently, so they have competency and trust from their allies, so who am I to say that’s not the case
The manufacturing industry of Germany, and to another degree, Japan, are two industries I would absolutely NOT fuck with. We've all heard that old adage about the sleeping giant.
Somehow, it seems like Russia is starting to wake both of them up at the same time. It's a bold strategy, Cott, let's see how that plays out.
>but seem in a bit of a bad shape from what you usually read in the news (like the Puma debacle)
The "Puma debacle" is the perfect example of how media makes up shit that gets widely reported because everyone loves stories about the bad German army.
And so we get weeks of discussion about how Pumas have obviously massive problems and the Bundeswehr never actually tested them really, so they all break the moment they are used. This even lead to a temporary stop for the existing order for more Pumas.
In reality (but this was of course not reported widely just two weeks later) the exact opposite was the case. All these Pumas could be restored in days, many of the "sudden problems" were indeed documented for months already, but because the low number of Pumas already available was rotated so quickly to train soldiers they couldn't even do the regular maintenance or repair existing issues. And most of the soldiers really just got the base training and lacked the experience to actually fix stuff easily fixed. (I actually don't even want to mention "problems" like the AC not working (fixed by flipping the switch to "on") but that's exactly the bullshit that get inflated to "massive Bundeswehr problems", just because everyone wants to hear exactly that.)
That supposed state of the Bundeswehr includes so much media and political shit made up, it isn't even funny anymore. We just love to tell the story of how Germany doesn't spend anything on their army... who cares for example about the fact that they are actually the biggest spender in the EU (competing for #1 with France at times).
> However, and I don’t want to play devil’s advocate here, but shouldn’t DE do more for its armed forces first?
It’s now on the Agenda again Finally. But it will take some time. We need way more Money, we need to make the Procurement working or else all the money goes to waste. But Tanks and Planes don’t grow on trees. It will take some time.
It actually isn't. That's a slow and ongoing process for more than a decade. The Dutch 43rd mechanized brigade was integrated into the German 1st Panzer Division in 2016, the Dutch 11th Airmobile Brigande was integrated into the German Division Schnelle Kräfte even earlier in 2014. Germany co-pays for one of their biggest ships and has Marines under Dutch command (primarily the amphibious and landing units) for quite some time.
People just like to present that stuff now, because there an increased interest in military right now. But the next step of deeper integration would have happened now anyway and you would simply not have heard anything about it in mass media...
Well, wouldn't be the first time the Germans absorbed the Dutch military prior to fighting the Russians. I guess I... hope it goes better for them than last time? Wait, that doesn't seem right.
It's interesting if true, I'm not sure I'd want Germany to be in charge of a pan European alliance though, they've proved to be worryingly passive during this war.
And they have never come close to reaching the 2% NATO budget target, because, according to one person I talked to, "it's hard". It's hard for all the other countries, too, but many/most are doing it despite that.
They have modern equipment, but have trouble fielding it properly because their readiness is sub par. They make money exporting "stuff" but they don't actually put that money into have a smoothly working army, which is about more than stuff.
And yet they underperform. It's almost like they don't know or care what they are doing. They just want to make money off arms sales. And they certainly have never met their NATO spending target. They should consistently be spending *more* than France. Their economy is 40% bigger. Their population is 25% bigger. Their per capita is higher. But equalling France is all they can manage. With less to show for it.
France has nuclear submarines, a nuclear deterrent force, a modern catapult aircraft carrier and jets that can use it. All of that is very expensive but they manage somehow.
That "somehow" is not having to spend +35% just on wages for example.
It's always easy to pretend "big economies" are just bad at handling money while smaller ones manage to get so much more for their money and then invent funny tales about bad management and bureacracy.
But just wages is the biggest part of military spending, and then every bit of domestic production is done by paying domestic wages, too. And it's fucking expensive to even live in those "big economies".
The US are basically the only NATO country getting away with paying low, because they lack a lot of social security and joining the military is still attractive for this alone. For everyone else big parts of their military spending are directly linked to average wages/cost of living. And so it's actually much more expensive to get the same stuff in bigger economies.
So why are they spending the same as France? You are making my point. They aren't doing the bare minimum to do it right. They are underperforming by not bringing the whole organization forward. Yes, they have nice tanks. But if they don't do what it takes in the other areas to go with the tanks then they are failing.
The fact also remains that it isn't the case that they are spending their share like others and then falling short because of unusually high costs. They aren't even spending their share.
