News of Turkey’s plans to conduct comprehensive tests of the Russian-made S-400 air defense system has added to the country’s economic pains and is helping send the Turkish currency to a record low against the US dollar.

Washington Warns Turkey Against Activating the S-400s

According to Bloomberg, Turkey will test the advanced missile system next week at a site in Sinop province on the Black Sea coast. The news immediately drew fire from Washington, which warned Turkey against testing the Russian missiles.

Washington and its allies are worried that the S-400 system will enable Russia to gather intelligence about NATO’s air defense capabilities, specifically the US-made stealthy F-35 fighter jet.

The S-400s, known in Moscow as the “F-35 killer,” are considered the most modern long and medium-range surface-to-air missile system. The missiles can engage targets at a range of up to 400 kilometres, up to six times the speed of light, at heights of up to 30 kilometres. The S-400s can also launch 40N6 missiles (long-range, hypersonic, surface-to-air missiles) to engage low maneuverable aerodynamic targets.

Turkey’s Decision to Buy the S-400 Missile System from Russia

The government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan moved to buy the Russian missile system after the US hesitated to provide Turkey with the Patriot air defense system. As the first equipment of the Russian system arrived in Turkey last year, the Trump administration kicked Ankara out of its F-35 program, in which Turkey was a manufacturer and buyer.

The US also threatened to impose economic sanctions on Turkey if it deployed and activated the Russian-made S-400s, but has not yet imposed these measures.

“We continue to object strenuously to Turkey’s purchase of the S-400 air defense system, and are deeply concerned with reports that Turkey is continuing its efforts to bring the S-400 into operation,” a spokesman for the State department said. “We continue to stress at the highest levels that the S-400 transaction remains a major obstacle in the bilateral relationship and at NATO, as well as a risk for potential CAATSA sanctions.”

Ankara reportedly tested the S-400’s communications systems by scrambling the US-made F-16s last year, in a move seen by Washington and its allies as hostile to the NATO members.

The Turkish Lira Takes a Nosedive

As tension mounted over the planned test of the S-400 system, the Turkish lira plunged into a historic low on Thursday, registering 7.9 lira against US dollar. The drop was the latest in more than two years of continuing depreciation of the Turkish currency amid military tensions between Turkey and its neighbors.

In 2018, Turkey’s relations with Washington further nosedived over the detention of Pastor Andrew Brunson on terrorism charges, with the Trump administration imposing devastating economic sanctions on Ankara. These sanctions have caused the lira to plunge and forced Turkey’s economy into recession.

Turkey has been considered among the riskiest emerging markets in recent years. The Turkish economy is categorized as one of the fragile five, along with India, Brazil, South Africa and Indonesia, mainly due to the country’s large current-account deficits.

Ankara’s Growing Foreign Trade Deficit and Rising Unemployment

According to the Turkish Statistics Institute, Turkey’s foreign trade deficit leapt 168.2% year-on-year in August to $6.278 billion under the general trade system. Exports fell 5.7% and imports jumped 20.4% compared with August 2019. Turkey’s annual consumer price inflation rate registered 11.75% last month and the unemployment rate climbed to 13.4% in the three months to July.

Turkey has long survived by attracting strong capital inflows, prompting strong credit expansion which in turn encourages economic growth. But this virtuous cycle turns vicious in bad times, dragging the lira to the brink.

Erdogan’s political and military adventures have also contributed to the country’s economic woes. On the political scene, Turkey has had at least one election every year except 2016. There were local elections in 2014, two general elections in 2015, a referendum on the government system in 2017, general and parliamentary elections in 2018, and local elections in 2019. This has put continuous pressure on the authorities to spend money and keep stimulating the economy with interest rates low enough to encourage more borrowing.

Turkey’s Numerous Military Engagements

On the military side, Turkey is involved in several conflicts in its neighborhoods. The Turkish army is conducting military operations in neighboring Syria, Iraq as well as Libya, where Ankara is supporting the Tripoli-based Government of National Accord. Turkey is also engaged in a heated standoff with NATO members Greece and France over gas exploration rights in the eastern Mediterranean. Ankara also supports Azerbaijan in its military conflict with Armenia over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Last month, Turkey’s central bank defied pressure by Erdogan to keep the interest rate low, raising the rate from 8.25% to 10.25% in an attempt to strengthen the lira against the US currency.

