I'm afraid humanity is blowing it for good with this.
A world war will not be the result of the militarization, just like it wasn't a result of the militarization Britain undertook after the 1938 Munich crisis.
Isn't the opposite actually the case? Hegseth has called it a "division of labor." [0]
Ultimately when war breaks out with China, and a year in to that conflagration Russia (ever the opportunist) decides to take a few bites out of the Baltic states, who's going to defend Europe? The US military isn't omnipotent.
[0] https://www.defense.gov/News/Speeches/Speech/Article/%204064...
The opposite? You mean, the United States is increasing its integration with and support for its allies in the global conflict against the aggression of the Russian-centered alignment?
No, that's 100% not what is happening.
> Hegseth has called it a "division of labor."
Probably a lot more useful to look at concrete policy actions than Hegseth’s vague, content-free characterizations.
And it concrete reality, the US is cutting support for those who have been on the same side as it has, in some cases threatening them with violence and annexation, and provide aid and comfort to the aggressor that is the opponent that it had been working with others to defend against.
No, you're confusing wishful thinking fantasy justifications with concrete reality of actions and material effects.
> if you think the US can upend 70 years of foreign policy in the blink of an eye and without a fight, you can believe anything.
If you think it can't do that at the whim of the President (with or without a fight, since no opponent can win that fight), especially after a massive purge of the military leadership, you have an even more exaggerated fantasy view of the power of the "deep state" than even the paranoid fantasies -- that those presenting them don't even believe -- used as a pretext for the purge.
Yes, radical breaks in policy are possible, and the Trump Administration has been doing them in virtually every domain.
Ironically, Hitler wanted to establish a third Reich - basically a new Roman empire that spanned all of... Europe. Funny how these things goes. Old wine in new bottles.
So, it is nor like there would be another choice.
German is at least teaching about own atrocities as about atrocities. Other countries have massively bigger problem to admit their past might have been ugly.
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2025/01/31/g...
https://rmc.bfmtv.com/actualites/international/on-l-a-fait-e...
The historical german inability to correctly read geopolitical currents, anticipate their domestic dynamics, or understand international perceptions of Germany seems to be intact. It's true that The Atlantic Council and other US cultural-state entities aren't making it easier, but this is egregious.
No one looks to Germany for leadership on rule of law, or human rights, least of all Germans.
Your last link is about AfD being supported by Elon Musk. And second about other parties not wanting to cooperate with AfD - and while fascism is up everywhere, in America there is basically no functional opposition.
I know exactly what's in the links, what I don't know is why you believe it's logical to assume that every other human being must be a cheerleader for one group of corrupt authoritarians or another. Supporting either government as such is shameful and your descendants will be as ashamed of you as you are of yours.
Take this study[0] as an example: austerity measures in Greece led to 10,000 avoidable infant deaths. Plenty of other studies show similar results, cutting social spending costs lives.
So how many deaths will come from shifting €800 billion from social programs to military budgets?
It’s a sure thing that this will cause suffering and death, while the idea that we need all that money for defense is just speculation, especially when the EU’s combined military budget is already far bigger than Russia’s.
But it is much smaller than the US' military spending, who is at this point a hostile foreign nation.
Right now we have top diplomats like Kallas saying publicly that we need to find a way to beat China, all while we already have problems with Russia and the USA. They are putting us in a corner against the rest of the world, and for what? Who has to benefit from this?
The EU is a democratic institution. Its leaders are elected (or appointed by those who are elected). The way to hold them accountable is during elections.
I don't think that anyone campaigning on a platform to spend money on defense in EU would have been very successful prior to 2025. Things likely changed now.
I don't understand how Von Der Leyen got "elected" again then, given her horrible performance, and that only a 37% of Europeans views her favourably[0]. The catastrophic situation we find ourselves in developed under her commission, after all.
> The way to hold them accountable is during elections.
Given that VDL was elected by the EU parlament with secret ballot, how do I know which MEP voted her, so that I can vote someone else at the next EU elections?
- [0]: https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/04/03/von-der-leyens...
The president of the commission is appointed by the EU council (which is generally formed by the government of each member state), but has to be formally approved by the EU parliament.
If you are unhappy with how your countries' elected members of parliament (or how its head of state conducts your country position within the EU), you can vote to change it.
This includes decisions on which votes are by secret ballot.
Why is VDL ruling the commission if her previous performance was terrible and she isn't viewed favorably by the majority of Europeans?