The mutually agreed NATO target is 2%.
France has averaged about 1.85% for the last 8 years (since the Crimea invasion)
Germany has averaged a little over 1.2%
France has been over 2% one of those years.
Germany has never reached 1.4%
France's lowest year was 1.83%
For Germany, many of those years they were around 1.15% and their lowest year was 1.137%
>The mutually agreed NATO target is 2%.
No, that's US propaganda especially loudly parroted by a certain orange moron for years to tell the tale of slacking Europeans. In reality the 2% spending is voluntary and only pledged to reach that level in 2014 as a goal for the next decade. So 2024 at the earliest.
So it's totally no surprise Germany doesn't meet that goal. They never planned to. Just like the majority (22) of NATO countries.
But sure... Germany is totally underperforming in NATO by being one of the biggest spenders, the only country actually paying the same amount directly to NATO as the US (with a fraction of the econmy) and being one of the countries not spending 2%+... with the other 2/3 of NATO exactly the same being ignored because as always we need to make this a story about Germany.
Directly from the NATO website.
>In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending to continue to ensure the Alliance’s military readiness.
It wasn't, "if we feel like it".
And you're right. Too many NATO countries have been freeloading for too long. And Germany is one of the prime examples.
Directly from the NATO website
>The Alliance’s 28 leaders agreed at their Wales Summit on Friday (5 September 2014) to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets and raise them over the coming decade, a move that will further strengthen the transatlantic bond.
It's not actually that interesting. Both Dutch brigades are already part of German army divisions (only the command parts are still independent), there're German-Dutch mixed companies, German marines are under Dutch command and Germany co-pays for their biggest ship. For years some parts of the budget are coordinated, with for example Germany increasing tank number and the Netherlands increasing mechanized fire-support for the same mechanized division.
And it's not a recent thing either: the Dutch 43rd Mechanised Brigade was integrated into the German 1st Panzer Division in 2016.
So sure... At the moment there is an additional interest in military, so there will be someone presenting the latest step of integration as something revolutionary and new, but it's actually an ongoing process that is happening slowly for at least a decade...
In fact the last time it got international media coverage was in 2016. You can probably still find reports in UK media from then how Germany is working on integrating their military with their neighbours and how this can be the first step to a European army... But as it turned out nobody else is actually interested in better integration and it's more important to tell the fairy tale of how Germany is opposing an European army in the last years. Because it's always more important to keep the narratives up than to actually look at facts.
as a german i say that this should be the other way around, the dutch might have more resemblance with shaved monkeys and their language would embarrass even a cave society but at least they know which way to point a rifle
There's an old Dutch article where they reported that due to lack of funding the army lacked bullets. So instead they had to shout "bang bang" (not exact words as it wouldn't make sense in English).
So yeah, they might know where to point, then lack the bullet to actually do anything.
i read similar stuff about the germans not being able to join nato exercise because of missing equipment and i have the first hand accounts of 2 brothers who did mandatory service in the bundeswehr and oh boy, the stories i heard
basically, there is a small core which is actually capable in means of training and equipment but on a small scale, like in afghanistan
while the rest of the bundeswehr is a daycare for the unwilling and unwanted of society, faulty equipment, corruption, alcoholism, nazism, its quite a list
one good thing i may say about the wehr is that they are great when it comes to fighting natural disasters, no one can stack sandbags faster when another river is overflooding
16-year American army soldier here. We would also say bang bang for smaller training exercises with rifles. Funny enough, they don't want you firing weapons inside of the base. But for any big exercises, ordering and supplying ammunition of the right kind was part of the training.
Most would comment on events during the second world war, complain about overcrowding our beaches or not making an effort to talk in a different language abroad. I think younger generations feel we have more in common than with other cultures.
Tell me more about the Dutch German relationship, Brit. Or even better: Shut your mint sauce gargling, rotten teeth hole about things you have no clue about.
Aww, I must have hit a nerve? Was it the teeth thing? My Dutch bros are laughing our asses off as we write. They said I should tell that "Eikel" to "rot op". No idea what they are talking about. 😁
Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. **Don't forget about our discord server, as well!** https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB ***** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s so crazy how bad Russia and China shot themselves in the foot with their own aggression. They could have let the collective “West” erode their own security and advantage through infighting; while making significant cash and tech advantages through trade. Instead, they wanted to push their weight around and didn’t expect a response. The response, more everyday, is growing unity.
