German Foreign Minister Announces Military Rearmament

[Ryan Ruck]

German Foreign Minister Announces Military Rearmament

February 4, 2014

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier announced on January 30th: "As correct as the policy of military restraint is, it must not be misunderstood as a culture of standing aside." In a full-page interview under the headline "Germany and the World," released later the same day, Steinmeier emphasized: "Germany is too large, just to comment on world politics."

When asked if that meant use of military force as the "ultima ratio" (last resort) of foreign policy, he warned: "No foreign policy in the world can banish the ultima ratio from its political thinking." In response to questions about America’s diminished sway in the world, Steinmeier added: "The US has not lost its interests in Europe and the world. But America cannot be everywhere. Whether we like it or not, that shifts more of the responsibility for security in Europe onto our shoulders." With the hundred-year anniversary of the start of World War I just months away, Germany's announcement of its intention to rearm is a very problematic development.

Germany has been the big economic winner since the Financial Crisis began in 2008. While the rest of Europe is suffering 12% unemployment, the export-led growth has driven down German unemployment from 8.4% to a record low of 5.1%. As the architect of the euro currency, the highly competitive German manufacturing enjoys the equivalent of a 25% undervalued currency. Coupled with growing demand for high-quality goods from emerging economies such as China, Germany has boosted its international competitiveness, according to a study by the World Economic Forum.

A key factor to sustaining this prosperity has been the German Bundesbank’s control of the political and economic policies of the European Union through its dominance of the Frankfurt-based European Central Bank (ECB). Roughly 40% of German exports go to the 253 million in the other European countries that rely on the euro currency. But despite this German prosperity, the Bundesbank, through its control of the ECB, has forced the weakest continental economies of Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain (PIIGS) to implement austerity spending cuts that have resulted in dramatically higher unemployment. With the Financial Crisis continuing, the ECB is now beginning to force the traditionally strong economies of France and the Dutch to also pursue austerity cuts.

But across Europe, nationalist parties are now uniting with the French National Front to challenge German dominance. Recent polls indicate the right wing could win control of the European Parliamentary elections in May. Such a victory would allow the nationalists to wrench control of the ECB away from Germany by appointing the President of the European Union and Board Members of the ECB. Loss of ECB control would represent an existential threat to Germany’s predatory economic advantage.

Germany has pursued a relatively unassertive foreign policy since its defeat of the Third Reich at the end of World War II. Despite being utterly destroyed, occupied, and partitioned, West Germany’s highly competitive manufacturing sector was quickly rebuilt as a bulwark against communism. When their arch enemy, the Soviet Union, collapsed in 1990, Germany reunified with the East, and the modern industrial and economic powerhouse of 81 million people emerged. But what did not survive two crushing defeats was “Lebensraum,” the Teutonic belief that it was the inevitable law of nature for all healthy and vigorous peoples of superior races to territorially expand to displace people of inferior races.

Through the Cold War and the modern era, the United States military, economic, and political power guaranteed free access to sea-lanes and security for Germany and the European Union (EU). The American military umbrella acted as a substantial subsidy that allowed Germany to maximize its focus on economic ascendency. But Germany is increasingly aware U.S. security guarantees of global order may lack credibility. To Germany, the Obama administration’s disastrous Arab Spring initiative, loss in Iraq, humiliation in Syria, and pending defeat in Afghanistan have created an international power vacuum as the American foreign policy appears to be in a major retrenchment.

Germany now finds herself once again confronted in the East by a resurgent Russian economic and military capability under President Vladimir Putin, a former KGB leader. Instability in North Africa and the Middle East has resulted in the European Union being forced to increasingly rely on Russia for oil and gas imports. Russia’s state-controlled energy company Gazprom enjoys a near-monopoly position supplying natural gas to the EU. After attempts to economically align with the Europe Union, Russia threatened to suspend natural gas shipments to Ukraine this winter. Such an action would also harm Germany, which receives 25% of Russian gas via a Ukraine pipeline.

A BBC World Service poll found that Germany is the most favorably viewed nation in the world. Of 26,000 people surveyed across 25 countries, 59% felt that the European nation has a constructive influence upon the globe. This positive perception is built on respect for Germany’s robust economic recovery and an understanding that the German Constitution limits the number of troops in the standing defense force and prohibits the Bundeswehr, the nation’s federal defense force, from being used inside Germany’s borders or anywhere Adolf Hitler’s Wehrmacht had previously occupied.

