this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2024
52 points (91.9% liked)

World News

38554 readers
2551 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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 !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


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
 

Both NATO and the EU want to spend a €100 billion on defense — and that’s leading to clashes between the two Brussels-based institutions.

The European Union is donning its camouflage pants and flexing its muscles on defense. NATO isn’t happy. 

For years, the two Brussels-based institutions have barely communicated when it comes to defense, except for some military cooperation in areas like the Balkans — because they haven’t had to. Defense was NATO’s turf (it is a military alliance, after all), while the EU dealt with trade, farming, climate change and things like standards for heritage cheeses. 

It was summed up by a catchphrase popular in military circles: “The U.S. fights, the U.N feeds, the EU funds.”

That’s now changing.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] athos77@kbin.social 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I've been angry for a while, that the EU hasn't seemed to take Ukraine's defense too seriously (or at least once it became clear it would be a slogging war). They've given old weapons, and pitched in money to buy munitions and stuff, but it's been clear from close to the start that the lack of munitions-building capacity was a big block, on both sides.

Instead of setting up new munitions factories, the EU has been content to send out old materiel, place orders from the same places everyone else is trying to order from, and let the States fraud the lead for European security. And Russia has used those exact same two years to set up munitions factories and secure supply chains from China, India, North Korea and Iran. It took eight months of Republicans dithering on Ukraine aid for the EU to finally step up and say, "Hey, maybe we should build a munitions factory!" -- and it'll be another two years before it's up and running.

I keep coming back to something one of the Ukrainians (not Zelenskyy, maybe the head of the Army?) said in the fall of 2022: something like the West is sending Ukraine barely enough weapons to defend itself, but not enough to win. And if it comes down to a war of attrition, Russia's resources will last much longer than the attention spans of Ukraine's allies.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 4 months ago

I honestly can't find any recent information on Gripens for Ukraine. Sweden suggested they would do that if they got into NATO, and they have.