How Germany Wants To Change the Air Force (Luftwaffe)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 май 2024
- Germany just published its first national security strategy*. It has some changes from the usual, including commitments for more Air Defense, NATO, nuclear weapons and not wanting to push forward with anti-satellite systems. Oh, and nothing about drones, a bit on China and Russia, Ukraine, space, cyber, lots of EU, NATO and multilateral diplomacy. Let's talk about it!
*Reunified Germany, ignoring somewhat similar but not really similar documents.
- Check out my books -
Ju 87 Stuka - stukabook.com
STG-44 Assault Platoon - sturmzug.com
German Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com/
Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de/
- Support -
Patreon: / milavhistory
Channel Memberships: / @militaryaviationhistory
PayPal: www.paypal.me/MilAvHis
- Social Media -
Twitter: / milavhistory
Instagram: / milaviationhistory
- Sources -
Federal Government Germany, NSS: Robust. Resilient. Sustainable. Integrated Security for Germany. June 2023, available in English at: www.nationalesicherheitsstrat...
Original in German: www.nationalesicherheitsstrat...
- Timecodes -
00:00 - Coming up
00:15 - National Security Strategy
01:40 - The Air Stuff
01:54 - Air Defense
04:07 - Anti-satellite weapon
06:58 - Nuclear Weapons
09:34 - Drones/UAVs/RPAs
09:53 - A Different Germany?
10:00 - Document of Compromise
11:07 - China
11:58 - NATO/EU
13:01 - Credible Deterrence
13:43 - Focus of the Strategy
14:29 - Space
14:55 - Your turn
- Audio -
Music and Sfx from Epidemic Sound
So Germany saying Nein to nuclear energy but Ja to nuclear weapons. Mmmkay.
tore down their energy to build nukes?
@@SoloRenegade You need nuclear reactors to build efficient nukes
Both topics arent really related though. You can have one without the other.
kinda shizo, isn't it?
@@bond0815 not if you check the arguments for the shutdown of the NPPs - "they are too dangerous", "might cause radioactive fallout" - right, being active on the nuke-side might cause retalliatons with the same means... q is "what is radiating more - a NPP in mint condition, or a nuke exploded over berlin"...
“Not a Nuke” has to be one of the most important disclaimers in history.
Neutron burst generators? Interesting concept - kills within a day or two with minimal physical logistic collateral damage. Can stop an invading army in it's tracks.
Well now we have the expectation that every time it's not specifically mentioned otherwise, we're seeing footage of nuclear deployment.
Could not stop laughing at that disclaimer 😂
Not a nuke? Then why is it pointy? Pointy is scary... if not nuke... why pointy?
Germany must never be trusted with nuclear weapons, Never.
So it only took 30 odd years for the reunified Germany to issue their first national security strategy? Got to love that Teutonic bureaucracy!🤣
Without the war in Ukraine, it would've taken another 30 years. :D
@@sirhotpain 🤣🤣🤣
well, that tracks with how long their military procurement sometimes takes
80 years since the German nuke program headed by Heisenberg
Well the world keeps changing faster than they can write it.
"Effective defence includes credible deterrence aimed at preventing an armed confilct ... in the first place" - holy guacamole! our politicians did finally recognized the difference. i am ipressed
Yet these same politicians keep poking a bear over and over again
@@virgil6873 😴
@@virgil6873 Bears don't have minds. Military deterence is aimed to make decision makers in hostile countries aware there will be a painful price to pay for an assualt.
@@virgil6873 a rotten corpse of a handicapped bear.
That's the new Greens. They are based.
I would have liked to see something about reforming the defence acquisition process.
agree
The cold-war model of Manufacturers getting whoever is in charge
drunk enough that they'd sign anything might be preferable to the current process.
@@HauntedXXXPancake But how would we know if the helmets are any good if don't test them for seven years first.
It's interesting that Germany's nuclear weapons relationship with the USA has not changed much in roughly sixty years. When I was a child, my father was a Captain in the US Army missile artillery. He commanded the (I believe) 5th Missile Detachment in Dunsen. The purpose of that unit was to safeguard the W-31 nuclear warheads for the MGR-1 Honest John missiles operated by a German missile battalion that was based nearby. At least with the Typhoon and F-35, the targets of the nuclear weapons can be more than 25 km from the launch point.
