this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
89 points (98.9% liked)

World News

39329 readers
1910 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
quinten
NewsAutoMod
jordanlund
Tenthrow
little_cow
lemmyAtom
FlyingSquid
89
Europe increases defense spending but lacks troops: study (www.dw.com)
submitted 1 month ago by MicroWave to c/world
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Summary

A UK-based think tank warns that Europe’s increased defense spending and weapon production, spurred by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, is undermined by a shortage of military personnel.

European NATO members now allocate over half of their defense budgets to European-made equipment, yet critical troop shortfalls persist due to decades of underinvestment.

Concerns are heightened with Donald Trump’s return to the White House, raising fears of reduced U.S. support for Ukraine.

European leaders, including France’s Emmanuel Macron, emphasize the need for Europe to become less reliant on U.S. security support.

top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] thebestaquaman 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I can't speak for everyone, but I believe the peace time professional militaries of most democratic European countries would be dwarfed by the number of people those countries would be able to mobilise in a war time situation.

In the case of Norway, we have a standing army of some 20-30 k soldiers, with a reserve (i.e. peace time civilians with ordinary jobs that have pre-set places to meet up in the case of a conflict) of some 50-70 k soldiers. If shit hits the fan, I wouldn't be surprised if you could get another 100-200 k to volunteer (at the peak of the cold war I believe we had standing army + reserve of some 500 k). The issue is that we are nowhere close to being able to equip that many soldiers.

That's just Norway, one of the smallest populations in Europe, and we would likely be able to field 100 k + soldiers within a week or two, with another 100 k following up in the next months, given that we have the equipment for it.

Call me naive, but I honestly believe that people in democratic countries would be willing to enlist if there is a real threat of an autocratic regime invading at taking over. Given that we have sufficient numbers of well trained soldiers to hold out the initial weeks/months and train those mobilised, and sufficient equipment to give the mobilised, I hope that we would be able to put a solid force on its feet relatively quickly.

Also, just the sheer population of Europe (≈ 450 million in the EU) is so much larger that e.g. Russia (≈ 150 million) that we should collectively be able to field several million soldiers as long as we have enough equipment for it, and enough trained personell to train the mobilised. So I definitely think it's reasonable to focus on building equipment stockpiles in peace time, rather than having huge standing armies.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Using the USA as a model, the federal military maintains the specialized units that don't have a civilian use along with training the military leadership such that it can absorb a larger army.

Individual states have active reserve military units (national guard) that have both military and civilian use. For instance, a lot of disaster response activities in the USA is performed by the national guard under state control.

From that skeleton, the US military can then fill out other units in times of war.

My guess is that an EU military would follow that structure since it has been shown to work well and the union can't rely on France to build and fund those specialty units by themselves.

[–] thebestaquaman 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's a lot like how other NATO countries operate as well. But my impression was that the American national guard units were professional full-time units, is that not the case?

Out Norwegian equivalent (the Home Guard) consists of civilians (i.e. people with normal jobs) that train a number of times a year, some of which have their equipment at home so that they're ready to deploy on short notice. They have some coordinated training with the army, and are intended to function as a kind of "local force" in their region, with in-depth knowledge about local conditions that the ordinary army doesn't have.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

The National Guard functions like your Home Guard for the most part. Some states do full time deployment, but it is rare and mainly applies security tasks. States are allowed to have standing armies, but it doesn't happen because it is usually considered a waste of tax payer money.

What I expect is that, as the Union military grows, individual European nations will stop operating militaries outside of their home guard. After all, why have a standing army for the country when you are contributing to a standing army for the Union?

[–] RangerJosie 1 points 1 month ago

Faro Plague. Here we go.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

No matter how many resources the state wastes on destroying the planet... People are correct in not wanting to die for politicians and imaginary lines on a map.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

People are correct in not wanting to die for politicians and imaginary lines on a map.

It's a great philosophy but if all of your neighbors don't follow it then you end up being forcibly hijacked.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Time to make military service mandatory again.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

Or make joining the army something desirable

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

No, no and hell no.

It is sickening the notion of forcing someone, anyone, into bearing arms. It serves no purpose besides indoctrinating young minds into a set of ideas that serves no other purpose besides an opaque agenda of whatever government is in power.

If/when push comes to shove and europeans find themselves in true risk of being invaded by any foreign figure, there will be willing people to move to take on the task of defending their soil.

