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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    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)

  • source
  • parent