this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2025
448 points (98.9% liked)

Europe

5018 readers
2004 users here now

News and information from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in !yurop@lemm.ee. (They're cool, you should subscribe there too!)
  8. Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)

(This list may get expanded when necessary.)

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the mods: @federalreverse@feddit.org, @poVoq@slrpnk.net, or @anzo@programming.dev.

founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
 

Archive: https://archive.is/2025.03.26-113538/https://www.ft.com/content/eeb1ee80-00b8-4f9f-b560-a6717a80d58d

EU households should stockpile essential supplies to survive at least 72 hours of crisis, Brussels has proposed, as Russia’s war in Ukraine and a darkening geopolitical landscape prompt the bloc to take new steps to increase its security.

The continuing conflict in Ukraine, the Covid-19 pandemic that brutally exposed a lack of crisis response capabilities and the Trump administration’s adversarial stance towards Europe have forced the continent to rethink its vulnerabilities and increase spending on defence and security.

The new initiative comes as European intelligence agencies warn that Russia could attack an EU member state within three to five years, adding to natural threats including floods and wildfires worsened by climate change and societal risks such as financial crises.

Europe faced increased threats “including the possibility of armed aggression against member states”, the European Commission warned on Wednesday as it published a 30-step plan for its 27 capitals to increase their preparedness for crisis and mitigation measures.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 95 points 5 days ago (5 children)

I'm from EU and this is way less than my country suggests, which is 2 weeks.

I actually have 2 weeks supplies, but I'm gonna eat baked beans and vegan chocolate and drink coke zero the last few days 😅

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 19 points 5 days ago (8 children)

Yeah, 3 days is a joke. Do they expect a war to be over in 3 days?

[–] meldrik@lemmy.wtf 38 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It’s an estimate on how long you need to survive on your own, before the government is able to help.

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 16 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I think that's very optimistic. Looking at how COVID went, I have no faith at all in people's ability to stay calm. The government isn't going to be able to help those in need 3 days in with the masses of idiots around. No way.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 17 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Well, during COVID the idea was still that things should run as normally, with a market economy and stuff. During an actual war, any sensible government would immediately take control of the distribution of food, water, energy and other essentials. Scalpers would be immediately detained, rather than to allow them to run rampant.

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 10 points 5 days ago (1 children)

One would hope so, but I bet you enough people would be influenced by a Russian disinformation campaign to trigger riots on the streets because "Russia is a friend, we are the aggressors" or whatever other bullshit they come up with. Then troops would have to be pulled away from the border to deal with the riots.

[–] sit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 days ago

I have acquaintances who are invested in the Russian propaganda, and this is very possible.

It’s insane, talking about it does nothing as the root issues are others.

I can’t help them.

[–] trollercoaster@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Any sensible government would.

But for any government consisting of a bunch of greedy opportunists who are only in it in order to enrich themselves, there is endless opportunity to become very rich by fucking over the public even more than in peacetime.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

If it's an actual war they can throw their weight around just fine, idiots will just have to deal with it. Actually, that happened during covid too. I don't remember starving, just an every-increasing whinging in the background as the problem was dealt with efficiently.

[–] sircac@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago

It is not just for war, but disasters in general, imagine a colapse or jamming of internet network or credit card buying or isolation from a flood or erathquake, help and minimum delivery infrastructures may take easily 3 days in effectively reach the people in need, is a reasonable amount to recover from the shock having around in average the minimum to survive in the mean time. Worse problems will be waiting for solution but this could save lives and improve significantly circumstances.

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 12 points 5 days ago (1 children)

More likely they expect to be able to get support/reinforcement/aid in, within a couple of days.

It's big enough to be a useful stopgap, but small enough not to accidentally cause a run on the supermarkets. It also makes people think about it more. If they update it to 2 weeks later, people are more likely to have a feel for what they need, and what will keep.