Why was she appointed by MPEs with secret ballot?
Given the current situation, do you really believe the democratic system in place for the EU provides efficient mechanisms for holding elected officials accountable for their actions?
I'd honestly expect better from the supposed "cradle of democracy".
I provided an explanation with no particularly condescending tone. I have no idea how your arguments were not addressed.
> Why is VDL ruling the commission if her previous performance was terrible and she isn't viewed favorably by the majority of Europeans?
The opportunity to change is in the regular elections, both at national and EU levels. That's when unpopular leaders are replaced.
The fact that a particular leader is unpopular does not mean much, as they are indirectly elected (as so happens in paliamentarism).
> Given the current situation, do you really believe the democratic system in place for the EU provides efficient mechanisms for holding elected officials accountable for their actions?
Yes, I do. Depending on what you mean by "held accountable", of course. People sometimes use this jargon in a very loaded manner.
The main problem I see is not the "accountability", as the commissioner is accountable to the council that picked them.
The main problem is that the council is formed by national government representatives. This mixes EU politics with local national politics. I may vote for a given party in national elections for local reaasons (e.g.: housing and transportation), but I may disagree with their stance on the EU level.
I don't know a good way to resolve this dissonance outside of some sort of federalization of the EU (something I think would be positive btw).
You realize that cannot work when both the council and the commissioner play on the same political agenda? For the council to hold the commissioner accountable it would mean to admit their own guilt. There is no incentive for them to do this, so there is no mechanism for accountability at all.
One example? VDL privately conducting EU business with Pfizer for a vaccine purchase on her phone (illicit) and refusing to provide the text messages to the EU's general court. All while her commission is supposedly based on defending standards of transparency, efficiency and so on.
What about her countless delusions about Russia's economy being about to collapse while all she accomplished was to send EU in a recession?
Or her blindly pursuing a policy of dependence on the USA and hostility towards China, only for the US to dump us as soon as they got a new president?
Please tell me where's the accountability in all of this.
Or why now, given her track record made up entirely of failures, we should trust her to guide the EU into a new very delicate historical phase.
Not sure where the conversation would go on from here. You will just keep being angry.
I understand the political necessity of setting a concrete 1.5 degC warming target and messaging it as an all-or-nothing kind of goal, but “we missed it” isn’t an absolute. It’s not the line between “hellfire and brimstone” and “salvation”: there’s still a range of outcomes and behavior still matters.
The fatalism strikes me as counterproductive and paralyzing: people can and will continue to try to survive, even if there are wildfires now, or hurricanes, or heat waves, or worse. Better, it seems to me, to focus on what actually is changing, how people are responding, and how to mitigate and adapt.
Unfortunately, Russia seems a very real threat to many European countries (particularly those with Russian minority population). Germany needs this this money e.g. to actually setup a NATO brigade in Lithuania.
While all this military spending indeed is lost money, it seems that cost would need to be split and this is not even consensus inside the EU.
Germany has already become the target as its physical and digital infrastructure is under constant attack while feeling unable to defend ourselves. This is not about WWIII, but actually to prevent it happening.
Yay for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis !
Even if the US and Europe made huge emission cuts, the rest of the world will not. I’m sure developing nations will stay poor if we ask nicely. “Hey Africa. We know about the three centuries of exploitation and colonialism but hey… could you do us a favor now and stay poor to fix the problem we mostly created? Thanks!”
There is no chance of this happening.
There’s only one realistic solution. If renewable plus storage or some other non carbon based source can actually be cheaper and easier to deploy than coal and gas, it might replace them. As it stands coal and gas remain the cheapest sources of power (though the gap has narrowed) in most regions. They are also easy to deploy with a global market in both generation equipment and fuel and a huge global talent pool of people who know how to do it.
Solar won and it’s the storage of cheaply generated power than now needs maximum investment and support.
Nuclear continues to be discussed mainly because it reverses the decentralisation of energy reliance that’s occurring as solar spreads.
The costs of remaining at +2C are several orders of magnitude higher than going back to +1C.
And in all cases the most impacted ones due to climate change effects or climate change fight expenses are the ones at the bottom.
We're still not behaving collectively as much hogher than idiotic monkeys fighting in a cage. Defense from our neighbors is still a primary concern. We'll all die burnt with a heat wave.
After WW2 the US wanted the European powers under its wings rather than rebuilding their own militaries to the level of a global power. There were to be two powers: the US and the Soviets.
