Now that the "special assets" for the Bundeswehr, amounting to 100 billion and loudly announced as an additional booster, have already started tpo be unmasked as a means of achieving the 2% target for the defense budget, the question is now also increasingly being asked whether this 2% requirement will actually, as pompously announced, ever be anchored in the constitution as a binding obligation. The loudly advertised German "turn of time" seems to be trivialized now already more and more, while numerous speakers left today on the occasion of the 1st May no doubt that they want maximum increases of the already murderously high social expenditures, and see the necessity to be able to defend such a welfare state also militarily, as practically irrelevant. Somehow I have the overwhelming impression that, despite two months of war, a great many firecrackers still haven't heard the shot/the shots/the never-ending salvos. I shouldn't be surprised, after all, I announced early on that I wouldn't believe Scholz's lofty announcements until I see them implemented. It is doubtful that the 100 billion will ever be approved, because the opposition also smells a rat and has made it clear that it will not accept a wishy-washy definition for the use of the money and will then rather vote against the necessary constitutional amendments.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that there's a 70% chance that all the grandiose announcements will come to nothing or almost nothing, at least more nothing than anything. Already the buying of the F-35, announced early, is in my opinion in the stars, and will be unraveled again, because it is not "European". Bet?!
The
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung therefore also comments:
The fact that the "turn of the times" has by no means changed everything can be seen from the Green party conference over the weekend. The party did support the federal government's current realpolitik course, including arms deliveries, which is what ministers Habeck and Baerbock stand for.
But on one issue, the Greens, who used to be the parliamentary arm of the peace movement, remained true to their old beliefs: They do not want to anchor NATO's two-percent target in the Basic Law. They had already rejected it in their election program, which, of course, was written in a completely different foreign policy environment.
Not everything has to be written into the constitution. But if there is one thing to which German politicians should urgently commit themselves legally after the experiences of recent years, it is to equip the Bundeswehr in line with the alliance. How is it to be understood that the Greens are in favor of the special fund of 100 billion euros, but do not want to commit themselves to a long-term spending target for defense?
Do they really believe that the Bundeswehr's striking power will be permanently restored with an injection of funds? Or that the war in Ukraine will soon be over and the money can then be spent again on greener causes?
Putin's war of aggression is just two months old, and already a coalition partner is raising doubts about a key promise made by the chancellor. In all likelihood, the West faces a very long strategic confrontation with Russia, which incidentally spends four percent, as well as with China, which has the world's second-largest military budget.
The two percent target, which has been ignored for far too long, is an important prerequisite for Germany to better protect its population, its allies and its interests in the future. The yardstick should not once again be German wishful thinking, but international reality.
Translated with
www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)