German military – USA Gov Policy

Angela Merkel’s visit to the White House came at a time when both trade and defense issues highlighted the relationship between the two nations.

Despite a six-year high rate of economic growth and a surplus of revenue over expenditures, Germany continues to starve its armed forces of necessary funding.

According to Warfare “Many primary weapons systems in the Bundeswehr are not available for training exercises or deployment, according to a new study for the Federal Ministry of Defence, the Bundesministerium der Verteidigung (BMVg).” The publication outlines key portions of the problem:

“Number of weapon systems ready for action:

Eurofighter Typhoon jet airplanes: 39 of 128
Tornado jet airplanes: 26 of 93
CH-53 transport helicopters: 16 of 72
NH-90 transport helicopters: 13 of 58
Tiger helicopters: 12 of 62
A400M transport planes: 3 of 15
Leopard 2 tanks: 105 of 224
Navy frigates: 5 of 13”

cialis levitra viagra The statistics showcased a pattern wherein everyone out of 55 households filed for bankruptcy. This is why I firmly believe that it was not useful for assessing the success of treatment. order generic cialis However, the most common adverse effects produces by the medicine such as Sidenafil purchase cheap cialis icks.org Citrate to cause and commit to hard penile erection. It is getting in to the market for its high performance and generico viagra on line lower cost.
Business Insider reported in February that “Over the past several months, the entirety of Germany’s submarine fleet has gone out of action, the Bundeswehr, its armed forces, has outsourced helicopter training to a private company because its own helicopters are in need of repair, and more than half of the Bundeswehr’s Leopard 2 tanks, its most common model, were out of order, with just 95 of 244 in service. Those are only the latest reports of German military deficiencies…During a visit to Germany at the end of January, US Army Secretary Mark Esper, a former Raytheon executive, said he would take the German government at its word that it would increase defense spending to the 2% target, but he cautioned against falling short. ‘It’s important for all of our NATO allies to live up to their commitments,’ Esper said. ‘If not, it weakens the alliance, clearly, and Germany is such a critical member of NATO’.”

The European Security Journal found that, in addition to the fact that only a fraction of Germany’s crucial weapons system are capable of working, “21,000 positions are vacant within the German army… The armed forces situation of the biggest EU member state raises concerns for EU collective defence. Even with the planned increase of €5.4 billion by 2021 in the defence budget, Germany will still only spend 1.15% of its GDP in defence, far below from the NATO’s 2025 target of 2% of GDP. “

The problem is not new. In 2017,Berlin reported that “…active servicewomen and men are still being overburdened just as much as in the past in many areas… Since the 2011 Bundeswehr reform – following the suspension of compulsory military service, the number of German temporary-career volunteers and career soldiers has been 170,000 on paper, but this target had still not been reached by the end of 2016. In addition to this, however, the armed forces will, according to their own calculations, require 14,300 more servicewomen and men in order to close the personnel gaps that have now been identified; initially, though, only 7,000 new posts are to be created and filled by 2023. Seven years for a four-percent increase in personnel! This is taking too long. The situation is very similar when it comes to the full materiel resourcing of the Bundeswehr that is now envisaged. …everything new seems to be being put on the on hold, and nothing is happening quickly, from the new multirole combat ship to surface-to-air missile systems and the 100 second-hand Leopard 2s that will need to be modernised before they go into service alongside the 225 battle tanks the Bundeswehr currently has at its disposal. The Leopard 2s are to be available in 2023, but no contracts have been signed yet. There has already been sufficient discussion of the delays to many ongoing procurement programmes that are having such momentous consequences, from the A400M transport aircraft (Air Force) and the NH90 helicopter (Army) to the Type 125 frigates (Navy). It has not even been possible for the new combat clothing to be issued according to plan in the quantities required.

“In order to strengthen Germany’s capacity to contribute to collective defence, and fully perform its obligations under European security policy and within NATO, it will not only be necessary to rapidly expand the Bundeswehr’s manpower. Full materiel resourcing will also have to be driven ahead. There are shortages of heavy major end items such as tanks, helicopters and ships, but also munitions and personal equipment for servicewomen and men, from uniforms to night-vision devices and protective clothing . The shortages are making themselves felt everywhere. They are having impacts on training, exercises and the confidence with which equipment is handled in action. The often excessively long amounts of time taken for the repair work carried out in the private sector are part of the problem when it comes to the major end items that are in short supply…Furthermore, large and small procurement projects must be sustainably speeded up. For example, planned decommissioning measures mean the Navy only has nine of the 15 large combat vessels that are supposed to be in its fleet today, and minesweepers, tenders and tankers are filling the gaps, its operational capability is in a critical state, to say nothing of the scandalous shortage of operational Navy helicopters (at a time when it theoretically has a total inventory of 43 helicopters). But it is not only the objective shortages of personnel and materiel themselves that represent a problem, for the laborious business of administering this scarcity is burdening the Bundeswehr additionally as well.”

