Europe
News and information from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- 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.
- 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 When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title.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.
- 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.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- 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).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in !yurop@lemm.ee. (They're cool, you should subscribe there too!)
- 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.
- 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.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: RT, news-pravda:com, GB News, Fox, Breitbart, Daily Caller, OAN, sociable:co, citjourno:com, brusselssignal:eu, europesays:com, geo-trends:eu, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media. Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 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 primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org
view the rest of the comments
The Moscow middle class are about to get a very real taste of the war.
Not quite, unfortunately.. these cruise missiles donβt have the range to cover the distance to Moscow. Perhaps another exploratory excursion into the Kursk region might be necessary?
Youβre likely right, but one can still dream!
A world without Putin and Russian aggression, a peaceful and prosperous Ukraine..
Dropping a $4M warhead on a $40k home, then complaining because you've run out of ammo again.
And westerners wonder why their military leadership keeps losing wars.
I was unaware Russia is considered western
Bring up a picture of King George V and Tsar Nicholas II.
It's Hapsburgs all the way down.
You realize Russia asked their Hapsburgs to leave quite a while ago, right? During one of those big family fueds. They were quite insistent about it, too, even more so than the French.
Trying to ignore how the current United Russia movement has joined at the hip with the Italians, the Germans, the French, the Brits, and the Americans all begging to align around a new anti-Muslim Axis of Fascism is blindingly obtuse.
Hell, the one thing it seems all of these countries agree on is how much they support Palestinian Genocide. What Russia has done to Ukraine is just another facet of the European desire to ethnically cleanse the rest of the planet.
Lol
Since this is your honest concern, I hope you won't complain if Russian damages exceed Western donations.
I think we're way past the point of complaining. The entire region seems intent on industrialized murder-suicide thanks to decades of US warmongering. The only way out of this is via a sealed box car and a junior officers revolt.
Military budgets are placed based on the value of what they're protecting (physical assets, economic activity, etc), not based on the wealth of the people who could destroy your assets/activities.
That's not even remotely true. The military budget has no correlation with changes in GDP.
The US has pressured Europe for decades to spend 2% of their GDP on defense.
Trump seems to have finally broken them.
NATOβs Rutte says he assumes alliance will agree on 5% spending target
The MIC is going to be in the money now. Good news for Boeing.
As someone in defense, Boeing sucks.
Regardless, my point was just that spending targets were indeed pegged to GDP.
The EU is not growing its GDP at anywhere near 5% outside of Malta. Average across the bloc is 1.2%
During the boom years of the 90s, Europe (and the US) were cutting defense spending not raising them. It was only during big downturns that we saw them ratchet the military spending up again.
If MIC spending is anything, it is counter-cyclical.
Growth of GDP is irrelevant. The article you linked doesn't say that they are increasing spending targets by 5%. The article said they are increasing spending targets from 2% of GDP to 5% of GDP. They are increasing spending targets by 150%.
Look, defense spending isn't a monotonic relationship with GDP. It's a risk assessment taking into account the value of your assets and activities as well as the size of the threat faced. In the 90s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was basically no large threat to the international US-led order. The US still had to maintain a base level of funding to squash upstarts (pirates, ...Iraq), but the safety of high value assets and activity could be insured with much less funding.
Your initial argument was that spending on defense ought to be on par with the value of the threat faced, which makes no sense. Spending on defense is insurance to protect what makes you money. You don't price flood insurance for your home on the cost of that many gallons of water. You price it based on the value of your home and the likelihood of it flooding.
This was the period during which Vladimir Putin rapidly rose from Mayor of Leningrad, through the ranks of the FSB, and into the Russian Presidency. Seemingly with the full endorsement and support of US business interests and European political allies in the region. It was also the decade during which Islamic-lead reactionary violence was breaking out all across West Africa and Central Asia.
Given the US/EU response following 9/11, I have to assume a large threat existed. Unless, of course, you want to argue the response to 9/11 - and subsequent violent acts committed by Muslim minority groups - was overly exaggerated and unnecessary.
My initial argument was that western terminally online war-hawks love the pastiche of war far more than the prosecution of it. So they'll clap like seals when they see an image of a $4M warhead striking a $40k homestead, without bothering to consider what purpose terror bombings of civilian targets could possibly accomplish.
You've gone through a long-winded argument defending the aggressive uptick in NATO bloc military spending to justify the enormous sums spent on sloppily managed, incompetently executed war-crimes, by tying it back to the need to defend a declining European economy.
We could go back to the 1990s and rethink how the Western states handled their sudden, nearly bloodless, total victory over European Soviet Governments. But it seems the only real lesson anyone is drawing from the collapse of the Gorbachev Era government is "We should have Exterminated the Brutes sooner!"
I'm not here to defend every action of Western militaries or which regional conflicts they paid attention to and which they ignore.
I have a hard time buying your claim that because Putin would invade Crimea some 20 years later, that he should have registered as a threat to the West in the 90s. Even if that were true, then you would simply be finding error in the risk analysis I am asserting is done in defining a military budget, not disproving that it's done.
Again, the relative value of the bombs to the homes being bombed is still a stupid means of illustrating your point. And everyone in this thread agrees with you that terror bombings of civilians doesn't work (and is cruel/ inhumane), but they disagree that is the intent of the West/ Ukraine here. So go make that point on YouTube video comments with computer jockeys nutting themselves over drone strikes in Afghanistan.
Yes I think the NATO build up is justified. Russia has proven its willingness to invade its neighbors, so the likelihood portion of the risk analysis is high. Additionally, at least for the US, China's substantial military build-up portends conflict in the South China Sea and the broader South Pacific. There's a reason Australia is our new military BFF. None of that means waste/ war-crimes/ Boeing are justified, obviously. But you are trolling, so I think I'm done here.
Lastly, not sure how you are suggesting the West is responsible for or should have prevented the chaos that followed the Soviet collapse or Russia turning into an aggressor state, but it's all irrelevant to your original point that I took issue with.
Putin's repression of Russian locals, particularly non-white and non-Christian locals, combined with his invasion of Chechnya and other contributions to the Bush War on Terror, signaled his intent to prosecute a fascist dictatorship through the rest of his rein.
Americans were happy with Russian oligarchs and tyrants working to suppress liberal dissidents and persecute ethnic and religious minorities for a full decade.
They didn't see Putin as a threat because they didn't think he would ever threaten their corner of the map, not because they thought Russia was defanged.
When half of NATO is aligning to the Russian end of the map, I can wait to see the consequences.