I don't think it's a bad idea that Germany remains very committed to towards not acting alone. Of course it's a problem when it results in Germany not being able to act alone.
It does sounds like the general conclusion of the national strategy is "continue doing what we're doing but let's do it better and with a bit less hesitance"
Well Germany in some defence related topic cant act alone because of our constitution but in other areas our politicians are simply to lazy to act alone so we are in the state of do nothing until the situation becomes unbareable or others want us to do something to get Germany to do something.
I do really like this type of content. Its hard to find a summary of defense papers that are not an hour long, specially if they are not in english, so more of this would be welcomed. Kind of surprised that they would talk openly about nukes given the political coalition(me having a basic knowledge of the coalition)
I dont think anybody really expects nukes to actually be used, so even though its not popular, its not the biggest deal. Germany would be right in the middle of a nuclear war if it breaks out regardless of if theres any nukes actually in country. Weaponized drones on the other hand are intended to be used on a regular basis, so it makes sense that it would be a more discussed topic
Historically that's precisely WHY Germany was against nuclear weapons. If used they were, truthfully, mostly going to be dropped on and around Germany soyeah makes little sense to condone a strategy which would annihilate your own population. With any luck a validpan European nuclear deterrent might discourage the IS from playing its games on our beloved continent
the anger is justified, especially if we know they wont be used. why waste money and resources on something dangerous that you have no intention of using?
@@SoloRenegade probably because nukes are a potent deterrent simply by existing. Sometimes having the ability to use force is more useful for keeping peace than actually using that force
@@Brok. I get that, but the reason more countries are getting nukes is because that deterrent isn't really working anymore, since the world has pretty much made the use of nukes a crime against humanity. can't use it as a threat anymore, as use of one brings the rest of the world down upon you.
Germany has the force of NATO behind it, and a LOT of nukes. adding their own changes Nothing. It just wastes their limited funding and resources that would be better spent on fighter jets and such.
@@Brok. Yeah funnily, the best defensive army is the one that you will never use, lol. If you have strong deterrent but the rest of the army is crappy, its still better than having a really strong army without the deterrent. When you have nukes, noone will risk invading you so its way better than having a strong army, because with that, someone might actually try to do it. Even if you absolutely crushed the enemy, it still damaged your country, while with nukes you will never have to shoot a single bullet.
It might seem useless to have them, because noone will ever use them, but that's the point, as long as no-one is willing to go for mutual destruction, you are safe. (Also that's why Russian claims about being threatened are so moronic. Noone will ever invade them, noone would even want to do it, even if they had no nukes... As a nuclear power, you can easily lose an offensive war, but no-one will ever be able to win an offensive war against you. Even if you lose, you both lose. That's the beauty of it. Why would anyone attack you if there is no way to win. Either the invader loses, or you both cease to exist)
I wonder what the french will think about that
well, in a way the French did offer Germany their own nukes not so long ago
France already know Germany can't do anything without the USA having it's word witch is kinda sad as they are impeding Europe defense industry,
Germany is also trying to scrap the FCAS just so they can buy the next gen6 USA made fighter and get there precious nukes while proceeding to destroy another 1800 year old village inhabited since the Romans and Franks era just to use the worst coal ever discovered.
The French have plenty of nuclear weapon experience. I suspect they would offer to collaborate, as would the UK.
I wonder what the Israeli will say about this 🤔
While intended primarily as a tactical weapon the maximum yield (~350 kt but exact classified) of the B61 is well into the range of most strategic weapons. The exact line between strategic and tactical nukes is somewhat fuzzy and you'd mostly use the B61 in its lower yield configurations with the option of using it at its full yield against more strategic targets if for whatever reason delivery by tactical strike aircraft became the best available option. Doing so would almost certainly be a one way mission though.
