- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
This article is about Germany rapidly increasing defence spending, and also the fact that they’re considering conscription. I also found this interesting:
A recent YouGov poll showed that 79% of Germans still see Vladimir Putin as “very” or “quite” dangerous to European peace and security. Now 74% said the same for Donald Trump.
Thoughts?
You must log in or register to comment.
Germany is pretty confused. They continued doing lucrative business with putin even long after he invaded Ukraine for the first time, but now they are arming against him. If they could only have stopped themselves from funding the russian military for decades then maybe they wouldn’t need to be funding theirs now.
Hopefully those soldiers won’t be deployed to build nord stream 3 in a couple of years.
You could say Germany isn’t unique though. The US is also split between those who want to be friendly with Russia (Republicans) and those who don’t (Democrats).
With Germany I guess Merkel believed that business ties with Russia would persuade Russia to not threaten Europe, but now that theory has been disproven, so Germans seem to be more supportive of the idea of cutting ties with Russia and boosting Germany’s defence spending.
Well, in reality its only a step back into the 80s when the Bundeswehr was quiet well armed, and one shouldn’t forget that the conscription was only put on hold in 2010 and never really abolished.
This time one right side of the history. Let’s hope.
Hey, we were on the right side last time too… politically
As an Alsatian, I just hop they keep the AFD in check for the foreseeable future !
Seeing what’s been going on since the election I don’t have high hopes
More like the AFD’s new arm
That seems an apt assessment.
~ $ apt assessment
E: Invalid operation assessment
~$ sudo apt assessmentUsername is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
I hate it here :(
Take a lap
I have many friends here in eu talking about Europe getting militant as a bad thing. I’m not for escalating conflict in any way, but would like to hear some alternatives.
Economic sanctions is one alternative. See North Korea. It doesn’t work very well against Russia because they do have a lot of resources and their population is used to scarcity. This tactic would be more efficient against, say USA, because quite frankly, the western lifestyle is not self-sufficient.
Another alternative is to use Putin’s own “special military operations” where instead of fighting a war front to front, they attack specific targets or throw people out of windows.
This is difficult for Europe to do, because we like to align with each other before doing anything serious. That way, actual democracies are not fit to do this kind of stuff in comparison to a dictatorship, but it’s possible if anyone feels it’s necessary. However it rarely has a positive outcome. It’s like flipping the table and hoping something better comes up.
Overall, all agressive behavior leads to a losing position. Nobody has ever won a war or even a street fight. Both sides lose. The victory goes to those who wins the peace. So that’s what Europe is constantly trying to do by diplomacy.
Even if I dislike spending ressources on military, it might make sense to armour up, just to keep a seat at the table of peace negotiation.
Tnx man, hope people on top feel the same.
It’s a difficult topic but I believe the voices against it are just as important as the voices for it to keep it in check.
There really is no alternative. History (especially in Europe) has proven a near infinite amount of times that peace through strength is the only language imperialistic dictatorships understand.
Appease them and they will see that as an encouragement to come for you.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Paradox of tolerance.
But counterargument is europe has a history of imperialism, although it’s probably the most socialist part of the world.
Every part of the world has a history of imperialism. Europe just happened to be the part that developed the tools to do it on the biggest scale, and the continent eventually burned itself down with them
China has had several of the biggest empires in history. So has India, so has Iran. Peru was once the seat of one of the biggest empires, and so was Mongolia. The Songhai and Mali empires were enormous. Ethiopia, the one part of Africa that kept outside conquerors out the longest, was itself a massive empire. Tonga once subjugated most of the other Pacific Islands.
The European empires inflicted a horrific amount of suffering, and they aren’t completely gone. The mindset that created them, unfortunately, has been present in just about every society for all of history
Well worded!
We either get militant, or we get steamrolled by those that already are.
2020s repeat the 1920s bingo: The red scare is back
The only things red in Russia are the blood on Putin’s hands and a third of its flag.
Just because you might call yourself militant doesnt mean that you need to querfront with all militants. Militancy is simply a tool.
How does a strong military prevent a war? It didn’t work WW1 or 2.
I see your attempt of derailing, but I’ll play the game.
How does appeasement prevent a war? It didn’t work for the First or Second World War.
