this post was submitted on 24 May 2024
165 points (97.1% liked)

World News

39032 readers
2375 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The war in Ukraine has shifted thinking — both among politicians and the public — on the need to spend more on defense.

The European public and politicians are in agreement that EU countries should do more to increase weapons production.

That's according to the results of the latest Eurobarometer poll, obtained in advance by POLITICO Playbook, and a draft of the EU's Strategic Agenda seen by POLITICO.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine more than two years ago has dramatically shifted the rhetoric around defense spending, pushing it up the agenda across the bloc — often at the expense of other policy areas like tackling climate change.

all 49 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Chainweasel 45 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

It would be stupid not to.
Not only is there absolutely no guarantee the United States will be there to help them, but if a certain candidate wins, it's a guarantee we won't be helping them.
But beyond that it's an incredibly stupid idea to outsource your national defense, even to an ally.

[–] FlyingSquid 14 points 5 months ago

I think we almost certainly won't help them since Trump loves Putin and wants to pull out of NATO.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Who's "we" in this comment?

[–] Chainweasel 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

We is the United States in this context. Not you or I, but the nation I'm part of and pay taxes to. And the majority of those taxes go to the military industrial complex.
So even though I don't make any of the decisions and I personally don't agree with many of them, I still have to help pay for it whether I like it or not.
So, I'm reluctantly part of the "we".

[–] [email protected] -5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Hey, uhhh, this sounds an awful lot like taxation without representation.

[–] halcyoncmdr 6 points 5 months ago

Oh there's representation, but it's been co-opted by corporations paying for it, and the people are willing to accept that, either because they actually believe the propaganda, or since most people don't vote, via sheer apathy.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

That's the bit I was missing.

[–] Viking_Hippie 23 points 5 months ago (5 children)

As a pacifist, I fucking hate this timeline 😮‍💨

[–] [email protected] 29 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Sadly, pacifism only work if everybody agrees to it.

[–] afraid_of_zombies 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Not really. Defense is easier than offense at this point. And offense becomes a lot cheaper in a world where everyone is keeping the prices of weapons lower.

Don't be an economist, be smart and look at data to see where it goes. America vs Afghanistan. Using a ten million dollar missile to take out a guy with a hundred dollar rifle. Or look at Russia unable to beat a country right on their border that they greatly outnumber.

War is expensive, offensive war more expensive. Everyone armed means arms cost less money. We don't require that the entire world be pacifist to get peace just enough, just like we don't need every single person to agree to not commit rape to enforce rape laws.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

What do you actually think is causing Europe to build weapons?

Do you think they are planning a era of conquest? Or maybe they've got an aggressor on their border and they feel the need to defend themselves.

[–] afraid_of_zombies 1 points 5 months ago

Putin. Now why does Russia have so many weapons? Is it because they were doing well selling them for so very long?

Like I said, stop thinking like an economist. Follow the data. An economist will ramble about game theory and argue that the only two worlds are possible a. No war b. Always war. Someone actually viewing the data will point out that humanity has had decades of very little war. That the changes in human society have made conquest super fucking expensive and the only countries capable of a war anymore are the very rich ones. The more nations give up warfare the more expensive it will become.

The solution to a problem is very rarely more of the same problem. And the actual data we have doesn't point to a situation where if one nation out of 190 decides war is good but the other 189 disagree that suddenly that 1 cheater wins. Put another way: if the US gave up it's military tomorrow do you think Cuba would conquer the US the next week?

[–] Viking_Hippie -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Which shouldn't be too much to ask for since everyone agrees that war is awful. Just not hard enough not to constantly make up excuses for why it's ok to keep murdering people.

[–] credo 13 points 5 months ago (2 children)

everyone agrees that war is awful

That doesn’t appear to be the case in Ukraine.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

War is awful, but not as awful as living in Russia. Also there's the little thing where the russians are committing a whole host of war crimes and committing actual genocide. So yeah the Ukrainians are very keen to stop them advancing, but would be even more keen for the russians to just go home.

[–] fluxion 5 points 5 months ago

Climate crisis is out of control and Putin ends up dragging us all off to war and weapons production. Absolute worst timeline.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I get your feelings. An arms race often lead to, well, wars. 😔

However we also need to stand up to bullies.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

O man if you hate that don't think about how WW I basically happened the way it did because everyone spent the previous few years building up their militaries "just in case."