The new version of the B61 (12) has 50 kt maximum yield, but steering fins to be more precisely
B61-12 also has slightly better range as a glide bomb instead of simple gravity bomb.
@@simonm1447 yeah It has a JDAM kit and probably a lower max yield but as usual exact is classified. Good chance it retains a higher max yield than the supposed 50 kt though it’s just optimized for the lower yield to save a bit of weight and reduce fallout (although dialing the yield back with boosting gas reduction already reduced the fallout quite a bit)
@@stupidburp True, and even the older versions have retarding parachutes too but the flight profile, enemy air defenses and likely lack of available tankers due to everything being blown sky high in a strategic exchange would still make a return journey both difficult and pointless.
The B61-12 has a JDAM-derived guidance kit that occupies a significant portion of the overall casing. The bomb part is reduced in volume from previous versions. The 350KT yield of earlier versions would be used for hard targets like bunkers more than to destroy large soft targets. It is being certified for all of the previous aircraft that were certified with previous B61 versions and the F-35. One surprising result of the addition of the guidance kit is that ground-handling has had to be changed. In previous versions, the bomb on it's carriage was pushed around with the fins being a handy point of contact. With the guidance system, the fins may be damaged if a bomb-loader is pushing the bomb by the fins and the carriage hits a bump like a hanger door track.
Had to laugh at your repeated "NOT A NUKE" captions with the F-35 dropping bombs footage.
I like the "not a nuke" note on the F-35. I'm glad too because the pilot would be sweating the way he dropped it. No chute, no lob. Just weeeee..
I see what you did there)))
Things ive picked out:
*Its more a foreign policy White Paper rather than a defence white paper, only about 5 of the 74 pages are on the armed forces and none of those have anything on procurement.
*Focus on European Common Security Policy and co-operative procurement programmes as well as EU expansion saying Germany supports admitting the western Balkans, Ukraine, Moldova and eventually Georgia.
*Wants an international ban on weapons that dont have a human in the loop
340 kilotons is more than 20 times of Hiroshima bombing. Do not think a tactical nuke, this is serious firepower. It is in fact as high as strategic warheads on Minuteman or MX ICBMs (Mk 12A and Mk 21 respectively) . There is only one missile warhead currently in US arsenal, that has higher yield (W88 on Trident II D-5 SLBM), while there are many smaller warheads in the strategic arsenal (like more than 1500 stockpiled or deployed W76 Trident warheads that have 90 kilotons each).
340 is the maximum yield of an older version. You can choose different set-ups with the B61-12, which are 0.3, 1,5, 10 and 50 kt.
Considering how densely populated Europe is any nuke with a yield above 30kt is serious firepower. Strategic and tactical from the US perspective but for residents of generic central european city pop 100k a 30kt or 340kt will wipe them out all the same and overwhelm the emergency services of a small country. Europe is not designed for high yield nukes. The cities are too close to each other so even if you miss by 20 km you still end up killing tens of thousands since you just hit another city. Imagine the Netherlands getting randomly hit with nukes. Even if you miss all the biggest cities you're still wiping out their society. Better yet don't imagine.
@@simonm1447 Right. I confused the versions. It seems that B61s currently deployed in Europe are indeed this new version. There has already been an accident in Volkel confirming their deployment. So unless there are older versions around I stand corrected.
The music really adds a special touch to this video.
Chris, I really enjoy your sense of humor! And the beginning music!
There's nothing aggressive about developing multi-layer air defense.
Excellent channel !! Congrats. I will suscribe and 👍👍👍
i would have loved a step more towards offensive cyber capabilities as an deterrence, but i guess the politicians said no.
politicians dont know what the internet is
Deterrence works by your opponents knowing your capacities to harm them. Deterrence doesn't work if your opponents DON'T know what you've got. You've got to tell them. That doesn't work very well with cyberwarfare. You can't tell your adversaries you've got spyware in their datacenters. You can't tell them about your day one exploit, and why they should be scared of it. Because they can patch it, air gap it, or change security procedures. Cyber capabilities work because your adversary doesn't know they're infected/infiltrated.
