-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"> </A> -Cui Bono?- WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peace at any cost is a prelude to war! STRATFOR.COM Global Intelligence Update 24 March 2000 German Military Weakness Complicates European Security Futures Summary Falling in line with a popular sentiment against increased military spending, all mainstream German political parties except one favor significant cuts in the size of the German Armed Forces. Even the conservative Christian Democrats, in a position paper released March 21 on the future of the German Armed Forces, favors cutting its overall size. Reduced German military effectiveness will have significant implications for the future of NATO, its ability to defend new and potential members in the east, as well as the proposed European Defense and Security Identity. Analysis Fears that a resurgent Germany will become a dominant military force in Europe are misplaced. It is more likely Germany's military will shrink relative to its population and GDP. A position paper on the future of the German Armed Forces, the Bundeswehr, authored by the conservative Christian Democrats (CDU), favored cutting the overall size of the force to 300,000 from its current level of almost 340,000. Support for the German military continues to wane among the German population as cuts in social spending are matched - or even exceeded - by cuts in military spending. Germany is now set on a course where its defensively organized forces will rapidly lose military effectiveness and the capability for forward deployments. This will have serious implications for both NATO and any planned European Defense and Security Identity (EDSI). Most of all, it will complicate the security picture for Germany's eastern neighbors - particularly Poland and the Baltics - which are counting on the ability of the Bundeswehr to defend them from potential Russian threats. Germany's politicians are having a tough time convincing voters to continue spending billions to modernize the German military while they make cuts in social benefits. The CDU leadership's proposal favoring military reduction reflects this popular sentiment. Now, all mainstream German political parties except the Christian Social Union (CSU) favor significant cuts in the size of the Bundeswehr. The Greens' recommendation is the most severe, calling for German armed forces of between 200,000 and 240,000 and an end to compulsory military service. Since the end of the Cold War, it has become extremely difficult for Germany to justify defense outlays against obvious Russian weakness. Instead, Germans continued to emphasize commercial opportunities in Russia and the rest of Eastern Europe. This policy was even more eagerly embraced with the decreased Russian threat after the fall of the Berlin Wall. To reassure the Russians and other neighbors after German reunification, German armed forces were cut to 350,000. In 1992, France - with two-thirds of Germany's GDP - surpassed Germany in defense spending. In 1999, France spent $15.8 billion more than Germany on its military. The Social Democrat (SPD) and Green government that came into power in 1998 continued to focus on Germany's trade relations with the East. The Greens, many of whom led 1980s anti-NATO protests, are pacifist in nature and have always opposed the military. And while the SPD leadership is generally more hawkish, strong pacifist elements exist within the party ranks. Current government plans call for a reduction in defense spending from its 1999 level of $23.5 billion to $21.5 billion by 2003. Even before this reduction, Germany spends - as a percentage of GDP - less on its military than Hungary, Poland or the Czech Republic. While the opposition CDU proposal does envision higher defense spending - at $24.8 billion - than current government levels, it is still significantly lower than Germany's 1998 defense spending of $28.8 billion and half of what Germany spent as recently at 1992. U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen, in January 2000, strongly criticized Germany for reducing its military forces. He said Germany set a bad example for new NATO members. In response, German Defense Minister Rudolf Scharping said it was difficult to spare defense spending while Germany's government was cutting programs across the board. In Germany, the Finance Ministry and not the Defense Ministry is dictating defense outlays - cuts that Scharping has been powerless to resist. But Germany's eastern neighbors - particularly new NATO member Poland and NATO aspirants in the Baltic states - are looking to Germany to provide much of their defense capability. The loss of which leaves these countries in an uncomfortable position vis-a-vis the Russians. An improperly equipped 225,000-man German armed force will be hard-pressed to face a resurgent Russian threat - even if the political will could be summoned to forward-deploy German forces. Poland and the Baltic states are left with two uncomfortable options: a rapid military build-up or a moderation of their policies toward Russia. Increasing their military forces is economically unviable and will certainly antagonize the Russians. A more conciliatory stance toward Russia will be needed until either Germany re-evaluates its military situation - a long-term hope - or it receives a major commitment from the United States - an unlikely event. Countries hoping that Germany will take a military leadership role, particularly in Eastern Europe, will be disappointed. Instead, Germany will continue to pursue its policy of conciliation with Russia and will resist moves within Europe that may antagonize Moscow. In addition, Germany will have trouble meeting its obligations to any new European Security Force, whose leadership will then fall to the French or the British. While the French will be attracted to a militarily weak Germany, the additional military burden being placed on their own armed forces could be severe and this - more than any political considerations - could spell real trouble for the future of EDSI. (c) 2000, Stratfor, Inc. http://www.stratfor.com/ **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ] <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