It suited the US interests to force Europe in a dependent position. Partly for good reasons like preventing us fighting amongst ourselves starting another war. Which we’d just done twice, so fair enough.
But also to stop us from coming under communist influence voluntarily. And, just for imperialist reasons. They were just more modern and subtle about it than the empires they replaced, most notably the British Empire. The almost-century of western Europe being effectively part of an US empire culturally, financially and militarily is now coming to an end. How we’re gonna deal with that? No idea. It’s going to be pretty damn hard in a lot of ways.
Putin has proven time and time again he will exploit any perceived weakness. He did so in 2014 with Crimea and when Europe (and the US) failed to react it provoked him to try it again in 2022. There is zero evidence Putin is going to wind down after Ukraine. He has stated multiple times publicly he thinks the biggest tragedie of the last century was the collapse of the large Russian empire.
[1] https://sustainability.stanford.edu/news/covid-lockdown-caus...
And then maybe Putin.
Never has the world been so heavily armed. We have nukes that can wipe each other out at the press of a button. The result? A period of peace unprecedented in human history.
Putin invaded Ukraine because he thought he could win easily. Countries don't risk their existence in that way unless lead by madmen.
Likely a prolonged period of espionage and subterfuge by the Russians to gain control of those nukes would have ensued. Maintaining control would be difficult especially in Eastern Ukraine where the Russian language predominates.
Putin wants to recreate the military conquests of previous Russian leaders. He thinks he's Peter the Great but his situation is more akin to Don Quixote de la Mancha in his later years: I imagine that he sees all those nukes, regrets how much they cost to make and maintain and that he hasn't launched them (each launch moving a line item from a debit column to a credit column). He may not yet realize that the fuel from one nuclear warhead in a nuclear reactor could supply a small city with electrical power for years. IOW he's sitting on a fortune and doesn't know it. Sad.
Did you know that for the past two decades, 10 percent of all the electricity consumed in the United States has come from Russian nuclear warheads?
https://www.npr.org/2013/12/11/250007526/megatons-to-megawat...
Also:
https://interestingengineering.com/energy/us-nuclear-warhead...
Russia is enormous geographically, has wonderful resources and people who are bright and creative. A shame they're getting killed in Ukraine. The only good news is that there will be more women for each young man and, once they return from war, each will be tasked with the need to create a new generation of Russians. Good work, if you can get it. If they don't, the Chinese will move in from the east (probably will anyway, already doing it de facto).
Having less mouths to feed is a positive (if viewed from this selfish point of view) side-effect.
1- in 2008 the invasion of Georgia
2- in 2014 the first invasion of Ukraine
3- in 2016 the shift in American politics and its disinterest in Europe
then a small re-militarization would have been more than enough to avoid the second invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and all what has unfolded.
Instead, Europe is now fighting for its survival and is reacting rather than acting - in such desperate times, climate change can wait ...
What makes you think this hyperbole is true or useful?
The EU is explicitly called out as an enemy of Russia and America by its ruling parties’ elites.
The current US president already threatened annexation of Greenland, which is a Danish territory, not to mention the ongoing trade war.
There's no hyperbole there.
Delaying was a reasonable choice given the information at the time, hoping that Putin was not a moron and that he would not take control of the US. They are reacting adequately, at a deliberate but not reckless pace, in response to the new information.
From what? There's no serious indication of a russian threat to invade western europe.
> climate change can wait
That's actually the exact opposite of the truth. Like "rust never sleeps", neither does any other ongoing chemical process. Climate change will keep on chugging 24/7 and receive exactly the amount of productive attention it's already received, which is none. Every effort by equity since the broad awareness of this reality has been to obstruct any action that would disrupt current revenue streams.
Any educated, and even marginally objective person cannot deny the ongoing disaster of human environmental devastation in all forms, and it's ever increasing impact on all human activity.
However all major investors in the status quo are also clear on another fact: they're old enough to be dead before the worst of the consequences come to bear. So they advocate burning it down for profit today, and fuck the future.
I'm also old enough to not have to face to worst of it, but I actually feel we should steward our environment, not just burn it down for this quarters returns.
All of this is in addition to the reality that peace is more economically productive, and war is just one big murderous disaster. The use of military force through the so called cold war, and into the present, has left us with these festering military operations that are depriving all of us from a peaceful and productive life, and for what? So some hyper-rich asshole can have more. That's what "glory of god and country" is all about. Getting the idiot herd to dismember itself to see which ruling class asshat gets more stuff.