Having your internet, finance system, and infrastructure collapse(and economic ruin that results) due to cyber attack, is NOT the same level of threat as exterminating an entire nationality of a state.
Though, having the ability to destroy internet, finance system, and infrastructure, could be quite the deterrent for a small country(Taiwan) trying to deter a larger one(China), who has bigger fish to fry(USA). Maybe China wouldn't think it's worth touching Taiwan if Taiwan put them in the stone ages, and destroy China's ability to compete with the US. That might actually work as a deterrent. Kinda like a Wasps nest. Just NOT worth messing with. Too little to gain for the costs.
Excellent; I always look forward to one of your videos.
Great vid!
I was both surprised and pleased that Germany states plainly that they will maintain the capacity to deliver nukes. I recall the fervent public opposition in the '80s to basing nukes on German soil, especially the so-called neutron bombs. Thanks to Putin now even a broad coalition German government can announce that it has, indeed, a credible deterrent.
Most of the anti nuclear protests where sponsored by the ussr, governments tended to ignore them for some reason
@@gherkinisgreat Weren't the US tactical nuclear missiles removed from Germany after these protests? That's my fuzzy 40-years-ago memory, "99 Luftballons" and all that. Living half a world away in pre-internet days it is hard to know if I heard the truth.
@@Miata822the nuclear missiles had been removed after the downfall of the soviet union, which was not long after they had been stationed in Germany. To abolish nuclear share was never a serious topic in Germany, the only question was which plane would be chosen to replace the obsolete Tornado. Before Feb 24th the Super Hornet was the favourite aircraft ( because it is old enough to not jeopardize the FCAS program), after the 24th they switched to the more capable F-35.
@@simonm1447 Thanks. Now i really want to go look up more of the history that I lived through. What is the "vibe" in Germany today regarding Putin's incessant threats? This war will get worse before it gets better. I have been impressed by Germany's turn toward a stronger defense posture backed by real funding. I was never really sure if NATO could rely on Germany, but if any country should know the cost of caving in to a bully...
@@Miata822 Germany is reunited since 1990, but in the public opinion it's still a divided country regarding the war in Ukraine. The majority in the west sees russia as what it is (the enemy and a threat) while people in the eastern part have been brainwashed for decades (until the end of the GDR in '90) and you still find a lot of older people there which are more russia-friendly. They had been their so called " big brother" for 4 decades until 1990 and you can't just wipe this out of their minds.
Federal policy however is dominated by west Germans and any political party which has realistic chances to win elections is publicly supporting Ukraine.
At 550 Km, Starlink satellites, w/o thrust, will deorbit due to atmospheric drag, in a bout 5 years. At 400 Km a satellite will deorbit in 1 yr. This goes for orbital debris from anti-satellite hits as well. With launch costs coming down the competition may devolve into expendable or fueled thrusting satellites at 400 Km, which is a self cleaning/clearing orbital altitude. Besides, mapping satellites will get better resolution at 4/5ths the distance. Partial reusability has dropped launch costs from $300 > $62 Million. Full reusability will be as impactful on the satellite business. Germany is correct in not coming late to a technical competition that is in the throws of an oncoming and radical shakeout.
Thank you for this rundown, very interesting!
11:42 Funny, useless bit: the translator interpreted "Zeitenwende" as "Titan vendor". I had it on because I wouldn't hear everything whilst munching my crunchy cereal. 😄
lol😅😅
I loved your intro! Nice job!
I was happy to see a national security document discussed on RUclips 16:01
Germans look at a word like Militärgeschictlicheforschungsamt and say "Dies ist gut."
I hope you get the opportunity to visit the National Museum of the Air Force. Arguably it's the preeminent aircraft museum in the world. (The Smithsonian being in Washington makes it a pain in the a** to visit). Even if you can't film with them it's well worth the visit.
Alternatively, the Pima Air & Space Museum is a good choice, only 3000 km away(1800 miles in freedom units).
With a half-green government... do we need an environmental study for each nuke we use?