Photo: German Bundeswehr

Quick Analysis

Judge Merchan continues to deny justice to Donald Trump

In August of 2024, we discussed the US Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. We described the three tiered system enunciated by Chief Justice Roberts to determine whether or not the actions taken by the President of the United States are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution or not. The first tier are acts within the President’s constitutionally mandated authority which are subject to “absolute immunity.” The next are acts that may have “presumptive immunity,” and are subject to examination with evidence that rebuts the presumption of immunity. The third are acts which are unofficial, and which enjoy no immunity. In September, we also discussed the effect this decision should have on the New York County criminal case currently pending against President-elect Trump before Judge Juan Merchan. We cited to a CNN report, which described the evidence used against Donald Trump at the trial of that matter: “Trump’s lawyers pointed to testimony at trial – including from White House officials Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout – they argued should not have come before the jury…'[a]ll of Hicks’s testimony concerning events in 2018, when she was serving as the White House Communications Director, concerned official acts based on [Presidential] authority for which President Trump is entitled to absolute immunity,’ Trump’s attorneys argued. ‘[the Supreme Court’s ruling] specifically forbids prosecutors from offering ‘testimony’ from a President’s ‘advisers’ for the purpose of ‘probing the official act.’” Sure enough, as Chief Justice Roberts stated in the Presidential Immunity decision, “[a]llowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office. The prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard against the peculiar constitutional concerns implicated in the prosecution of a former President.” At the time, we stated that “Judge Merchan allowed testimony regarding Donald Trump’s official acts as President, acts which enjoy absolute immunity and which cannot be used against him, or even be entered into evidence in a criminal trial, a situation which could have been avoided had Judge Merchan delayed the trial until he’d received the guidance of the US Supreme Court.” Nonetheless, we predicted that Judge Merchan “will find a way to justify his actions once again, and let stand the unlawful conviction of former President Donald Trump.” You know how much we hate to say we were right…but…we were right. “This Court…finds that the evidence related to the [President-elect’s] claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections,” Judge Merchan wrote in his December 16, 2024 decision. “Further, even if this Court were to deem all of the contested evidence…as official conduct falling within the outer perimeter of Defendant’s Presidential authority, it would still find that the People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch, a conclusion amply supported by non-motive-related evidence.” In so ruling, the Court denied Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss his New York County conviction. Let us examine these findings, in light of the evidence admitted at the President-elect’s trial, and then compare that evidence to the acts granted absolute immunity by the US Supreme Court. In his decision, Judge Merchan discusses the testimony of Hope Hicks, who served as the Communications Director for the Trump White House. “Defendant argues that in her roles at the White House, any communications between Ms. Hicks and Defendant must receive absolute immunity…as Defendant’s ability to speak freely to Ms. Hicks was a core function of the Executive. According to Defendant, because Ms. Hicks wielded executive power on his behalf, authority that exists pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, any communications [President Trump] had with [Hicks] are subject to absolute immunity,” the Court wrote. Judge Merchan also noted that “[t]he People argue that the communications Defendant had with Ms. Hicks…constitute unofficial acts not entitled to any level of immunity.” In his inevitable agreement with the arguments presented by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office, Judge Merchan wrote “Defendant’s argument that any communication he had with Ms. Hicks is subject to absolute immunity by virtue of the position she held in the White House is mistaken…the President himself may speak in his unofficial capacity as a candidate or party leader, and certainly he can do so in his private capacity as well. Any argument that private conduct transforms into official conduct by communicating about the same to an individual with a particular title is without merit.” Thus, it is Judge Merchan’s position that the conversations Donald Trump had with his Communications Director are not entitled to immunity, even though those discussions were held at the White House, while Donald Trump was serving as President of the United States, merely because those discussions were not related to official Executive Branch activities. Sounds possibly reasonable – until you examine the Presidential Immunity decision more closely. In September, we wrote that “the statement made by Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion in the Presidential Immunity case [is significant]; ‘Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution…[t]estimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.’” This statement by Chief Justice Roberts points to a blanket immunity for ANY discussions had between the President and his advisors, regardless of the nature of those communications. Further, we noted that the Supreme Court issued the following warning: “[t]he government…contends that a jury could ‘consider’ evidence concerning the President’s official acts ‘for limited and specified purposes,’ and that such evidence would ‘be admissible.’” In rejecting that argument, Chief Justice Roberts states “[t]hat proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly – invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution […]