EU aims to shift European arms industry to 'war economy mode'
reuters.com
reuters.com
What's been starkly revealed since is that Europe is woefully unprepared to respond to any kind of aggression, and aside from France's nuclear weapons, wholly reliant on America. At some point you have to get serious and live in the real world where threats still exist.
Forget arms industry or military budget as a percent of GDP. The main problem is that Europe lacks the fighting spirit (with some exceptions like Poland). Countries like Germany will fold / capitulate to any demands if they suffer thousands of casualties.
That would mean cultivating the mentality that a country is more than just an economic platform, because that's not something anyone is willing to die for. It means cultivating the dreaded nationalism.
Is it just that, or does it perhaps protect also other rights? Is the economic prosperity the only reason one might prefer living in Germany over Russia?
Once Germany gets submitted without a fight, how long will it take until Italy is attacked? I mean, with this "running away" philosophy it's pretty easy to take countries without facing a resistance now.
A small price compared to dying in war. I'm not saying it's the right choice, but if you have no attachment to your country and people beyond it being a comfortable place to live, that's the choice most will make.
Nazi Germany did not invade Switzerland, USSR did not invade Finland (after suffering horrible losses in the Winter war), even though both had their own claims on them, because the costs of such an adventure were considered too high. A big part of this deterrence was a population willing to fight to defend their homeland.
To be fair these aren't exactly the most relevant examples. On paper the balance of power economically (and military to a somewhat lesser degree) is certainly on the side of the EU/NATO. It would be relative pretty cheap to invest enough just to deter a second rate country (besides nukes) like Russia.
Or are you suggesting that people can just move to another place when their home country gets taken over by fascist imperialists? Because that doesn't really scale that well...
There is a lot of fear mongering.
Ukraine should make a deal instead of sacrificing people without limits. So many people died, for loosing later. If they wait too long there won't be any deal.
Imagine you're an Ukrainian. Is there a deal which you would not accept and rather continue fighting or would you accept literally any deal (including unconditional surrender)?
And I'm fine with all the Ukrainians in Germany who do not want to fight.
(and I would welcome Russians who do not want to fight)
Ukraine has no good options. Mearsheimer predicts a territorial loss of 40% and no NATO membership for the rest of Ukraine.
Losing 40% is much better than losing 100%.
(Also it's Mearsheimer, what a joke)
many predicted Kyiv will fall in 3 days in 2022.
They could end the war, and their suffering, tomorrow. They probably could even negotiate keeping Crimea.
It's the same spirit, Ukrainians don't know what they're doing, they just mindlessly obey orders to die for their NATO overlords.
Don't you see some major differences between the role of the two in their respective wars?
But what you're doing is a category error. It's a completely different thing to ask your enemy to surrender from asking your ally (in a loose sense) to surrender.
Ukraine made lots of deals with Russia about all kinds of cease fires since 2014, they didn't help with anything.
Putin will collect more strength, and grab whatever he decide and will be allowed to grab.
Russia will find your submissiveness very helpful.
Aren't those statements contradicting as at least two separate sets of ideas?
If you lack fighting spirit, you don't want to fight. So you should want more money spent on weapons, so that you don't have to fight. Aristotle said "if you want peace, prepare for war".
If you don't want to fight, you should be afraid of everyone who does: e.g. russia.
putin clearly said he wants to restore the old ussr borders. This means eventually taking eastern Germany. And then you just have to naively assume if he succeeds at that, he will stop at that. I mean, let's be honest, he can't possibly live that long to see his plan fully completed, but let's say he has successors continuing his work.
I know that there is this comfortable seemingly impenetrable boundary of NATO alliance: but recently Trump said he would invite putin to attack on NATO members that don't put enough GDP % into military spending (e.g. Germany), and new Slovakian government is significantly more prorussian (meeting with russia and Hungary).
In January 2022 experts almost unanimously said it would be ridiculous for russia to attack Ukraine.
Don't be afraid of russia, but also act to actually support your peace of mind.
There is no deal on the table, there never was. Putin wants them to surrender and more or less dissolve the army so he can take the rest without the fight.
East or West? :)
But you have a point. East Germans are much more sceptical of supporting the war. They are tired of propaganda.
(it seems to be different in Poland: Sikorski is a crazy war hawk, don't know about ordinary polish people)
I'm amazed anyone is willing to sign up to risk their life for $2K/month, even here in the US where military service has long been glorified.
[1]:https://www.wavy.com/news/military/u-s-military-sees-record-...
* I think the word "manipulation" implies an intent to mislead someone, while some techniques influencing others are used by people unaware of the effects or (in)correctness of the propaganda; maybe rather than "manipulation" I should say "indoctrination".
Indeed if you look at our closest animal relatives, the chimps, they are quite inclined to wipe out their neighbours without needing religion or cash payment.
Took the Russians quite a while to get their act together.
Are the aggressors usually caught on the hop?
Dutch have contributed massively relative to gdp. The British special forces trained Ukraines special forces after the war started. Sweden is in NATO. And you can't bomb a nuclear state.
Sweden is not yet in NATO. They are on the verge of it, with Orban signing approval today, but Hungary has not yet formally submitted their instrument of ratification. Details matter when correcting people.
It's amazing and I attribute it largely to American intelligence, how much russia was damaged with "only" a 10s advance on the Doomsday Clock (we're at 23:58:30 now).
It's hard to tell whether all these comments are part of online propaganda or people regurgitating propaganda they watched on youtube. Like clockwork, the same talking points with the same key words.
> What's been starkly revealed since is that Europe is woefully unprepared to respond to any kind of aggression
Europe is one of the largest arms manufacturers in the world. Maintains the largest armed forces in the world. And is one of the biggest aggressors in the world. Ask the north africans, middle easterners and sub saharan africans, etc.
> wholly reliant on America.
It's either be reliant on america or become our competitor. Besides, what's your point here? That europe wants a nuclear war with russia?
> At some point you have to get serious and live in the real world where threats still exist.
Europe is the threat. It's funny how the war in ukraine is between european military powers and yet you claim europe is unprepared for aggression. Most of europe is part of NATO, the biggest source of violence and aggression in the world.
Whoever dares to challenge european sovereignty will be met with the collective wrath of our cookie prompts
The EU is not only materially incapable of war mode (too many second rate career politicians) but also strategically unaligned. One of its members is occupied by a nato country, and hasn't been supported when threatened. Eastern countries, particularly poland are understandably pushing hard for armament but they will be sorely disappointed when national vetoes start arriving
Can you explain?
NATO is just as seemingly unfair to its smaller members as is the EU. This is not because of any incompetence per se but rather just a phenomenon in any organization with differently powerful members. Places like US, Germany and Albania will never really be equal due to their respective bargaining powers - no matter what a charta says.
I think it's more reluctant to go into war mode. Europe did plenty of war in the not too distant past.
It was interesting doing a tour of Ypres where my grandad did artillery in WW1. It was really rather similar to the current war in Ukriane - largely static trenches with people lobbing shells at each other. Bigger though - approx 1bn shells fired and 14 million dead.
No one really wants to repeat that expect perhaps Putin. I suspect the current slowness in making 1/1000th as many shells is more down to a lack of enthusiasm for the whole business than being less capeable than a century ago. Indeed I thought we were over that stuff but I guess if Putin wants to go retro and roll tanks into the neighbours territories we are forced to respond.
Just like western EU governments apparently. It turns out governing a country isn't just about balancing an excel spreadsheet of incomes and spendings, which seems to be the only thing our elites have bee trained for in the last 40 years
And they seem quite bad at it, considering the state of the various balances they are supposed to maintain (or at least those in France where I live)
Making crass jokes about school shootings, alienating regional powers (Israel, Turkey, Australia, most of the Sahel), and ignoring the first conventional war on the continent this century.
they say that and yet much larger traffic of grain from Russia somehow doesn't hurt those farmers?! maybe it's because a lot of it is stolen Ukrainian grain so everyone should be hush shush about it
The Data on NATO Responsibility Sharing - CSIS
And there are still some individual NATO members that want to make excuses instead of pay their fair share for the nuclear umbrella we are providing them, among many other things.
https://www.youtube.com/live/6YihXoQjnYc?t=488
The vast majority of NATO countries are now above 3%
14 countries are above 4%
11 countries are between 3-4%
4 countries are between 2-3%
The countries under the 2% mark
1. Iceland - 1.72
2. Montenegro - 1.57 (incomplete data)
3. N. Macedonia - 1.66 (incomplete data)
The numbers are about where the EU is now, not where it was 2+ years ago. The EU has increased spending and is increasing production capacity. They are doing something about it. The US seems unable to do anything right now because of politics
The EU has had a very significant change in attitude
- 2 years ago about defense spending
- 2 months about defense independence, after hearing Trump's comments about NATO and House Republicans unwillingness to pass foreign defense aid
Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea have taken note as well
I would welcome a Europe that takes what is going on more seriously instead of hoping another pansy-ass raft of sanctions will make Putin or Xi shudder in fear.
Drones are reshaping conventional war at unprecedented speeds. Many things need to be rethought. Big ticket items and air defense are notable examples.
Porcupine defense is likely the best strategy for deterrence. Taiwan and her allies should take note of what Ukraine has accomplished in the Black Sea.
Perhaps you are referring to the requirement for NATO members to spend minimum 2% GDP on their own Military? In which case other responses explain that, on average, this is already occuring.
Further to that, percentage of GDP is a problematic metric to measure spending, as a member could in fact increase their military spending year on year, but if their spending increase doesn't keep up with their GDP increases then it can appear that they are spending less.