Germany has at least 7 Tons of Plutonium. And you only need about 3kg of Plutionium to build a nuke with about 20kiloTons TNT equivalent (Hiroshima was 13 Kilo Tons TNT equivalent) so Germany could built about 2300 Nukes with 20 KiloTons TNT equivalent
Curious, where did Germany get that much weapons grade plutonium? I am not aware that they had a spent fuel reprocessing capability/policy. Would you please elaborate? Thank you.
A huge step forward, I hope other allies take note especially my home country of Canada.
Ah Shit, Here We Go Again
As long as Colonel Klink doesn’t have the launch codes.
"What could possibly go wrong?"
ASAT weapons are really an interesting thing, it will give Germany some real deterrence. Only few countries can do this.
It came across as NO ASAT
i have the slight feeling that the biggest threads will take place on a smaller scale, like drones vs infrastructure.
My Swedish newspapers just went out with something interesting: Sweden will train some Ukrainian pilots and ground crews to operate Gripen.
That is rather surprising to me but it seems likely Ukraine will get some Gripen planes based on that, I assume those are old Swedish C model or possibly D that will be replaced with the E model.
I understand the comments re DCA and longer range missile systems. Is there any mention of tactical GBAD to move with Heer units - or is this in the Land Domain section?
"...What some groups thought of the risks involved." Sehr treffend gesagt.
I would be interested in your view on Peruns video: The race for long-range fires, Is the US army outranged? - missiles, cannons & Long-range precision.
General summary: Is about the US army developing new capabilities that were previously exclusive to the air force.
(In general, your opinion of space becomes its own branch, drones take over some of the air force's exclusiveness, etc..)
Honestly saw the title and had a "wait wut" moment.
It seems fine from my perspective. All positive things to strengthen the alliance and with a little eye on the future. End of a long day so not so sharp but all in all, it seems logical. Cheers Chris
Texts are fine and all, but I would like to see another update on what the so mediatically popular "100Bn€ and 2% of GDP in the long run" announcement achieved so far
7:48 - just the 20 Hirosminas, nbd 🤷🏻♀️
Like the intro
Crazy
Love the music
In the 60s there was a Tom Leher song about this.
I'm sure the Luftwaffe will be excited to get these by 2123
Great review 👏. Hope you can get too the US Air Force MUSEUM .
Add some pepper. That’s some strong words from a German giving how pepper is the most potent spice in German cousine.
The most dangerous aspect of the new policy is that the high quality, clay coated semi-gloss multi colored document can be rolled tightly and applied in anger to whack the noggin or bum of an opponent. Take that Vladimir!
So that important item at the end was basically “sic vis, parabellum”
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Good
The Ukraine war was a Ringy-dingy Wakey-wakey
The sub-500 Kt nuke has been the standard for some 35 years because placement, even ICBM's have been much more accurate and strategy has changed because of that from countervalue targetting to counterforce targetting where you try to destroy military assets rather than cities and other "civilian" targets. The counterforce strategy was suggested by the Rand Corporation in 1960 but the ICBM's of the time were nowhere near accurate enough for it and the military could not imagine it being feasible
A Sino-German war would be pretty unliekly since Germany does not have assets that can reach China that I know of, so it would be on the map far less than Russia and Ukraine
Countervalue weapons would likely be employed at the same time as counterforce, killing us all and maybe wiping out the only world in the entire universe to support sentient life. Truly a sad thing
German aircraft carrier when??? We‘d still call it a Frigate though
What would happen in a Sino-German "war" would be more like what China has done over the last 25 years in placed like Jabudi (sp?) and are trying to do to Australia. Use curruption and bribery to undermine a nation. They think in terms of lifeties where the Western countries, lacking sound philosophical ideas, think in terms of the next election and the word is "Spend, spend spend: Elect, elect, elect" and the pols appeal to to the Cukoo for Coco-puffs elements of society and debt goes over the moon. CDhina walks in with promises of big coin and arranges 99 year leases on the resource-rich land. Just look at wha Huawei, known for planting spytronics has done having friends in high places. Wanna see how china became the manufacturing powerehouse of the world? Google up "third wave" and 'post-industrial US". And these frootloop ideas came out in 1976. How, what would se do if the Chinese decided to turn off the spigot of consumer goods and how do you think people would react at the polls to vast swatches of empty Walmart shelves?