But as the central bank is facing mounting pressures from Erdogan not to raise the interest rate in order to help curb inflation and amid the ongoing Turkish military disputes with neighbors, the Turkish currency is expected to bleed more in the coming weeks.

L'articolo Will the S-400 Missile System Be the ‘Death Knell’ for Turkey’s Economy? proviene da InsideOver.

The German Navy is in the process of obtaining five new warships. However, the purchase, despite Germany’s latest aspirations, is not intended to initiate a paradigm shift within the Bundeswehr but is instead about German efficiency – unfortunately.

The Currently Subpar Status of Germany’s Military

Germany’s armed forces are currently in a sorry state. Foreign missions that would require combat operations are out of the question. The troops’ reputation in their own country is practically non-existent, and allies know that German soldiers can, at best, be utilized for basic and routine services abroad.

For the first time last year, the country’s leaders opened a serious discussion making the Bundeswehr fit to face the new challenges in the world, but the majority of the population still does not support the idea, and thus the grand coalition remains divided over the force’s future.

Why the Purchase? Buying New Warships is Cheaper Than Repairing the Old Ones

Accordingly, the new warships are not intended to start a larger German present, but because the acquisition costs of 2.8 billion are cheaper than having ailing ships repeatedly repaired.

The Ministry of Defense has already approved a corresponding motion by Christian Democratic Union (CDU) MP Ingo Gädechens. According to this, further action on the file was currently being coordinated by the ministry.

The Bundeswehr currently possesses five K130 corvettes, which they purchased in 2008 to replace 15 speedboats. The 89-meter-long warships are suitable for use near the coast, such as in the Baltic Sea and the Mediterranean. They are currently involved in the UN mission outside Lebanon.

The Navy Steps up to the Plate

Defense politicians in Germany have declared their goal to strengthen the Bundeswehr again after decades of saving. Of the Bundeswehr’s armed forces, the Navy has best managed to comply with this declared will.

At the end of 2016, the advance for five additional K130s arrived. They were appointed in 2017, shortly before the general election. The argument: the Bundeswehr has too few ships to increase the number of foreign deployments and Russia’s growing threat. Another argument at the time was that the second batch of five corvettes could be built faster than larger frigates of the multi-purpose combat ship MKS 180.

Four years later, this is no longer unreservedly true. The old corvettes suffer from “obsolescence”; in other words: their technology is out of date. From 2025, they would have to be overhauled. Even the Federal Audit Office has recommended to the Ministry of Defense several times over the past few years to plan new acquisitions at an early stage instead of continuing to operate old weapon systems for decades.

What is certain is that the old corvettes no longer meet the requirements of international missions, so from 2025, they will probably have to go to the shipyard for weeks or even months to modernize. They would not be available for use for so long.

With the second batch order in 2017, the Bundestag also decided that the Bundeswehr should have ten operational corvettes. If a structurally identical third batch of five corvettes were ordered during this legislative period, the Bundeswehr would always have ten corvettes.

In addition: The repair of the old corvettes would not extend the 30-year service life, because of the wear and tear of the ship’s hull, according to the ministry letter. In 2038, the Bundeswehr would need to replace then. The ships of the third lot to be ordered now, which would be delivered from 2025, could, on the other hand, be used until 2055. The opportunity to order new ships is also favorable because the government has promised the armaments industry with the 130-billion-euro economic stimulus package to promptly give them orders.

The Bundeswehr’s Future

Hence, the desperately needed paradigm shift in Germany’s Bundeswehr to address new and existing geopolitical threats and to address German aspirations in the Indo-Pacific has yet to be initiated. With German financial efficiency alone, Berlin will remain without an influential voice outside of the European Union.

L'articolo Germany’s Navy to Add New Warships – for Financial Purposes proviene da InsideOver.

Relations between Washington and Berlin have been mediocre as of late. Sadly, so has the public’s opinion about the US in Germany. Accordingly, the public’s reaction to the American troop withdrawal announcement was naïvely positive and marked the latest example of a change for the worse in German perception of the United States.

Details of the Troop Withdrawal Still Unclear

Albeit the extent of the withdrawal remains uncertain and, in fact, may be scrapped after all if Joe Biden wins on November 3. Still, the ongoing discussion appears to have had an impact on the German image of America nonetheless. Specific ideas German used to have about the US have, indeed, shifted significantly as of late.

Gone seem to be the days in which Germans were grateful for America, which has been liberator and protector of the whole continent in the past. While the older generations in Germany have remained cognizant of the latter — at least outside of the former East German GDR states — the current generations of Germans, millennials, in particular, appear to have gotten lost in between a  leftist ideology and a shocking degree of ignorance and lack of geopolitical understanding when it comes to America’s role in the world.

The Lessons of History are Being Forgotten in Germany

The ever-increasing distance to the end of World War II and the subsequent period of rivalry between West and the Soviet Union has increasingly weakened the image of the American soldier as a representative of freedom. It coincides with an already drastic withdrawal of US soldiers in Germany in the past 30 years. In 1985 the strength of the American contingent in West Germany was just under 250,000. The current figure is at a seventh of it: only 35,000. The plan now is to withdraw another 11,000 troops.

The latter is apparently no issue for many Germans. In a recent survey, a relative majority of 47 percent of respondents in Germany supported the partial withdrawal.

However, such a shrug of shoulders or even negative attitude towards the presence of American allies in Germany is not new. In an autumn 2019 survey only around half of those questioned answered that they considered an American troop presence in Germany to be an essential contribution to national security — which can be considered the perhaps best IQ test to date.

Anti-Americanism on the Rise

The anti-American sentiments that speak in these numbers also find political resonance in Berlin. The opposition parties Left and Greens, but also Merkel’s coalition partner, the SPD, responded in different ways to the withdrawal announcement with comments and suggestions intended to be confrontational and delimiting instead of cooperative or characterized by efforts to limit the damage.

While the Left Party, the successor party of the GDR’s SED, demands withdrawal of all troops, the Greens favor removal of all US nuclear weapons stationed in Germany. The SPD’s parliamentary group leader, Rolf Mützenich, meanwhile, who had previously also suggested that nuclear weapons needed to disappear from German soil – and thus set himself in opposition to his party colleague and Germany’s Foreign Minister Heiko Maas – now proposed that Germany should cease purchasing armaments from the United States in return for the withdrawal of troops.

Domestic Implications of the US Troop Withdrawal

The troop withdrawal is thus likely to have domestic implications also. With his intention to withdraw, Trump may have strengthened the formation of a political will, which in Germany could at least turn against some elements of the American presence that are strategically important in terms of military strategy — and may be used as a foreign policy wedge issue against the CDU during the elections in 2021.

Maas, meanwhile, still holds the argument against the demand for the withdrawal of nuclear weapons. He is cognizant that there are states in Europe that feel that they are far more threatened from a security policy perspective – from Russia. If Germany now foregoes the ability to target tactical nuclear weapons together with the United States, that would also weaken the European security architecture.

However, these geopolitical implications are far off the horizon for Germany’s (young) general public, who seem inclined to say tschüss to realism and guten Tag to naïveté.

L'articolo America’s Troop Withdrawal and Germany’s Naïveté proviene da InsideOver.

After it was recently announced that the USA wanted to withdraw troops from Germany, the exact number of soldiers is now to be increased again by 2,000. The geopolitical consequences and implications include significant problems for NATO and the United States itself. The hope remains that President Donald Trump’s plans may still not succeed.

US Troop Withdrawal from Germany

The United States has specified its plans for withdrawing troops from Germany: almost 12,000 soldiers are to leave Germany. Six thousand four hundred of them will return to the US, while 5,400 will be relocated within Europe.

Trump ordered the number of US soldiers stationed in Germany to be reduced by 10,000 from around 35,000 to 25,000. The president justified the deduction by referring to what he considered to be insufficient defense expenditure in Germany.

Washington did not consult Berlin prior to the decision to withdraw troops. Most recently, however, it was in an exchange with the US government. The plans met with reservations in the federal government and NATO.

Can the Troop Withdrawal Still be Stopped?

However, there are currently two scenarios in which the withdrawal can still be prevented. For one, resistance in the ranks of Trump’s party remains. Republican Congressmen argue that reducing troop presence in Germany will ultimately harm US security. Congress could thus block the partial withdrawal via the military budget or at least make it significantly more difficult. A deduction will require money that Congress must approve. Should the latter not prevent the withdrawal, the fact remains that Trump is likely to lose the November election and Joe Biden would probably not pursue the plans further.

