Munich security conference

Security conference in Munich has just ended. There has been talk about most security issues around the world. Ukraine and Syria were hotly debated, but those issues already have their respective threads here so I wouldn't dwell on them.

Instead, the most interesting thing to happen was a call from German president for his country to take more "active" and "decisive" role in the world, an opinion shared by German foreign minister.

"Let us thus not turn a blind eye, not run from threats, but instead stand firm, not forget, neglect or betray universal values, but instead uphold these values together with our friends and partners," Gauck said.

He also said the use of force after authorization by the United Nations Security Council may sometimes be necessary, but that deploying troops could only ever be one element of an overall strategy.

"Germany will never support any purely military solution, but will approach issues with political judiciousness and explore all possible diplomatic options. However, when the last resort - sending in the Bundeswehr - comes to be discussed, Germany should not say 'no' on principle," Gauck said. "Nor should it say 'yes' unthinkingly."

This shows that Germany is ready to officially let go of its Nazi past and all the baggage that comes with it, and no longer shy away from having an opinion on or getting involved in various affairs around the world. It could be said that Germany was on the course for some time already, since the unification, but now the time is right to proclaim it publicly. Germany was already involved in the Yugoslavian crisis, where its involvement and decision making was not the best. Their decision to recognize Croatia as independent state, when even its western allies were urging caution and restraint, arguably led to intensification of the conflict and irreversibly set the path to military confrontation.

Their first military involvement was in Kosovo, another case where decision making wasn't most sound, as Kosovo became the hotspot for illegal activities, from human trafficking to drugs, spiced up with a bit of radical Islam.

Their last two major decisions, to stay out of the mess that was Iraq and Afghanistan, proved correct, though.

What I find rather interesting is that we're seeing two most belligerent nations of WW2, Germany and Japan, seemingly ready to take more active role in the world. The difference between those two is that Germany accepted what has happened and its role in it and is now basically declaring the mourning period over, although their decision to recognize independent Croatia which was lead by a basically Nazi party in disguise and whose leader was known for his denial of the Holocaust and other crimes committed by fascists during WW2 is a blemish on their record. Japan, on the other hand, didn't quite deal with its past, and is displaying more nationalism than healthy with their decision to either ignore or "forget" about their actions during the war.

What is your opinion of this and how will it affect the world?

A rally on security for Europe, held in Munich and concluding that Germany should be more active.

Haven't we been through this before?

Yeah, didn't really think 'bout that. They could have at least changed the venue.

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Yeah, didn't really think 'bout that. They could have at least changed the venue.

I hope the next event is a conference on legal reform held in Nürnberg.

The Munich Security Conference is a yearly event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Security_Conference

Germany sent troops to Afghanistan.

They also said about 3 years ago that they had cut forces enough. Since then they have reduced further and closed more facilities. And that was before they made a coalition with the SPD.

Sounds like a lot of noise and more of the same to me. I will wait to see if anything actually comes of it.

What was the discussion vis-a-vis NATO?

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

What was the discussion vis-a-vis NATO?

hot air and photo opps. Just blah, blah, blah is all I have seen. No substance.

Originally Posted by HoreTore

A rally on security for Europe, held in Munich and concluding that Germany should be more active.

Haven't we been through this before?

Yes security in our time.

The idea of holding a security conference where Nazis held rallies and the Olympic Games massacre happened is ironic indeed. I thought conventional wisdom stated that Germans don't have a sense of humor, at least the Stazi influence has added irony to the toolset.

I dunno.Fisherking is right in that we reduced the army in size, but at the same time the attempt is to make it more mobile for outside engagements and international missions. If you want to have 5000 tanks and then move them all to Afghanistan, you have to invest a lot into transports. Or you reduce the number of tanks and buy transports for the money you save.

On the other hand, not every currently available technology is really suited for that. Our Tiger helicopter was designed purely with anti-tank operations in mind and does not have a rotating gun as a result. I don't know why we didn't order some of the french versions once we found out that was a silly idea but I guess such things cannot be changed so easily.