It's a good number of decades europeans haven't picked up weapons to kill each other. It's not like Europe forgot how it is done.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Mandatory military service only trains them in the basics so they are ready when the risk becomes reality.

Switzerland has mandatory service. France used to have mandatory service. It never created what your said it creates.

I think you're making a lot of assumptions.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

My country had mandatory military service - let's call what it was - conscription, up to 2004/06 and it only served to fill the heads of young boys with dung.

Volunteer, professional, well trained, well equiped, armed and prepared effectives are the backbone of what modern armed forces are, not quickly churned out cannon fodder.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

In Switzerland, the basic training lasts a year I think? And is meant to teach how the army works and how to use weapons and not just rifles and pistols and knives. Depending on their role they also learn how to use artillery, mortars, how to use maps, how to use vehicles and tanks, how to make calculations and navigate and so much more.

The whole point of this is that when shit hits the fan, any additional training takes a lot less time.

It has to be well implemented and taught well. Maybe in your case it wasn't and you have a bad experience of it.

Any country that's serious about training it's people to be ready for combat in case of a serious invasion will probably do a better job than one that isn't because they want to be prepared.

In any case, I can understand why you would feel the way you do if it was implemented poorly in your country.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

It wasn't that many years ago that a think tank proposed the reinstatement of conscription as a means to reestablish and ingrain notions of patriotism, sense of duty and honor into its population. This was the general sense of the "findings" of such work group.

This is extremely dangerous reasoning to have to argue in favor of military service enforced on a population. To call it badly veilled fascism is being polite.

Basic trainning takes little time. Handling a gun is easy; it's a very complex machine made simple enough to be handled by a dunce. It also takes very little time to drum in basic notions of rank and role.

Specialization can only take place after that basic training, which serves the purpose to caracterize the individual inside the group, their capabilities and motivation.

If an individual volunteers, usually the motivation is already high. A conscript, not very much.

A country belongs to its people. The notion is too often reversed, which leads to very bad outcomes.

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

There's another reason to say "hell no" to it: People who don't want to fight suck at fighting. Conscripts are a headache to officers.

What I would be in favour of is mandatory service, though -- if you want, and only then, in the military, but the default "I don't care where I end up" would land you somewhere in catastrophe relief, learning how to operate a field kitchen and how to reinforce a dike. Basic paramedic training, such stuff.

Catastrophe relief is even more reliant on reserve forces than the military when shit hits the fan, and when it does it generally drowns in volunteers -- trouble being if people have no training you can't use them for much more than filling sandbags. Knowing how the organisational structure works and having some experience operating within it is worth tons on its own, even if you have no specific skills that are needed. Also evacuating a city is way easier if the city broadly knows how to evacuate itself. Triage is way easier if you have an army of people capable of dealing with the easy stuff.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No mandatory service of any kind, full stop.

If there is something that needs to be widely known by the population, you make it part of the daily life, introduce it at school curriculum, run low profile campaigns that steadily grow awareness and make access to developing such knowledge/skills easy to all.

I can think of the example of learning how to use a defibrilator, which has become a standard for any person graduating highschool in my country. Stupidly enough, if I want to learn that exact same skill, today, I have to pay a hefty sum, in a country where lack of preparation to give immediate aid to someone in need has been identified as a serious problem.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I can think of the example of learning how to use a defibrilator, which has become a standard for any person graduating highschool in my country.

You know what? I almost wanted to write "consider it a part of school" in my original comment. Probably should have.

It also doesn't have to be all at one time, back in my days I did about a weekend a month over three years. In one year I got all my necessary hours from a single two-week course camp: Because I wasn't at home at all during the time those were 14x24 hours even though the course load was what six hours weekdays, the rest party. Meaning to say: Don't picture military basic with a drill instructor. Noone has ever accused catastrophe defence to be disciplined unless sirens are blaring.

Not to mention: In many places, particularly villages, it's practically mandatory anyway: Everyone, at least if male, becomes a fire fighter. You don't have to stay on for regular duty but you gotta learn the basic ropes so that if shit really hits the fan you know how to help. It's actually more about re-kindling that kind of attitude in cityfolk.

[–] Solumbran 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Sure, brainwashing people into accepting to be an instrument of violence directed by a government, in a time of growing fascism, sounds like an amazing idea.

Why not start with kids while we're at it?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

You have a better idea for NATO members and other US allies when Trump decides to break all ties and befriend Russia? If they don't have enough resources in the military to defend themselves, what are they supposed to do?