What I’d like to know is which state or group is actually posing a significant threat warranting billions in “defense” spending when the last 3 decades of Bundeswehr funding went down the drain already (G36 not shooting straight, Von der Leyen’s Berateraffären, the Puma tank debacle, Bundesrechnungshof warning of basically 0 checks & balances at the Beschaffungsamt, etc). The economy is already nosediving and they had to roll in the previous government last minute just to get that 100 billion funding. Germany is already part of and surrounded by pseudo-defensive NATO. What I see is a systemic drain on many western economies by outside forces that you can’t just send a tank to in order to make them stop because they’re funding the entire enchilada via their moneyprinters and lobbyists. If you know someone serving in Bundeswehr, ask them some time about their assessment of the defensive capabilities of this country. The Bundeswehr hasn’t been a standalone deterrence since it was founded. Changing that by proclaiming some kind of “Zeitenwende” is a pipe dream.

Replies (1)

We probably don't actually need that many tanks. We need more software engineers, drone pilots, logistics specialists, anti-missile, doctors and medics, specialized cameras with AI, etc. I agree with you, that a lot of the money is being completely misplaced, and we could probably cut the budget and invest smarter and end up ahead. The size of the budget, and the purchasing of particular, expensive equipment pieces is perhaps an artifact of keeping the American allies pacified by buying their stuff at inflated prices. Like playing homage as a vassal state. I actually have a cousin studying military economics. He talks a lot, about misallocation. This, for me, is a different question than the basic question, of whether we should bother to strengthen our defenses.