You are just naive in thinking that weapons can prevent a war.
You are just naive in thinking that querfronts can prevent a war.
I never said that I think weapons prevent wars.
Wars with erratic actors like Putin cannot be prevented, because certainty of peace is built on trust, but Putin cannot be trusted.
What does prevent your stuff from getting stolen all the time? Your ability to lock your door and a state-operated police and judical system that oversees the adherence to laws or the sign over your open door that everyone can come in an take your stuff unpunished?
What does prevent an agressive neighbour with no regards to laws from invading you? The ability to defend yourself making an attempt too costly or your active work on being as helpless as possible and appeasing the aggressor?
Yes a state judical system, but not you holding your neightbor at gunpoint, but that is basically what militarism is advocationg for on an international level.
If you will you contradicted your 2nd part of your post with the first one.
No, there isn’t a contradiction in the argument. There is one in reality: There is no independent authority (police force/judical system) making countries accountable for breaking the law. We tried to build up something comparable on the judical side of things but those still lack the ability to enforce their rulings.
So it boils down to “fortifying your door” and being able to defend it against the few people really determined to tear it down.
Well, you got the first part right.
I don’t think bolstering up defence spending is bad.
It is much better to be prepared than sorry, also negotiating from a strong standpoint is helpful towards some other nations.
The EU defense spending is already massive, easily outclassing everyone but the US.
The problem is on what the money is spend on, as much is wasted to national white elephants or transferred to unreliable US defense companies.
And in general way too much is spend on global force projection tech. There is for example no need for the EU to have a navy fleet that can operate independently for many months in the Pacific.
China is up there too, with U.S. $236.1 billion in 2024.
There is for example no need for the EU to have a navy fleet that can operate independently for many months in the Pacific.
So Tahiti or New Caledonia do not need a navy to be protected. I am sure the French will be exited by having part of their country not being protected by the EU.
Now add all the EU defense spending together. But yes, China is trying to catch up, which isn’t great either.
Those French overseas colonies would probably benefit from more independence, yes, but if you have an actual military base there or an ally that wants you to be there, you don’t need navy ships capable of operational multi-month independence either. That is really only needed if operating in hostile territory far away from home, and IMHO we don’t need that.
Yes, but EU defense spending now is a hundred billion higher and is projected to increase by another hundred billion by 2027. That double of what China is currently spending, and AFAIK they don’t have plans to increase it by that much.
The budget, which adds up to about $245 billion, was announced at the National People’s Congress, the annual meeting of China’s legislature. The Pentagon and many experts say China’s total spending on defense may be 40% higher or more because of items included under other budgets.
That is for this years budget…
https://apnews.com/article/china-defense-budget-taiwan-4ac7cbdc7d5b889732cd55916ff7eb36
I’m curious. Please ask them for alternatives to fighting back when Russia invades and report back.
Thing is: Militarism is also no solution to avoid WW3, however people wanting more troops and weapons are hardly question if that is really an effective solution.
Leftist parties in my small country in Western Europe are mainly advocating for more diplomacy.
They’re generally on board with the idea that NATO expanded too much eastwards, undoing a promise made after the fall of the USSR. So they seem to view Russian attacks on Georgia, Crimea and now the rest of Ukraine as a logical consequence. With enough diplomatic maneuvering, they believe the situation can be resolved in a peaceful manner.
There never was such a promise, it was one diplomat who sid that and it was pulled back almost immediately. And most of all, there never was anything close to official or formal offered in that direction.
And that a country does not like a defense union, that was founded to manage their aggressions shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.
The only one responsible for Russia’s aggression is Russia itself.
Here’s my perspective as a non-European watching this shitshow unfold: That’s fucking stupid. I mean NATO is a defensive alliance so what the shit?
The parties I talk about are not a fan of NATO, let that be clear. NATO has multiple authoritarian regimes under its wings, not only Trump but also Erdogan and Orban. Meloni’s Italy is not too far off either, so I suppose that makes it hard for leftist parties to get behind it.
That’s fair.
I understand Russia’s reasoning, but without punching power we are at mercy of those who have it. Russia went from a insignificant poor country with nukes in the 90s back to main player worldwide today, mainly by weakening the other side with information warfare.
