this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2023
124 points (100.0% liked)
Ukraine
8212 readers
736 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
*Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.
*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
*Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title
*Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human must be flagged NSFW
Donate to support Ukraine's Defense
Donate to support Humanitarian Aid
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't know how intensively you followed the news, but regarding the Taurus rejection, there was also a big reveal regarding the French and British cruise missiles: It's those two countries themselves who deliver the target coordinates and they have people in Ukraine programming the cruise missile targets before launch. I don't think this was ever mentioned before, when the topic was the SCALP/Storm Shadow. But that's seems to be the problem that Germany cannot legally follow.
Translated with DeepL (https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/news-des-tages-olaf-scholz-und-taurus-marschflugkoerper-angriffssoftware-predator-afd-chef-tino-chrupalla-a-a57b3057-f182-4b4e-ab3a-ad550d52348f):
"According to the report, Great Britain and France directly contribute the geodata for the attack targets themselves and are also involved with their own personnel."
"Literally, the chancellor told the committee that other nations could do something "that we are not allowed to do." Many deputies understood from the implication that Scholz was referring to needed German help in programming the weapons systems. London and Paris, he said, were much more relaxed on this issue."
Interessting. However reading the original article doesn't say anything about a legal issue.
The chancellor basically says that "we're not allowed" to provide direct offensive assistence because of our duty to German history.
The next sentence with the assumption regarding the German history is made by the article author and not part of Scholz quote.
I understand 'we're not allowed' completely in a legal way, otherwise he would probably use different and more ambiguous wording.
It's just a new thing to me and I never read before that Great Britain and France are directly involved with their cruise missile programming. Germany would have to send troops into the war to program Russian targets and 'we're not allowed'. But I'm no lawyer, so I cannot comment what kind of law this would or could break.
"Wir dürfen nicht" is very much an ambigous wording in the orignal German. Definitly doesn't imply that there is a legal issue.
And it seems there isn't. In fact, the main legal point here seems to be if providing the weapon can be done by the government or requires a vote from parliament. And it seems it wouldn't even require the vote.
This article goes into details behind the decision. (written by lawyer)
If we WANTED to do it - we would do it. Scholz is just fishing for excuses that don’t make him look bad.
Example: If Germany goes to war (which by law would only allow a defensive war or since a Supreme Court ruling also UN or NATO wars) our Grundgesetz demands that all elections are suspended until the war is over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_defence#Extended_electoral_terms
So have you ever heard of suspended elections because of German war participation somewhere on our world? No? That’s because the wars Germany participated in were being reframed. You can find all wars here (only German):
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auslandseinsätze_der_Bundeswehr
If we really WANT to do it, not even our constitution can stop us.
No, that's bullshit. The media is telling two dozen reasons and then the only actual reason mentioned is put in a row as just another excuse unthough all the others were invented by journalists.
Germany is indeed not allowed to because that's in the constitution. Maybe you read it for once to see why they actually can't send soldiers to other countries without a complete vote in parliament. Yes... that constitution is influenced by history. But simplifying that issue so much it's none-sensical just to tell another lie of how they are either afraid or ashamed to do anything against Russa is still a blatant lie.
But hey. We all know you will not allow yourself to ever acknowledge facts. Because hating your government because of lies you tell yourself makes everything so much easier, as we see in moronic elections right now again.
These "cowards" are actually one of Ukraines biggest supporters. While the only thing you support is the fight against democracy by parroting lies and bullshit.
You could've just omitted that part, you know. It makes you look like a giant douche and makes the discussion less civilized.
Being civil and nice to people lying or parroting bullshit is what brought us to this point of total media shitshow where it's only about narratives and personal opinions and not about facts anymore.
If people have relearned to check facts and distinguish those from the lies they like to believe I will reconsider my approach. For now I definitely care more about calling out bullshit than for nice words.
Good, so I don't have to be nice to you.
If you honestly think because you managed to read the consitution all on your own, you are now qualified to judge if a complex weapon system can be legally exportet, you're retarded.
And guess what, according to actual lawyers, it's not against the constitution. So much for your fact check.
Also. Wenn man keine Ahnung hat, einfach mal die Fresse halten.