I wonder what Göring would think of all this….
Nothing new at all. Tornado was the previous nuke dropper.
Germany seems to want to engage industrially with its neighbours on defence and on domestic security but is still pretty much out on contributing to security beyond Europes borders, while it talks of the European Common Security and Defence Policy and PESCO its pretty much been excluded from closer defence integration by its neighbours due to its foot dragging. For example look at the UK's Joint Expeditionary Force whose goal is to counter Russia in the Baltic and High North by forming a joint Naval battlegroup and Land Battlegroup and it predates even the 2014 invasion of Ukraine originally formed to counter Russians attempts to grab resources in the Arctic. It includes UK, Netherlands, Denmark, Iceland and every single Scandinavian and Baltic state with the exception of Germany and Poland.
Look at the German cooperation with the Dutch, our Armies are heavely integeated and our navies have some amount of cooperarion going.
I'm not sure that perception is up to date. Germany and the Netherlands have just recently fully integrated their land forces, the country is right now hosting NATO's largest ever air force exercise, and has just announced plans to send two Navy ships for a six-month mission to the Indo-Pacific, in addition to sending forces from all three branches to participate in Australia's Talisman Sabre 2023.
Germany is not participating in the UK's Joint Expeditionary Force because in 2014, NATO established Germany (and Italy) as separate framework nations *next to* the UK. The FNC was actually a German concept which the UK just picked up and supported. Meaning all three of these nations have their own programs.
I think anti satelite mission are delicate. If i want to take aggressive action i would simply place my satelite visible in an area where an explosion would end spaceflight for a very long time. If the other side decides to end it so be it. 😬
A technic for save deorbit something would accelerate such a decision.
Germany: we will do our part regarding the NATO nuclear deployment commitment 🧐
Poland: I am NATO...can I have some nuclear commitment? 😋
Its interesting that the paper mentions France so many times and from my quick search no other european member of NATO.
Robust, resilient, sustainable, and integrated - all buzzwords in one title. Then it can only be a good strategy.
Sustainable is the one that makes me giggle. Europeans are so obsessed with this, they have to put it in everything.
@@virgil6873 Yeah don't let it fool you; that usually doesn't last beyond the buzzword stage and it if does, it is usually more for token policies rather than any structural change. That's why having consumers return their cans is more important than actually punishing industries for violating pollution standards. Mostly it's there to give some semblance of being up with the current debate.
320 KT isn't a tactical nuke mate, that's twice the size of the UK's strategic trident II D5 warhead MERV's at 120KT 10 per missile
"If the pilot's good, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that thing in so low, oh it's a sight to see. You wouldn't expect it with a big ol' plane like a '52, but varrrooom! The jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!", General "Buck" Turgidson.
Tbf nukes are very effective anti-satellite weapons.
European politicians really HAVE to put "sustainable" in every thing huh
Everyone's gangsta until Germany starts rearming.
I found the failure to address Anti Italianate in reality as extreme disturbing as the Russians have it, The Chinese have it and NATO should not because it makes a mess of things? When so much is based on space you cede the high ground to your main adversaries. That is truly hiding your head in the sand. NATO better have it, it can and would be used against NATO and or the US and if the US goes there is no NATO.
Raumkommando?
What a wasted opportunity!
They should have called it "Vakuumwaffe"
Belka
320 kt not a big massive nuclear explosion? I see we have a Tsar Bomba purist here!
8:07
"Little Boy" (Hiroshima) yield 15kt
"Fat Man" (Nagasaki) yield 22kt
I can't help thinking of Tom Lehrer's "MLF Lullaby." 🤣
They dropped it like its hot
Watching german military vehicles with that black/white cross painted on it - especially on the Slavic East - doesn't seem right to me; in fact they send chills down my spine... it seems history repeting itself and we know very well it doesn't rhyme.