The New York Times recently quoted Germany’s Defense Minister Thomas de Maiziere: “For decades, we Germans have benefited from the fact that our partners gave us the feeling of reliable security … Now we are in a position and have the duty, even, to make our impact felt.” In the past, when Germans started talking in the same sentence about doing their duty and making an impact, other countries were wise to be concerned.

[American Patriot]

The Forth Reich!

OMG!

We're watching a replay of the beginning of World War I????

China, Russia, German, Japan... all of them rearming.

[Ryan Ruck]

Well, Roubini did say it's 1914 all over again.

This is what happens with a weak US.

[vector7]

This time they will take America out early on to assure the rest of the regions fall into place with the least amount of resistance.

[American Patriot]

Well, I'm deadly serious here.

This country is headed for a financial collapse.


Let me see here:

These were mutual defense treaties that lead up to WWI

Russia and Serbia

Germany and Austria-Hungary

France and Russia

Britain and France and Belgium

Japan and Britain

Now we have NATO and others.

Imperialism was a big thing before. Now, it's Imperial Obama...

Who was the President? Oh, none other than "Progressive Woodrow Wilson".

Financial Collapse of 1914... President Wilson was involved in that. In 1914 foreigners owned $4billion in Rail Road stocks in this country. $3 billion in the hands of the Brits. The Stock Exchange and the ability to convert quickly those stocks into currency to be able to buy precious metals caused a melt down (that's about as dumbed down as I can make this, since I'm far from an expert on this and need it dumbed down to my thinking).

The Russian Government collapsed...in 1917 to the Bolsheviks and became later the USSR in 1922.

We're sitting here watching the same thing, almost a carbon copy.

We're watching a potential collapse of the economy of not just the US, but the world. We're watching the re-arming, and re-alignment of forces throughout the world. Russia-China-North Korea. The Ottoman Empire (Iraq) developing nukes. The Japanese, China and Philippines playing chess with a bunch of nearly useless islands (useless for anyone but tourism really, or air bases, if you think about it).

We have a Progressive Marxist moron in office facilitating the economic crash of the United States by his intrusive bullshit healthcare system which absorbs - or more accurately nationalizes the entire health care system and forces capitalism OUT of the Insurance industry. There's no more "marketplace" now. Health care for Americans has gone back to being 1850s shit, just like they want.

The Russians are building a massive military force. The Chinese are trying to become world players in the Naval department and getting into space puts them one-up on a fallen NASA who couldn't find their ass with both hands. We can't launch a fucking shuttle or satellite without going through the European Space Agency now hardly - except some GPS stuff, and that's becoming questionable now.

We're removing our TANKS while Russia and China develop new stuff.

We're sinking our Navy while Russia and China put out new subs, missiles and aircraft carriers.

We've stopped updating nukes, while Russians test them, North Korea tests them, Iran develops nukes and the Chinese are still testing.

We've effectively castrated the US military by removing honest and true Patriots from the ranks of the highest command.

Man, if I didn't know better, I'd say I'd written a book where the whole world is falling apart and that fiction couldn't POSSIBLY he accurate - and yet here we are in the 21st Century on the edge of the Greatest Leap Mankind has ever taken (to Mars) and watching as the truth has become stranger than any fiction I could possibly write.

[Avvakum]

This time they will take America out early on to assure the rest of the regions fall into place with the least amount of resistance.

Yes indeed. I've been a regular reader and listener of David Emory's 'spitfire list' for years. I don't agree with his personal politics much, but his research into the survival of Fascism/Nazism after WW2 is solid. Recall too that Angela Merkel is from East Germany in origin, and East Germany never had even the denazification the West had, the Soviets simply making the Old Nazis new GDR functionaries. Putin should beware Germany though; he may have lots of contacts there, but as usual, Russia gets bitten always after even temporary alliances with the Germans.

Here are some relevant pdf files from Emory, among many, that document both the Nazi 'Underground Reich' and the postwar flirtation Germany had with the Kremlin;

www.spitfirelist.com/books/tetens_pt1.pdf

www.spitfirelist.com/books/tetens_pt2.pdf

www.spitfirelist.com/books/undergrnd.pdf



However, this is the bigger picture behind all this, quite literally;

[vector7]

As U.S. Weakness Leads To Global Rearmament, Can War Be Far Behind?

Posted 02/10/2014 07:08 PM ET



Deja Vu: As the U.S. defense posture continues to slump, several onetime allies are getting nervous about growing threats and starting to rearm. Not to be alarmist, but isn't that what happened just before World War II?

It's no exaggeration to say that President Obama, by slashing defense spending, is encouraging other nations to step up their arms programs to fill the growing void left by a shrinking U.S. military.

