Germany Welches Again

I wrote yesterday, in part, about Germany’s disreputable performance in supporting Ukraine in the latter’s war for existence against the Russian barbaric invasion.

Now, Germany has made the apparent decision to walk away altogether in any practical form from Ukraine in that nation’s hour of need, paying only lip service to aiding that nation.

In a landmark speech days after the invasion, [Chancellor Olaf] Scholz promised a Zeitenwende—a turning point—pledging to rebuild Germany’s military, secure alternative energy supplies, and help Ukraine fight off Russia.

Since then, according to Bojan Pancevski, in his Thursday Wall Street Journal article (at the link just above), Germany has

delivered on the latter two pledges, but a year on, Germany’s armed forces are in an even worse condition than when the war started, according to military commanders….

Pancevski is being generous, though. See yesterday’s table (at the first link); Germany’s—which is to say Scholz and his fellows in his government—have been niggardly in their…efforts…with five nations other than Poland, the US, and Great Britain contributing at least 50% more to Ukraine’s war effort on a GDP-normalized basis. Germany is doing next to nothing to help Ukraine. Only Italy and France are more miserly, throwing mere euro pennies, insultingly, at the feet of the Ukrainians.

More of Pancevski’s generosity:

On Ukraine, Mr Scholz discarded the longstanding pacifism underpinning German foreign policy to become the third-largest supplier of weapons to Kyiv after the US and the UK, according to the Kiel Institute for World the Economy. Two days after the invasion Mr Scholz lifted a ban on exporting weapons to war zones.

As yesterday’s table demonstrates, that “third-largest” sum is only in absolute terms. When the totals are normalized to each nation’s GDP—i.e., when the sums are matched to what the nations can afford to commit–Germany’s “generosity” fades to a distant 10th. And the nation further demonstrates its version of generosity by slow-walking on, and excuse-making for, its decision to delay delivery of the Leopard tanks it recently promised Ukraine.

German betrayal extends further.

By disdaining to rebuild Germany’s military establishment, Scholz has only perpetuated (not merely extended) his predecessor Angela Merkel’s perfidy in welching on the German promise to commit 2% of its GDP to military support for NATO.

Here is an outcome of that:

The country has 180,000 active soldiers and just over 300 tanks, half of them not roadworthy, down from 500,000 troops and 5,000 tanks at the height of the Cold War.

Germany had said earlier that it would create a €100 billion ($106 billion) fund with which it would rebuild and rearm its defense establishment. That, though, would need an amendment to its Basic Law, and no one in the German government has made a move toward generating that amendment so it could be put up for debate and passage.

Germany is not only betraying its fellow NATO members with those reneges, that nation is betraying its own citizens in those eastern States that were under Russian Soviet occupation via the fictitious (if narrowly, strictly legal) German Democratic Republic.

International Military Support for Ukraine

There is some growing angst about the amount of treasure and weaponry that we’re sending to Ukraine in support of that nation’s effort to defeat the barbarian Russian invasion and to drive the barbarian back out. Typical of the angst is Victoria Coates’ (a former Deputy National Security Advisor to former President Donald Trump) beef, which includes concern about the amount of aid the US is providing compared to that provided by the European nations on whose ramparts the barbarian would be should he overrun Ukraine:

Given the fact that the Germans and the French are not doing anything close to this in terms of support is shameful. This is not our job. This is Europe’s backyard. Europe needs to shoulder this burden.

To an extent, Coates’ beef is valid; however, as the table below shows, the European shortfall is not at all universal. Most of these data are drawn from statista; for Sweden and Finland they come from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy.

Nation Amount Sent Billions GDP Billions (IMF) Percent GDP
Poland $2.55 $716.00 0.356%
US $46.56 $25,035.00 0.186%
Great Britain $5.13 $3,198.00 0.160%
Denmark $0.59 $387.00 0.152%
Sweden* $0.85 $604.00 0.141%
Finland* $0.36 $281.00 0.128%
Norway $0.62 $505.00 0.123%
Netherlands $0.90 $990.00 0.091%
Canada $1.35 $2,200.00 0.061%
Germany $2.47 $4,031.00 0.061%
Italy $0.65 $1,997.00 0.033%
France $0.69 $2,778.00 0.025%
*Converted from € a/o 2Mar23

 

Poland actually is providing more support relative to the size of its economy than we are. That shouldn’t be surprising, though, as the memories of the barbarian’s occupation and depredations of their nation remain fresh in Polish minds. Poland also has taken in the most Ukrainian refugees; although a factor in that is the border the two nations share, which shortens refugee travel.

Great Britain, shorn of EU political limits, is right up there with us.

The real European shirkers, especially given their extant military establishments, are Germany and France, as noted by Coates, and Italy. Their behavior is truly shameful, especially for Germany, whose eastern States were under the barbarian’s jackboots not so long ago, also. The shortfall for France is not so surprising, for all the shortfall’s…disreputableness…given that nation’s constant efforts to make nice with Russia.

My claim here is not that the we should cut back on our material—and materiel—aid to Ukraine, but that we should push—pressure—those European nations who are shirking to do much more. Were those nations to meet their obligations—moral as well as material, and not only to Ukraine but to their own peoples and to their obligations toward each other under the spirit of NATO—Ukraine would be in a much better position to destroy the barbarian invasion.

