[deleted]

Thanks for the background. So did that New Years message mentioned in the article play a role, or is that just an excuse? If so, what was so objectionable about it?

[removed]

[removed]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Thank god. Can we now get someone who is actually interested in the job?

The two most likely candidates are Eva Högl, the parliamentary commissioner for the armed forces, or Siemtje Möller, parliamentary secretary of defence. Both seem to be competent, interessted and wouldn't break the gender parity.

[removed]

[removed]

I'm also interested. But maybe we should get someone who's actually competent.

[removed]

[removed]

They wouldn't have prioritized the military higher if they didn't have gender parity.

[removed]

Why not competent and interested? Would be a change for once

[removed]

Another option would be to either move Wolfgang Schmidt (unlikely) or Hubertus Heil (somewhat likely) to the defence ministry and replace them with a woman. Heil esp. showed that he can run a ministry quite competently.

[removed]

[removed]

For someone out of the loop, what's the speech?

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

The speech itself was kind of fine. It is just a very bad look when you stand outside and people celebrate and shoot fireworks while you talk about Ukraine and the destruction there.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Spoiler: There are none.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

>not like anyone would need it anyway in the time of NATO.

This is what's really irritating as a US tax payer. We subsidize Western Europe's defense.

“Shit’s getting real, I’m out”

[removed]

[removed]

If the discounted returns on that spending is less than the spending, then absolutely I would oppose it.

What's the return on systemically screwing your economy for "gender balance" when compared to doing nothing? Here's a hint, whatever number you say... It's lower.

[removed]

[removed]

Well, technically, you are completely wrong on one thing. The job has not been used as retirement home for party veterans. It was more a "free cabinet job for crown princes" position. Guttenberg was the young shooting star of the CSU before he turned out to be a complete windbag, DeMaiziere was Merkels trustee to clean up Guttenbergs mess, Von der Leyen was Merkels first favourite for a successor (before she turned out to be a complete windbag, but at least she is still good enough for bussels -.-), AKK was ment to be the next chancellor candidate, the last attempt to get a merkelian successor, was installed as a party leader and then immediately needed a place in the cabinet ... well, minister of defense you become. Lambrecht was a rather bland minister of justice in the previous cabinet, but lost the job in the coalition negotiations to the FDP so .... guess what ... minister of defense it is!

Can’t imagine Germany would put someone named “Heil” in charge of military matters. Not saying I agree with this, but I don’t see this happening.

I'm sure that there are politicians in Germany who are interested and qualified for the job.

But our goverment decided that the cabinett must be 50% male and 50% female and the new minister must be female and a member of the SPD, so the number of potential candidates gets a lot smaller.

[deleted]

[removed]

Strack-Zimmerman in an Wissig out would be a dream!

[removed]

[removed]

Ah, so you assume that women aren't competent enough for those positions.

When you make a law so that they will get those positions, then you're guaranteeing that they are not competent enough for them.

Ima just copy and paste what I said earlier;

Sometimes there are institutional effects that unfairly bias against one gender. As an example, C-level execs were historically men. They tended to pick replacements based on people they knew or had mentored - who typically were also men. It was much harder for women to both get into that level, and then be treated as equals within that level, creating a disincentive for other women to try and reach that level. This naturally means that men were more likely to be C-level execs and a gender imbalance persists not based on competence, but based on institutional culture.

That's what quotas are there for. They're to turboboost the process of removing institutional disincentives to gender equality.

You're really just proving my point.

Then you haven't sufficiently tried to engage with the argument to understand it.

Well, it would be a funny meme :)

But really, it is a name that isn't too uncommon and it isn't as if "heil" is a completely taboo word in German. And he seems the most competent out of all candidates and is the one where we can have the most certainty that he will do it well, which is the most important qualification currently IMO. Even if e.g. Högl could do the job very well, we don't know how well she performs as a full minister and the last thing I want is another incompetent defence minister. With Heil you just have a safe pick.

[removed]

I understand the argument, the problem is that you haven't actually done the math, and your view and the policies you support are not actually backed by any data.

Even just looking at it from purely economic terms, you need reliable answers to the following questions just to begin calculating a high level estimate of the costs and benefits of the policies you support.

Since you support these benefit, surely you will be able to provide me with well sourced answers to the following questions:

1 - What is the discounted lifetime cost of this historical institutional imbalance that you mention?

2 - How many years earlier would those institutional imbalanced be fixed, if such a system as you propose (whether quotas, or anything else) were to be implemented?

