German Politics Thread

Well, Germany is obligated to get involved if something goes down in Europe or North America, and its fellow NATO members are the defenders.

And honestly, Trump hitting Syria wasn't that bad it and of itself. The issue is that he doesn't have a follow up plan that makes sense, and the strike was totally symbolic.

Besides, if Merkel starts taking isolationist stances towards defense, especially in Eastern Europe (Middle East/Asia they can get away with), that will just cause more havoc within the EU. Even worse if Le Pen or Fillon win in France.

I am not talking about DEFENCE. If one of our Nato partners gets attacked, we naturally do have to act, provided that it was an unprovoked attack (as the Nato reminded Turkey when they shot down the Russian jet....still waiting for the US to get the same kind of warning). But neither Syria nor North Korea has attacked any of our Nato partners yet. And if the US keeps war mongering, I don't think that we should stand by it. It would be a perversion of the Nato, which is supposed to be a defence alliance.

edited 17th Apr '17 11:31:00 AM by Swanpride

Syria and Best Korea are both outside the boundaries of article 5 anyway. Europe only gets hauled in if things escalate to involve Russia or maybe China.

Merkel doesn't have the political capital or the resources (even if the German military was properly equipped, you guys have way too much crap on your plates to deploy) to send anything more than a token force (or non-combat assistance) to another asymmetric America and friends VS insurgency war.

The US is using military bases in Germany. Who do you think will get hit if Russia or China or North-Korea and the US are really getting serious? I have supported the notion of peace missions in Afghanistan, but I sure as hell won't support it if Germany is getting dragged into a war in which we all will loose.

I'd say that Merkel has learned from her open endorsement of the Iraq war. Since she became chancellor, she has been very cautious about sending German troops on foreign missions, only doing so in Mali for demonstrating solidarity with France and against an enemy that so is openly evil that even Germans support the fight against them.

This is just my opinion, but I suspect that she was initially too naive regarding the USA. For someone who always viewed the USA as the embodiment of freedom, she probably could not stand that Schröder would risk that alliance. She now knows better and it would be suicidal of her to e.g. agree to send soldiers to Syria. Merkel is probably just glad right now that the Trump adminastration is now unlikely to e.g. make a deal with Russia over the Ukraine and Syria and wil thererefor refrain from doing anything that might push Trump in the other direction, e.g. openly criticizing him.

I am not so sure...whenever I listen to our CDU politicians, I get the impression that they are itching for going into the offensive in Syria, but don't say it out loud because they know how unpopular that stance is in Germany.

From the outside you guys certainly give the opposite impression, from the outside the risk seems not that you'd follow the US in a war of aggression against Iran/Syria/North Korea, but that you'd tell NATO to go screw itself and let Russia invade Poland rather than risk being called the bad guys for getting involved.

The risk doesn't look to be you guys becoming the bad guys in the next global conflict, it looks much more likely that you refuse to stand up to the bad guys and instead go full Switzerland.

Even the missions in Afghanistan kinda boil my parsnip since, honestly, it was a pretty clear violation of NATO's Article 5.

If you don't know, Bush invoked Article 5 (which is the clause that states that if a NATO member is attacked, other treaty members are obligated to come to their defense) just after 9/11, and that became the casus belli for the war in Afghanistan.

What Afghanistan had to do with a terror network funded primarily by Saudi Arabian and Yemeni nationals is, of course, anyone's guess.

edited 17th Apr '17 1:33:57 PM by math792d

It had to do with this the fact that the Taliban were providing a safe haven for AQ to operate out of and carry out 9/11 from.

Now the fact that Pakistan was doing the exact same thing just less openly raises the question of why Pakistan wasn't also invaded (the answer being the Pakistani government being a US ally (at least nominally) and the existence of Pakistan's nuclear weapons), but the invasion of Afghanistan being due to it being the main base of operations from which AQ carried out 9/11 is legit.

I think you can be pretty sure that Germany will defend Poland this time around. This particular debt is too heavy to let Poland hang out dry. Unless the political situation in Poland itself worsens, naturally. If you slip into a dictatorship, it might tip the scales.

And for the record, we already are in Syria.

edited 17th Apr '17 2:09:29 PM by Swanpride

Being involved in Syria and starting a war of aggression against Syria aren't the same thing. There's a difference between helping a pre-existing local force with supplies and air support (which is what was done in Libya and is being done in Syria) and launching a war of aggression without local support simply because it may be profitable (which is what was done in Iraq originally).

Sure...but if the US keeps dropping bombs with no regard to the collateral damage, I don't think that we should associating with them at least until Trump is out of office. There isn't much of a difference between giving the other forces the information they use in order to bomb targets and throwing the bomb yourself.

That's fine, withdrawing the limited involvement in Syria isn't the kind of isolation that I'm worried about, what I'm worried about is you guys going full WW 2 Switzerland and not caring if say Turkey invaded Greece or Trump invaded Cuba.

Greece owes us money. Like hell we are going to let them off the hook that easily. ;)

Though what would you expect us do if the USA attacks Kuba?