The numbers are stark. According to a recent report by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, U.S. defense outlays hit a post-World War II high in 2010. Since then, after inflation, they've fallen 21%.

And, no, the drop can't be blamed on the winding down of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even without those, real spending is down 12%, with 2013's drop being the biggest since the Korean War.

America's defense decay is being noticed. Two weeks ago Germany, of all nations, announced it was considering rearming, given stark new global realities surrounding it and the need to be able to respond to threats.

"Germany is too large just to comment on world politics," said Germany's foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, in an ominous Jan. 30 interview. "America cannot be everywhere."

Meanwhile, Japan Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, alarmed at China's muscle-flexing near the Senkaku Islands and the growing threat from North Korea, wants to reverse his nation's postwar pacifist constitution to let its military help allies who are attacked.

As the website American Interest noted recently, Japan has already "concluded defense agreements with half a dozen new nations like Australia and England, and agreed to deals for Japanese military equipment with the Philippines and India and others."

This is happening because it's unclear today what, if anything, the U.S. might use its defense assets for, apart from repelling an attack on U.S. soil.

Shows of weakness in the face of recent challenges from Russia, China, Iran and even Syria have made our allies think twice about counting on us for protection.

This uncertainty has been a boon for our would-be foes. China, which until quite recently was increasing its defense spending at a double-digit clip, is expected to boost outlays this year at a still-respectable 6% or so.

Meanwhile, Russia is using its oil boom to rebuild a Soviet-era military into a modern force. For those who believe it's no longer a power, a recent piece in World Affairs ranks Russia as the world's No. 2 military — and, as with No. 3 China, its military is growing.

[vector7]

German Government Steps Up Military Operations

By Ulrich Rippert
17 February 2014



The German government is fiercely promoting an aggressive imperialist foreign policy. At the beginning of the year, it declared an end to the previous policy of military restraint. Shortly thereafter, it announced plans to develop a new strategy for Africa.

Last Wednesday, this was followed by the announcement that the German Navy was to be sent to the Mediterranean to fulfill a “robust mandate”. Official statements revealed that the frigate Augsburg is to aid in securing the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons on a US vessel, Cape Ray. The use of combat forces is not ruled out in the operation.

This decision is in line with US President Barack Obama’s announcement that he reserves the right to militarily intervene in Syria. At a joint press conference with French President François Hollande in Washington on Tuesday, Obama stressed that a military option in Syria was not off the table.

At the same time, Berlin is toughening its foreign policy offensive in the Ukraine. In his first official visit to Moscow last week, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier (Social Democratic Party, SPD) warned the Russian government against escalating the Ukrainian power struggle. “Nobody should seek to ignite the fuse to that powder keg”, said Steinmeier.

In fact, Berlin itself is fanning the flames of conflict in Ukraine. It supports the opposition and co-operates closely with Vitali Klitschko and his UDAR party, which is strongly supported by the Christian Democratic Union (CDU)-affiliated Konrad Adenauer Foundation. Via the Adenauer Foundation, the German foreign ministry also has links to Oleh Tyahnibok, chairman of the far-right anti-Semitic Svoboda party.

The foreign policy offensive for more robust Bundeswehr (German army) operations abroad are high on the agenda of the first meeting of the CDU-SPD coalition committee early next week. Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen (CDU), Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier (SPD) and Development Minister Gerd Müller (Christian Social Union, CSU) will meet afterwards to discuss details and coordinate procedures.

Foreign office spokesman Martin Schäfer emphasised that a future focal point of the new foreign policy will be Africa. He added that a new Africa strategy was overdue, but its deliberation and development had been underway in the interior ministry for a long time. “Africa is much more than a continent of crises. There are also a lot of opportunities there”, said Schäfer, adding: “Several African countries show growth rates that are significantly higher than those in the European Union.”

Schäfer went on to say that Germany wanted to significantly expand economic cooperation with a number of African countries. He revealed that the German economy is looking to profit from both the market opportunities and natural resources available in Africa. However, the foreign office prefers to keep its own interests in the background, claiming that it is mainly motivated by humanitarian and security concerns. Schäfer said the goals of German “economic support” were to stabilise African countries and avoid further conflicts.

Immediately after the Munich Security Conference two weeks ago, Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen travelled to Senegal and Mali to announce the expansion of the Bundeswehr’s training contingent in Mali from 180 to 250 soldiers.

