https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/news/military-support-ukraine-2054992
Radio set equipment LEOPARD
14 tracked all-terrain vehicles Bandvagn 206 (BV206)
99 SatCom terminals
22 border protection vehicles
20,000 safety glasses
239 Crypto Phones
11 truck tractor trains 8x8 HX81 and 12 semi-trailers
Spare part packages for VECTOR drones
32,823 rounds ammunition 40mm
1,202 Infusion kits
This is the best summary I could come up with:
FRANKFURT, Oct 10 (Reuters) - Germany on Tuesday unveiled a fresh support package for Ukraine worth around 1 billion euros ($1.1 billion), its defence ministry said, adding the programme covered air defense, weapons and ground vehicles.
“Germany will continue to support Ukraine with what it needs most urgently - air defence, ammunition and tanks,” German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said.
“With this new ‘winter package’ we are further increasing the operational readiness of the Ukrainian armed forces in the coming months.”
Pistorius said the package covered an additional Patriot air defense missile system - which was flagged by Chancellor Olaf Scholz last week - as well as an additional IRIS-T system and Gepard anti-aircraft-gun tank.
Pistorius said that Ukrainian special forces would also be supported with vehicles, weapons as well as unspecified equipment worth more than 20 million euros to increase their capabilities.
($1 = 0.9429 euros)
The original article contains 147 words, the summary contains 147 words. Saved 0%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Still now Taurus missles, spineless cowards.
Germany has done a lot at this point. They should send the missiles, but calling them spineless cowards isn’t justified at all.
I’ll call my government whatever I want. And it is true. They’re literally afraid of angering Russia, even though the UK and France have provided equivalent weapons.
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.
I understand ‘we’re not allowed’ completely in a legal way, otherwise he would probably use different and more ambiguous wording.
“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.