Why the Troop Reduction isn’t in America’s or NATO’s Interest

The announced reduction from almost 35,000 to 25,000 soldiers is neither in Germany’s or NATO’s security interests nor does it make any geopolitical sense for the United States. The opposition within Washington is a testimony of the latter. Not only with the Democrats, but also with the Republicans and the Pentagon. Moreover, the fact that Germany found out about the withdrawal plans from the newspaper seems like a summary of the Trumpian foreign policy: inept and uncoordinated and utterly tone-deaf regarding allies.

Officially, the removal is meant as some form of a punishment for an ally that Trump has chosen as a favorite opponent among all US allies since the beginning of his term. It is all about German military spending. “Germany has been in default for years and owes NATO billions of dollars, and they have to pay that,” Trump said in June.

German Military Spending

The president is alluding to the NATO target that each member state should spend two per cent of its gross domestic product on defense. Germany has now moved closer to this goal but is still significantly lower at 1.38 per cent. There is nothing to gloss over here. Germany’s defense spending is unacceptable. A country with Germany’s status and the economic power it possesses ought to be capable of producing a feasible defense budget.

Unfortunately, the latter remains incompatible with most parties in Germany. Angela Merkel’s CDU is therefore not to be blamed for the situation entirely. Her coalition partner, the SPD, in particular, sees an increase in the defense budget as a return to darker German times in brown shirts.

Post-Cold War Security Guarantee

The US troops were a security guarantee for Germany during the Cold War. The stationing of troops is still an essential link between the two countries. On the one hand, there is the interpersonal aspect: over the decades, thousands of friendships, partnerships and marriages have developed between Germans and Americans.

For the regions around the US bases, there is also the economic aspect. In the Rhineland-Palatinate alone, more than 7,000 German local forces are employed by the US armed forces, and there are said to be 12,000 throughout Germany. In addition, many thousands more workers are attached to the US troops, especially in Rhineland-Palatinate, Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria. The US Air Force Base Ramstein alone is estimated to generate $ 2 billion in wages, salaries, rents, and orders in the regional economy each year.

The withdrawal is also a false signal towards Russia and its aggressive plans. The planned removal now is a continuation of a Trump doctrine that has been redefining the roles of allies and adversaries for three and a half years — fatal consequences included.

L'articolo The Pentagon Plans to Remove 12,000 Troops from Germany proviene da InsideOver.

Japan recently cancelled the purchase of a key missile defense system from the United States. It is a testimony of Japan’s new approach to its defense policy – the most significant change since World War II.

Japan’s Shifting Geopolitical Perspective

Japan is inclined to adapt to the ever-changing geopolitical challenges the world presents. Now, leading security staffers from the Japanese government have suggested that Tokyo should reserve itself the right to facilitate preemptive strikes on missile bases of adversaries such as North Korea. Even though Japan’s Minister of Defense Tarō Kōno did not officially confirm the doctrine, which is controversial under international law, he stated that “no option” would be excluded moving forward.

The latter is the diplomatic version of the agenda Prime Minister Shinzo Abe expressed a few weeks ago. According to him, Japan’s National Security Council will have a thorough discussion this summer about the nature of the Japanese security strategy, during which “a new direction” ought to be set and put it into practice “promptly.”

Constitutional Changes Under Consideration

It is not merely empty rhetoric, as Abe is inclined to change the Japanese constitution to implement his vision. The latter refers to Article 9 of the constitution in particular. So far, the article had been interpreted in a way that Japanese self-defence forces can only defend Japan in the event of an attack. Preemptive use of force prior to an attack is prohibited via the constitution – for now – and thus not an option.

With these constitutional shackles in places, Japan had so far focused on expanding its already viable missile defense. Part of it is six warships that use the Aegis system to detect and launch shoot down missiles in the case of an attack. On land, Patriot missiles currently act as the second line of defense.

Most recently, Japan sought to purchase the land-based system Aegis Ashore from the United States. Now, however, Minister of Defense Kōno ceased the project.

