Europe Is Making a Big Mistake • Cutting social spending to fund defence spending is shortsighted, at best.
Posted by Naurgul@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 207 comments
leto78@reddit
Europe cannot afford to not increase military spending. What it can afford is to stop focusing its military on any type of military operations outside of the European theatre. Furthermore, the US is focusing their efforts on the Pacific theatre, which has a very different set of requirements from a near-peer land war in Europe.
As for social welfare, the situation is not like in the UK where everything is failing apart. In a lot of European countries, we are talking about cutting the very generous social welfare system to something more sustainable.
The elephant in the room is that social welfare programmes tend to have less support from the population as the recipients of that welfare become more diverse, i.e. with more immigration, there is diminished support for social welfare programmes benefiting first and second generation immigrants.
chowderbags@reddit
They also become less popular when they get cut despite people still paying the same amount of taxes, all so that the continent can be ready to fight off a country that can't even convincingly invade a significantly smaller neighbor.
It seems like some people in this thread think that Russia could just march into the EU unopposed, even though in reality the EU's collective military budget is already twice Russia's military budget.
leto78@reddit
The problem is not a full invasion but rather a nibble around the borders with threat of full out war in concessions are not made.
chowderbags@reddit
What borders would Russia be able to "nibble on" in the EU that wouldn't be considered an invasion?
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
So given the real problems Europe has:
Climate change
aging population
de industrialization and economic stagnation
You are going to spend a bunch of money on some aircraft and tanks you will never use?
leto78@reddit
Europe will never use, if it spends the money to deter any threats. There is no point of worrying about other problems if you get invaded and lose the territory to Russia.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
What threats?
There are no threats.
Is Russia supposed to be a threat? Looks like they can’t even take Ukraine.
leto78@reddit
Russia could push for a land bridge to Kaliningrad, isolating the baltic states to a full Russian invasion.
Winjin@reddit
They can't do anything with a NATO-backed proxy, taking on USA as part of actual NATO will be a death sentence, plus all the European armies that didn't slack off for years like Poland and Finland and Turkey at the very least
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
It makes zero sense. I don’t get it.
The same people who are screeching about Russia getting stonewalled by Ukraine and taking massive losses are the same ones arguing Russia is a threat?
Winjin@reddit
Eh, it's probably the same teenagers that demanded Russians go storm Kremlin with bricks and bare fists and are now sitting out the Trump insanity.
Maybe posting angry anonymous letters online or like... Participating in a rally.
Plus it's the classic "enemy is simultaneously strong and weak" and all that jazz.
MattcVI@reddit
Unfortunately it's not just teens doing that keyboard warrior BS. And it's easy for them to call for others to risk their freedom and safety, whereas a lot of them are in such a position where if they just keep their heads down they won't really suffer under Trump's admin
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
Which is ironically a textbook indication of fascism according to Umberto Eco.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism
Winjin@reddit
Yeah, this is wild that it's default Reddit definition of Russia basically.
A completely incompetent, impotent country with "second best army in Russia" that is also changing the elections in EU and USA and is a grave danger to EU countries, while being poor and deluded and with non-existent weaponry
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
No they couldn’t. Lol. Is that a joke?
I mean come in dude.
leto78@reddit
That is definitely the most likely outcome. It is not just some random dude on the Internet. If you read all those western think tanks and analysts and see the NATO exercises, the kinetic engagement with the highest likelihood is the land bridge to Kaliningrad.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
All the Western think tanks are funded by arms manufacturers.
So hmmmm. I wonder why they keep saying “hey we need to buy more tanks and planes.” - brought to you by Lockheed Martin
So I wouldn’t trust what they have to say since they have a direct financial interest.
It’s pretty funny that people don’t even recognize this. Like is it really that easy to dupe people?
And it’s the exact same thing with NATO.
That is an organization created to fight a war against Russia. Obviously they are going to say their purpose is still relevant.
hauntedSquirrel99@reddit
The problem with that is that we literally cannot.
Europe is not self-sufficient. We need imports. Particularly we need energy and we need food. International imports through the suez and through africa.
We either secure our trade routes or, god forbid, we risk they close.
OsgrobioPrubeta@reddit
The problem is that even at a European level the equipment is also NATO equipment, so even if European countries wanted to use it in a non-NATO situation, has to pass by NATO->US.
I would like to see that generous welfare that you mentioned, except on a few countries that represent the minority of European population.
So people shouldn't vote for their own interests? Or only some, preferably the ones you like and belong to? /s
dontneedaknow@reddit
You either play the game as the lapdog of the US or you play it on your own. Russia has fought a three day war for over three years using world war 1 tactics. The US flies bombers across the world.
I hate it, but facts are facts and reality is real.
Europe is in the process of being abandoned by the US. Social welfare might be the least of your problems in Europe soon enough...
And I hate how stupidly jingoist it makes me sound but truth is better than fictions.
Beat_Saber_Music@reddit
A military is an insurance policy that maintains stability and deters a war that would be much more costly than sustaining peace time spending. Additionally it has to be noted many European states were built off the needs of large militaries as warfare built up modern European states and institutions over centuries.