3 - What is the discounted lifetime total economic cost of imposing such policies? Not just the first order costs, but also the effect it would have on present (and near future) hits of productivity, structural incentives, risks, etc...

Once you have answers to those 3 questions, then we can start looking into other effects, and other costs, but the fact of the matter is i suspect you haven't actually got reliable and well sourced answers to those questions, and that the answer you do have are not likely to support your stance.

Lol no, I’m not going to do that.

Thank you for proving me point :)

I ran a cost benefit analysis of further engagement with you and found it came at a huge net loss.

That tends to happen when you have no arguments.

And you're kinda proving my point - let's pick our surgeons based on merit, not quotas. Same for defense minister.

Good, she's a verifiable idiot and far out of her ability to understand in such a position.

I am sorry but gender parity should not matter at all. The most qualified person should get the job. Ridiculous how Germany has taken this long to get its shit together when a war is happening in their backyard.

[removed]

You really don't. You subsidise your grossly overweight Military Industrial Complex and your aggressive international ambitions.

Is this the one with the ridiculous New Year's video?

[removed]

> can run a ministry quite competently

That’s why I would love to see him stay in that role. He really tries to change the rotten system and seems to be the only competent person in the SPD.

[removed]

While I know where you are coming from, gender parity isn't the reason the ministry of defence got the worst ministers year after year. I mean, Lambrechts predecessor was AKK, who was probably the best minister since forever and a woman. The reason Lambrecht got the job is her beckground in the SPD and because no one took the job serious before russias war. And I mean, if there are competent and interested women like Möller and Högl, no problem, give em the job. Gender parity isn't really a problem, when there are enough competent people to choose from. And you can't really measure competence after a certain point, after that it is only guessing, there is no ultimate competence. Even Lauterbach, probably the most hyped minister, has struggled to fulfill the high hopes people had with him. The problem, which arises with gender parity, is that every single woman gets accused of only getting the job because of it and it being blamed for incompetent people like Lambrecht instead of the more problematic, systemic problem: That most ministers get their position not because of their competence, but of their connections and history with the party they are part of.

Yeah, if you guys in Germany can actually stop filling important positions like the defense department with establishment political party figure heads we all would appreciate it. It makes you look completely unserious.

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

> But our goverment decided that the cabinett must be 50% male and 50% female

No, only two of the three coaliton parties are voluntarily placing that requirement upon themselves, SPD and the Greens. The FDP doesn't have parity and doesn't care for it much. It is not a "must", it voluntary.

[removed]

There's multiple examples of key NATO capabilities that are American provided or heavily American dependent that would have to be replaced with European capabilities anyways.

The clearest recent example is "actually keeping enough munitions in stock", as France and Britain burnt through their Precision weapons stockpiles in a month of Libya operations and had to borrow guided bombs from the United States.

[removed]

What is the expected outcome of the change? Military buildup or less corruption or something else is the goal to be achieved by the next one?

And now explain why major European member states of NATO still don’t meet the basic spending threshold to be part of the alliance. Oh because their defenses are subsidized by the US armed forces right.

Grand timing as well, US SecDef is on the Way and Ramstein conference looms end of the Week.Apparently Milley is milling around here as well.

Not like we need a Minister for Defence.Let alone a competent one interesting in doing the Job.

I had a 21 YO classmate in uni who was surprised to learn that the minister for finance did not, in fact, have a degree in finance. Nor was the minister for health a doctor.

I mean, I can understand why you'd expect the government would be run by people educated and experienced in their fields. But, just, no.

[removed]

[removed]

If you have a complicated operation that has high chances to go bad you will pray for the best surgeon regardless of their gender and not "sufficiently competent" one.

How does a quota stop you from doing that? Not only are you able to pick from the 50% best male surgeons, you're also able to pick from the 50% best women surgeons!

I get your point, and your point is valid. But consider both sides of it: unqualified bro gets promoted because friends - bad, also unqualified female gets promoted because quota - also bad.

If you hire because of a quota and not because they are the best some will turn out to be not as good as they could be.

[removed]

Because we can spend our taxes how we like. And if the war in Ukraine is anything to go by, the spares from our inventory and old soviet equipment has been more than capable of bitch slapping NATOs old enemy. Please do tell me what we need to spend on our militaries whilst I enjoy free healthcare.