[–] vxx@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

I think big part is that people would go out and empty the shelfs imediately if they all started stockpiling for two weeks starting tommorow.

I started getting a bit more everytime it was on sale about three years ago, and have a decent stockpile that probably lasts me for more than 4 weeks.. It's an art to not get too much so that you can eat it when it gets close to expiration date though, so it's better to not buy everything at once but to spread it out.

But in the end, canned food will likely last many more years than the expiration date suggests.

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

I've maintained a basic stock for a while now. I suspected people would panic buy with COVID. I stocked up well before, and so dodged most of it. I've kept an extra buffer since.

[–] SharkWeek@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 days ago

Just chipping in to say I ate a can of food that was made during WW2 in 1990, so yeah cans do keep for a long time ... when they get very old the trick is to shake the can before opening and if it sounds like there's air inside it's gone bad

[–] hakunawazo@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago

Some special military operations are planned like that 🙄

[–] rickyrigatoni@lemm.ee 2 points 4 days ago

A proper war lasts at least six days.

[–] Asfalttikyntaja@sopuli.xyz 4 points 5 days ago

Not war, but special military operation.

[–] Jimmycakes@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

They cant say the real number or it would cause panic. 3 is a sensible number people can get behind without causing a run on grocery.

[–] DonAntonioMagino@feddit.nl 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, everyone should stock up on a year’s supply of food, at the very least.

That’s how long a war will likely last, anyway.

[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 days ago

the problem is that you would need to eat canned food every other day to make sure it's not going bad

[–] SharkWeek@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 4 days ago

Yeah, I live halfway up a small mountain (in Europe) and usually have everything needed to survive a month, including if the water and power are cut.

We're currently putting together a pair of bug-out bags as well though, so we can be mobile in an emergency too

[–] CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 5 days ago

I think there's an AI generated chocolate beans meme hidden somewhere.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

Here we only have very short wars, because we've got other things to do.

[–] Lemmist@lemm.ee -1 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Do they usually make chocolate with meat in your country? :)

P.S. Please stop buying Coca Cola/Pepsi/etc. Look for local substitutions.

[–] CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de 22 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Wait, what do.you think "vegan" means?

[–] PostiveNoise@kbin.melroy.org 5 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Slightly less percentage of raw red meat in the final product, with cute packaging featuring the color green

[–] CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 5 days ago (1 children)
[–] PostiveNoise@kbin.melroy.org 11 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Joking, but not trying to troll

[–] CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

So jokes aside, do you really think veganism is just eating a little less meat of a certain type?

[–] PostiveNoise@kbin.melroy.org 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

No. Why do you assume I don't know what veganism is, after I already said I was joking? It's not eating animal food products, including not eating foods that contain some animal food products. Let's please finish this conversation...

[–] CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 5 days ago

This is the internet and a text based medium. It is absolutely possible that you don't know what veganism is. That's why I asked instead of assuming.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 5 days ago

In case it's not clear by now, chocolate sometimes has milk and I guess OP doesn't like dark chocolate.

[–] Lemmist@lemm.ee -4 points 5 days ago (1 children)
[–] Skua@kbin.earth 12 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That's "vegetarian". Veganism avoids all animal products (there's more to it than that, but that's the simple version), so the dairy in most chocolate is out

[–] CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Vegetarian is not just "without meat", it means "no animal has to die for me". That also technically excludes some cheeses as they contain rennet (although this is often overlooked due to nescience). Plus we're only talking food right now, not clothing and other lifestyle products.

[–] Aksamit@slrpnk.net 2 points 5 days ago (3 children)

It bothers me that vegetarians don't care beyond this very un-though-through concept of 'animals dying'.

Dairy is a product of the mass rape and imprisonment of cows in horrific factory farms, and chickens are also kept in massively over crowded and unsanitary conditions.

And this is not to mention the constant cullings of male animals, which aren't considered food as testosterone tastes so bad, and male animals can't produce eggs or milk.