With Russia next door, a military is a necessity. Also the military can provide economic benefits to easily forgotten border or rural regions such as through barracks. I know that in Finland the city of Kouvola benefits immensely from the local barrack as result of the weekly transit of young men doing their military service buying from the down town shops, bars and food places on their way to and from the barracks.
chowderbags@reddit
Well, until the politicians and generals get a bright idea that having the military sitting around at home doing fuck all for a few decades looks bad, so they start finding some foreign adventure to take troops to so that they can justify their budget.
Is it though? Russia's military hasn't proven itself to be particularly competent or tough, and they seem to have plenty of logistical issues just trying to invade their literal next door neighbor. The risk to Germany or France is fuck all. I'm not saying the EU shouldn't have some kind protection, but people act like if a war breaks out the EU needs to be able to march to be able to invade Moscow within a week.
This is at the level of saying the government should go around breaking some windows so that glass manufacturers can have economic benefits.
Beat_Saber_Music@reddit
To the first point, most European states don't have the capacity or interest to carry out any notable military operations abroad, while in the case of stronger countries like France their electoral systems of power known as democracy ensure that conflicts with absolutely minimal casualties in the context of historical wars are unpopular because a few soldiers die. In the US case also you have a very strong executive which is fairly stronger than most European executives so getting elected parliaments to approve a military operation woumd be a nightamre for all but defensive campaigns generally, or quite limited military campaigns like in the case of France.
To your second point, the benefit of a strong military is that Russia only understands force, and its perception of Ukrainian weakness is what made it think it can win a "3 day special military operation". A bully will not back down until he understands his actions will result in getting punched too hard for the bullying to be worth it. A strong military is the message to Russia that invading will absolutely cost much more than it's worth. The reason Finland wasn't invaded while Ukriane was specifically in part due to Finland having a much stronger military compared to how little Russia woudl gain from its conquest, where as Ukraine seemed like to Putin something which could be overrun in days and gain massively from it.
To the third point a barrack is not equivalent to a broken window. A barrack is a military infrastructure investment which creates demand for local shops through bringing in conscripts or service men to do trainign and who in turn use their earned money paying at the local cafes, restaurants and bars. Only open warfare and related expenses equal to your point about breaking windows, because building new barracks or paying people for being trained at these places to my understanding isn't destroying something on its own
chowderbags@reddit
America is (or at least was until recently) a democracy. It still managed to find plenty of wars to involve itself in for reasons that were dubious at best.
I don't know. I just find it doubtful that a country's leadership is going to have a military strong enough to engage in a large war sitting around for decades without feeling like they have to use it for something, even just to justify the budget.
Ok. Ukraine's military budget circa 2021 was equivalent to around 7 billion USD. The EU's current combined military budget is 40 times that. Even with the ramped up military budget of Ukraine today, the EU still has 4 times the military budget. Russia's not nearly stupid enough to think that invading any EU country would be remotely successful.
The Parable of the Broken Window
Basically, the problem is that the money that's taxed in order to pay for the soldiers, the barracks, or whatever else doesn't come from nothing. It's a drain on other parts of the economy, even if it's just a little bit from everyone. Not to mention, the people who are acting as soldiers probably aren't being productive in an economic sense. Even if you really thought it was worth it to have the government tax and spend to create a better economy for the rural regions, then instead of housing soldiers you could house a government run civilian construction corps that builds infrastructure, parks, and tourist infrastructure. Heck, if a war doesn't happen then from an economic perspective you might as well just send those rural people money directly, and skip the middle step of soldiers.
Tricky_Weight5865@reddit
No, it makes you sound like you live in the reality. The state of European armies 3 years ago was disguisting. There are 2 ways to guarantee the safety of Eastern European member states. Either increase defence spending and commitment to defense or give every country on the frontline with Russia nuclear weapons with free use in case of an invasion.
You cant negotiate with Russia from any other position than position of strength.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
This is, as the article says, a huge mistake.
Paranoia is festering in Europe. Suddenly they are seeing some big threat from a country with hay can’t even conquer Ukraine.
Either they are a threat or they aren’t. Pick one.
But Europe is going to figure out why America does not have free healthcare.
SilverDiscount6751@reddit
As a canadian, free healthcare is about 1/4 of everything i earn and its fucking hard to see a doc for minor issues that still prevent me from working (like an ear infection, which would be a 5min thing with s doctor).
chowderbags@reddit
Exactly. The Russian military just isn't that strong, and it's the only real threat on Europe's doorstep. Who else is even in a position to cause trouble in a way that would threaten Europe proper?
But you just know that if military budgets increase, it's going to mean that some generals and politcians are going to start getting itchy trigger fingers and start looking for wars to deploy troops to, otherwise people are going to start asking real questions about why Europe built a big army only to have it sitting around at home the whole time.
Realistically, if Europe wants to protect itself from world events, it would be in a significantly better position if it invested most of that military money into making its infrastructure and economy run more on renewable energy. Imagine how nice it would be to not have to worry about whatever shit's affecting Middle Eastern oil production or if Europe didn't have to worry about Russian gas imports getting cut off.
Novareason@reddit
Nobody has "free healthcare", it's subsidized by taxes. USA doesn't have that, not because we lack the money, but because healthcare corporations refuse to cede a profitable market to the government, and they control congress through aggressive lobbying. USA has plenty of money for it... just direct the premiums paid to health insurance companies directly to health providers, and we'd be able to afford all the stuff they deny, too.