During her visit to barracks on the Niger River, where a vanguard battalion of approximately 100 German soldiers is already stationed, she rejected criticism of the expansion of Bundeswehr missions abroad. “There have been times when 11,000 male and female soldiers were serving abroad. Currently, there are 5,000 because operations in Afghanistan are drawing to a close”, she said. She declared that the Bundeswehr had the capacity to undertake additional operations.

On Monday of last week, Berlin also confirmed that there is discussion of renewed Bundeswehr participation in the European Union Training Mission (EUTM) in the crisis-torn East African state of Somalia. Until the end of last year, Germany had been involved in training Somali military units in Uganda, deploying about 20 soldiers there. When the mission moved into Somalia early this year, the Bundeswehr initially terminated its engagement, because the security situation was considered to be too unstable. This assessment has apparently now been revised.

At the end of January, the n-tv news channel reported on what lies behind the humanitarian arguments currently used to propagate the new Africa strategy.

Titled “Uranium, gold, diamonds, minerals: Germany discovers Africa”, its report examined German business interests regarding the country. It began with a quotation from Wolfgang Ischinger, who heads the Munich Security Conference. Ischinger said Germany had a lot of catching up to do and “Africa should not be left to the Chinese.”

The programme warned that, compared to China, Germany was lagging behind. Since the early 1990s, China had been engaging in a “veritable spending spree”, acquiring strategic resources and increasingly winning favour in many African countries. The secret of Chinese policy towards Africa was seen to lie in the fact that, in exchange for raw material supplies, Beijing was building “schools, hospitals and stadiums for the common people.”

The n-tv report cautioned that a new German strategy with respect to Africa should not be perceived as a neo-colonial venture. However, it also suggested that, “if Germany engaged with France, for example in central Africa, one would be able to speak of a European instead of a German raw materials policy.”

The television report went on to propose that the Central African Republic (CAR) could develop into a testing ground for this kind of cooperation. Although the landlocked African country north of the Congo is almost twice the size of Germany, it has virtually no infrastructure. Some 60 percent of the population is illiterate and very poor. However, the former French colony possesses great economic advantages: it is rich in gold, diamonds, uranium, timber, coffee and numerous other commodities.

It was also speculated that other mineral resources would likely be available in the country; these included copper, graphite, iron ore, kaolin, lignite, limestone, manganese, quartz, salt and tin. “And by no means can it be said that the Central African Republic has yet been fully explored”, the n-tv report enthused.

The “new Africa strategy” has nothing to do with safeguarding humanitarian aid, as Steinmeier and von der Leyen claim. Rather, it recalls the “scramble for Africa” that occurred at the height of imperialism on the eve of World War I—when Germany colonised what is now Namibia, Tanzania, Cameroon, and Togo. The current deployment of combat troops in Mali also serves the imperialist interests of the German economy. Geostrategic interests, like those pursued by the German Africa Corps (DAK) during the Second World War, are also part of the strategy.

All the German parliamentary parties are backing this belligerent policy. The SPD has taken the lead in the government regarding issues of war and enjoys the support of the Greens and the Left Party.

Last autumn, Left Party parliamentary deputy Stefan Liebich jointly drafted and endorsed a strategy paper, authorised by the Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) and entitled “New Power - New Responsibility”. In mid-January, he produced a strategy paper together with Green Party politician Agnieszka Brugger, which supported Bundeswehr missions abroad, when they are covered by a United Nations mandate and allegedly serve “the advancement of human rights.”

As Left Party representative in the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Bundestag (German parliament), he explained last week that there were many compelling arguments for deploying German armed forces in the Mediterranean. He added: “Mind you, we’re glad to see that the Syrian chemical weapons are being destroyed.”

Christine Buchholz, defence policy spokeswoman for the Left Party parliamentary faction, likewise stated: “We welcome the fact that the Syrian poison gas is being destroyed.”

The Left Party is involved at the highest level in the turn in German foreign policy and the revival of German imperialism and militarism, and is playing a key role in driving war propaganda by disguising it in humanitarian phrases.

[Avvakum]

"Via the Adenauer Foundation, the German foreign ministry also has links to Oleh Tyahnibok, chairman of the far-right anti-Semitic Svoboda party."

And many of these Ukrainians in Svoboda are linked historically and even genetically to the Nazi SS 'Galicia' Division, the OUN, and some other Fascistic bad actors. Not everybody who wants to see Yanukovitch and the Ukrainian Oligarch gangsters gone is on the side of the 'good guys'. Germany geopolitically has always wanted the Ukraine as a agricultural breadbasket, and other actors want Orthodoxy destroyed there as elsewhere, by the 'Unia' or other means...

[vector7]

Interesting Russian plans unfolding...