The current US president threates to annex Greenland. This would be an act of war. EU has to be able to defend itself.
As for the rest of your comment, I think at this point climate change is a secondary concern, when you need to stand up to threats from east and west.
Well, either you are not following the openly stated intentions of the Russians or you are not taking them seriously. The former would be sheer ignorance, the latter would be a grave mistake.
The same was said of Ukraine. It made no sense, people thought Putin wouldn't be so self destructive, but here we are.
Given the stakes and consequences of being wrong, Europe is doing the right thing. Even a 5% chance of Putin invading Europe is worth buying an insurance policy for, given that Europe's existing policy has proved worthless.
> All of this is in addition to the reality that peace is more economically productive, and war is just one big murderous disaster.
You make it sound like war is a choice one makes, and that laying down arms, appeasement or surrender is a solution. It's been proved time and again that that just leads to more war.
1- I believe that Americans overall, whether left or right, let alone far right, can't disagree with that statement - that Europe doesn't (didn't) take its security seriously and Americans don't want to be involved anymore
2- Europeans? I don't know, maybe some still live in their bubble and all is good? Reading some of the comments, I can see such people but that's certainly surprising to see a majority
3- And then the rest of the world ... the ROTW doesn't care much about what's happening in Europe, and climate change is the least of many people's problems.
Fear of Russia in Germany is pure hysteria.
Russia is also paranoid, but at least it has historical reasons.
Based on what data? Or is this just speculation as usual?
But this is similar to what other expert say, that the more concerning weak point in NATO is political. And if Russia could successfully drive a wedge between the NATO states it becomes vulnerable even if the total conventional military of its members is superior to Russian forces.
I don't understand why don't we talk more about achieving that, instead of blindly preparing for WWIII. NATO shouldn't even exist since the URSS collapsed.
From a game theory point of view how is that supposed to bring peace? That just shows Russia that they can do whatever they want and reach their goals. We already had the Minsk agreement Russia violated. Why should Russia stop when we give in to their demands? What‘s the logic there?
At some point you have to show strength. And earlier is probably better if you want to prevent WWIII
Sure, EU combined already spends three times as much as Russia in "showing strength". I'm sure there must be a way to use what we have without tripling the expense. If nothing, because showing that we need 10 times their military expense to keep up with them would only show that we are in fact weaker.
Unless the goal of rearmament is only to make a few weapon manufacturers richer, then I'd say we've found the most efficient way to do it.
I do think that Ukraine is instructive in terms of Russia not being as almighty as they might seem, but in terms of outcome Putin is scary close to achieving practically all of his war aims short of Ukraine ceasing to exist. I learned that Putin is patient. He can take it step by step. He does not value human life. And that’s dangerous.
At great cost to the Russian people, sure, but does Putin care? Another five to ten years and he can give something else a go. And suddenly he is in the Baltcis or at the Polish border.
Sure, EU combined already spends three times as much as Russia in "showing strength". I'm sure there must be a way to use what we have without tripling the expense. If nothing, because if we need 10 times their military expense to keep up with them we'd only show that we are in fact weaker.
We've been friends for decades with the US, Israel, Turkey, and more, after all.
I understand Russia is a bit low in terms of amount of civilians killed, but we could make an exception for them if it avoided WWIII.
They take what they want. They are appeased. A couple years nothing happens. They take what they want. They are appeased … etc.
Invading Ukraine should be a clear warning that Russia will not just stop. For appeasement to end and for Europe to seriously look for viable paths to peace. Not just yearlong pauses in fighting that allow Russia to regain strength. That is not peace.
Also, obviously I hope that this time around it’s not too late to prevent facists from burning Europe to the ground before we can defeat them.
Do you dispute that showing strength is an element to peace? (I’m not talking about killing people or invading other countries. I’m talking about a demonstrated and credible willingness to defend your values and alliances.)
They won the war, the goal was clearly defeating the axis. Did you have a shower today or did you achieve a just and long lasting personal hygiene through water?
You should at least be brave enough to say it like it is: you want to win the war.
The only problem is that this time the enemy has enough nuclear weapons to trigger a new ice age, so you resort to Newspeak.
> Also, obviously I hope that this time around it’s not too late to prevent facists from burning Europe to the ground before we can defeat them.