Or the constant culling of animals that no longer produce eggs or milk to quota.

Or the mass culling of the diseased or at risk of disease from being forced to live in such disgusting environments.

Vegetarianism is not a moral stance, it's delusional and harms and kills animals at the same rate as eating both meat and dairy.

[–] CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I get what you want to say and principally, I agree. However, I would highly advise against making better the enemy of perfect. Vegetarians usually are on the right track, they're often just not educated enough, thinking that some animal products can be sourced ethically (as demonstrated by the other comment).
In my experience, vegetarianism often is just a waypoint towards veganism.

[–] Aksamit@slrpnk.net 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

In my experience, vegetarianism often is just a waypoint towards veganism.

If this were universally true, there would be a lot more vegans.

From my experience, vegetarians are more often than not, a way point towards eating meat again.

[–] CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 5 days ago

I didn't claim it was universally true.

[–] Irelephant@lemm.ee 2 points 4 days ago

In ireland, free range eggs are the norm, and most cows graze on actual fields. but, we have barely any wild areas anymore,.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I mean, plant agriculture isn't exactly great for wildlife either. Hell, being wildlife isn't great for wildlife. We theoretically could keep animals in a way that's fine for them, we just usually don't.

I eat a mix of free-range eggs and backyard eggs, and avoid milk where possible. Unfortunately the challenge scales pretty rapidly after that. Directly eating meat that can only be gotten in an unethical way feels a lot worse.

It’s delusional and harms and kills animals at the same rate as eating both meat and dairy.

How does the math on that work? Less animals harmed is less animals harmed.

[–] Aksamit@slrpnk.net -1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Free-range farming is barely a quality of life improvement over cages, look it up.

Only eating meat is only killing animals for meat.

Eating meat and dairy is both killing animals for meat, and raping and torturing animals for milk and eggs, which when these animals no longer produce to quota or become diseased, also gets them killed.

How is eating dairy harming fewer animals?

All animals livestock is unethical. There is no such thing as the ethical rape, torture and consumption of animals when humans can easily and cheaply live off plants. There is no excuse.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Eating meat but not eggs and dairy isn't even really in the discussion, though. If I tried it would be even harder than being vegan, because people wouldn't understand what I'm doing on top of it all.

All animals livestock is unethical. There is no such thing as the ethical rape, torture and consumption of animals when humans can easily and cheaply live off plants.

Sentence A does not follow from B.

[–] Aksamit@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Animal livestock is not required in the production of food from plants.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Nor does livestock husbandry require rape, torture and consumption of animals.

I'd buy pasture-raised eggs instead if they were sold anywhere near me, by the way. And didn't buy anything when I had my own hens.

[–] federalreverse@feddit.org 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

What do you do with all the useless male animals? In addition, the animal numbers don't work out either if animals are not killed regularly. You'd have a quasi-exponentially expanding farm, as cows go on to live 15 rather than 5 years and egg-laying chickens live to become 5 years rather than 1, except you can't squeeze milk or eggs from them at some point. And if you're at the point where you have to kill animals anyway, you may as well eat them.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Allowing old animals to retire would raise costs, but only proportionately. In my personal case, I inherited a flock, and they all died a natural death.

The breeding "process" as it exists is very problematic. There's research being done into hens that primarily give birth to more hens, but I'm not sure what progress has been made. The obvious other option is just to let them grow up, but now that I think of it roosters tend to fight each other anyway. Hmm, maybe I need to reassess chickens specifically.

Milk production could be stimulated with an injection. Bees make lots of honey.

Out of curiosity, what's your stance on wild animals? If you just want to pave everything over and have no non-human animals, there's an argument to be made for that. Usually when I talk to vegans their stance is more like animals should be allowed to live in some kind of natural state, and it's no problem when a wolf kills a stallion for certain abstract reasons. If I was a horse I'd much prefer pulling a cart.