War with Russia ‘inevitable within 5 years’ says advisor

08Nov08


Today a report surfaced which quoted a former advisor of Leonid Brezhnev as saying that a war between NATO and Russia is inevitable in the coming five years.

Here is the link to the article for any who care to read: http://www.allnewsweb.com/page90009.html

This is alarming not just because such a war would have domino-effects such as the re-militarization of Germany, but because both Russia and NATO have an alliance system which would draw in a dozen or so other nations, making it a world-war.

If Germany were to militarize, and considering the likely economic climate there and in Europe over the next 1-2 years, those events alone would likely create the conditions for a sharp cooling of ties between Britain and Central European powers such as Germany, Italy and France, as economic protectionism and a new arms race emerge as real dangers of an all-out collapse of the EU.

If the EU and NATO do collapse, it would see a return to 1930’s style politik, similar to when the League of Nations was disbanded. In the modern-day case, the UN faces the threat of disbandment if current trends in international relations continue. The growing irrelevance of the UN becomes apparent when member states openly ignore its charter and resolutions. Such member states include the United States and Russia, who are even permament members with veto power!

I do not personally believe that the collapse of the UN is imminent, but the growing tit-for-tat moves being taken by the US and Russia demonstrate that the UN cannot prevent a war from erupting.

When the US felt that it was in its national security interests to invade Iraq, despite the UN having declared such an action ‘illegal’, the US did so regardless.

When Russia felt that the partition of Georgia and the diplomatic recognition to two of its provinces would bolster its security in the Caucusses, despite the UN having declared such an action ‘illegal’, the Russians did so regardless.

When Israel feels that the time is right to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, it will do so.

When North Korea feels that to avoid implosion it must strike at South Korea, it will do so.

When Germany feels that re-armament is due in the absence of US security, it will do so.

The big picture is global, and we must consider all the perspectives, but the truly terrifying threat is the aforementioned one of a Russia-NATO war. The alliance system that would draw in dozens of other countries is not only set in the NATO and SCO charters, but also in the spirit of foriegn relations in general. When a threat emerges, nations often band together to face it. In this case, I believe the opposite to be true, but with involvement still factoring.

What I mean by this is that I believe that the Russia-NATO conflict will not be one involving two solid alliances going head-to-head, but rather the individual countries in those alliances being drawn in gradually, and reluctantly. As such, there won’t be a NATO, or an SCO for that matter.

It will be the economic and political interests of the Russian Federation clashing with those of the United States. All the other countries which happen to become involved would do so as a reaction to their territorial integrity being encorached upon and violated.

On TV and in the papers it will look like the alliances are solid and its a Good-Evil battle, but in reality, it’ll be a dogs breakfast of entangled interests coming into open conflict, and a true embarrassment to the very nature of what an ‘alliance’ is. It will certainly be an ‘every state for itself’ battle, with many demonstrating some very ambiguous policies during the conflict.

At the end of it all, they will wonder why they were even allies in the first place.

The very purpose of NATO was designed to counter the threat of the USSR. The Warsaw Pact (which was Russia’s version of NATO) was designed to counter the threat of NATO. Today, NATO is claiming to have legitimate grounds for deploying missiles on Russia’s border to “counter the Iranian threat”. This action caused Russia to deploy missiles on NATO’s border, on the doorstep of Poland.

So further to enticing Iran to take a more hostile tone with it, NATO has inadvertently created a new Cold War with Russia. In several months time, it may even do something clumsily to create a threat from China!

An alliance system that has its roots in military confrontation has no place in today’s world. The SCO is an economic alliance. NATO is an outdated military alliance. It is the real reason why the Third World War is closer to becoming reality today than it was at any time since the 1962 missile crisis.

And it adds weight to the former Brezhnev advisor and the article titled “war with Russia is inevitable within five years”.

If Barack Obama wants to tear down walls and change the world, this may be an area in which he may want to start, lest there is no world left to change.

[Avvakum]

Interesting Russian plans unfolding...

They see this;

"When Germany feels that re-armament is due in the absence of US security, it will do so."


And plan accordingly. The loss of (at least officially 27 million, probably double that according to Russian Military Archivist Marshal Volkogonov...) lives in the Second Great Patriotic War against the Fascists (the First 'Great Patriotic War' was against Napoleon in 1812), the unstable geopolitical situation left in the wake of our post-Reagan/Bush political culture, islamic resurgency, and China as the new regional Eurasian Hegemon...

Russia plans accordingly. I don't condone it, I just lament a number of lost opportunities caused by Clinton-era fecklessness and mendacity, and now this idiot Obama...