The SPD will never put country above party, so they won't allow that

Can't give up dem sweet minister wages for loyalists after all

Why do you say that? I have explained why the 'top' people are not necessarily picked on merit.

The NATO treaty documents require a 2.0% GPD expenditure. Our you saying your nation shouldn’t abide by treaties and international agreements? I’m sure your citizens would be upset if international contracts with medical equipment and pharmaceutical complies were not abused to and your expenses rose. Or if your citizens’s were mistreated abroad. Or a neighbor country moved your border and took away your land, resources, and people.

[removed]

That one would be on the FDP. I guess the SPD would exchange defense for transport in a heartbeat. Doubt the FDP will give up the opportunity to attract those sweet car manufacturing bribes, though.

I think you are just not very good at math.

I find it funny how people here esepcially from the US say that the most competent person should get the job not gender parity or party considerations.

Do you all really think ministers or even presidents need any form of competence? I have a few hundred bridges to sell to you.

In the last US, UK or German cabinet or for any EU member state more then 80 percent of all cabinet ministers had ZERO EXPERIENCE in their field when they became minister.

None at all. Competence in the field is plain and simply not a requirement.

Gender parity is important and there are plenty of competent women available for this role (as listed above in the post you replied to.)

Your later comment about cabinet jobs not going to long-serving politicians as a reward/perk is mildly hilarious coming from an American (as am I).

Yes we need Germany to be more proactive in Ukraine. But we also know why they have serious issues with miltarism and lets not pretend we don't. :-)

You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about if the NATO consensus 2% GDP threshold requirement is a foreign concept to you. Tough look buddy

Time to quit now that there is the possibility of war. Why promote incompetent people to these positions in the first place? You don't need lawyers as defense secretaries.

Perhaps they need to get 2 defence ministers and run it like in Sparta.

[removed]

[removed]

I play RTS games since the 90s and know around 70% of the names or at least function of the vehicles being used.

I’m probably overqualified or?

[deleted]

[removed]

I know exactly what the 2% threshold is. What I object to is fucking yanks thinking they’re the center of the universe. Get a grip. The countries of Europe are more than capable of deciding what they need to spend on defence.

> Tbf every democracy tends to have parties designate some cabinet positions as sidetracked posts to be given out to tick political boxes.

I think that's one of the advantages of a US-style presidential system. Cabinet ministers are more likely, not always but more often, to be chosen for expertise rather than political considerations. See the Secretaries Blinken and Austin.

> After 30 years of peace & unity in Europe and a strong NATO, it's understandable that the filler post in DE was the defense one, but everything changed when the fire nation RUs attacked...

this is precisely the point: Lambrecht was given the position before the whole kerfuffle started and the importance of job skyrocketed.

Your PM/defense minister at the time voluntarily agreed to that threshold back in 2006 what are you even complaining about? You’re suggesting the United States coerced your leader to agree to spend more on its military? Sorry the United States has and will continue to be the world’s policeman for bums like you it’s certainly a thankless job.

[removed]

What's wrong? Getting all antsy because you've not bombed a third world country in a while?

I agree with some of this, but back to the underlying point so we don't get too distracted: they cannot just leave the position for German defence minister open.......

[removed]

So you agree that the 2% requirement was a voluntarily agreed upon common consensus by member states, including whoever your defense minister was at the time, got it.

Perhaps could an AI do it?

I think you're missing something... in parliamentary systems there are public servants (in canada, deputy minister) who in theory is the expert on the portfolio. The minister is the politician accountable (politically) for the portfolio. It's not as if the defence minister is 'running the army' all by themselves.

Not saying it's better or worse, and certainly I have seen abject morons given a portfolio when they can't tie their own shoelaces.

[removed]

[removed]

And yet Europe helped you out with your middle Eastern "adventure", losing men.

And besides, do you honestly think that the US is doing all of that to help out? The only reason your government is fine with European countries not hitting the target is because what you get out of it is more important than money (which is not even used for the defense of Europe): you have staging areas for whatever you need to do, you have easy access to new spheres of influences.

Unless you honestly believe that all of the nato thing is legitimately "to protect Europe in exchange of money" and nothing more... But that'd mean you're very naïve

[removed]

Es ist die Zeit zu glänzen, Staatsfrau Baerbock.

>The NATO treaty documents require a 2.0% GPD expenditure.

I guess you can just make wild claims. Or you could link the official NATO funding documents:

Official NATO funding calls it 'The 2% defence investment guideline' to be met in 10 years (decided 2014, so until 2024) and NATO members have agreed to raise their military funding each year if they aren't already at 2%.