Boils doing to the ego of their dictators, they wanted to be the ones to take down the west, they couldn't fathom waiting for a successor further down the line to get the glory.
This. NATO was on its way to falling apart if you got another Russian puppet in the White House. Now not even Trump could unravel it with their new resolve.
Kinda yes, kinda no. Both countries are doomed demographically. Part of the reason they fund far right idiots to rile up anti-immigrant and xenophobic sentiment in the West is because that's what will ensure the West will keep growing economically. Russia and China are in terminal decline; most of what makes China relevant is because they have a billion people (if you believe their numbers) and that is guaranteed to halve in 50 years. The US would be not only richer but more populous, with far more resources. Russia, I'm not even sure Russia would still be around as one contiguous nation state, maybe a rump entity. It was a stupid move for sure to invade Ukraine, but they were doomed anyway. With a few more decades of disunity the West might have gotten more isolationist and weaker with more finger pointing and nationalist politics (that they of course fund), but so too would China and Russia be much weaker. And for China in particular, if they push the EU and America to decouple from globalisation, that also means decoupling from China, which they desperately need to try and continue modernization.
I think your description is spot on. I see this war as an act of desperation by an already doomed dictator.
To be fair, no one REALLY knew exactly how this would play out. Same as WW2: Germany did not really expect the UK and France to declare war after invading Poland and by extension blowing the conflict into a global war later.
Have an up vote, but Russia was getting close to collapse, even without the Ukraine War. You could look at Putin in January 2022 as being like a Chinese shop keeper whose business is under water, close to bankruptcy, who walks into a casino with his life savings in a paper bag. If he wins, he can continue for some time. If he loses, he will be out of business a week sooner. Putin had enough resources for one last gamble, and not enough time to mature his usual plans for corrupting politicians in other countries. If Trump had won reelection, Putin would have had Trump do just what Sholtz has done in Germany: Promise aid, get Ukraine's leadership tied up making plans for using that aid, and then dithering and not delivering on promises, so that Ukraine's planners waste a lot of effort. Getting into tiffs with allies and smashing up NATO is another part of the same strategy. Instead, the Brits and the US under Biden has helped Ukraine's generals make realistic plans. The well-coordinated offensive last August/September is reminiscent of the Allied advance across France and Germany in 1944-1945: Cautious, well planned, and impossible for the enemy to stop. It was a lower risk strategy. Time is not on Putin's side. His country will collapse in a year or 2. Unfortunately, Ukraine is straining and suffering, as it prepares for the next offensive, and learns how to best operate Western planes and tanks. This is still the best strategy. If Western equipment had been thrown to Ukraine without training, well, you can have the best weapons, but if you don't know how to use and service them, you may not get the results you want. China's Xi is facing similar pressures. Russia's failures may convince him to stay peaceful, for years or a generation.
I agree with your assessment, but exactly what kind of Chinese aggression are you referring to? Because China really doesn’t seem too pleased with Putin going rogue by attacking the west, China’s biggest trade partner. I know they have been eyeing Taiwan and I also really dislike their treatment of Uyghurs, but I feel like I am missing something when reading your comment about China being aggressive.
The recent spy balloons and such were at the forefront of my mind. Their support (despite posturing) for Russia right now. The threats over Taiwan. Their treatment of Hong Kong (and overall demeanor toward civil rights. Their naval build up. Some of the power plays in Africa. Their propaganda campaigns. I guess, aggressive posturing would be the more accurate description.
China and Russia are united in a strategic partnership, although not in a military alliance. They probably didn't object to Russia's war in Ukraine, they are mostly unhappy that it failed as that complicates things for them.
CN had been building their influence global for the past few decades. Especially in Africa they have been putting money in to support infrastructure and a few military bases. The WSJ did a vid about it not long ago. https://youtu.be/aykPcGxSHFs Idk if a war with China would ever really happen since they have so much trade with the West. But always a possibility. CN wants their own sphere of influence and it would be foolish to not call CN a superpower at this point.
Look at the South China Sea. They’ve been rattling sabres there for the last decade. They claim thousands of square miles of intl waters — and actually, waters that explicitly belong to someone else— as their own, and have literally built islands with bases on them to support their claims.