TL;DR lack of funds isn't why US doesn't have universal healthcare, lack of political will is.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
Right and the only reason why we still have healthcare corporations is because previously we had to spend money on defense.
Truman wanted to create a universal single payer social security type system.
He couldn’t because defense spending was as given priority.
Johnson wanted Medicare to be universal but he had to settle for over 65 because defense spending prevented a universal program.
dontneedaknow@reddit
tax dollars that you go to prison if you don't pay..?
I dunno what sort of view you have on currency or the dollar itself..
It's value is set by the government, and it is also printed by the government. There is no value to it outside of the status quo usage for the time being as it is.
and you didn't volunteer taxes, you never saw the money anyways unless you own a business.
just for perspective, not an attack.
Novareason@reddit
Value for money is not set by governments, it's set by international markets. I have no idea why you think it matters whether you personally pay the government or not, in the context of my comment.
Professional-Way1216@reddit
What's there for EU to negotiate with Russia that they need a position of strength ? You don't really need a strong military to negotiate trade agreements.
Namika@reddit
Trade agreements didn't save Ukraine
b0_ogie@reddit
Ukraine severed trade relations with Russia in favor of the EU, destroying its economy. It was the rupture of trade relations that added a significant percentage to the school that allowed the war to begin.
loggy_sci@reddit
Russia enacted a trade embargo with Ukraine when it tried to turn toward the EU.
Absolute_Satan@reddit
Ukraine's economy before the war did as well as before 2014 when they lost a lot of mining and a tourist hotspot as well as 20% of their territory.
Professional-Way1216@reddit
Well no, but we are talking about EU, so what's there for EU to negotiate by needing a position of strength ?
Tricky_Weight5865@reddit
Thats literally what EU thought before 2022 :D How did it work out?
Professional-Way1216@reddit
So what's there for EU to negotiate with Russia that they need a military position of strength ? What happened to EU in 2022 ? Did Russia invade EU ?
Tricky_Weight5865@reddit
The peace in Ukraine obviously? Of course it doesnt translate 1:1 as Ukraine is the battlefield but European military strength is still needed.
Like whats your point? How on earth can you suggest Europe doesnt need a strong military after what happened 3 years ago. Thats beyond me.
Professional-Way1216@reddit
The point is EU military strength is not relevant for Ukraine negotiations.
hauntedSquirrel99@reddit
>The state of European armies 3 years ago was disguisting.
To be clear.
The state of european armies 3 years ago, or even today for that matter, is that they are fictional.
Aggravating-Scale-21@reddit
It is ridiculous that German companies produce weapons for all of the Western world while Germany itself is so poorly armed. There is no other choice but to remilitarise, and as far as I understand, the coalition's plan is to borrow, not drastically cut social spending
Invinciblez_Gunner@reddit
Germany remilitarising is never a good thing
moonorplanet@reddit
Germany remilitarising while nationalist and far-right politics on the rise is going to be a fascinating watch.
GuitarIsLife02@reddit
Especially with all the anti immigration going on in Germany that is a shite combo.
dontneedaknow@reddit
It's scary enough to have the reins of the US in the hands of mad men, I shudder at a new Germany forced to rearm finding itself also riding a similar boat once again.
I think people are hoping for a "hero" (gods/aliens) and that sentiment is a breeding ground for terrible people to do terrible things but have broad support at the time for it.
OsgrobioPrubeta@reddit
How do you pay? There's no free money and European countries debt is already increasing, because of that many are removing social benefits and increasing retirement ages.
Fill yourself of weaponry and cut people's rights and quality of living, that worked well at URSS and now US.
Remember how Putin got into power, or even Trump.
Aggravating-Scale-21@reddit
For the longest time German money was the "free money" for European countries. Hopefully budget revenue will increase due to the investment in the military and infrastructure.
You fail to understand that the choice is not between getting your Bürgergeld and incresing military spending. It's between repeating the fate of Ukraine and increased military spending
OsgrobioPrubeta@reddit
Get a notion on reality, Germany never gave free money to anyone.
Ah? Germany is subsidizing it! What revenue?!?
Yeah, minutes ago I had a bunch of Russians passing by my street... /s
Aggravating-Scale-21@reddit
You should get a grip on reality, no one is saying Russian army will reach Germany or the Iberian peninsula soon, but there will be no social programmes if we have to support not one country (Ukraine), but the Baltics as well in their war efforts against invaders. Can you ever think beyong your immediate needs?
OsgrobioPrubeta@reddit
Lol.
If Russia wanted to start a war in Europe, attacking a NATO country, one of the firsts countries to be attacked would be my own.
Look at a map. “Maybe" that's why we keep chasing away Russian ships from our coast and sea, weekly...
Ignorant fed social-media user, no wonder most parrot away the same crap without any knowledge.
While you're there still using Russian oil and gas, serving your own interests, we are the ones spending millions every year chasing away Russian ships and airplanes.
Hypocrite, was your country that got in bed with Russia.
Hypocrite, was your country that kept doing business after Crimean invasion.
Hypocrite, was your country that pushed Putin acceptance at EU.
I could go on...
BuzLightbeerOfBarCmd@reddit
How and why would Putin attack Portugal?
