Germany's willing to contribute only under UN cover + a stable ceasefire
that's Europe trying to secure trade routes without being pulled into US driven escalation
"cautious risk management" around Hormuz
203
OkCoconut32702 days ago
+63
>only under UN cover + a stable ceasefire
Which is reasonable enough.
63
Slight-Bet7542 days ago
+13
Which will not happen anytime soon.
13
HoneyBadger5522 days ago
+6
Israel will not let a ceasefire happen for long
6
Boxkid3511 day ago
+1
Israel is a funny way to spell Trump.
1
ThunderStormRunner2 days ago
-7
They will send missiles when the market is at all time highs and the administration and friends have their short positions in and are loaded up with oil.
-7
Witty_Formal73052 days ago
+1
Its more of a Trump / U.S thing to manipulate the markets like that. Israel is mainly focused on just staying in a constant state or war so Bibi doesn't go to jail, same reason why they immediately went after Lebanon during the first cease fire.
They knew damn well it included Lebanon but did it anyways because the second Israel stops being at war Netanyahu's ass is fair game & he's finally got a president after 30 years of trying that he can make dance like a puppet, theres no chance in hell he gives that up especially since theres no way he doesn't know how bad Trumps health really is & once he goes, his chances of manipulating Vance to the same degree is unlikely as moronic as he is.
1
Primary-Debate-5492 days ago
+3
For Israel, there's also the not getting massacred by lunatic islamists aspect ...
Why did you leave that out?
3
SnooCupcakes70181 day ago
Because they are a heavily armed nuclear terrorist state that is at zero risk of having that happen to them would be my guess.
0
Witty_Formal73052 days ago
-2
Maybe because Israel was the one who actually started the current conflict along with the U.S.
Wild how that works, but I guess as long as Israel FEELS threatened they can just do whatever tf they want and its totally justified and we should all cheer them on.
Israel also has nukes that everyone just conveniently looks the other way on, the chances of them ACTUALLY getting "massacred" is pretty low but okay lol
-2
WombeI2 days ago
+9
Which is also a smart trap.
China and Russia will never ever agree to UN forces. Its a nice way to say no to Trump without looking to bad.
9
SeaworthinessSome4542 days ago
+1
And is also what’s been asked of them for a month plus now.
1
Maeglin752 days ago
+20
Yes. The German government held this position already before the recent meeting in Paris and before Trump's demands to NATO.
Germany is willing to help secure the Strait of Hormuz, providing minesweepers etc., but only when there is a stable peace and international mandate. They will not participate in the American/Israeli war against Iran.
20
manfr571 day ago
+1
Les allemands n'ont rien pris avant encore une manipulation allemande pour ce faire passer pour le leadership européen mais ils feront rien
1
Maeglin751 day ago
+1
If anything, it seems to be Germany that doesn't want to be in a leading position. It's other countries that try to push Germany to take more responsibility, while Germany always tries to act only in accord with the other European partners and hesitates to lead.
1
ThoughtShes182 days ago
-5
I could totally see US violate the ceasefire, because Germany will be getting the credits for it…
-5
SensualBeefLoaf2 days ago
+24
hey. i’m really good at minesweeper. haven’t played in a while, but i’d be happy to go poke boxes for a while
24
iamapizza2 days ago
+12
Years of academy training, not wasted!
12
Titanium_Eye2 days ago
+10
What kind of minesweepers? 95, 98 or XP?
10
smokeeater1502 days ago
+3
3.1
3
Titanium_Eye2 days ago
+4
I didn't figure the situation is that dire
4
Visual-Squirrel36292 days ago
+3
I used to play a lot minesweeper. Expert level is initially difficult. But you get a hang of it with time.
3
3catsincoat2 days ago
+29
Let the US clean their shit.
29
kobrons2 days ago
+8
The US for some reason decommissioned most of their minesweepers recently. They for some reason didn't think that they might be needed in the future.
Germany on the other hand has quite a few that they can offer. As long as they only do that if an actual stable cease fire is reached I think its a great idea.
8
johntodd2 days ago
-7
Please provide citations. Gemini could be wrong but disagrees with you:
As of April 2026, both the German and American navies have significantly reduced their traditional minesweeper fleets in favor of modern minehunting vessels and modular systems.
### **German Navy (Deutsche Marine)**
The German Navy currently maintains **2 active minesweepers**.
* **Class:** *Ensdorf*-class (Type 352).
* **Active Vessels:** *Pegnitz* (M1090) and *Siegburg* (M1098).
* **Context:** While Germany has a larger "Mine Warfare" fleet of 10–12 ships, the majority (8 boats) are technically **minehunters** (*Frankenthal*-class), which use sonar to find and neutralize individual mines. The two *Ensdorf* boats are true minesweepers, designed to clear large areas by "sweeping" with specialized gear.
### **United States Navy (USN)**
The U.S. Navy currently has **4 active minesweepers**.
* **Class:** *Avenger*-class Mine Countermeasures (MCM) ships.
* **Active Vessels:** All four remaining ships—*Patriot* (MCM 7), *Pioneer* (MCM 9), *Warrior* (MCM 10), and *Chief* (MCM 14)—are forward-deployed to **Sasebo, Japan**.
* **Transition:** The U.S. has been rapidly decommissioning this class. In 2025, the four units previously stationed in Bahrain (*Devastator*, *Dextrous*, *Gladiator*, and *Sentry*) were retired.
* **The Modern Alternative:** The Navy is shifting the minesweeping mission to **Independence-class Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)** equipped with the Mine Countermeasures Mission Package. Ships like the *USS Canberra*, *USS Santa Barbara*, and *USS Tulsa* now perform these duties using unmanned surface and underwater vehicles rather than traditional sweeping hulls.