Washington’s Reaction

It is a decision that surprised Washington. After all, it is incredibly unusual for a government to suddenly announce the termination of such an extensive program that had been at the heart of Japan’s defense strategy. Not only had the current defense strategy been based on Aegis Ashore, but so too had the medium-term defense plan, which should presumably have set the course until 2023.

Even more astonishing is that the government is risking its relationship with US President Donald Trump for the move. Other factors outweighed Tokyo’s concerns about Trump’s temper. One is the strong local resistance to missile defense deployment among the Japanese people, while the staggering costs of the project is another factor. Multiple delays due to local resistances and Lockheed’s solid-state radar system SPY-7 resulted in the cost of the project, doubling to more than five billion euros.

Nevertheless: Kōno’s conclusion illustrates Japan’s concerns after decades of Chinese armament and Beijing’s unilateral attempt to change the status quo in the South China Sea and on the Indian border.

Japan Feels Threatened

The latter also strengthens Japan’s sense of threat as China increasingly aggressively claims the Senkaku Islands controlled by Japan. Japan’s air force and coast guard interfere with attempts by Chinese planes and ships into the region almost every day. Besides, Chinese submarines routinely circle the island kingdom not far from the territorial waters.

It is still an open question as to whether Abe can actually implement this change, of course. The country has one of the most modern war fleets in the world and has acquired helicopter carriers that are now to be converted into small aircraft carriers. On the one hand, the population is not yet convinced of the need for more armament and the heavily indebted nation lacks the financial means to increase the armaments budget so rapidly.

Nonetheless, in a region where China has been projecting its hegemonic ambitions ad nauseam, where North Korea is nuclear-armed, and the security interests of the United States and Japan are increasingly conflicting, Tokyo is now willing to adapt to the circumstances and flex its military muscles.

L'articolo Japan’s Vision for a new Defense Policy proviene da InsideOver.

The looming US troop removal from Germany is the result of Trump’s lack of geopolitical aptitude. Nonetheless, this culmination of a dramatic alienation between Washington and Berlin is not merely one-sided.

Details of the Troop Drawdown

US troops stationed in Germany are to be reduced by 9,500, President Trump reaffirmed this earlier this week in an attempt to penalize Germany. According to Trump, Germany has been in arrears for years on its defense spending commitment and thus owes NATO billions of dollars for not satisfying NATO’s defense spending of two percent of GDP.

The consensus across party lines is that Trump’s actions are downright foolish decision —  classically Trumpian, in other words. It is a conclusion one can easily sign onto. Trump has proven time and time again that he knows about as much about geopolitical issues as he does about being faithful during marriage, honesty and decency. Accordingly, the ratio for his decision is preposterous, if not stupendous.

The Reality of Germany’s Military Spending

Germany does not actually owe NATO or the United States money, as Trump has claimed for years. Germany, like all other members, contributes to the administrative costs of the alliance in accordance with their share.

Trump, however, despite having been in office for almost four years now, still does not comprehend that the issue of budgeting NATO —  which is a fair point —  is based on Germany’s national defense spending as a whole, which is far below the promised two percent, but does not mean that Berlin owes any payments to NATO per se.

Trump is Acting Against American Interests

Moreover, as even Republicans have pointed out by now, Trump is acting against the geostrategic interests of the United States. US bases and troops in Germany not only contained Russia but projected power in the Middle East and Africa. And let us not forget: Germany remains one of America’s most important allies in Europe, as its de facto leader.

Trump’s animosity against Germany is not something he developed during his time in office. If anything, the presidency has exacerbated his already-held views. One of the decade-long constants in Trump’s thinking has been the notion that America is being ripped off by its allies, both in Asia and in Europe. As early as the 1980s, Trump paid a page-high advertisement in the New York Times, accusing Western allies of economically overpowering America while benefiting from expensive American military protection.

It is a one-sided view of the world that ignores the fact that America’s role in the world has grown out of the experiences of two world wars and that the United States itself also benefits from the regulatory framework that it provides and created in Pax Americana.

Trump’s Deceptive Narrative

Nonetheless, the narrative already served Trump in the election campaign and served widespread fatigue among US citizens who believe that their country is overstretched globally and involved in too many costly wars.

It is often overlooked that NATO was by no means created out of the goodness of the heart of the USA, but rather that the alliance was meant to provide a counterbalance for communism, and thus secure capitalism in Europe – which has benefited the United States tremendously.

