Rearmament is stupid. For every $1 spent destroying Russian equipment it's equivalent to $10 not spent on deterrence over the next 10 years. The only thing more expensive than a war is an arms race.
> We should spend money on deterrence.
Then
> You don't need to deter what doesn't exist.
I guess next you'll say Russia isn't even at war with Ukraine and we shouldn't believe our lying eyes?
As an example: If europe gave Ukraine enough cruise missiles to wipe out russias Tu 95 fleet that would be a permanent loss. They were built by the Soviet Union and rebuilding them would take a hundred years at least.
What europe fails to see is the massive ROI from supporting Ukraine today.
Things just changed, so it will take a while to see what is actually happening. But they did claim to have increased a lot what they send to Ukraine.
- Investing in deterrence is cost effective... up to a point.
- Directly sending Ukraine arms is cost effective... up to a point.
Right now, it's fair to say that (relative to Russia) Europe has been underinvesting in defense for a couple decades.
Good news: they seem to have recognized this and invested in recapitalizing their industrial defense base.
So much of that money is going to close the capability gaps.