You realise they send ships and planes everywhere to test responses and such?
dontneedaknow@reddit
Someone made a video on YouTube recently postulating some sort of upending in Iberia, I never watched cause it seemed outlandish and unserious. but I saw it and perhaps the video did take itself seriously after all...
or correlation is not causation. whichever.
OsgrobioPrubeta@reddit
First look at a map, then use brains.
No, they only send to points of interest.
BuzLightbeerOfBarCmd@reddit
No, tell me how you think Russia is going to get an invasion army to Portugal without going through anyone else. And then tell me why.
OsgrobioPrubeta@reddit
For many purposes, they don't need to invade, only to destroy. Then there's the question of air and sea, and for that they only need to destroy even more, while controlling them, without having to invade, or having minimal ground troops.
Again, look at a map, preferably to the round version. When you want to stop an enemy, specially one with nasty weapons like USA, you try to stop them far away.
For the us to bomb Iran, they had to use our Azores base to station fueling airplanes for the bombers.
Aggravating-Scale-21@reddit
So what is you problem exactly? Now we are spending money on weapons and divesting from Russian gas. Isn't that what ypu want? I didn't want hald the things implemented by our government...
OsgrobioPrubeta@reddit
My problem is with ignorance and distortion, specially when people like you badmouth others for doing less than you did, or trying to imply nonsenses like Germany giving money to others.
Germany never gave a cent to anyone, under-compensated other countries for what they were giving away to Germans interests. Same with other European rich countries.
EugeneStonersDIMagic@reddit
It's insanity.
IWantMyYandere@reddit
Which is what Trump was pushing on his 1st term. Trump threatened to leave NATO if EU doesnt rearm.
Ironically, if EU followed him then Russia might've not invaded Ukraine.
Absolute_Satan@reddit
Honestly assassinating about 1000 people would solve most European and almost all of russias problems
elperuvian@reddit
Neither with America, the super powers (and Russia) just understand strength
Ronaldo_Frumpalini@reddit
Suspicious how OP did not list or push for solutions but threw up as many reasons for Europe to stay militarily weak as possible. Culture of pacifism, "sumptuous payouts" to the defense sector? Dude/bot is just hoping something will stick.
Turgius_Lupus@reddit
How is that two day anti terrorist operation that started in 2014 going?
dontneedaknow@reddit
what?
Turgius_Lupus@reddit
Or how about the hours long Anti Terrorist operation?
https://www.mainepublic.org/2014-05-26/ukraines-poroshenko-says-hell-restore-peace-in-east
dontneedaknow@reddit
I'm sorry but Russia astroturfing a rebellion in Donbass and Luhansk, and then using that as a pretense for an escalation to take the whole country is only on Russia.
Turgius_Lupus@reddit
Illogical. If Russia wanted that region they would have taken it in 2014, and wouldn't have tried to make Minsk work for a near decade.
dontneedaknow@reddit
I'm not here to debate lol.
You are demonstrably not very loyal to notions of honesty or have no business worrying about such matters because near a decade is something I expect a child to say.
Minsk was in effect for months..
Otherwise hostilities were ongoing.
And Why the fuck was Russia involved in a Ukrainian uprising anyways?
Give it a rest.. It might work on you. but we are not the same.
Turgius_Lupus@reddit
Why the fuck in the U.S involved in Kosovo? Libya? or Syria anyways?
Have you perhaps considered that maybe Ukraine was doing things like this, and the people there actually don't want to be part of it anymore?
https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-unspun-luhansk-blast/25410384.html
dontneedaknow@reddit
why the fuck were serbians being all serbian and shit, what 3 years after the ceasefire ?
lol.
nothing happens in a vacuum..
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
America abandoning Europe is a good thing.
That would fix so many problems right now.
dontneedaknow@reddit
I'm not trying to moralize or anything about good or bad.
in fact I think it might be best to avoid dichotomies of good and bad world views because it's silly and also a good way to easily paint groups as "evil" and not worth living.
no one is good or bad, people do awful things all the time and generally are effective at justifying their own actions even when they violate prior set standards or whatever.
the sooner we grow up, the sooner we can perhaps advance, but I also don't believe in free will.
amaa (jk)
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
It’s not about good or bad.
It’s about sovereignty.
It is about Europe being Europe.
European nations deciding their own path. Europeans creating their own security and not relying on a country on the other side of the planet.
dontneedaknow@reddit
I dunno I find a lot of it interesting, but also dumb too.
Europe is making it's own decisions right now, or rather is being forced to do so.
What else is needed. The only people pushing nationalist narratives are Russians and neoreactionaries.
They tend to be worried about similar things.
Fit_Rice_3485@reddit
“Using world war 1 tactics”
Ever since bakhmut they have stopped at doing direct sieges on cities and have instead bypassed urban areas at every turn and formed pincers and cauldrons to cut of supply lines and move in from all sides
That’s how Sumy and avdivvka fell, and how pokrovsk and Konstantinya looks like will fall in the coming months
Is that world war 1 tactics?
dontneedaknow@reddit
yes...
lol
Thats exactly what they did in world war 1
but with 40 million men. not 2 million.
EbbNervous1361@reddit
It’s not WW1 tactics, it’s the result of modern warfare in the terrain of the land
TimothyMimeslayer@reddit
The eastern front in WWI was not trench warfare.
MoChreachSMoLeir@reddit
Yes it was, it was mobile for periods, but trenches were an integral part of military tactics in the East, too.
