this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2024
134 points (95.9% liked)

World News

39325 readers
1599 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 43 points 2 months ago (11 children)

It's something we should have done back in 2016 already, heavily reducing our reliance on the US in cases like that. Be it militarily or economically. The EU can't keep being the third player in whatever world we are heading right into.

[–] gravitas_deficiency 19 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (8 children)

It’s really honestly baffling to me. The EU reaction to Trump trying to fuck up NATO integrity and cohesion in his first term was… essentially nothing but conversations and hopeful thinking, as far as I can tell.

I fucking detest Trump, but there is a kernel of truth in his statements about Europe more or less just riding on the US’s coattails in terms of the balance of military power, instead of trying to be a meaningful and (taken together) a peer power to the US. Moreover, if the balance of power and capability was closer between the US and the EU, the US would probably be a lot less likely to just categorically push the EU around.

The post-Soviet peace dividend era is well and truly over - in fact, it ended at least a decade ago (really, probably closer to two). It’s time for Europe to start acting like it.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

Just because the US government likes to funnel trillions to their military industrial complex instead of healthcare, doesn't mean the rest of NATO has to do the same. Even without the US, NATO already spends more on defense than Russia and China combined, even before the invasion of Ukraine.

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

Most of the EU has missed the target GDP spend by a significant margin for decades. The failure to penalize the annexation of Crimea and the EU's almost wholesale inability to provide material to Ukraine without compromising their own defensive postures can be traced heavily to this funding failure.

Obama's soft stance on Russia was certainly a large part of our current situation, but Merkel and the overly pacified EU were major contributors as well.

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

The 2 percent of GDP target is imaginary. They made it up, in no small part because of lobbying from the defense industry. There is no reason for NATO to spend so much more than all other countries combined.

Stopping Russia should have been done through economic and diplomatic means. No amount of NATO bombs or tanks would have stopped the invasion. It only would have fueled the flames and given legitimacy to Russia's claimed insecurity. Economic power is much stronger than military sabre rattling. The EU is founded on that exact principle and it's the reason why it's still together.

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

The 2 percent of GDP target is imaginary.

The target was set so that no country would be able to join NATO and then just let everyone else pay for everything. You contribute to the common defense or you GTFO.

We can bicker about 2% being too high or too low and whether the target should have been adjusted Post Cold War but any argument that some target isn't necessary is just silliness.

No amount of NATO bombs or tanks would have stopped the invasion.

Oh I'm fairly certain that NATO military power would have stopped the invasion in the first 24 hours. A single flight of F-35s would have made those original Russian convoy's cease to exist à la the Highway of Death from 1991.

Even now NATO military power could substantially end the ground war in Ukraine before the end of the month.

It only would have fueled the flames and given legitimacy to Russia’s claimed insecurity.

So what? NATO didn't do it and there's STILL an ongoing war with a casualty toll well over a million and millions more displaced.

Economic power is much stronger than military sabre rattling.

Then the EU should have flexed them in 2014. They didn't and here we are.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)