While insane in its own right, gems incl. multiculturalism ≠ strength™, gender (sic) = binary, and the new Bundeswehr will be a less-than-glorified assortment of parking meter maids
The Bundeswehrmacht will run into the same problem our military has:
Politicians reinstituted the draft years ago, letting the public think it's like it was during the Cold War when we could put 1 500 000 men under arms at 24 hours notice and when every man turning 18 did the service, barring health or psych reasons.
In reality, about 12 000 are called to the testing, and of them about 1 500 make it through.
Germany will be no different, because Total War means at least 4%-5% of the GDP goes to the military, and by that I mean only to real military matters, no gender-whoha or anything superfluous.
And that's not happening because then there's no money for climate hysteria grift, no money for Energielände, no money for migration, no money for the foreign aid-grift and so on.
And since the point of the neoliberal (neocon in American) state is using the people to make the capitaislts richer...
And then there's this hilariously absurd notion that women increase military readiness and/or effectiveness of the armed forces--as shown by e.g. this piece in NRK that celebrated the fact that 1/3 of Norway's military is now female:
Norway is a carbon-copy of Sweden, and to make this as poignant as I can, the Norwegian defence ministry now claims that Germany is 'very interested' in the Norwegian conscription model.
This is rapidly turning into a farce of the farce of the farce, to paraphrase Marx.
As you allude to, this will amount to a big fat zero in terms of stopping the dastardly Ivan at the Seelow Hights 2.0. However, it will serve nicely as the follow-up hobgoblin to keep the public alarmed since Covid hysteria has run its course and global boiling is on its last legs.
Also, for a fun perspective, when I was in the number of drafted recruits was around 170k to 180k per years (in addition to the longer serving actual soldiers). Out of those, 35k went on to become waiters in officers’ messes after finishing basic training. Even then the Bundeswehr was a clown show.
You're also correct in pointing out, consistently, that this is yet another grifting charade.
Setting aside the temp soldiering (Zeitsoldaten), I concur that even (sic) during the Cold War, when the Bundeswehr was ostensibly the mainstay of fighting forces to halt ze Rooskies, US planning of course envisioned that the heavy fighting would occur in Germany--and it wouldn't really matter much if the Soviets, despairing over NATO troops holding the line somewhere (preferably east of the Rhine) in Germany or the US eventually pulling out due to massive casualties and insanely long supply lines (across the Atlantic) deciding to simply nuke the shit out of Germany, thus rendering it a nuclear wasteland masquerading as no-man's land and call it quits.
I personally consider the main issue (in terms of origin myth) to be a fundamental mis-reading of WW2 by both 'the West' and 'ze Rooskies': the former's absurdities are well known and oft-discussed in these pages, hence let's focus on the latter for a change.
I consider the main aspects to be the following: the main reasons as to why and how the Red Czar was able to pull off the stunning reversal of fortunes were (in no particular rank-order)
a) substituting traditional Greater Russian patriotism for Bolshevik claptrap (as there were certainly too few good Soviet citizens to pull this off); the racist policies of Nazi Germany vs. the presumed Slavic Untermenschen contributed to this, and so did the NKVD's commissars threatening to kill every Red Army soldier who gave up.
b) virtually limitless US supplies of machines, material, and everything else (which also 'solved' America's economic woes for the time being and 'splains' why the US gov't determined to remain militarised, permanently, after WW2)
c) and then there are the tactics (sic) employed by the Red Army as a consequence of a) and b)--yes, (Soviet) Russians suffered enormously, and while I don't disagree on the learning effects of fighting the Wehrmacht (whose mis-interpretation by virtually all Western military academies is a leading cause of the West's current woes), if you read up on first-hand accounts of German soldiers esp. during 1941-43, there's precious little to observe in terms of superior training, capabilities, and tactics of the Red Army--many wartime diaries of regular soldiers, for instance, point this out, typically noting that losses mean next to nothing and whatever the enemy was doing, they would still be coming at the invaders
Bottom line here is--the main (national-historical) trauma of a totally aloof Soviet-Russian leadership that couldn't care less about the plight of the soldiers explains, to me, why the USSR began to crumble as these time-honoured Russian tactics bore comparable fruits in Afghanistan in the 1980s (albeit on a much smaller scale than in WW2) and why the current Russian leadership seeks to minimise, to the extent that this is possible, to do the same once more--because, as submit to you for consideration, they also understand that the Russian gov't lacks the means to enforce a comparable terror(ist) régime upon the Russian population.
In this, by the way, the Russian approach to war-fighting mirrors the Western reluctance to engage out of fear that both the Western and Russian regímes are very, very brittle at this point. Needless to say, it is painfully obvious that the agit-prop one hears from politicos™, experts™, and journos™ alike about 'Russia's full-scale invasion' or Western 'preparations for a war in 2030' (or whatever) are both utterly delusional.
My estimation is that both leadership circles know this, hence the question before us is: why aren't they telling us why they do this kind of kabuki theatre?
Read George Soros’s paper from 1993 in which he states, "Incidentally, the combination of manpower from Eastern Europe with the technical capabilities of NATO would greatly enhance the military potential of the Partnership because it would reduce the risk of body bags for NATO countries, which is the main constraint on their willingness to act. This is a viable alternative to the looming world disorder." I guess Eastern Europeans are no longer enough. Now they willing to sacrifice Western Europeans. https://www.georgesoros.com/1993/11/01/toward-a-new-world-order-the-future-of-nato
The Bundeswehrmacht will run into the same problem our military has:
Politicians reinstituted the draft years ago, letting the public think it's like it was during the Cold War when we could put 1 500 000 men under arms at 24 hours notice and when every man turning 18 did the service, barring health or psych reasons.