EbbNervous1361@reddit
Why hand a spade to everyone if you’re not going to use it?
dontneedaknow@reddit
it literally is...
just because it doesn't paint a pretty picture for your chosen sports ball warfare team doesn't matter.
when Russia can fly bombers across the planet with midair refueling in a single sortie then we can welcome Russia to the 21st century.
Russia doesn't even have a midair refueling program at all.
Do US a favor... instead of just saying "nuh uh!" just provide the evidence to counter.
and none of this is social competition, I don't have skin in this game except hoping they don't burn the planet.
moonorplanet@reddit
Russia can fly bombers and mid-air refuel them, to do that over Ukraine they need to grow some balls and take out the NATO and other western AWACS constantly patrolling the skies.
Neurobeak@reddit
https://youtu.be/LIQ9Drjj7l4?si=0XltSES6q7rb5ZpP
dontneedaknow@reddit
They also have 1/2 the long range bombers they had before they invaded.
it's all to scale. but I see that they have videos of planes flying, and definitely seem to have something set up.
how operable the infrastructure is and how well it's maintained, as well training translates to the real world.
I simplified my point, because the nuances to warfare are infinite.
The fact Israel flew the f35 cleanly through Iranian airspace for weeks and not a single radar hit as far as I know. and there's no doubt the anti-air capacity is pretty much destroyed. despite the capacity to retaliate with G2G missile attacks.
it's terrifying, the power we have right now.
Neurobeak@reddit
The level of local experts, ladies and gentlemen.
dontneedaknow@reddit
that's literally all I saw and when you look up the system it's not widely used.
and they don't have a necessity with such a small bomber fleet.
not to mention the plane has to actually survive the mission too if it came to it.
If you don't compartmentalize your thinking when dealing with geopolitics and politics in general, it will only drive you crazy and into misery.
I'm not debating anything, I'm giving it like it is. would you rather base a foundation on falsehoods or realities.?
HugoTRB@reddit
I think comparing it to the Russian fleet in Russo-Japanese war to the British fleet at the same time. Russia did manage to move the Baltic fleet to the pacific. The problem then was that they were the Baltic fleet in the pacific. While Russia can refuel, they don’t have the network of airbases around the world, similarly to how the British empire had their refueling stations.
dontneedaknow@reddit
they can't even count on China because Russia took "Yongmingcheng," and the rest of outer Manchuria during the colonization period that China considers a century of humiliation.
I imagine the current regime is exploiting that too, because it would be negligence otherwise to a lot of people lol.
EbbNervous1361@reddit
You seem to be using anthropomorphism and tribalism to explain tactics, warfare and geopolitics, it’s not the right tools for the job
dontneedaknow@reddit
what did I anthropomorphize about anthropic beings engaging in warfare and geopolitics?
because I'm curious actually.
Monterenbas@reddit
So, slow grinding attrition rather than war of manovers? Yes, it is WW1 tactics.
Fit_Rice_3485@reddit
Slow grind isn’t a tactic. It’s the only fall back to friend warfare. Armored columns of both Russia and Ukraine are literally destroyed 15kM away from before they even reach the LOC on the frontline
FreeCapone@reddit
Sumy didn't fell though, it's not even on the front line
Fit_Rice_3485@reddit
Apologies, I meant Kursk
WtIfOurAccsKisJKUnls@reddit
This is just simply either a lie or uninformed. Avdivvka was literally the same exact strategy as Bakhmut and similarly saw huge personnel losses for Russia. Sumy has not fallen, IDK if you mean the city or the oblast but neither is even remotely close to "falling", the city isn't even under attack at this point. Pro-Russians have been saying Pokrovsk and Konstantinya were going to "fall in the coming months" for over a year now, but Ukraine has gotten better at intercepting or disabling glide bombs and has continued attriting Russian bombers so the "meat wave, glide bomb, repeat" strategy that worked in Bakhumt/Avdivvka has become less effective over time (though admittedly still a significant threat). Now, recently, there are reports that Russia is trying to push its forces north of Pokrovsk instead in an effort to do what you're describing and bypass the cities themselves, and that may eventually work, but Russia first has to push through defended non-city areas and then successfully establish a consistent bridgehead over a river squarely under Ukrainian control, so this effort too will be hugely lossy and is assessed to be a plan over YEARS, certainly not months. So yes, that's WW1 tactics.
Fit_Rice_3485@reddit
Did you look at the map?
Both Konstantiny and pokrovsk are nearly flanked from each side
Once they are completely flanked and the only supply lines get cut out what exactly happens form there?
Drones can’t defend the entire city from all points.
Ukraine intercepting glide bombs? This isn’t 2024 anymore, the new GLONALLS system is hard to jam, that’s confirmed by even UA forces
And no, avdivkka fell once all supply lines were cut off and when Russia attacked from all sides. It wan entirely different from the direct siege from one side that was bakhmut
And by Sumy I meant Kursk. For 7 months Russia formed a massive cauldron. Flanking everyone from all sides and cutting supply lines, the. They snuck 800 troops in sudzha through a pipeline and attacked from all sides causing a massive collapse
“Fall in the coming months for over a year now”
Mate, when collapses happen it doesn’t happen slowly, it happens fast. It’s what happened to Kursk. It’s what happens when all your supply lines get cut off and you’re nearly encircled from all sides. Thats what’s about to happen to pokrovsk and Konstantinya
ImprovementBig523@reddit
'Pokrovsk in the following months' 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Bad_Ethics@reddit
That would be strategic level rather than tactical level.