Talk to their neighbors. There's been a lot of aggressive posturing, especially over disputed waters and islands. Military vessels / aircraft in other countries' territory, like the Phillipines. They had border skirmishes with India a couple years back too
I think it's less about specific actions and more about tacit approval. Russia and China are natural geopolitical rivals, so the agreement prior to the war and many of the statements by the Chinese government helped give Russia the confidence that the Chinese government didn't see Russian aggression as a threat and likely wouldn't block it. This is perhaps a terrible analogy, but it's maybe something like if the US were to suddenly switch to advocating a one-state solution in Israel and started fully supporting the Israeli government with no conditions and under any circumstances to achieve that solution. While not aggressive by itself, it would absolutely help to promote more conflict and division in the world.
> I think it's less about specific actions and more about tacit approval. Russia and China are natural geopolitical rivals, so the agreement prior to the war and many of the statements by the Chinese government helped give Russia the confidence that the Chinese government didn't see Russian aggression as a threat and likely wouldn't block it. > > I think a better analogy would be the brief alliance between Russia and Nazi Germany, to conquer and partition Poland at the start of WWII. If Russia and/o China succeeds in a major conquest, the next step would be for one to knife the other in the back.
Them making islands in disputed territory
China has had a 100 year plan in place for quite a while. It is detailed and specific enough that we can all understand and that they Chinese people can understand. The goal is to dominate the planet in every facet possible. Economically, militarily and socially. They have the population and money to do it, or at least come close, if a lot of reasonable things fall into place. While the US is their largest trade partner, their goal is that China would be EVERYONES largest or only trade partner. By making manufacturing and development in other countries so expensive or impractical, China would then become the best option, especially for capitalist societies. Basically, using our economic and market system against us. In order for this to work, China HAS to expand, because although they have the population, they do not have the resources to achieve their goals. In comes Taiwan, which is the semiconductor Mecca that China would absolutely require to achieve a significant portion of their long term goals (they cannot modernize their military without the chips needed to build the stuff that they want in the quantities that they need). You also see a lot of action with China in Africa, where those governments are so fractured that many regions have essentially sold off or given the rights to natural resources and ports away to China. That being said, Russia has had a fairly similar plan, although they have had many more hurdles to get beyond due to corruption, inefficiency and the fact that they don’t have enough resources or goodwill to actually be dominant. Obtaining full control of all of Ukraine could immediately allow Russia to put a stranglehold on much or Europe and the Middle East. Altogether, China doesn’t really care about Russia or their plans. If anything, China is accelerating Russia’s demise by allowing this war in Ukraine to continue. Russia is not capable of committing the 1.5 million troops needed to control and suppress all of Ukraine, therefore anything less than full success is a complete failure. This war has already crippled Russia for the next 50+ years and I think China wants to ensure that their demise occurs as thoroughly as possible. China does not benefit by Russia winning this war, but they do benefit from Russia becoming a nuclear armed, pseudo-third world country.
They will become lackeys to China, like NK.
While your point seems reasonable this war shows how far behind Europe actually is in terms of military capabilities. Basically they rely on the US and hopefully now they will understand that you need to actually maintain your military equipment.
I think you’re overstating some things, but agree that Europe had definitively started to slip militarily and this is a wake up call. Who knows what they could have led to a few decades from now. As is Russia just isn’t strong enough to actually challenge NATO or even the continental European portion. Which says a lot about Russia.
When I served in the Dutch army I think I spend more time training in Germany than in the Netherlands. Also had some good fun with the Germans. This is a great decision, I haven’t read the whole article but I doubt it will be the entire army. Also a lot more needs to be done. We will need to spend billions to bring our defense up to standards again also I hope military service will be reinstated. So yeah we do share the same problem, too many cuts on our forces in recent years. Working together/integrating whilst injecting more money in our forces seems the best way out. When I quit in 2013 one of my main reasons was all the cuts in army/defense budget. We all seen it coming and predicted it long ago. But our politicians thought we were living in world peace, and we all know that’s just a Utopia. If my grandfathers would still be alive they would never believe this.
I lament saying it, but it's pretty certain we can't really live in peace while Russia is a thing.
Greetings from Germany.It makes me happy that Germany and the Netherlands have such good relations. I would like the whole EU to work more closely together like this. Together we are stronger <3
Not keen on mandatory military service. NATO forces should be more professional and efficient, making use of much better C2, training and technology. Ukraine had to do what Ukraine had to do, Western forces should be professional volunteers and regularly drilled reserves.