However, the German economy is geared towards exports like no other and the United States has amassed a considerable trade deficit with the European powers. No country economically benefits so much from the geopolitical framework that America provides as Germany does. Accordingly, the United States ought to expect more from Germany than the current measly percentages it currently chips in to maintain this framework and help the Americans shoulder their heavy burdens.

Germany’s Share of the Blame for Rising Tension

In a way, the troop withdrawal is the catharsis of a long escalation loop in German-American relations since Trump took office. Berlin has never managed to take itself out of the line of fire by finally becoming geopolitically involved in other ways than warm words and instead exacerbated the issue via projects such as Nord Stream 2. European countries even objected the latter, but Berlin moved on, nonetheless.

As a result, Berlin is now facing a non-partisan majority in Congress for sanctions against the pipeline project. All at a time when increasing Russian aggressiveness and doubts about America’s leadership have forced other NATO partners to spend more on defense. Germany, meanwhile, remains passive, seemingly inclined to sit out the Trump era.

The strategic consequences of the partial withdrawal of US troops from Germany for the security of Europe will depend primarily on whether the soldiers return to the USA or are at least partially stationed in Eastern Europe, particularly Poland. Politically, however, this process is an expression of speechlessness and alienation in the German-American relationship —  which, however, is not only the fault of Washington but a result of Germany’s unwillingness to accept its power and responsibilities besides fruitless diplomacy. Germany needs to step up from the minor leagues of geopolitics into the national leagues. Part of doing this will be to increase its national defense budget to a degree that is worthy of Germany’s economic and political status in the world.

L'articolo Trump Needs to Tone it Down, Germany Needs to Step up proviene da InsideOver.

While Russia and the USA are currently discussing the extension of a New START agreement in Austria, China continues to build its military weaponry of the future, including one that is already in Russian possession. Unlike the Kremlin, however, hypersonic weapons could soon become a geopolitical game-changer for Beijing.

In December 2019, Russia was the world’s first country to launch hypersonic missiles. Back then, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu referred to these weapons as a “milestone” for Russia and the Russian military. President Vladimir Putin spoke of an “ultimate weapon” that could break through any missile defense system and was virtually “invincible”. Russia’s Avangard missiles, as the fully operational weapons are called, are said to possess intercontinental range and can fly at 20 times the speed of sound.

What Makes Hypersonic Weapons Systems Unique?

Systems that reach more than five times the speed of sound, i.e. cover more than 6,000 kilometres per hour, are referred to as hypersonic weapons. The uniqueness is based on the speed that makes the missiles more difficult to be intercepted. Conventional missiles follow a fixed ballistic trajectory and can thus be shot down once defence systems have calculated their trajectory and their point of impact. With hypersonic missiles, however, targets and trajectory can be changed during flight.

Putin’s statements thus raised significant concerns in other governments. After all, Russia appears currently to be the only nation that possesses fully functional hypersonic weapons with intercontinental range.

Nevertheless, the Russians’ advantage should soon be matched if not exceeded, with France, the United States and China are already working on their own systems. Open is the question of how severe geopolitical implications will be.

China’s Quest for Regional Hegemony

However, Russia, despite its current pioneer status, is unlikely to utilize the latter to shift global power structures. Instead, China appears to be the most logical beneficiary. Beijing has the resources and the military to use hypersonic weapons effectively – particularly with regard to East Asia and China’s hegemonic claims in the region.

Hypersonic weapons will not reshape the balances of power on a global level. Nuclear parity and an always omnipresent MAD Doctrine remain supreme. Russia’s new weapons cannot reverse course into a bipolar world and help to once again project power across the globe. What hypersonic weapons do offer, however, is an advantage for regional claims to power.

The latter is precisely what China has been seeking, and Washington has been alarmed for some time. To the extent that the Pentagon considers its bases and ships in East Asia threatened by future Chinese hypersonic armament. The US is now faced with the decision of whether to find a military technology answer or to retreat from this region.

The South China Sea has been a center of military and political conflict for years. China claims areas in violation of international law and is prepared to defend these by force if necessary. Furthermore, while American technology currently offers an effective shield against Chinese ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, hypersonic technology will make these protection systems obsolete. In view of this, China’s investments are strategically more relevant than the Kremlin’s.