We also didn't participate in Libya, something a lot of people saw as a mistake. I could laugh though when France and the UK ran out of laser guided bombs and had to get the US involved. It's funny because they are both quite more militarily engaged than we are, or so I thought. I know the UK has been downsizing the navy for a while but that both together would run out of LGBs....I digress...

So what's the verdict on Austria and Italy? Do they just always get away easy because they never really had a capable military?

Originally Posted by Husar

So what's the verdict on Austria and Italy? Do they just always get away easy because they never really had a capable military?

Austria is a part of Germany and ol' Mussolini didn't send the jews to the gas chambers...

Berlin is certainly not a better place ;)
But whatever Gauck said, it does very likely not express the German public's opinion, as reactions towards his statement and similar ones made earlier by minister of foreign affairs Steinmeier as well minister of defence von der Leyen were received extremely negatively.
Military interventions are extremely unpopular here and this will unlikely change through a statement by our president, especially as the German president is only a symbolic head of state without any power.
Do not expect Germany to take responsibility any time soon.

Military intervention =/= taking responsibilty

Taking responsibilty is doing the right thing after the chaos of miltary intervention ie the Marshall Plan

Will they fund it?

Sure Germany in particular and the EU in general can take a more decisive role in world affairs. This comes with a price tag. You do not get to do that and keep the Military spending at 1% levels.

Moreover, the economic kerfluffles associated with Greece, Portugal and others suggest that EU economics are not a smoothly oiled machine.

Will they fund it despite such constraints?

Yeah, the results of the conference would be far more interesting if any of the European 'powers' actually had any military power to speak of. I'm also reminded of the missile fiasco during the Libya adventure, which was both hysterical and telling in equal measure.

“Their decision to recognize Croatia as independent state” and to provide the military equipment from the Former East-Germany the Croats were familiar with, allowing the Croats in 2 years to go from Home Defense to fully modern army able to launch 3 major offensives and ethnic cleansings, coordination air strike (so much for deny fly zones), heli-assaults (in Bosnia, against international laws) to open the gates of Knin, and pushing on the road more than 100,000 Serbs, burning more than 4,000 houses.
So it became the Independent State of Croatia. Nicely done, Sarmartian.

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Yeah, the results of the conference would be far more interesting if any of the European 'powers' actually had any military power to speak of. I'm also reminded of the missile fiasco during the Libya adventure, which was both hysterical and telling in equal measure.

Why does it have to be US level of power projection? Germany has a small, but modern army, well supplied and the industrial ability to keep it running at peak efficiency, and even though their industrial base is bigger than UK's or France's, their level of involvement is much, much smaller.

They don't expect to do it alone, but in concert with others, within NATO.

The big thing isn't really assessing their power projection capabilities, though. The shift in political thought is what's important. Since WW2, they were refusing to even have an opinion. After the unification, they started to meddle, but mostly under the guise of sever human rights violations. So, it's quite a leap.

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Why does it have to be US level of power projection? Germany has a small, but modern army, well supplied and the industrial ability to keep it running at peak efficiency, and even though their industrial base is bigger than UK's or France's, their level of involvement is much, much smaller.

In fact, we don't. The German army is not efficient and not well supplied. Most parts are still structured, as if there were 6000 Soviet tanks at our border. Currently, it has a size of about 250.000, out of these one division is supposed to be capable of actual power projection (in the sense of fighting abroad). With our current missions in Afghanistan, Kosovo and minor contingents at other places, there are roughly about 12.000 soldiers abroad, yet the army is considered overallocated.
In terms of equipment, while Germany produces some highly sophisticated military technology, submarines and self-propelled howitzers are not necessary in Afghanistan. They do not buy, what they need right now but what they ordered under a contract from the 90ties because it is ready for delivery finally, up to the point that deployed soldiers buy a lot of their equipment themselves. And in Afghanistan, for instance, the German army is dependent on American Medevacs, as its own choppers are from the 60s and the NH90, which is supposed to replace them, should have been delivered years ago.
So as long as there is a) no change in overall German mentality and b) not an army reform making the army logistically and equipment-wise capable of prolonged operations abroad, this is all just rhethorics.
And in the end, that is probably not all to bad. I have my doubts, that invading Iraq has made my life more secure.