On a tactical level, it's slow, gruelling slogs through open fields and trenches while munitions rain down from above, so yeah, WW1 sorts of stuff.
IronMaiden571@reddit
It's less Europe being abandoned by the US and more that the US is now taking steps to address that the protective umbrella is not limitless. Even Obama was telling Europe that they are not carrying their weight when it comes to defense a decade ago and Europe did nothing. They can not continue to have their defense capabilities wither while expecting the US to fill the gap.
The US views China as a more existential threat than the Russians. Opposite is true for Europe seeing as they're a stones throw away. Why should the US continue to take the lead in Europe when that undermines their ability to address issues in the Pacific? The US does not have infinite money and resources.
It's healthy for the US and the rest of NATO to lessen dependencies on any one party. It's supposed to be a partnership after all. The primary issue I take is the vitriol of the Trump admin while going about it.
dontneedaknow@reddit
it's a self benefit to make it limitless. it's to make sure nukes never get used at all.
because once conflict breaks out, it won't be a long one. it will either be rapidly quashed like many incidents before. Or a direct conflict will lead to a rapid escalation to nuclear exchanges.
the only reason I even trust that Russia has operational nukes is because even if somehow everything went perfectly and we intercepted a bunch and most of what lands is landing in Wyoming and Colorado and Nebraska.
The US still has a bomber fleet and a fleet of attack subs along with a fleet of SLBM's and usually whatever is available militarily only 1/3rd of available hardware is active in times of peace at a given time and they are filtered through rotations, as are individual military personnel usually.
we're already gonna starve since our bread basket is absolutely toasted at that point, along with our ground based launchers.
so I can imagine the response would be more than tit for tat retaliation by that time.
pm_me_your_pay_slips@reddit
The US is not fighting their neighbours, though. And the new version of the WW1 tactics includes drone swarms (both short range and long range, both teleoperated and autonomous).Europe can try to prepare themselves for war, but their effort would be better spent in avoiding one.
dontneedaknow@reddit
yah drones are basically slow ass artillery rounds you can directly control and hell even hang out in the. sky for a bit waiting.
They got more clever at killing.
there's one thing that's unquestionable is that the US public doesn't want a war.
there's elements and probably a demographic or two if discontent men, but they aren't even typically in the mental or physical shape to be able to go fight a war.
the military wouldn't use them unless they start changing philosophical and doctrine to value death in battle or some other hyper fascist proto-warhammer 40k knock off they think they can build lol, which they're trying.
beyondmash@reddit
Realistically it’s just right wingers look for an excuse to cut social care. There is more than enough money I will show you my tax bill lol.
dontneedaknow@reddit
well competition among the ruling class really, as they are the ones in control of both trade and government.
wetsock-connoisseur@reddit
Does US have a legal obligation to help Ukraine ? No, has US still helped ? Yes
It’s your neighbourhood, take up responsibility help Ukraine
dontneedaknow@reddit
were you being sentimental?
congress passed several budgets and spending measures specifically to support Ukraine..
those are laws... and legal obligations.
congress passes laws.
Naurgul@reddit (OP)
The article isn't saying that Europe shouldn't "play the game on its own". It's saying that the way rearmament is actually implemented right now (cutting social spending, buying American weapons etc) is counter-productive.
skaliton@reddit
I have to disagree here. I disagree with Don the Con on basically everything. But if your entire plan for your national defense is 'the US will come save us' you need to have an actual defense
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf
sorry Belgium....maybe you want to try just a little bit? Be more like Bulgaria who started in complete noncompliance and actually worked to do its fair share. It is wild that Putin is outright attacking an independent nation and instead of ramping up even a little bit in preparation you do...nothing. It is quite easy for Hamberder boy to say the US is abandoning you when you aren't even advancing towards the guidelines. It doesn't help that Donnie is a known Russian asset who was looking for an excuse to tell you that you are on your own. It isn't like this is one of the things where Taco Trump flipflops, he has been pretty additament that the US isn't going to send US troops to die for you if you won't do it for yourself
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
Defense against what?
skaliton@reddit
I'm sure this is a joke but considering NATO exists pretty much as a defensive alliance against Russia...you know, the country currently invading Ukraine that if conquered puts Putler's army right on the border with NATO
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
So because you created a defensive alliance, poured in all this money into that alliance, have these Secretary-generals that go around saying we need to make more weapons - because of all that Russia is going to invade?
Russia isn’t going to invade Europe.
skaliton@reddit
just like russia wasn't going to invade ukraine...which is in Europe.
If Russia was going to invade 'europe' (presumptively nato countries) the best possible time to do so would be when Moscow's Bitch is the US president and who has already said that he won't defend allies and while many of those allies do not have the ability to defend themselves...yes. Quite literally this would be the best possible time, except for Russia being the second strongest force in Ukraine
loggy_sci@reddit
Against whatever is needed to provide for European security. Is it your position that Europe doesn’t need security? Given your support of Russia I can see why you’d think that.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
No I am just confused what the threat is.
People keep saying Russia but they can’t beat Ukraine and that is with current military spending.