### **Summary Comparison**
| Navy | Active Minesweepers | Primary Class | Key Base(s) |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Germany** | **2** | *Ensdorf* | Kiel / Eckernförde |
| **United States** | **4** | *Avenger* | Sasebo, Japan |
A
-7
BalkanNoBalkan2 days ago
+4
Nobody wants your stupid ai here lol
4
kobrons2 days ago
+1
I just used the Bundeswehr website
https://www.bundeswehr.de/de/ausruestung-technik-bundeswehr/seesysteme-bundeswehr/minenjagdboot-frankenthal-klasse-mj332
And this article
https://www.produktion.de/ruestung-aerospace/minenabwehr-der-deutschen-marine-boote-technik-faehigkeiten/2647493
1
piss_puncher2272 days ago
+15
I'm paraphrasing the Spanish Prime Minister, isn't it a stroke of luck that every time America goes to bring "democracy and freedom" to a country they end up finding oil.
15
AnxiousSuccotash27852 days ago
+23
Isn't it weird that no oil was found in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan.
23
snarky_answer1 day ago
+2
It wasnt even part of Iraq either contrary to popular belief. There has never been any proof that the US seized or took any oil from Iraq, and in fact the oil was kept nationalized under the countries oil company at the request of other major oil companies. How some people did make money was on the war was the contracts to repair/rebuild/upgrade Iraq's oil infrastructure which was part of the long term goal of a stable Iraq as well as security contracts for the facilities and transportation. Iraq is still in control of their oil and it was only like 5 years or so after the war started that iraqs oil exports rose above the pre-war amounts.
2
[deleted]2 days ago
-5
[deleted]
-5
BestFriendWatermelon2 days ago
+7
No, Afghanistan was the US's response to the sept 11th attacks. The Taliban was given an ultimatum to hand over Bin Laden and refused, massively misreading the room, and was attacked as a result.
Not everything the US does is a conspiracy, sometimes the US is doing exactly what you expect. George Bush would have without doubt, beyond all question, have lost the election if he didn't invade Afghanistan. He might even have been impeached in favour of someone who would. Public polls in the US prior to the invasion had 93% support (!!!) for military action.
7
TachiH2 days ago
-6
Three wars that the US got spanked in, funny that 🤣
-6
Gackey2 days ago
-7
In Korea we were fighting to prop up a brutal military dictatorship committing mass killings, not freedom and democracy.
In Vietnam we were fighting to prevent the peaceful, democratic reunion of the country, so that also doesn't count.
Nice try though.
-7
iuuznxr2 days ago
+3
Schrödinger's USA: Frequently starts wars over oil but suffers several oil crises (incl. an embargo) without intervention.
How can that be? Because oil wars are a myth. People like to pretend the Iraq War was one, because it's hard to understand for lack of clear reasons, but after the war China and Russia hold more concessions there than American companies. If you'd go by market dominance of American oil companies, you could expect them to operate at least half of the fields there.
Another point is that Iraq, Iran, and Venezuela were all sanctioned to a point they couldn't sell oil and how is keeping them off the market not better for American oil companies, the producers at home and the big internationals running the Gulf?
The actual reason why oil and trouble go hand-in-hand might be the [resource curse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse), where you have countries with high oil income and an otherwise poor economy, which leads to corrupt leadership, high military expenditures, domestic instability, revenue volatility, etc.
3
nybruin2 days ago
-1
He obviously has very short term memory.
Also was less than 100 years ago, the nazis were using the Spanish civil war to test out their weapons. But if ppl want to keep putting up blinders. Some ppl can’t be saved
-1
South-Researcher-3222 days ago
-2
Tbf I think this administration has been very clear that oil is a part of their ambitions..especially the Venezuela debacle
-2
DukeandKate2 days ago
+2
Sure, a few nations will likely send ships to help once a cease fire is in place but none will so long as there is a needless hot war.
2
JimTheCodeGuru2 days ago
+2
Wonderful, thanks Germany 👌
2
mritoday2 days ago
-6
I haven't heard about a single positive thing coming out of the mouth of this man.
-6
Novemberai2 days ago
-10
That's why Alice Weidel is always attacking him xD
-10
Gammelpreiss2 days ago
+17
Unfortunately I have never heared a single positive thing coming out of her mouth, either.
17
GroundbreakingBag1642 days ago
+5
I would gladly take another twenty Merzes if we'd never have to see the AfD again
5
veculus2 days ago
+3
You know that AfD politicans literally tell you what you want so you vote for them? You could literally put ANYONE in as chancelor and they'd complain about them except it's themselves and they f*** up, then something else is at fault.
3
mritoday2 days ago
+4
Maybe we can organize some sort of gladiator spectacle between those two.
4
soulstormfire2 days ago
+4
Battle of the scarecrows
4
Global-Way-80092 days ago
lol at least the quality of the mines will be very effective,all german made weapons are very capable, we stole initial designs from their weaponry during ww2 to create More effective machine guns to rifles
0
Tigereyesxx2 days ago
-7
Good job, come on coward Starmer…
-7
WhereTheSpiesAt1 day ago
+1
Do you not read the news, if not which appears the case go and check his statement with the French President today, the UK was speaking about minesweepers well over a week ago for the Strait of Hormuz.
Keep up coward.
1
beginner752 days ago
-4
But the UN opposes opening the strait. 🤡
-4
Tigereyesxx2 days ago
+1
No China vetoed it..
1
xxdryan1 day ago
-1
Why the f*** do we have to get involved with this????
-1
sovietarmyfan2 days ago
-5
Ja of course ze Germans will participate in this very very peaceful mission.
-5
Safe-Agent34002 days ago
-5
Awh! Yay for trump, his actions towards WWIII is progressing right along. What country is next?
54 Comments