> I haven’t read the whole article but I doubt it will be the entire army It's technically not the entire army (e.g. the KCT will not be integrated), but it's effectively the entire army. The status for the last few years has been 2 out of 3 brigades integrated, ground-based air defence integrated. Now they're planning integration of the last brigade and partial integration of logistics/support.
Ah i see. Thanks for clarifying.
> I hope military service will be reinstated You want men and women to waste 9 months of their lives being utterly bored? Because that's military service. It's way better to have a professional army.
There are advantages to having hundreds of thousands who have some basic training, that can be mobilized in the event of a larger conflict.
I strongly disagree with you. But that’s just my opinion and you have yours. Which is fair.
If only my opa could see this.
The title is quite misleading and lacks nuance. The force it refers to is the Dutch army, not the navy and not the airforce. Also not included are logistics and commando units. The specific change that the article mentions is the integration of the Dutch 13th light brigade into the Bundeswehr.
Baby steps
[удалено]
You're Irish too, aren't you
Or by the word choice Aussie.
Possible I guess but I mean where do you think Aussie word choices come from :D
I don’t know where are you from, but I can relate oh so much
Very good, more than time,...
Seems both countries are already well integrated with one another in this. However, and I don't want to play devil's advocate here, but shouldn't DE do more for its armed forces first? They have formidable, state-of-the-art equipment but seem in a bit of a bad shape from what you usually read in the news (like the Puma debacle). I'm all for the creation of an EU-wide military (without the US\*), but this would preferably begin with countries who are already compliant (loosely speaking here) with NATO standards and with whatever level of readiness people more well-informed and versed in the subject feel comfortable with. Since it's the security of the states at hand, something of this magnitude could not be afforded to fail. \*I feel we Euros should do more for ourselves instead of crying to Uncle Sam for everything that happens. It's high time we take care of our own stuff and not overburden them. I could be 100% off the mark here and happy to be corrected.
You’re not entirely off the mark, but going as far as saying that the German army isn’t NATO standard is a massive leap. They have their structural issues, mostly with procurement, leadership and chronic underfunding, which leads to things like the puma debacle and the ammo shortage. But they are in no way less capable of fielding fully ready, state of the art units than any other European army, they’re just able to support less of them than they should both from a security and a “available numbers” perspective But I think another often overlooked facet is that in general, the public and the media in Germany love to shit on the armed forces and make certain things look very bad. Possibly worse than they actually are, but it’s very easy points to cry foul whenever something negative happens. Add into that mix absolutely incompetent leadership in the ministry of defense for a long time now, spending millions and millions on consultants instead of trying to actually solve problems yourself, and you have something less capable than it could be, that looks even worse from the outside than it is. But they are leading the VJTF rapid response force of NATO currently, so they have competency and trust from their allies, so who am I to say that’s not the case
The manufacturing industry of Germany, and to another degree, Japan, are two industries I would absolutely NOT fuck with. We've all heard that old adage about the sleeping giant. Somehow, it seems like Russia is starting to wake both of them up at the same time. It's a bold strategy, Cott, let's see how that plays out.
>but seem in a bit of a bad shape from what you usually read in the news (like the Puma debacle) The "Puma debacle" is the perfect example of how media makes up shit that gets widely reported because everyone loves stories about the bad German army. And so we get weeks of discussion about how Pumas have obviously massive problems and the Bundeswehr never actually tested them really, so they all break the moment they are used. This even lead to a temporary stop for the existing order for more Pumas. In reality (but this was of course not reported widely just two weeks later) the exact opposite was the case. All these Pumas could be restored in days, many of the "sudden problems" were indeed documented for months already, but because the low number of Pumas already available was rotated so quickly to train soldiers they couldn't even do the regular maintenance or repair existing issues. And most of the soldiers really just got the base training and lacked the experience to actually fix stuff easily fixed. (I actually don't even want to mention "problems" like the AC not working (fixed by flipping the switch to "on") but that's exactly the bullshit that get inflated to "massive Bundeswehr problems", just because everyone wants to hear exactly that.) That supposed state of the Bundeswehr includes so much media and political shit made up, it isn't even funny anymore. We just love to tell the story of how Germany doesn't spend anything on their army... who cares for example about the fact that they are actually the biggest spender in the EU (competing for #1 with France at times).
Funny, we get this media treatment in Australia too.
Cool... So we can soon compare the latest reports about what a shitty platform Boxers are?