So why do we need to increase?
loggy_sci@reddit
You think Russia is losing in Ukraine?
Bananana_in_a_box@reddit
As someone from Belgium, do note that Belgium specifically is notorious for not even being able to form governments... We broke our own world record twice (beating out the magnificently stable and prosperous Syria during its civil war) and have spent years without an actual government. considering it has already proven to be borderline impossible to get Wallonia and flanders (north and south of belgium) to agree to ANYTHING (especially increases in spending) it's practically a miracle we are even trying to hit the targets with our current government (since this is the first time in ages both sides of the country voted for ideologically similar parties instead of polar opposites).
Naurgul@reddit (OP)
That's not what the article is saying though. It's saying that the way it is done (by cutting social spending and buying american weapons) isn't helping with autonomy. At least read the summary I wrote up.
skaliton@reddit
Right, but short term it must be done. As far as I can tell there is basically no 'war ready' production anywhere the scale needed for defense for most of Europe if it was needed 'today'
so buying weapons gives time to start producing your own AND you give Donnie something so he can pretend to have made a deal so faux entertainment can tell him he did a good job and at least short term he may see it as a 'win' to at least pretend the US would support Europe in an invasion.
Would it be a better idea for Europe to have proper facilities to build equipment? Yes. It would have been a great idea the day Putin invaded to at least come up with a plan but it is clear that there wasn't. And even today the plan is basically a forced one where the options are really 1) Get walked over if Putin invades and hope that the US president (who views everything as a deal) agrees to the defense force but....you know as well as I do that "America and its colonies" would be the end result. 2) Buy weapons now and ramp up production or 3) Immediately force basically every factory that can to switch to wartime supplies over domestic ones.
1 is objectively terrible
2 is...not ideal, but it is easier to say that everyone is going to endure a small decrease to their take home pay for a few months than
3 which effectively immediately ends consumer goods from being produced while factories are immediately retooled and workers retrained to build weapons
rlbond86@reddit
They will have to buy American in the short term, Europe can't manufacture much today. They lost the knowledge and skill.
Special-Remove-3294@reddit
Horrible mistake by us. Military spending is mostly useless. Any military spending should be towards a nuclear arsenal as that is the ultimate deterrent.
Building tanks and guns is a waste of money when with that money you could make enough nukes to never be invaded.
We should spend on infrastructure and social security instead
Namika@reddit
Nukes don't help against asymmetric warfare, which is what Russia does.
Look at what happened to Crimea. Russia floods it with plain clothes soldiers pretending to be tourists, then they hold a rigged referendum and declare the territory to belong to Russia. At what point would you nuke them?
Or look at the Baltics and how Russia keeps cutting undersea cables, flying in their airspace, and harassing shipping? You going to nuke Moscow over a airspace violation?
chowderbags@reddit
And what would tanks and conventional bombs do in those situations?
22stanmanplanjam11@reddit
A nuclear arsenal doesn’t do anything for the Russia-Ukraine war which is where European powers have found their capabilities to be lacking. The Western hegemony isn’t based on defending borders. It’s based on influencing global events to tip the scales in our favor so that wealth flows from the billions in the global south and Asia to the hundreds of millions in Europe and North America.
Special-Remove-3294@reddit
And the Western hegemony deserves to be destroyed because it is evil and exploitative.
If Ukraine had nukes the war would have never happened.
Countries not being able to project power via their army would be a good thing.
sarges_12gauge@reddit
Buddy, Romania has been in the EU for nearly 20 years. you are part of that western hegemony
22stanmanplanjam11@reddit
If Ukraine had tried to keep those Soviet nukes there wouldn’t have been a Ukraine in 2014 to be invaded. The launch codes were in Moscow, the nukes themselves were guarded by Russia’s Strategic Rocket Forces in Ukraine, and Bill Clinton wasn’t going to send any food aid or financial aid unless they agreed to have them dismantled. The US didn’t wage a nearly 50 year long Cold War for it to end with a bunch of new post-Soviet nuclear powers.
Special-Remove-3294@reddit
I never said they should have kept the nukes. I know they could not.
What I am saying is that insetad of wasting money on a army a country should seek to make its own nukes not keep the nukes of othee countries.
andsens@reddit
Not without "No First Use". China and India have pledged to it, and the rest of the countries should as well.
In any case, unless you actually want to nuke Moscow when 50 tanks roll into Poland, they are even less useful than a military force.
krombough@reddit
That's included in the new NATO spending targets.
LeGrandLucifer@reddit
Then go right ahead, don't spend anything on defense and see how great those social services are once you have Russian boots trampling you. Grow the fuck up, you have enemies who want you dead.
chowderbags@reddit
The EU collectively already spends more than twice Russia's military budget. And Russia's military budget is laughably unsustainable over the long term.
Russia might want to conquer the EU, but it can't. And it's not even close to being able to.
Aenjeprekemaluci@reddit
With decreasing populations and war weary public. Its hard to believe that increasing defence spending on cost of social spending can be done without borrowing more, and there put aside economical internal situation. I dont mind increasing defence when its for deterence. But we might suffer from the same as US does, with searching for new wars and creating new conflicts.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
What is truly fascinating is how Europe has basically abandoned its own independent course and is clinging onto America and doing everything they say.
