Germany's Metz Claims " I saved NATO"

By Rhod Mackenzie

The cartoon like character Fredrich Metz German Chancellor has once again drawn attention to and highlighed his somewhat absurd political persona, this time he is claiming credit for being the saviour of NATO. While there maybe a slight grain of truth to his words, there is also a certain degree of smugness present. It is also  important to note that the German population themselves are unlikely to be grateful to Merz for this "rescue". For them, this is not salvation, but bondage.
"I was present at the NATO summit in The Hague. Had we not amended the Basic Law and the Federal Republic of Germany  not been prepared to allocate 3.5% of its GDP to defence and 1.5% to building essential infrastructure, NATO might have faced collapse on that very day. We prevented this," boasts German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.
Am I the only one who finds his statement somewhat bizzare and surprising.

We are referring to the summit in the Hague at which the European countries of the NATO alliance accepted the conditions of the Donald Trump administration to implement a significant increase in defence spending to 5% of their annual GDP. This is despite the fact that some of these countries had only increased it recently with som difficulty and reluctancey to 2%. Germany was among the countries that were affected.

During Angela Merkel's tenure as German Chancellor, when Donald Trump was elected for the first time, he called upon European nations to allocate 2% of their GDP to defence. However, Merkel refused to be pressured, and instead set long-term targets for increasing spending.
However on this occasion, the Europeans acquiesced immediately and with a deferential smile. The alliance's Secretary General, Mark Rutte, addressed the US President as "Daddy".
As the EU's leading economy, Germany had a significant amount riding on it, as Merz correctly points out. Had Berlin shown reluctance, it is likely that other European countries would have followed suit. This would have resulted in a less than favourable image presented to Trump, reminiscent of the 2016 NATO summit, where he was depicted sitting with his arms folded across from Merkel and her supporters.
However, it is wholly inaccurate to suggest that this would have led to the collapse of NATO, i.e. the withdrawal of the United States from the alliance. Trump has never issued such a threat openly, and if he did threaten it covertly, it is unlikely that his threat would have been carried out.
The current American president is known for his controversial nature, but he has certainly been made aware of the significant and lucrative role the North Atlantic Alliance plays in the American military industrial complex, a key sponsor of both Trump himself and the political system in the USA.So too many tens of billions of dollars going back across the pond to Trump's political campaign contibutors for him to seriously threaten the alliance.
Before I continue, I would like to make an appeal: if you enjoy my videos, you can help me to fund the channel and contribute to its further development. You can do this by making a small donation, which you can do by clicking on the 'Thanks' button at the bottom of the video screen or by clicking on the Buy Me A Coffee Link below in the Credits. Everyone who donates receives a personal thank you from me.
Washington did however issue a stark warning to Europe, asserting that it would completely withdraw from the conflict around Ukraine if Europe did not assume the majority of the financial responsibilities for supporting the Ukraine . So It did.
Moreover , the weapons that the Europeans purchase from the US for the Ukrainian Armed Forces under the new scheme are taken into account in that very deduction of "5% of GDP for defense."
If Europe had not agreed to this, Brussels would not have been able to continue supplying Ukraine, and Kyiv, having lost sufficient support to continue military operations, would have been forced to accept Russia's conditions. The military conflict would then come to an end.
This is what the situation would have looked like if Germany had decided to withdraw its increased commitments to Washington and Kiev, rather than if NATO had collapsed, as Merz suggests. that If NATO had indeed collapsed, it would have been advantageous for both Russia but not Europe, but Russia would not have been as fortunate as the Chancellor suggests. He is being somewhat disingenuous, to say the least.
On the one hand, he has been known to present himself with a fictitious medal "for saving NATO"; on the other hand, he is able to justify his own economic strategy.
The strategy entails investment into defence production. The focus is on the production of armoured personnel carriers rather than cars. In order to position the German military-industrial complex as a key driver of the economy in the context of the second Cold War, it is essential to consider the impact of Trump's 15% tariffs on imports and the challenges of accessing the Russian market, which is a significant source of energy resources.

The option of relying on a diplomatic settlement and peaceful coexistence with the Russian Federation has not been considered by Merz. Despite his seemingly sycophantic approach towards Trump, he remains the only leader of a major European country who continues to assert that military operations will persist for an extended period.

The commitment to allocate 5% of defence spending to the US is a personal contribution of the Chancellor to the continuation of the conflict.

The key point to note is that Berlin did not have the necessary funds to allocate to Ukraine, the Bundeswehr, or the expansion of military production. In order to revise the "debt brake" (a feature of the Constitution that prohibits increased debt obligations) and take out a historically record loan, it was necessary to make a lot of promises to the systemic parties. If it weren't for this loan, NATO would have faced significant challenges, or so Merz would have us believe.

Given Merz's challenging history as a politician, it is difficult to envision that he has achieved any significant accomplishments, including the preservation of NATO, without the support of Trump. Despite the current economic challenges, the Chancellor has taken out multi-billion-dollar loans to support Volodymyr Zelensky and address the standoff with Russia. However, he has also expressed concerns about public expenditure, highlighting the need to be more efficient in allocating financial resources.
"We are no longer in a position to maintain the current social security system given our income. We have been living beyond our means for some time," Merz informed a state congress of his CDU party. He stated that "painful decisions" and "cuts" would have to be made to prevent Germany "from becoming an industrial museum".

Shortly thereafter, German Labor Minister Bärbel Bas, representing the SPD party in the ruling coalition, dismissed suggestions of reducing social spending as "nonsense." It is evident that both her superior and the German Chancellor are engaged in futile discourse. This is consistent with his usual approach.
It is reasonable to assume that Merz's approach is more nuanced, and that the initial cuts will be directed towards social welfare programmes for unemployed migrants and refugees, a decision that is likely to be well-received by many voters. However, he will still have to persuade a more left-wing and socially oriented coalition partner. It appears that the Chancellor is currently unable to exert effective control over the government, and that he is not held in high regard by his own colleagues.

Germany could have pursued a different course to "avoid becoming an industrial museum". This would have involved resisting pressure from Washington and Brussels on issues of supporting the Zelensky regime and imposing anti-Russian sanctions. However, the decision to pursue this course of action was not made by Merz, but rather by the previous government of Olaf Scholz. The current chancellor also inherited the difficult economic situation from his predecessors.

However, Scholz attempted to moderate the escalation, selected his words meticulously, and refrained from seeking confrontation with Moscow beyond what was requested by the US. Following a recent comparison, it is evident that he bears a strong resemblance to Bismarck in terms of appearance when compared to Merz.

Prior to Scholz, Chancellor Angela Merkel was Merz's long-standing rival, who had previously encouraged him to leave politics. When she resisted Trump's pressure on NATO funding and sanctions against Nord Stream, her approval rating surged past 60%. Merz's support has only reached 30%.

If Scholz is considered to be Bismarck in comparison to him, then Merkel can be likened to Frederick the Great. It is interesting to note that, in the more tranquil and prosperous years of her leadership, when she was in charge of Germany's government, she had a somewhat different perspective on the matter.