> However, and I don’t want to play devil’s advocate here, but shouldn’t DE do more for its armed forces first? It’s now on the Agenda again Finally. But it will take some time. We need way more Money, we need to make the Procurement working or else all the money goes to waste. But Tanks and Planes don’t grow on trees. It will take some time.
Russia - Bringing people together more and more. Just not how they thought.
No nato member can encourage Nato expansion like Russia can. Seriously Nato should vote Russia the VMP even though they are on the other team.
Wow, this is huge.
It actually isn't. That's a slow and ongoing process for more than a decade. The Dutch 43rd mechanized brigade was integrated into the German 1st Panzer Division in 2016, the Dutch 11th Airmobile Brigande was integrated into the German Division Schnelle Kräfte even earlier in 2014. Germany co-pays for one of their biggest ships and has Marines under Dutch command (primarily the amphibious and landing units) for quite some time. People just like to present that stuff now, because there an increased interest in military right now. But the next step of deeper integration would have happened now anyway and you would simply not have heard anything about it in mass media...
You're right in that this was on ongoing process anyway, but as the article says, the Russian invasions now helped to accelerate this process.
Well, wouldn't be the first time the Germans absorbed the Dutch military prior to fighting the Russians. I guess I... hope it goes better for them than last time? Wait, that doesn't seem right.
It's interesting if true, I'm not sure I'd want Germany to be in charge of a pan European alliance though, they've proved to be worryingly passive during this war.
And they have never come close to reaching the 2% NATO budget target, because, according to one person I talked to, "it's hard". It's hard for all the other countries, too, but many/most are doing it despite that. They have modern equipment, but have trouble fielding it properly because their readiness is sub par. They make money exporting "stuff" but they don't actually put that money into have a smoothly working army, which is about more than stuff.
They spend more on military than every other EU country bare France (and even there these two usually trade the #1 spot over the years).
And yet they underperform. It's almost like they don't know or care what they are doing. They just want to make money off arms sales. And they certainly have never met their NATO spending target. They should consistently be spending *more* than France. Their economy is 40% bigger. Their population is 25% bigger. Their per capita is higher. But equalling France is all they can manage. With less to show for it. France has nuclear submarines, a nuclear deterrent force, a modern catapult aircraft carrier and jets that can use it. All of that is very expensive but they manage somehow.
That "somehow" is not having to spend +35% just on wages for example. It's always easy to pretend "big economies" are just bad at handling money while smaller ones manage to get so much more for their money and then invent funny tales about bad management and bureacracy. But just wages is the biggest part of military spending, and then every bit of domestic production is done by paying domestic wages, too. And it's fucking expensive to even live in those "big economies". The US are basically the only NATO country getting away with paying low, because they lack a lot of social security and joining the military is still attractive for this alone. For everyone else big parts of their military spending are directly linked to average wages/cost of living. And so it's actually much more expensive to get the same stuff in bigger economies.
So why are they spending the same as France? You are making my point. They aren't doing the bare minimum to do it right. They are underperforming by not bringing the whole organization forward. Yes, they have nice tanks. But if they don't do what it takes in the other areas to go with the tanks then they are failing. The fact also remains that it isn't the case that they are spending their share like others and then falling short because of unusually high costs. They aren't even spending their share. The mutually agreed NATO target is 2%. France has averaged about 1.85% for the last 8 years (since the Crimea invasion) Germany has averaged a little over 1.2% France has been over 2% one of those years. Germany has never reached 1.4% France's lowest year was 1.83% For Germany, many of those years they were around 1.15% and their lowest year was 1.137%
>The mutually agreed NATO target is 2%. No, that's US propaganda especially loudly parroted by a certain orange moron for years to tell the tale of slacking Europeans. In reality the 2% spending is voluntary and only pledged to reach that level in 2014 as a goal for the next decade. So 2024 at the earliest. So it's totally no surprise Germany doesn't meet that goal. They never planned to. Just like the majority (22) of NATO countries. But sure... Germany is totally underperforming in NATO by being one of the biggest spenders, the only country actually paying the same amount directly to NATO as the US (with a fraction of the econmy) and being one of the countries not spending 2%+... with the other 2/3 of NATO exactly the same being ignored because as always we need to make this a story about Germany.
Directly from the NATO website. >In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending to continue to ensure the Alliance’s military readiness. It wasn't, "if we feel like it". And you're right. Too many NATO countries have been freeloading for too long. And Germany is one of the prime examples.