Also just in case this wasn't alread known: German contribution to direct NATO funding is at 16.3444% of NATO total budget. Exactly the same value as US funding and way ahead of the UK at 11.2823%.

[removed]

Good some one who understands the job would be nice.. Would be nice if someone with military experience would get the job. But my country isn't the best in picking people with qualification.

[deleted]

You're right, they aren't running it by themselves, but they are running it.

Particularly in the German system, I don't know as much about the Canadian one, the ministers are pretty autonomous. Expert underlings don't help if the top person insists on going in a bad direction. And parliamentary systems, particularly the heavily negotiated coalition governments we often see in Europe seem more likely to give out assignments based on power sharing criteria rather than their suitability. Sometimes you get lucky, like Baerbock and Habeck, and sometimes you get Lambrecht.

The €300m internal-NATO budget is completely irrelevant and distinct to the military spending and capabilities requirements of each member state itself. I’m sure you read the exact NATO information page to find that factoid.

The point remains clear, Germany has postured itself to take the mantle of the de facto EU power broker. Yet it’s willing to let its defense ministry wither away while unwilling to let more vocal members, like France or Poland, lead an more efficient and streamlined response to the largest threat to European security in half a century.

[removed]

Yes

What video?

1. Germany has the highest military spending out of all EU countries

2. Please provide at least one example of Germany 'not letting' France lead the EU in military matters

3. Yes I did read the NATO treaty documents. Did you?

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

In her New Year address she said

> “There's a war raging in the middle of Europe and it gave me a lot of special impressions that I was able to gain, many many encounters with interesting, great people. For that I say a heartfelt thank you.”

Absolutely agree, but of course in US republic systems, politics plays a role in minister/secretary appointments as well. The system is only as good as the people running it...

NATO helped you out after September 11th. Irregardless of whatever budgets were over or under the arbitrary spending number. Yet your country still winges like you’re the important ones.

[deleted]

[removed]

Sicher wird sie gerne ihren wichtigeren Ministerposten aufgeben, damit die arme SPD eine Sorge weniger hat…

This entire war? The tank debacle being the last step. https://www.politico.eu/article/france-and-poland-push-germany-to-send-leopard-tanks-to-ukraine/amp/

It goes back to at least February 2022. Germany actively stopped military equipment. It’s been forced to abandon its reticence every step of the way. Back in February: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/02/07/germany-forced-to-defend-itself-over-ukraine-crisis.html

Not even "to be met in 10 years", but "aim to move towards within the decade".

Just appoint some General with 30+ years on the job. Why appoint some politician whose only credentials is having seen two Rambo films?

That's why I said more likely not 'absolutely every time'.

I feel like you confuse 'Germany not leading' with 'Germany not letting France lead'. Which is aboslutely not the case.

The first article: France leading would be France sending tanks and then Germany following. How is Germany 'not letting' France do that? Germany has shown very well that they will let France lead. After France decided to send their AMX-10, Germany followed less than 24h later.

Same with Poland. If they want to 'lead' then maybe they shouldn't push Germany to send Leopard 2s first, hide behind that they would only send Leoaprd 2s in a coalition. Just send the export request already and Germany can approve it like Habeck has already said.

Wow, easy there, partner. Might not want to overdo it

>Yeah, if you guys in Germany can actually stop filling important positions like the defense department with establishment political party figure heads we all would appreciate it.

To be fair, it wasn't an important position until last January. Unlike the USA where the defense department is one of the major economic drivers of the entire country, in nations like Germany, it's just a black hole for money. And unlike in the USA, that cabinet position isn't going to be a stepping stone to a cushy high-paying executive job at a defense manufacturer. It's more of a dead-end position or a temporary position before someone gets moved into a better cabinet post.

Because Germany is the only country doing that ... ha! Good one!

>For that I say a heartfelt thank you.

Did she seriously follow up a sentence about a war raging in Europe with "for that I say a heartfelt thank you"? I think that goes beyond tone deaf and straight into gaffe territory. An uncharitable reading of that sounds like she's thankful for the war giving her so many opportunities to meet new and interesting people.

[deleted]

... with loud fireworks in the background. The combination is unbelievable stupid.

Good lol. Competence matters

Another reason why quotas are dumb asf

[deleted]

> Nor was the minister for health a doctor.

At least the current German minister for health is an epidemiologist