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Why does it have to be US level of power projection? Germany has a small, but modern army, well supplied and the industrial ability to keep it running at peak efficiency, and even though their industrial base is bigger than UK's or France's, their level of involvement is much, much smaller.

They don't expect to do it alone, but in concert with others, within NATO.

The big thing isn't really assessing their power projection capabilities, though. The shift in political thought is what's important. Since WW2, they were refusing to even have an opinion. After the unification, they started to meddle, but mostly under the guise of sever human rights violations. So, it's quite a leap.

Doesn't have to be at that level. However, deployable forces DO translate to leverage (and not simply in military terms). Germany, as GG notes in the post following that to which I am responding, correctly points out that they really don't have much in the way of deployable force. Sadly, there are still regions of the world where economic sanctions and political shunning will not effect regime change or cause some government to alter a loathsome policy stance. At the present time, Germany lacks the other "suasory" means that might work in such situations.

Maybe the don't need it at all. However, as I have suggested above, if they wish to increase their leverage, some of that added leverage will require the development of more and more readily deployable forces along with the will to have some of them killed in squalid dusty places. Sadly, that is the currency of power.

The combined defense spending of EU countries is akin 274 billion dollars. So more then 1/3rd of what US is spending and about 3 times what Russia is spending. But to me as European this does not mean anything.
In my humble opinion the EU countries have right now lot more pressing issues to consider rather then wondering about how big, if any our long range power projecting abilities should be. In its current form the EU is to put it nice "flawed", depending on the day, i might use the word unsustainable... The economy is in the toilet and the political and economical disparity within EU does nothing to help. We should first look within the EU and decide what on earth to do with the situation we are in rather then be thinking what we can do at other places if needs to be.

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

The combined defense spending of EU countries is akin 274 billion dollars. So more then 1/3rd of what US is spending and about 3 times what Russia is spending. But to me as European this does not mean anything.

Most of it is replica spending. As in, there are 27 different supply lines where there could be one. If Europe were to compete with the United States, it would have to become more unified within a European model. Whilst some of this is done under NATO, the merger of National armies into a grand European army would be far more cost effective and become far more parallel to the likes of the US, Russia and China.

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Most of it is replica spending. As in, there are 27 different supply lines where there could be one. If Europe were to compete with the United States, it would have to become more unified within a European model. Whilst some of this is done under NATO, the merger of National armies into a grand European army would be far more cost effective and become far more parallel to the likes of the US, Russia and China.

I agree about the spending. With our current combined spending we could afford maybe 3-4 Carrier strike groups, with one of them ability to strike at global scale. combined with Land and air forces that would pose enough threat to neutralize any conventional military threat locally.

But with this we run into the same problems, in which we run with all major issues with EU. Is there a popular will for such? Are the European governments ready to give up their local monopoly of violence and most importantly: Does EU have proper democratic institutions for it to be allowed to wield such power? What checks and balances are there in place to secure the inhabitants of EU from misuse of such power?

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

But with this we run into the same problems, in which we run with all major issues with EU. Is there a popular will for such? Are the European governments ready to give up their local monopoly of violence and most importantly: Does EU have proper democratic institutions for it to be allowed to wield such power? What checks and balances are there in place to secure the inhabitants of EU from misuse of such power?

This is where it falls down. Do the national elites want it? Do the people want it? Does the EU want it?

