Posted on Nov 13, 2023
Germany's support for Ukraine is to be 'massively expanded' next year
1.35K
31
13
8
8
0
Read more
Germany's support for Ukraine is to be 'massively expanded' next year
Posted from abcnews.go.com
Foreign Aid
Germany
Support
Ukraine
Posted 6 mo ago
Responses: 5
3
3
0
2
2
0
2
2
0
This article may be a few years old, but i'm sure germany hasn't improved and it has not put in two percent of its g d p toward defense in a long time.
https://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-germany-ailing-military-20180516-story.html
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel LTC Eugene Chu
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter Lt Col Charlie Brown Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen CPT Jack Durish LTC Stephen F. CSM Charles Hayden 1SG Russell S. 1SG Patrick Burke SFC Dr. Jesus Garcia-Arce, Psy.D SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL SFC John D. LTC Trent Klug CDR Andrew McMenamin, PhD Col (Join to see) 1st Lt Padre Dave Poedel CPT (Join to see)
COL Randall C.
https://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-germany-ailing-military-20180516-story.html
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel LTC Eugene Chu
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter Lt Col Charlie Brown Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen CPT Jack Durish LTC Stephen F. CSM Charles Hayden 1SG Russell S. 1SG Patrick Burke SFC Dr. Jesus Garcia-Arce, Psy.D SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL SFC John D. LTC Trent Klug CDR Andrew McMenamin, PhD Col (Join to see) 1st Lt Padre Dave Poedel CPT (Join to see)
COL Randall C.
Broken fighter jets, grounded helicopters and idled tanks: Germany's military is ailing
There are so few German army helicopters available for the troops that pilots have been forced to train in bright yellow civilian choppers leased from the German Automobile Club.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen Not sure if this article stated it or not, but at 1 point the only had 9 Typhoon fighters that were airworthy and pilots were quitting in droves. The little ammunition they did have on hand they gave it to the Ukrainians already and I doubt they have restocked it.
President Trump was right, I need a catch up on the 2% that they flagged on over the years so they probably shouldn't increase their defense significantly. But you can't just gear up and get it all done in a short time when they only have one factory or two, making the weapon systems or the ammunition.
President Trump was right, I need a catch up on the 2% that they flagged on over the years so they probably shouldn't increase their defense significantly. But you can't just gear up and get it all done in a short time when they only have one factory or two, making the weapon systems or the ammunition.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen I meant Euro fighters. the German Air force pilots were putting because they weren't Leaving because they were getting enough hours
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen Damn voice text comma the german air force pilots were leaving because they weren't getting enough hours and most of the euro fighters were grounded
(1)
(0)
COL Randall C.
Jack, the following is for clarification about the 2% expenditures goal as what you stated is incorrect.
Regarding facility use, most countries are not providing unreimbursed costs to another council member as the airfield/por used is usually common NATO infrastructure. In those cases, the costs are covered by the operating funds from NATO (member funding that goes to NATO's operating costs are of course counted towards the 2% GDP spending goal).
If for some reason common infrastructure is not used by a council member, the costs are reimbursed to the host country by the other member according to sharing agreements they have in place.
If one council country incurs a cost supporting another member, and that cost is not reimbursed, then those costs are included in the tracked spending towards the 2% goal.
However, you are correct that political agreements that do not have an incurred costs (such as an overflight agreement) are not factored into the 2% spending as there is no objective cost to cooperation between member countries (nor should there be). If there are incurred costs, then they are handled as the above details for facilities.
----------------------------------------------
* Funding of NATO - https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm
* NATO common infrastructure - https://archives.nato.int/uploads/r/null/1/3/137761/0196_Aspects_of_NATO-Infrastructure_and_Logistics_ENG.pdf
Regarding facility use, most countries are not providing unreimbursed costs to another council member as the airfield/por used is usually common NATO infrastructure. In those cases, the costs are covered by the operating funds from NATO (member funding that goes to NATO's operating costs are of course counted towards the 2% GDP spending goal).
If for some reason common infrastructure is not used by a council member, the costs are reimbursed to the host country by the other member according to sharing agreements they have in place.
If one council country incurs a cost supporting another member, and that cost is not reimbursed, then those costs are included in the tracked spending towards the 2% goal.
However, you are correct that political agreements that do not have an incurred costs (such as an overflight agreement) are not factored into the 2% spending as there is no objective cost to cooperation between member countries (nor should there be). If there are incurred costs, then they are handled as the above details for facilities.
----------------------------------------------
* Funding of NATO - https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm
* NATO common infrastructure - https://archives.nato.int/uploads/r/null/1/3/137761/0196_Aspects_of_NATO-Infrastructure_and_Logistics_ENG.pdf
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google