We are also not obliged to help South Korea because they are not member of Nato (and again, what would you expect us to do?).

I don't think that Germany's commitment to Poland is in doubt, because well, losing them would put German security in jeopardy as well. Berlin is rather close to the Oder. Not that the current Polish government has done a lot to win brownie points of course.

That being said, I am not sure how enthusiastic we (and other Nato states as well) would be about the Baltics. I mean don't get me wrong, I am very sympathic towards them, but would we really be willing to fight (at best) a long conventional war with Russia that' put us at a severe disadvantage via the Sulwaki gap for a region that adds little strategic or economic depth to the alliance? Of course the Nato troops now stationed there might complicate things... .

edited 17th Apr '17 3:38:00 PM by Zarastro

I'd hope to see economic sanctions and the cutting of political ties if the US did go off the deep end.

As for the Baltics, there's the complication that abandoning them would be in violation of both NATO and EU treaty rules but also requires abandoning Poland, because the Poles aren't going to abandon the Baltics.

Now right now neither situation seems likely to happen, but if Germany were to go off the deep in I'd expect it to go off the isolationist "we must not war with anyone no matter what, even if it's the only way to stop a genocide" deep end rather than the "kill-kill, blood for the blood god" deep end.

To be perfectly honest, if there is any nation on Earth that I'd trust to start really militarizing (as in building up and becoming a more global presence, not seeping into politics or society), it would be Germany.

I haven't checked it myself, but I read an article claiming that technically, article 5 does not specify how the support should look like. That was an article dealing with Turkey and how right now, probably no Nato would really want to help them.

Personally I'd argue that the soldiers already stationed in the Baltics might suffice. Again, I am simply talking from a rational perspective. The Baltics simply don't justify a war that would at best kill hundreds of thousands of people.

edited 17th Apr '17 3:57:21 PM by Zarastro

The Baltics are a different matter...if Russia attacks there, the other NATO states have to react. But South Korea? Syria? We actually don't have any stakes whatsoever in South Korea (though we actually have close ties to North Korea), and the only reason we are in Syria is in order to work with the UN and because ISIS does terror attacks on EU soil.

If Trumps keeps throwing bombs around I expect Merkel to take a clear stance on this matter, pull our troops back and maybe even ask the US to leave our bases.

though we actually have close ties to North Korea),

I am sorry, what?

Sorry, it is late...I naturally confused North and South. We have business ties to South Korea.

Sure but a Russia crazy enough to invade the Baltics would never stop there, you're using the same logic that was used to justify giving up Czechoslovakia. Nutball dictators never stop at just one country, they never stop at just one territorial expansion.

Giving up the Baltics men's more than giving up the Baltics, it means the end of NATO, the end of the common security policy of the EU and quite likely the subjection of all of Eastern Europe to totalitarianism. Does that justify a war that would at best kill hundreds of thousands of people?

Yes you do, you have the common stakes of mankind. Sure Germany wouldn't suffer economically or physically if South Korea was destroyed, but there's more to consequences than just the physical and economic. The consequences in precedent could be huge, wars of aggression and huge land grabs by small and middling powers are back, annexations of entire countries is now an okay thing to do, the nuclear weapons taboo would be broken and not fixable without instant punishment being placed on North Korea.

You always have a stake in the fate of others, because peace in Korea is one of the many many blocks upon which the general world peace we all enjoy is built, sure one block could be taken away and the peace would remain stable, but we can never twelve which block would be the last, which removal would send the entire structure that has been build since the end of the Second World War tumbling down. So each block must be defended as if it was the last, because it might well be.

edited 17th Apr '17 4:20:58 PM by Silasw

This is a very slippery slope. Syria is a war by proxy as it is, and North Korea...honestly, I wonder if all the attention it suddenly gets makes the situation worse. I mean, what is the point of testing nuclear bombs if nobody cares? This is a dick waving contest. We learned that lesson before WWI when we built a fleet which p... everyone off and wasn't even useful during the actual war.

Oh the current attention is no help, I'm not saying that Germany or anyone else needs to get more involved currently, but if North Korea looses it and invades the South don't for a moment think that Germany and others don't have a reason to stand with South Korea, they very much do.

Granted, the Germans can't do much if Kim goes on the warpath. It will be the Americans, the Japanese, and the South Koreans themselves desperately attempting to shell the KPA's artillery capability into dust so that some of Seoul is still there at the end. Meanwhile the Chinese will probably be dropping spec ops to have a chat with Kim the 3rd.

The best the Germans could do is send aid, and maybe peacekeepers to watch over the aftermath.

I don't see why the Germans couldn't be involved, remember the Korean War was fought by a UN force that included not just the US but also UK, Canada, France, Greece, Ethiopia, the Netherlands, Belgium, Colombia, Luxembourg, Thailand, South Africa and others directly, with India, Denmark, Israel, Italy Norway and Sweden providing medical support.

Germany can choose to not be involved and to leave it to others, but that would be a choice.

edited 17th Apr '17 7:52:16 PM by Silasw