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Better familiarise yourself with the ins and outs of performing a blood eagle. I know I'm going to just in case. Also you should look into making Molotov's and IEDs.

[–] FlyingSquid 18 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If Russia was threatening my country next, I sure would too.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

They can barely take the Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine, you really think they're gonna invade the rest of Europe?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago

They're only struggling because the West is arming Ukraine. The Ukrainians fought hard from day one, but they'd have been overrun and at best operating a guerilla campaign without being given heaps of equipment. Look what has happened while America stopped sending stuff over, and's while Europe was still sending stuff. Europe's arms industry is substantial, pretty much on par with the US in terms of value exported, but it's lacking things like the ability to supply an artillery war like the one going on in Ukraine. Since the US doesn't seem to be very reliable, Europe is gonna have to cover that base itself if it wants to be able to deter actions like Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

[–] FlyingSquid 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I think Putin is willing to try.

[–] halcyoncmdr 4 points 5 months ago

Putin clearly started to believe his own country's internal propaganda. Despite being inside the Soviet Union, and actually being part of the systemic lies to project false power, he started to believe what he was being told. As if the systems built on had fundamentally changed after the fall ad his rise to power.

There were a lot of delays getting international supplies to Ukraine at the beginning of the conflict, yet Russia still couldn't get close to their goal even with an extended timeframe. Once those supplies began to arrive, Russia was never going to be able to achieve their goal like they thought, but Putin's ego won't let him admit he was fooled by his own bullshit propaganda machine.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Good point.

Better sacrifice your housing, education, infrastructure, and medical budgets for Raytheon shareholders just in case.

[–] FlyingSquid 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

And what makes you think Europe is going to do that?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Where do you think that money must come from?

Every dollar that is spent on bombs is a dollar that doesn't go into feeding, housing, and educating the people.

[–] Viking_Hippie 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Eisenhower said it well:

Rest of the quote is even more explicit about it:

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, great parting speech. Shame he spent his entire presidency letting MacArthur and Lemay do war crimes in Korea and propping up the military industrial complex.

[–] Viking_Hippie -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Shame he spent his entire presidency letting MacArthur and Lemay do war crimes in Korea and propping up the military industrial complex.

Yeah, US presidents unfortunately tend to be either hypocrites, liars or open warmongers. Often more than one of the above 😮‍💨

[–] halcyoncmdr 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

To be fair, the US President doesn't have nearly as much power to actually accomplish things like many people think, at least domestically. Congress has the actual power, whether they utilize it well or not. The President has to work with Congress to actually get things accomplished, and Congress controls the money.

International relations and war, those are things the President more directly controls, and even then Congress has some control of things like approving weapons sales (again, the money).

The Legislative Branch makes the laws, the Executive branch implements them (and the modern Judicial decides based on their personal beliefs whether they'll let it happen, or find some flimsy justification to prevent it).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

made-it-the-fuck-up All we're saying is give war a chance!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Russia's invasion of Ukraine more than two years ago has dramatically shifted the rhetoric around defense spending, pushing it up the agenda across the bloc — often at the expense of other policy areas like tackling climate change.

National officials are finalizing it under the coordination of European Council President Charles Michel, and will meet again Friday.

And that starts with laying the foundations for an alliance-wide increase in spending on our collective deterrent,” U.K. Defense Secretary Grant Shapps said this week.

That's something that EU finance ministers are already working on by tweaking the bank's rules to make it easier to lend to defense projects.

The proposal doesn't mention using cash from the European Stability Mechanism, which provides emergency financial aid for members of the eurozone.

The change in defense thinking was driven by the war in Ukraine, and the Barometer poll, taken in April, finds overwhelming support for helping Kyiv.


The original article contains 537 words, the summary contains 152 words. Saved 72%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

More guns! Bigger guns! I'll take a snipex alligator please!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

This just in from the EU's Department of Stating the Obvious

[–] BeMoreCareful 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

If the US weren't weapons dealers what would we have left to sell?

[–] afraid_of_zombies 3 points 5 months ago

Other stuff.