The EU Has Taken Notice

The European Union is also increasingly cognizant of the issues the new technology can cause – particularly in the wrong hands. Germany, for example, plans to use its EU Council Presidency as a stage to initiate a global dialogue on missile technology in general, but also in particular on hypersonic weapons and how a new arms race can be prevented.

However, the effectiveness of this agenda must be questioned. Preventive arms control of hypersonic weapons could make the world safer, but only if all actors are inclined to implement effective monitoring. With Beijing being one of these actors, however, the latter appears inconceivable. Beijing has shown it does not like to play by international rules, and even the EU’s best efforts are unlikely to change this fact.

L'articolo Hypersonic Weapons: the Future of Warfare? proviene da InsideOver.

For seventy-five years, the US has maintained a significant military presence in Germany. These troops are a vestige of the force that defeated Nazism and held Soviet expansion in check during the Cold War. Today, they symbolize America’s enduring commitment to European peace and stability, and help project Washington’s power worldwide. But that could be about to change.

US Troop Reduction in Germany

Consistent with his pledge to dial down US military deployments overseas, US President Donald Trump is on the cusp of recalling almost a third of America’s German garrison, reports suggest. This would see upwards of 9,000 troops based in the central European country either returned home or redeployed elsewhere. 

Money, it seems, is the critical factor. Germany, like many of Europe’s NATO states, is failing to meet the defense bloc’s requisite military expenditure, 2% of GDP. Indeed, spending just 1.4% of national income on arms, the government of German Chancellor Angela Merkel is among the group’s most miserly members.

Should this frugality be punished with military withdrawal, however? It’s a question that has Washington divided. 

Proponents of Trump’s approach point to the nation’s changing geostrategic priorities. No longer is a bulwark needed to ward off Soviet encroachment from the East, an omnipresent danger that dissipated with the end of the Cold War. 

Republicans Oppose Trump’s Move

But for those on the other side of the argument, the threat from Russia remains potent enough to merit an armed presence in Germany. 

“[Withdrawing troops] would significantly damage US national security as well as strengthen the position of Russia to our detriment,” wrote 22 Republican lawmakers in a letter to the White House, adding: “We believe that signs of a weakened US commitment to NATO will encourage further Russian aggression and opportunism.”

Containing the Kremlin’s expansionist instincts is but one function of America’s German garrison. From the Ramstein Air Base outside of Mannheim — a city in the country’s southwest — operations in Africa and the Middle East are launched and coordinated. Likewise, the neighboring Landstuhl medical center cares for US service personnel injured in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.

Downsizing these facilities would be a blow both to America’s projection of global power and to Germany itself, which has always welcomed the stabilizing presence of US troops. Russia, critics say, would be the only winner from Trump’s proposed military withdrawal.   

Russia Welcomes Trump’s Decision

Little surprise, then, that Moscow’s foreign ministry welcomed the news with enthusiasm. “We would welcome any steps by Washington to scale down its military presence in Europe,” said spokeswoman Maria Zakharova. “Such steps would undoubtedly help reduce confrontational potential and ease military and political tensions in the Euro-Atlantic region.”

But for Russia, there could be a sting in the tail. Rumours in Washington suggest that soldiers siphoned from German garrisons could be redeployed to Poland, bolstering an ever growing US military presence in the Eastern European state. For officials in Warsaw – which meet NATO’s 2% defense spending benchmark — this is promising news.

“If you look at the strategic needs of the alliance, it’s obvious that we should have more troops and more defensive capabilities on the eastern flank,” said Pawel Jablonski, Poland’s deputy foreign minister.   

Moscow, unsurprisingly, has strongly warned against such action, branding it flagrant provocation by the West. This rebuke ought to worry the German government, which has invested a huge amount of time, effort, and capital into the Nordstream 2 project, a gas pipeline that runs from Russia into Europe via the Baltic Sea. Fraying East-West relations threaten to put the brakes on the scheme, which is months away from completion. 

The Growing Rift Between Europe and the US

Fearing the consequences of Moscow’s deepening energy dominance of Europe, Washington has fiercely opposed the scheme. The dispute is emblematic of a widen foreign policy rift between NATO’s historic allies. Be it with the US’s crippling sanctions regime against Iran — which European nations, including Germany, France, and Britain, are working to sidestep — or America’s showdown with Chinese firm Huawei (which much of Europe continues to do business with), it’s clear that both sides of the Atlantic are not singing from the same hymn sheet. 

