Okay let me put it like this: Germany is spending more annually on its military than Ukraine ($84 billion vs $114 billion in 2025) despite only the latter being at war. The economic and technological ability to wage war isn’t even comparable between those two countries. Now of course war is about more than just money, but in industrial warfare money does matter a lot. So does industrial capacity, which again Germany has much more of. And that’s Germany alone, not even the whole EU. In the absence of competing evidence I’m very comfortable assuming that Germany would do much better than Ukraine if attacked.
We do not have enough natural resources, especially oil, to keep the mechanized equipment rolling. The Russians are capable of disrupting logistics and damaging production sites. Furthermore, the German mindset, post WWII, is pacifistic and one can thank the Allies for creating it. They wanted to surpress our so-called Prussian military pride.
63 thousand, because Germany doesn’t face serious threats to its territory that’d require a bigger force. It’d increase if that was necessary (which would be obvious from a mile away). The money necessary to pay and supply more troops would be much better spent helping Ukraine in any case.
In your two above posts you seemed to suggest that Germany could already take on Russia without any troop increase…
Apparently you now seem to at least agree that it should move along with the threat. Which is great, because that’s what they’re doing. But also goes against the message from these protestors
Not really, because my point is that Germany (and comparable European states more generally) can already fight Russia or at worst build a military that can fight against Russia if necessary. Military power doesn’t work on a per capita basis.
That is the difference between an wartime economy of generally cheaper labor (east Europe) oriented primarily to provide resources for war, greatly (although not sufficiently in my opinion) supported and backed by the European Union and a slow bureaucratic economy known to be inefficient, time wise and monetary wise, economy. We hope that the European Union keeps together. And we certainly dont want to be forced to fight a war the way like Ukraine has to. No question Europe (if it stays united and doesn’t slowly bleed states to Russia’s control) would win a conventional conflict but the questions are at what cost? I rather win such a war in weeks than months, rather in months than years, and preferably with less missiles landing in my neighborhood.
I won’t claim to know the best way to beat a Russian invasion quickly, but in any case such a thing would be obvious from a mile away (like their invasion of Ukraine was), so there’d be ample time to prepare. Meanwhile if you want to prevent a Russian invasion the way to do that is to pump as much money and weapons as humanely possible into Ukraine while cutting off Russia entirely. Resources are limited, so doing one will naturally compromise the other.
It takes years for big military equipment to be delivered. Getting military barracks up to date also takes years (especially in our current slow system). So do structure of commands etc. There are plenty warnings of secret services that attacks on European NATO countries are a possibility already in the coming years (2029 the most commonly mentioned date). We are already seeing plenty attacks that are arguably are already beyond hybrid warfare and just recently have been warned of potential drone attacks on southern European states. Considering it takes at least a few years to get our military into a state where it can operate comfortably against such threats I would argue that there is not ample time, because such attacks are already on the horizon. I do agree that the most efficient way to stop russia with the least possibility of escalation is to support Ukraine at all cost and give them everything they need. That is the way to stop Russia without direct confrontation.
That’s right Ukraine is just waving that off without a sweat
Okay let me put it like this: Germany is spending more annually on its military than Ukraine ($84 billion vs $114 billion in 2025) despite only the latter being at war. The economic and technological ability to wage war isn’t even comparable between those two countries. Now of course war is about more than just money, but in industrial warfare money does matter a lot. So does industrial capacity, which again Germany has much more of. And that’s Germany alone, not even the whole EU. In the absence of competing evidence I’m very comfortable assuming that Germany would do much better than Ukraine if attacked.
We do not have enough natural resources, especially oil, to keep the mechanized equipment rolling. The Russians are capable of disrupting logistics and damaging production sites. Furthermore, the German mindset, post WWII, is pacifistic and one can thank the Allies for creating it. They wanted to surpress our so-called Prussian military pride.
How many troops does Germany have vs Ukraine?
63 thousand, because Germany doesn’t face serious threats to its territory that’d require a bigger force. It’d increase if that was necessary (which would be obvious from a mile away). The money necessary to pay and supply more troops would be much better spent helping Ukraine in any case.
In your two above posts you seemed to suggest that Germany could already take on Russia without any troop increase…
Apparently you now seem to at least agree that it should move along with the threat. Which is great, because that’s what they’re doing. But also goes against the message from these protestors
Those numbers need to be put into relation. GDP, per capita or such.
Not really, because my point is that Germany (and comparable European states more generally) can already fight Russia or at worst build a military that can fight against Russia if necessary. Military power doesn’t work on a per capita basis.
That is the difference between an wartime economy of generally cheaper labor (east Europe) oriented primarily to provide resources for war, greatly (although not sufficiently in my opinion) supported and backed by the European Union and a slow bureaucratic economy known to be inefficient, time wise and monetary wise, economy. We hope that the European Union keeps together. And we certainly dont want to be forced to fight a war the way like Ukraine has to. No question Europe (if it stays united and doesn’t slowly bleed states to Russia’s control) would win a conventional conflict but the questions are at what cost? I rather win such a war in weeks than months, rather in months than years, and preferably with less missiles landing in my neighborhood.
I won’t claim to know the best way to beat a Russian invasion quickly, but in any case such a thing would be obvious from a mile away (like their invasion of Ukraine was), so there’d be ample time to prepare. Meanwhile if you want to prevent a Russian invasion the way to do that is to pump as much money and weapons as humanely possible into Ukraine while cutting off Russia entirely. Resources are limited, so doing one will naturally compromise the other.
It takes years for big military equipment to be delivered. Getting military barracks up to date also takes years (especially in our current slow system). So do structure of commands etc. There are plenty warnings of secret services that attacks on European NATO countries are a possibility already in the coming years (2029 the most commonly mentioned date). We are already seeing plenty attacks that are arguably are already beyond hybrid warfare and just recently have been warned of potential drone attacks on southern European states. Considering it takes at least a few years to get our military into a state where it can operate comfortably against such threats I would argue that there is not ample time, because such attacks are already on the horizon. I do agree that the most efficient way to stop russia with the least possibility of escalation is to support Ukraine at all cost and give them everything they need. That is the way to stop Russia without direct confrontation.