Germany seeks to be the "framework nation" for combat units that smaller NATO armies will orbit around, contributing mass.
This "framework" idea as applied to Germany is just dumb:
If Germany had an effective army and leadership willing to use it in defense of the West, this would be a fine development.
But in the world we have, how did Germany get the framework leader role for ground combat rather than for clerk-typists? Germany isn't a solid framework to support allies but an anchor to drag down everything they touch.
And I say that with great sadness remembering the high quality (and quantity) of West Germany's heavy forces during the Cold War.
If the Czechs and Romanians send their brigades to be based in Germany, I hope these nations don't believe they can drag the German army to defend them. Hell, I hope they don't need their own brigades for self defense. The Germans might not let them go home to fight!
Germany leans backwards on all things defense despite my repeated beatings with the clue bat:
I keep reading that the Germans hate their militaristic past so much that they don't want to fight.
Let's try applying the clue bat to Germany's collective skull on this issue.
Conquering and setting up death camps under the shield of a powerful military? That's bad. By all means, don't do that.
Having a military capable of fighting death cult enemies or stopping the Russians from moving west? Well, that's a good thing. Try doing that.
Having Germany exercise operational control over other NATO armies is a bad idea.
By integrating other NATO units into the German army, NATO doesn't get better collective defense. No, NATO gets worse collective inertia and inaction.
If Europeans want to contribute their smaller capabilities to a larger, more effective army, I suggest the United States Army. How about this method?