With an election approaching, this matters more to Trump than ever before. In 2016, he struck gold with a simple message: why should American taxpayers subsidize the security of parsimonious partners? If he can do that again — starting with Germany’s US troop contingent — he’ll likely come out a winner once again. 

L'articolo Worries Around Trump’s Plan To Pull US Troops Out Of Germany proviene da InsideOver.

In the future, according to the will of Germany’s Defense Minister Kramp-Karrenbauer, the Bundeswehr needs to take much more responsibility and fight side by side with the allies. A noble and long overdue vision. However, does Germany possess military capabilities after having focused on diplomacy for decades and no real combat situations?

The idea was first brought up when Kramp-Karrenbauer (AKK) said the Bundeswehr could play an active part in a delicate mission between Turkish, Syrian, Kurdish and, not least, Russian forces after the Turks had invaded Northern Syria. Foreign Minister Maas and his SPD were outraged. The international response was ranged from shock to excitement, as Germany has been known for making excuses whenever dangerous combat missions require actual work from the international community.

A few days later, AKK reemphasized her plan by stating that the German armed forces should in future be more courageous and committed in foreign missions. As an example, she mentioned the conflict in Mali, where the division of labor with the French troops stationed there also means that the main burden of the fighting against Islamist terror lies with the French.

The French will happily confirm this notion immediately. Indeed, no nation, whether Americans, Britons, Italians or even the Poles would complain if Germany was to become more involved not only diplomatically and in terms of being glorified water boys, but also militarily.

Those, who oppose the new approach are German themselves. Pacifist, non-realists, who cannot bear the thought of German troops being involved in a combat mission, due to the country’s past. What they lack in solidarity to the other nations, who have done the heavy lifting in all these decades, they possess in finger-pointing whenever a state does not seem to listen to Germany’s “dispute resolutions”. It remains a shameful, irresponsible display of German foreign policy.

Apart from the political dispute, however, the military capabilities must be considered also. An increases engagement – or in Germany’s case an engagement – can only occur if the Bundeswehr is sufficiently equipped and trained. AKK realizes this and has pledged to finally satisfy the NATO agreement of spending two percent of GDP towards defense by 2031. What does not quite sound like German efficiency, is indeed a true paradigm shift at this stage. Usually, Germany would rather pay for a set of magic beans than for defense.

However, it also means that currently, Germany is simply not there yet. How could it be? Germany has sold or scrapped 90 percent of its tanks and 75 percent of its warships in recent decades, greatly reduced its air force and air defense while also suspending military service.

Accordingly, the Bundeswehr’s skills can also be described as rudimental at best. While practice tends to make perfect, non-existing combat delivers quite the opposite in this case. A cynic might argue the difference between Germany’s army and the Salvation Army is infinitesimal at this stage.

Particularly, as abilities for major military conflicts have been abandoned altogether, such as the landing with amphibious troops or ships for example. At the end of the Cold War, Germany still operated twenty-two landing crafts. Today, it operates one – and it is fifty-three years old. Six destroyers used to operate in the Baltic Sea. By now, the only “fleet” that is left consists of corvettes and frigates and are, thus useless for any combat mission. Moreover, many of the large and extremely expensive military systems have reached their time limits such as combat aircraft, transport helicopters, heavy tanks, and air defense. Maintaining the status quo carries enormous costs, costs that Germany has not been willing to invest in the past.

Currently, Germany is still spending only 1.2 percent of its GDP on defense. If the two-percent target was achieved by 2031, the Bundeswehr could provide ten percent of the NATO capabilities, as promised to the partners in the Alliance. It would be a welcomed sight and an adequate response to the end of Pax Americana.

Kramp-Karrenbauer has now laid the foundation for a stronger, more responsible Germany and one can only hope, that the rest of the politicians are cognizant enough to support a military rebuild. Europe’s de facto leader must not continue to hide behind other nations whenever the chips are on the table.

Moreover, Kramp-Karrenbauer has broken a German taboo by attempting to talk the Bundeswehr into relevance and one should commend her for it.

L'articolo Kramp-Karrenbauer Seeks to Reinvent Germany’s Bundeswehr proviene da InsideOver.