Next to diplomacy, punching power can very well come in an economic form, e.g. still multiple tens of billions of euros flow to Russia to purchase fossil fuels.
That’s a very artful headline. It’s really bouncing around in my head.
deleted by creator
What da fuq? No! Don’t they learn anything from last century?
I’m not really sure that we Germans have decided that.
We havent left the past behind us. We embrace it and make sure this wont happen again!
Removed by mod
Yeah keep eating up the propaganda of how air defense, submarines and ships -that carry the aforementioned air-defense- (about 90%+ of all military deliveries to Israel) are used to genocide Palestinians and is totally not defense against actual hostile neighbours.
PS Also actual stuff classified as “weapons” in those military deliveries of the last years consist (after striking of training ammunition and some explosives for testing purposes in military development) one single order. One. That was for anti-tank weapons (source: the International Court of Justice, as cited for example here.)
Yes, I know… actual details are always bad for keeping some ideological black and white view of reality. But you can in fact criticise the pseudo fascist fanatics in the Israelian government and their genocidal idiocy and not support their action in Gaza while at the same time acknowledging that this does not take away from the fact that Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself against the very real threats in their neighbourhood.
This comment is absolute proof Germany is already fully fascist.
“Fascism is when someone argues with actual facts that don’t support my narrative.”
I get what you’re trying to say, but the thing about submarines is that you need them as a third element of the triad.
Is international law propaganda now? I’ve only heard Zionists say that. Are the headlines of UN health workers found buried with their hands tied behind their backs propaganda?
“Israel has a right to exist” is one of the biggest red herrings in political discourse. It’s phrased to portray an abuser as a victim.
Israel does not have the right to do what it’s doing now according to international law. Peaceful protestors in Germany have the weight of heavy handed policing coming down on them for this subject alone, exclusive of other subjects. Even a meeting with Francesca Albenese turned nasty - not at the hands of the group, but the German state.
There’s more to just weaponry to a genocide, and Germany is complicit. So next time you’re pontificating about facts, don’t forget to include all of them. And check your definition of “propaganda”.
Is international law propaganda now?
No international law is international law.
The international court is interpreting international law.
Crying about Germany’s support of a genocide while the International Court of Justice (and thus international law) disagrees -and lists factual reasons for their decision- however is either desinformation or a lie.
Help me out here… What do you call desinformation/lies spread to further your agenda again?
The ICJ has not ruled that genocide isn’t happening though, has it. Please show me where it does and I will happily wait. It has ruled that there is a plausible case for genocide and that Israel must take steps to prevent it. That is why the case is ongoing. The fact that you’re misrepresenting this ruling as a dismissal of genocide claims is, in fact, disinformation.
Germany is one of Israel’s largest arms suppliers. War crimes and crimes against humanity don’t only require bombs and bullets—they also require the financial and logistical infrastructure that Germany helps provide during the assault on Gaza.
People have a right to live in safety and dignity. That includes Palestinians, who are being systematically displaced, starved, and slaughtered. Germany’s repression of peaceful protest against this is another sign of its complicity.
If you’re truly so invested in “factual reasons,” then you should engage with the actual content of international rulings and human rights reports rather than dismissing criticism as propaganda. It’s an irresponsible way to conduct online discourse.
Correct. They have ruled that Germany is not taking part in it. Because 91% of the deliveries to Israel for years consist of ships, anti-air and torpedos for their submarines (while the remaining stuff is armor, armored glass, protective gear -funny how helmets are a joke when delivered to Ukraine but a weapon to genocide Palestinians when they are going to Israel, isn’t it?- etc and in fact all “weapons” that are potentially to be used in Gaza were in fact reduced to zero.
Yet the narrative is important and so you will always return to “Germany being a big supplier for Israel”, constantly ignoring that we know what they actually supplied. And will twist my words as somehow being an argument against a genocide happening, when I did explicitly talk about the fact that Germany is supporting that genocide.
If you are so keen on “factual reasons” please tell me were my facts are wrong or how Israel is dropping corvettes on Gaza. (Yes that phrasing is polemic to make a point. You are free to do the same, if you actually have a point beyond I don’t want to acknowledge what doesn’t fit my narrative.