In reality, about 12 000 are called to the testing, and of them about 1 500 make it through.
Germany will be no different, because Total War means at least 4%-5% of the GDP goes to the military, and by that I mean only to real military matters, no gender-whoha or anything superfluous.
And that's not happening because then there's no money for climate hysteria grift, no money for Energielände, no money for migration, no money for the foreign aid-grift and so on.
And since the point of the neoliberal (neocon in American) state is using the people to make the capitaislts richer...
Exactly.
And then there's this hilariously absurd notion that women increase military readiness and/or effectiveness of the armed forces--as shown by e.g. this piece in NRK that celebrated the fact that 1/3 of Norway's military is now female:
https://www.nrk.no/tromsogfinnmark/10-ar-med-allmenn-verneplikt_-1-av-3-i-forstegangstjenesten-er-kvinner-1.17533942
Norway is a carbon-copy of Sweden, and to make this as poignant as I can, the Norwegian defence ministry now claims that Germany is 'very interested' in the Norwegian conscription model.
This is rapidly turning into a farce of the farce of the farce, to paraphrase Marx.
As you allude to, this will amount to a big fat zero in terms of stopping the dastardly Ivan at the Seelow Hights 2.0. However, it will serve nicely as the follow-up hobgoblin to keep the public alarmed since Covid hysteria has run its course and global boiling is on its last legs.
Also, for a fun perspective, when I was in the number of drafted recruits was around 170k to 180k per years (in addition to the longer serving actual soldiers). Out of those, 35k went on to become waiters in officers’ messes after finishing basic training. Even then the Bundeswehr was a clown show.
You're also correct in pointing out, consistently, that this is yet another grifting charade.
Setting aside the temp soldiering (Zeitsoldaten), I concur that even (sic) during the Cold War, when the Bundeswehr was ostensibly the mainstay of fighting forces to halt ze Rooskies, US planning of course envisioned that the heavy fighting would occur in Germany--and it wouldn't really matter much if the Soviets, despairing over NATO troops holding the line somewhere (preferably east of the Rhine) in Germany or the US eventually pulling out due to massive casualties and insanely long supply lines (across the Atlantic) deciding to simply nuke the shit out of Germany, thus rendering it a nuclear wasteland masquerading as no-man's land and call it quits.
I personally consider the main issue (in terms of origin myth) to be a fundamental mis-reading of WW2 by both 'the West' and 'ze Rooskies': the former's absurdities are well known and oft-discussed in these pages, hence let's focus on the latter for a change.
I consider the main aspects to be the following: the main reasons as to why and how the Red Czar was able to pull off the stunning reversal of fortunes were (in no particular rank-order)
a) substituting traditional Greater Russian patriotism for Bolshevik claptrap (as there were certainly too few good Soviet citizens to pull this off); the racist policies of Nazi Germany vs. the presumed Slavic Untermenschen contributed to this, and so did the NKVD's commissars threatening to kill every Red Army soldier who gave up.
b) virtually limitless US supplies of machines, material, and everything else (which also 'solved' America's economic woes for the time being and 'splains' why the US gov't determined to remain militarised, permanently, after WW2)
c) and then there are the tactics (sic) employed by the Red Army as a consequence of a) and b)--yes, (Soviet) Russians suffered enormously, and while I don't disagree on the learning effects of fighting the Wehrmacht (whose mis-interpretation by virtually all Western military academies is a leading cause of the West's current woes), if you read up on first-hand accounts of German soldiers esp. during 1941-43, there's precious little to observe in terms of superior training, capabilities, and tactics of the Red Army--many wartime diaries of regular soldiers, for instance, point this out, typically noting that losses mean next to nothing and whatever the enemy was doing, they would still be coming at the invaders
Bottom line here is--the main (national-historical) trauma of a totally aloof Soviet-Russian leadership that couldn't care less about the plight of the soldiers explains, to me, why the USSR began to crumble as these time-honoured Russian tactics bore comparable fruits in Afghanistan in the 1980s (albeit on a much smaller scale than in WW2) and why the current Russian leadership seeks to minimise, to the extent that this is possible, to do the same once more--because, as submit to you for consideration, they also understand that the Russian gov't lacks the means to enforce a comparable terror(ist) régime upon the Russian population.
In this, by the way, the Russian approach to war-fighting mirrors the Western reluctance to engage out of fear that both the Western and Russian regímes are very, very brittle at this point. Needless to say, it is painfully obvious that the agit-prop one hears from politicos™, experts™, and journos™ alike about 'Russia's full-scale invasion' or Western 'preparations for a war in 2030' (or whatever) are both utterly delusional.
My estimation is that both leadership circles know this, hence the question before us is: why aren't they telling us why they do this kind of kabuki theatre?
Read George Soros’s paper from 1993 in which he states, "Incidentally, the combination of manpower from Eastern Europe with the technical capabilities of NATO would greatly enhance the military potential of the Partnership because it would reduce the risk of body bags for NATO countries, which is the main constraint on their willingness to act. This is a viable alternative to the looming world disorder." I guess Eastern Europeans are no longer enough. Now they willing to sacrifice Western Europeans. https://www.georgesoros.com/1993/11/01/toward-a-new-world-order-the-future-of-nato