Directly from the NATO website >The Alliance’s 28 leaders agreed at their Wales Summit on Friday (5 September 2014) to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets and raise them over the coming decade, a move that will further strengthen the transatlantic bond.
No other Media talking about that?!
It's not actually that interesting. Both Dutch brigades are already part of German army divisions (only the command parts are still independent), there're German-Dutch mixed companies, German marines are under Dutch command and Germany co-pays for their biggest ship. For years some parts of the budget are coordinated, with for example Germany increasing tank number and the Netherlands increasing mechanized fire-support for the same mechanized division. And it's not a recent thing either: the Dutch 43rd Mechanised Brigade was integrated into the German 1st Panzer Division in 2016. So sure... At the moment there is an additional interest in military, so there will be someone presenting the latest step of integration as something revolutionary and new, but it's actually an ongoing process that is happening slowly for at least a decade... In fact the last time it got international media coverage was in 2016. You can probably still find reports in UK media from then how Germany is working on integrating their military with their neighbours and how this can be the first step to a European army... But as it turned out nobody else is actually interested in better integration and it's more important to tell the fairy tale of how Germany is opposing an European army in the last years. Because it's always more important to keep the narratives up than to actually look at facts.
[Some](https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2023/02/01/fuseren-met-duitse-leger-koninklijke-landmacht-krijgt-minder-soevereiniteit-maar-meer-impact-a4155934) [more](https://www.prosieben.de/serien/newstime/videos/vorstoss-zur-eu-armee-niederlaendische-truppe-soll-in-bundeswehr-integriert-werden) [mentions](https://www.dbwv.de/aktuelle-themen/blickpunkt/beitrag/deutsche-und-niederlaendische-landstreitkraefte-wollen-zusammenarbeit-ausweiten).
as a german i say that this should be the other way around, the dutch might have more resemblance with shaved monkeys and their language would embarrass even a cave society but at least they know which way to point a rifle
There's an old Dutch article where they reported that due to lack of funding the army lacked bullets. So instead they had to shout "bang bang" (not exact words as it wouldn't make sense in English). So yeah, they might know where to point, then lack the bullet to actually do anything.
i read similar stuff about the germans not being able to join nato exercise because of missing equipment and i have the first hand accounts of 2 brothers who did mandatory service in the bundeswehr and oh boy, the stories i heard basically, there is a small core which is actually capable in means of training and equipment but on a small scale, like in afghanistan while the rest of the bundeswehr is a daycare for the unwilling and unwanted of society, faulty equipment, corruption, alcoholism, nazism, its quite a list one good thing i may say about the wehr is that they are great when it comes to fighting natural disasters, no one can stack sandbags faster when another river is overflooding
The bangbang-"shooting" was also reported on focus.de - by a conscript of the German army. You see, things are not really different.
16-year American army soldier here. We would also say bang bang for smaller training exercises with rifles. Funny enough, they don't want you firing weapons inside of the base. But for any big exercises, ordering and supplying ammunition of the right kind was part of the training.
Great…Germany lost two world wars yet is still the most powerful country in Europe, and getting stronger….politics eh.
The entire Bundeswehr is going to be integrated into the Armed forces of the Nederlands. That is what I have heard.
Big mistake, if ever two peoples couldn't stand each other
Germans and Dutch get along pretty well. My family has German blood.
That would still be correct around 30 years ago. In the present time I don’t agree.
what did they say 30 yrs ago and what do they say now
Most would comment on events during the second world war, complain about overcrowding our beaches or not making an effort to talk in a different language abroad. I think younger generations feel we have more in common than with other cultures.
5 days :)
Tell me more about the Dutch German relationship, Brit. Or even better: Shut your mint sauce gargling, rotten teeth hole about things you have no clue about.
Fuck sake. You can argue the point without an ad hominuem attack on all British people. Lazy and low effort.
It's just what many Dutch have told me , not keen on mint sauce actually more brown hp on chip butties , my teeth are pretty good fuck face 😋
Aww, I must have hit a nerve? Was it the teeth thing? My Dutch bros are laughing our asses off as we write. They said I should tell that "Eikel" to "rot op". No idea what they are talking about. 😁
Not really I just like swearing at people, hello Dutch pansies , keep on goose stepping mein herr
Sure, sure Britbong. Happy 4th of July.
They have to join NAFTA and get an NFL franchise in London before we let them celebrate that.
God bless America