From my point of view, the paper is of little value, since the issue of the militia army is not tackled. There is one main topic in Germany: That of internal security, which unfortunately can only be ensured at present and mid term by the increased deployment of military forces, because the Police are overwhelmed. Our Problem? We are short of man power. This will only be resolved if universal conscription is re-introduced. Current coalition's Defense Minister Pistorius has rejected this issue in June 2023, admitting in parallel, that we have a significant man power issue in our Forces. They don't want any higher level of internal security and rather prefer to produce illusions called National Security Strategy, ridiculous approach !
Good to see Germany slightly exercising her Defence Muscles a little for all our security. in Europe. Thanks for the encourafing News.
i travel often from germany to france and belgium. Funny" thing is that there are plenty of nuclear reactors at the borders
300KT (20x Hiroshima) is still a sizeable explosion. Certainly not in the MT range, but I wouldn't want to be nearby, even in MOPP-4 and inside my vehicle with the NBC system running.
How about under 20 meters of concrete and earth?
25x Hiroshima, 15x Nagasaki...
@@brianreddeman951Ok, so let put that with a penetrator 10 or 15m deep into the ground. That will be "ground shaking"... Gotcha. 😁👍
Nothing to add to the information about the military strategy. But I take issue with the cliché of playing Bavarian “Ummpta-music” to give this video a “German” setting. Just my two cents…😊
I also support nukes for germany. Though its the dark reading of the phrase.
I've heard rumored that the USA has gone to DEFCON 3 in response to your visit there...
😝🤪😜
Given Germany’s location to Kaliningrad, Germany should have either their own nukes or sharing capabilities with the U.S.
Well, F-35 to deliver nuke is good decision.
give them an inch and they take a mile, gg
Be careful with them.
Nein to nuclear power but ya to coal. Maybe check out the risks of coal first deutschland.
I would love to see a video about the MBB Lampyridae and how the US killed it , alongside any other interesting independent German development of aircraft post war
Given Belaruse just got Russian nukes . Since Germany has NATO's nuclear protection, it should has the responsibility as well.
I'm beginning to see a pattern here that i'm not so sure i like
Neine und jah?
Umm.... Uhh!
Its not a nuke. Its a frigate.
I'm British but I think Germany needs to start forgiving its past for what happened in WW2,the people in Germany are not the same people.
With regard to the current war in Europe we all need to back Ukraine 100% and personally, I think China is very annoyed with Putin for orchestrating this war in Europe. I'm also very pleased to see Germany join the F35 program.
It's not covered in the media because they prefer Fox News levels of BS, but anyone who knows how China works, knows China's angry as hell with Putin. The reasons are obvious:
1 - China's foreign policy is 'Borders are sacred and shut up about what happens inside those'. Russia constantly violates borders.
2 - It has not been forgotten that Russia invaded China six times and still occupies northern Manchuria, with western Xinjiang lost as well. This 'Century of Humiliation' is a big part of Chinese nationalism. The former invader of the Cold War is NOT a friend now.
3 - Russia murdered Chinese citizens repeatedly and ignored a warning to stop doing so, leading to the 'Wolf Warrior tweet'. Having to advise people to do like in a movie because Chinese pressure failed, is a loss of face for the Chinese government. In a 'face culture' like China that's a big deal.
4 - China sent civilian aid to Ukraine, big gesture.
5 - Russia was expecting Putin, instead they got Lavrov. Sending a minister to meet the supreme leader says Russians see the Chinese as inferior, causing a loss of face
6 - China then refused to sell weapons to Russia
7 - The next meeting scheduled, Putin himself had to show up and get all of the ceremony set up to receive Xi Jinping in a meeting where Xi was looking outright arrogant and Putin often submissive even in public events.
Why is he playing Austrian Blasmusik music in the interludes?
Atomwaffen? Ja, bitte!
Great video. Informative and simple to take in and understand. I love Germany yet I've never been there.
That's the Theorie, in practice i dont expect much. Just think of Scholz 100Bio€ "wumms" and all that didnt come out of it.
I have never seen anyone present with a doctorate who wears so little tweed. its just shocking.
Germany should skip the big money high dollar stuff. Focus on ground tech