The EU is very much in the hands of the various heads of state. Whilst people argue about the mystical European elite, it is actually the major individual powers which do all the decision making behind closed doors then they make the EU follow-suite. It is these group of people which compromise the democratic-deficit of the Union too, as making the Union represent the mandate of the people gives the Union more power to act in its own interest opposed to the interest of the heads of state. Interestingly, the arrangement also works so that the EU gets all the flank for following the National interests of the members.

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Will they fund it?

Sure Germany in particular and the EU in general can take a more decisive role in world affairs. This comes with a price tag. You do not get to do that and keep the Military spending at 1% levels.

Moreover, the economic kerfluffles associated with Greece, Portugal and others suggest that EU economics are not a smoothly oiled machine.

Will they fund it despite such constraints?

And after they fund it, will they actually [use] it?

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Most of it is replica spending. As in, there are 27 different supply lines where there could be one. If Europe were to compete with the United States, it would have to become more unified within a European model. Whilst some of this is done under NATO, the merger of National armies into a grand European army would be far more cost effective and become far more parallel to the likes of the US, Russia and China.

But the unified command would be run by bureaucracy in a quasi-UN manner. You'd end up with Italian Armor, Portugese Infantry, Danish Artillery, and Belgian Moutain Troops. Good luck to that Grand Army!

“But the unified command would be run by bureaucracy in a quasi-UN manner” Hmmm, unified Command did succeed during the 2 WW on the Western Front. A French during WW 1 and a USA one during WW 2.

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

But the unified command would be run by bureaucracy in a quasi-UN manner. You'd end up with Italian Armor, Portugese Infantry, Danish Artillery, and Belgian Moutain Troops. Good luck to that Grand Army!

You mean like how things are run in Afghanistan?

Anyway: disband all European armies, I say. Civilized nations solve their problems with words, not guns. Time for us to stop being the most vilent part of the world.

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

But the unified command would be run by bureaucracy in a quasi-UN manner. You'd end up with Italian Armor, Portugese Infantry, Danish Artillery, and Belgian Moutain Troops. Good luck to that Grand Army!

Are you talking about NATO or how this should be understood?

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Anyway: disband all European armies, I say. Civilized nations solve their problems with words, not guns. Time for us to stop being the most vilent part of the world.

Pacifism is a nice dream, but that is all it is. A dream.

Originally Posted by HoreTore

You mean like how things are run in Afghanistan?.

You'd get few arguments from me on that. Despite all of our technical prowess and tactical acumen, the USA has seldom used its military in a rationally effective manner. We generally hedge ourselves in with artificial ROE, under-commit resources, worry about "hearts and minds" at the wrong part of the process, and respond with technology to things that need a human touch and with a human touch when we've already poisoned the well for many such interactions. We only rarely do things in the proper order: all-out KATN, Suppress and impose order (1-3 years), Marshall Plan (Years 2-10), then leave. I've always been of the opinion that, while costly, the latter strategy would actually SAVE resources over the long term.

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Anyway: disband all European armies, I say. Civilized nations solve their problems with words, not guns. Time for us to stop being the most vilent part of the world.

....ah, the great dream. I have doubts about its efficacy until "civilization" as you are using it here is a universal norm. Best wishes to you.

On the other hand, combine this with my earlier posts regarding funding a bit, and I would say you are onto something.

Most of Europe, as it stands now, spends far too much on their militaries. I do not mean that they spend too much in terms of what they could spend economically, but that the levels of spending are a huge waste. If you are not going to fund a military that can make a practical difference to your defense/strategic objectives, then why waste the money in the first place? It's like that old saw about the most expensive thing in the world was the second-best navy -- cause it gets sunk and the resources are effectively wasted. Europe should either fund legitimately useful forces (either unilaterally or multilaterally if they prefer) or it should just give up the game and focus its funding on police, drug rehab, education, and other social welfare.

Specifics:

What is the point of a 20k person army in Belgium? They possess no heavy armor, few tracked vehicles, and little artillery. Aside from 30k worth of military and civilian jobs, what good is a force size that would have trouble defending Antwerpen?

