
German Bundeswehr cooperates more closely with European Allies - vinnyglennon
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/22/germany-is-quietly-building-a-european-army-under-its-command/
======
WesleyLivesay
I don't know why anybody would be surprised about this. The threat of Russia
to Eastern Europe, the fact that one Western European country has already
voted to leave the EU, and having a United States that doesn't seem like a
country you can count on is going to lead smaller countries to come closer to
Germany as the strongest nation in the region.

~~~
muninn_
> having a United States that doesn't seem like a country you can count on

In what way? A Russian attack on Germany or a NATO ally is something the US
would definitely go to war over. I know it's popular now to freak out because
Trump is president, but nothing has changed in this regard.

~~~
LyndsySimon
It could be argued that the US's (lack of) reaction to Russian occupation of
Crimea and its lack of involvement in the situation between Russia and Turkey
has eroded the guarantee that NATO is supposed to provide.

~~~
votepaunchy
Neither the Ukraine nor Turkey are NATO members and have no bearing on the
NATO guarantee.

~~~
somewhatoff
Turkey is very definitely a NATO member, and has been since 1952.

------
matt4077
> “Gaps” in the Bundeswehr is an understatement. In 1989, the West German
> government spent 2.7 percent of GDP on defense, but by 2000 spending had
> dropped to 1.4 percent

One man's gap is another's peace dividend. 0% should be the standard to judge
against, and the unfortunate necessity to go above that shouldn't be mistaken
for anything but a giant drain of productivity that could be spent on almost
anything else with better results.

I also don't get how military spending is indexed to GDP. Surely what matters
first is the actual power of an alliance's militaries compared to realistic
threats. Only then could GDP be a useful yardstick to distribute the burdens
among the members of that alliance.

In the specific case, it's a completely rational decision to lower investments
in Europe considering the US continues to fund its military at levels that can
only be explained by some sort of chauvinist fascination with guns, bombs, and
golden toilet seats. It's even beneficial for the US if Europe instead invests
in soft-power resources, something that has actually happened since 1990.

~~~
chatmasta
It's easy to hate on the military industrial complex, but it's hard to deny
the positive technologies borne from military r&d. Microwave ovens, space
ships, the internet, Tor, GPS, canned food...

~~~
matt4077
You'd be hard pressed to spend $600,000,000,000 per year, or
$1,200,000,000,000,000 since WW2, and not come up with a few ideas in the
process.

------
padthai
I think in 10-20 years we could see something like an European Union army.
Some countries will opt-out (Ireland? Sweden? Austria?) but the main internal
opposition (the UK) is not an issue anymore.

~~~
mtgx
I wonder if this will make countries more or less likely to stay in the EU. I
would lean towards "more" because they probably wouldn't want to be on EU's
bad side in the future. Tough luck for UK, I suppose.

~~~
LyndsySimon
It wouldn't be the first time the UK has stood alone against a Europe united.

It would be interesting to see the UK build a closer relationship with the
Commonwealth, instead of doing so with the EU.

------
bryanrasmussen
So the article says: "For every federalist in Brussels who thinks a common
defense force is what Europe needs to boost its standing in the world, there
are those in London and elsewhere who recoil at the notion of a potential NATO
rival."

The question I have is if 'elsewhere' is as irrelevant to a EU politician as
London is?

~~~
matt4077
Since only NATO countries seem to be in a position to "recoil at the notion of
a potential NATO rival", the "elsewhere" probably does include a fair number
of EU politicians, including Germans. I believe "rival" isn't meant in the
sense of a potential armed conflict between the EU and NATO (which would be
ridiculous), but simply as competition for mindshare and organisational
resources.

~~~
bryanrasmussen
I guess my interpretations was -

For every federalist with a say in what the EU needs to do about a common
defense force there is a federalist without any say in that or a federalist
from somewhere unnamed who may or may not have a say in that.

I mean I understand that the somewhere unnamed federalist may in fact be
someone who has a say in the matter in some way, but if that is what one is
trying to say why lead off with an example named federalist that doesn't have
any say.

Also a non NATO member might recoil at a potential NATO rival if they feel
they can exploit some weakness in NATO and fear the rival would not have the
same weakness.

------
skocznymroczny
An European army, especially nowadays, won't work without finalizing all the
rules. If a far-right government wins in a EU country, will the army be used
to bring the country under liberal control?

------
waibelp
Interesting to read this on a non-german page as a german... o_0

~~~
skdotdan
Why?

~~~
nonidit
It wasn't really in the news here in Germany. But I think it's a great step
towards a more unified Europe.

------
lorenzfx
Title sounds a bit too clickbaity IMO, but I guess who would want to read an
article titled "German Bundeswehr cooperates more closely with European
Allies".

~~~
dang
Let's try it.