“Ran out of Time”

The Washington, DC, City Council, dominated by the Progressive-Democratic Party as it is, voted a month ago to allow non-citizens, including illegal aliens, to vote in city elections, so long as they have been “resident” in the city for at least 30 days.

Congress has a 30-day review window during which it can override DC Council-passed laws and remove them.  The Republican-led House did so, but the Progressive-Democrat-led Senate…did not. As Fox News meekly put it, the Senate ran out of time before the review period ended.

No, the Senate didn’t run out of time. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) wouldn’t even let the matter come to the floor for a vote. Apparently, he didn’t want his majority caucus to have to be on the record as favoring non-citizens voting in American elections.

This needn’t be the end of the matter, though, the 30-day window is a statute, not a constitutionally set limit. Here’s what Art I, Sect 8, of our Constitution has to say on the governance of the District of Columbia:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States….

That exclusive legislation over the District means that a later Congress can withdraw DC laws allowed under prior Congresses. This business of allowing non-citizens—including those illegal aliens—to vote in American elections, a quintessential factor in being an American citizen, needs to be rescinded. Elections have consequences, and we have another one coming in a year-and-a-half.

I have a caveat to this, though. Some might suggest that DC’s voter rolls might be useful things to search for illegal aliens in the District, round them up, and deport them. That must not happen. Government must not run around searching jurisdictions’ voter rolls to find illegal aliens, no matter how convenient such a search might seem.

Government must never be allowed to any search voter roll for groups of folks of whom Government, from administration to administration, disapproves and…silencing…them. The only purpose for a voter roll, the only legitimate purpose for local government searches of them, is to establish eligibility to vote in a jurisdiction and to remove individuals who are not eligible from those rolls. The Federal government must not be involved in such searches.

Passcode Vulnerability

The subheadline of a Wall Street Journal article on cell phone security vulnerabilities presents the subject of my post.

The passcode that unlocks your phone can give thieves access to your money and data; “it’s like a treasure box”

The article then laid out the problem:

The thieves are exploiting a simple vulnerability in the software design of over one billion iPhones active globally. It centers on the passcode, the short string of numbers that grants access to a device; and passwords, generally longer alphanumeric combinations that serve as the logins for different accounts.
With only the iPhone and its passcode, an interloper can within seconds change the password associated with the iPhone owner’s Apple ID. This would lock the victim out of their account, which includes anything stored in iCloud. The thief can also often loot the phone’s financial apps since the passcode can unlock access to all the device’s stored passwords.
“Once you get into the phone, it’s like a treasure box,” said Alex Argiro, who investigated a high-profile theft ring as a New York Police Department detective before retiring last fall.

This image lays out the technique:There’s nothing magic about iPhones in this regard, though; Android cell phones are just as vulnerable to this sort of attack.

However, there are a couple of solutions to this, regardless of the type of cell phone you use. Each solution also works even better when done in concert with the other, and they rely on something old-fashioned: caution and concern for personal privacy.

One solution is to not use your cell phone to conduct any activity, not only financial, that you don’t want exposed to the public, much less to a thief. That way, if your cell phone is stolen, there’s nothing in it beyond your contact list that can be hacked. The potential cost of doing non-telephone things on your cell phone is far greater than the short-term convenience gained.

The other solution is to not store anything in the cloud. Keep your private material private by keeping it entirely within your home’s network, and ideally even more restricted: keep that information solely on your PC’s or laptop’s hard drive, or better, on an external hard drive that connects only via USB—and keep that external storage device separate from your PC/laptop.

Related, and subsidiary to all of that, don’t store passcodes or passwords on your PC/laptop, even via a passcode/word manager. In the unlikely event your laptop is stolen, or your PC is stolen via home break-in, that manager can be hacked at the thief’s leisure.

“Mistake”

Recall the Smithsonian Museum student visitors who were ejected from the Museum by its guards for the heinous crime of wearing pro-life ball caps. The Museum’s management has responded to House Republicans requests for status and repercussions.

“This was an aberration and not reflective of Smithsonian values and practice of welcoming all visitors regardless of viewpoint,” Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie G. Bunch III said. “Visitors are not to be denied access based on messages on their clothing, and an error was made in this regard on January 20, 2023.”
When asked whether disciplinary action would be taken, Bunch responded, “The instruction to visitors to remove their pro-life hats was a mistake – a misinterpretation of what was permissible. It was not a willful violation.

The museum’s guards were acting out of mistake, so they’ll skate with no consequences.

Sure. The ejection might have been a mistake. I don’t think it was, but if it was, why aren’t the museum’s training and evaluation personnel—the ones who trained these guards and then marked them ready for duty—under sanction for their failed training and evaluation?

Regardless, stipulate the guards’ ejections of the students was a mistake. That wasn’t all that the Museum personnel did to these students. Per Jordan Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice, which is representing the students,

The museum staff mocked the students, called them expletives, and made comments that the museum was a “neutral zone” where they could not express such statements[.]

That behavior was not a mistake; it was deliberately done. Why aren’t the guards being punished for that?

It looks like the Smithsonian, under current management, isn’t worth the moneys committed to supporting it.