For how I see it we got them already in the commission and doing all they can to burn the EU to the ground.
Also, there is no need for ad hominem attacks. Contrary to what you might think, they don't actually serve any purpose in putting your point across.
So yesterday and the day before that were rainy, therefore we come to the conclusion that it has to rain tomorrow as well, am I right?
If only we knew a bit more about how the weather works!
> Also, there is no need for ad hominem attacks.
The "unless you are an ignorant" wasn't directed at you, I just used it to make a point.
Except in this scenario it's still raining as we speak. What data do you have that Russia will stop?
> What data do you have that Russia will stop?
I’m not the one suggesting we throw away €800 billion, excuse me for asking why. Still, I'll try to explain.
Russia has lots to lose and nothing to gain from a direct war with NATO. The last thing it needs is more land and resources, so we can exclude that as well. I also genuinely think the cause of this war is Russia feeling threatened by NATO expansion and a civil war on its border, whether you consider that legit or not.
The only reason for Russia to not stop is if we don't allow it, at this point.
And does it really seem like the USA is going to come to the rescue if Russia pushes into the Baltics? Heck at this point they may very well use the distraction to invade Greenland.
So what's the deterrent but for Europe to buy its own umbrella?
We already have an umbrella and it costs 3 times as much as Russia's umbrella, while being much less effective. So before burning another €800 billions Iwish we'd put some effort in finding ways to make our current $450 billions of yearly expense work.
Seriously, if we need 10x Russia's budget to keep up with them we've already lost.
On the other hand, if the ultimate goal isn't to make Europe safer, but just to enrich a bunch of weapon manufacturers, then I'd say this plan works perfectly.
History.
In general, divide and conquer (aka defeat in detail) is an excellent way to test and break the resolve of a military alliance, or a poorly organised but massively overpowering enemy in the aggregate.
Is it really so outlandish to think that Russian irredentism[0] will continue?
Food for thought from 2014(!): https://youtu.be/HLAzeHnNgR8
If we need to spend more than a trillion € to keep up with Russia's measly $145 billions, then we've already lost.
Russia can attack with ten million men armed with knifes and clubs. They will March on, kill and destroy, until they starve to death or someone stops them.
We won't defend by sending twenty million similarity armed persons into the meat grinder. We will want to arm and armour our troops so that there is minimal loss of life and limb.
Russian may attack with chemical weapons, we are not interested in hitting back the same way.
Russia will target hydro dams and other civilian infrastructure with potential for mass destruction. We care about protecting those things to avoid harm to our citizens, Russia does not care.
The conflict is assymetrical on many levels.
This is just baseless propaganda and you know it. What a shame would it be for the west and Ukraine if an army of men armed with clubs was able to stand its ground against them.
> Russia will target hydro dams and other civilian infrastructure with potential for mass destruction. We care about protecting those things to avoid harm to our citizens, Russia does not care.
Of course, just like we did with Iraq's infrastructure[0] for example?
I suggest you use the effort you put in writing such uninformed rethoric in informing yourself, it will pay out at some point.
- [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damage_to_Baghdad_during_the_I...
Now there’s propaganda.
Whataboutism is of course another clear sign. Ironically your example would imply Iraq should have built up its military to defend from such an attack.
Not making excuses for all the wrongs done by US and allies before, during and after the invasion. It was a terrible idea, badly executed. But it didn't come out of nowhere, Saddam had a history of attacking his neighbours, he and his party had it coming.
From retaining most of the historic Russian Empire?!
(Putin 2007 in Munich, Wikipedia)
This is kind of paranoid. But there are historical reasons:
Poland/Lithuania (Władysław), Napoleon, The German Kaiser, Hitler
"The King of Poland, Sigismund III Vasa, declared war on Russia in response in 1609, aiming to gain territorial concessions and to weaken Sweden's ally. Polish forces won many early victories"
"Sigismund's son, Prince Władysław of Poland, was elected tsar of Russia by the Seven Boyars in September 1610, but Sigismund refused to allow his son to become the new tsar unless the Muscovites agreed to convert from Eastern Orthodoxy to Catholicism"
In fact, I don't have an overview of all the wars and carnage in which Russia and neighboring countries were involved.
It should simply come to an end.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Russian_War_(16...
It’s pretty insane to go back 400 years, to a war where none of the pretexts could apply today, and claim that’s a reason to be afraid of NATO.