The Royal Navy has 77 hulls (discounting the perma-docked), 19 of which are under 100t displacement. Major surface vessels and subs, combined, represent fewer than 30 vessels -- one large integrated task force. Does that level of force make sense? The RN has ONE potential force projection effort possible at any given time. The RN's value in defending England would be negligible. Is one tool of force projection worth the cost?

Denmark has a smaller military than Belgium, but still maintains more than 800 vehicles and the RDAF fields two squadrons of fighter-bombers. Despite its smaller size, the force is significantly more expensive -- and expensive to maintain -- than that of Belgium.

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

....ah, the great dream. I have doubts about its efficacy until "civilization" as you are using it here is a universal norm. Best wishes to you.

On the other hand, combine this with my earlier posts regarding funding a bit, and I would say you are onto something.

Most of Europe, as it stands now, spends far too much on their militaries. I do not mean that they spend too much in terms of what they could spend economically, but that the levels of spending are a huge waste. If you are not going to fund a military that can make a practical difference to your defense/strategic objectives, then why waste the money in the first place? It's like that old saw about the most expensive thing in the world was the second-best navy -- cause it gets sunk and the resources are effectively wasted. Europe should either fund legitimately useful forces (either unilaterally or multilaterally if they prefer) or it should just give up the game and focus its funding on police, drug rehab, education, and other social welfare.

Specifics:

What is the point of a 20k person army in Belgium? They possess no heavy armor, few tracked vehicles, and little artillery. Aside from 30k worth of military and civilian jobs, what good is a force size that would have trouble defending Antwerpen?

The Royal Navy has 77 hulls (discounting the perma-docked), 19 of which are under 100t displacement. Major surface vessels and subs, combined, represent fewer than 30 vessels -- one large integrated task force. Does that level of force make sense? The RN has ONE potential force projection effort possible at any given time. The RN's value in defending England would be negligible. Is one tool of force projection worth the cost?

Denmark has a smaller military than Belgium, but still maintains more than 800 vehicles and the RDAF fields two squadrons of fighter-bombers. Despite its smaller size, the force is significantly more expensive -- and expensive to maintain -- than that of Belgium.

@Seamus Fermanagh. Strange..Very strange post.Dont really know from where to start. Have you no knowledge that you have singled out only NATO countries and most of their forces have been earmarked for NATO command structure?
Just to point out your example of Belgium. Their land component is composed of mechanized brigade called "Medium Brigade", which is part of NATO´s Eurocorps, which in turn comprises of 10th German armored division, 1st Spanish Mechanized Division, The French-German Brigade and and a Luxembourgian reconnaissance company. The other half of Belgian land component is a air mobile Brigade.
Do you think NATO has lost its meaning and should be disbanded? Or whats the case?

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

said lots of interesting stuff

Two comments, Seamus:

1. My comment on Afghanistan was in reference to the way the non-US forces operate. I don't know how it is now, but back in 2006, the base with a Norwegian presence had Norwegians in charge of communication, some Balts(probably Latvia) in charge of base defense, German armour response, British air support and so on. All united under one ISAF-command. I don't necessarily see how a multinational armed force of a national scale would create more problems than they had, and as far as I know, the command structure of that mission worked well enough.

2. I can use the Norwegian army as an example. As of now, it consists of one operative(tihi!) brigade of a little under 10.000 men. In the event of a war, we are supposed to raise around 5 divisions from reservists, consisting of highly motivated and trained soldiers like yours truly(double tihi!).

This army is is numerically smaller with worse and less equipment and training than the Georgian army Russia whooped in 2008. It's a complete and utter waste of money, energy and resources. It serves no purpose whatsoever. It's only useful aspect is that the survivors of an invasion are well prepared to start a low intensity guerilla war.

But why not skip training a bunch of cannon fodder, and instead establish the guerilla force right now? We're going to end up occupied in the event of a war no matter what - might as well skip the massacre and go straight for the sabotage operations.