Previously, you had European leaders who were willing to tell Washington to go take a walk.
You used to have European leaders who actually wanted an independent course.
They are all gone. And they have been replaced by people who desperately want to please America.
loggy_sci@reddit
If they wanted to please America they would have been spending more on military for decades now. Europe contributing more to its security has been a US demand across political parties, for years.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
And it looks like they will finally get what they want.
Wow, such a coincidence!
loggy_sci@reddit
It’s not a coincidence that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and U.S. pulling back from being the guarantor of European security has had an effect.
EH1987@reddit
Welfare for the arms industry and austerity for the people, what's not to love?
Monterenbas@reddit
What’s the alternative? Should Europe remain weak and defenseless?
Thangoman@reddit
Tax the rich
Monterenbas@reddit
So you do agrée that Europe should massively rearmed?
Thangoman@reddit
Yeah
The problem id that some of the strongest proponents of arearmamebt are people like Macron
Monterenbas@reddit
You can hate on the Messenger all you want, doesn’t what hé is saying is wrong tho.
Thangoman@reddit
Im talking about Macron because,Macron is anti welfare, pro tax cuta
Monterenbas@reddit
Sure, but i fail to see the correlation with Macron positionon social spending and the need for European rearmement and strategic autonomy.
EH1987@reddit
Those aren't the only two options. Austerity just breeds more discontent and conflict, creating fertile ground for reactionary movements, which is why the ruling class loves it.
Monterenbas@reddit
What are those other options? These hypothetical « reactionary mouvements » seem like quiet the remote problem, compare to the current weekly there at if nucléée annihilation, by russia’s very real and very reactionary government.
EH1987@reddit
Neoliberal shock therapy created modern Russia so that if anything should be a strong argument against that inhuman ideology.
Monterenbas@reddit
Neoliberal therapy didn’t create russian exceptionalism and imperialism, those are as old as russia itself.
What created Putin regime 20 years ago is irrelevant, what matters is how to deter it today and how are you supposed to do that, without the means to defend your self?
Simple_Map_1852@reddit
You keep being asked what to do, and you keep answering only what not to do.
EH1987@reddit
There's not really a single easy answer, but that doesn't mean staying the same awful course decade after decade is a reasonable thing to do.
Simple_Map_1852@reddit
You can't determine whether any particular course is good or bad without comparing it to the alternatives. Any choice is only "bad" if there are better options.
NymusRaed@reddit
Do I hear anti-patriotism? Absolutely disgusting!
/s
Aenjeprekemaluci@reddit
Sad part. Even if we Europeans would "win" conflicts. It will not improve peoples lives at all and only ensures big profits for multinationals. And given the past, it surely only means more devastation for the losers and more refugee pressure on Europe. We need to learn to build up stuff again. No vision in this world by anyone except profits.
Aggravating-Scale-21@reddit
We are not "creating new conflicts". We are forced to fight for Europe's territorial integrity since a foreign country started a war
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
No, you are creating new conflicts.
No one ever makes tons of weapons and then doesnt use them.
Once you have weapons, you will imagine new enemies.
Professional-Way1216@reddit
So how is forced fighting for Cyprus territorial integrity going ?
Neurobeak@reddit
Literally this meme
Aenjeprekemaluci@reddit
You have not read what i wrote. I wrote if we rearm for deterence and defense which is correct thing to do. We could have a fever to create new conflicts and wars to keep the justification of armaments going. Look at the US.
BendicantMias@reddit
It IS from borrowing more. That's where the 800 billion bucks magically appeared from. They didn't find that money under a sofa cushion, they just loosened their fiscal rules. So now all of them are free to get more into debt.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
They also stopped counting defense spending towards a country’s debt.
So under EU rules they are ignoring a huge part of spending just because… reasons?
rinrinstrikes@reddit
A year ago I'd say this is stupid, but I think every country in the world is expecting and preparing for the upcoming superpower shakeup that might happen and the US is not winning it
hauntedSquirrel99@reddit
Not this shit again...
The top comment is typical for the delusion that is common in Europe. Someone with zero fucking clue about what the situation actually is but comfortable making ridiculous claims based on fuck all-
Europe doesn't actually have any military force, France is one of the major powers and still wasn't able to do a policing action in Mali without begging everyone else for help.
Equipment exists in low numbers, production to replace doesn't exist so during an actual war anything lost is gone forever, we don't have munitions in store for them either so any major conflict that lasts a week is going to render most of our best stuff useless. We're reliant on US production for ammo, which is also true for ukraine. There's a reason everyone panicked when the US started pulling out.
As soldiers go there is a small reasonably well trained expeditionary corps and a large section of poorly trained soldiers with no real ability to do much.
He talks about Ukraine, but Ukraine has taken over half a million casualties. Even if we (europe) could take half a million casualties we wouldn't be able to replace them. The facilities do not exist, we do not even have the ability to provide uniforms.
There's essentially 2.5 countries in NATO.
1-The United States
2-Finland
2.5-Poland.
Everyone else is window dressing.
Wayoutofthewayof@reddit
Looking at Mali to determine military readiness is extremely short sighted. It is evident that there are only a couple of military powers in the world that can do realistic expeditionary wars. In a land war against an adversary like Russia, I think Europe is more prepared than most give them credit for.
ShootmansNC@reddit
France for sure isn't.
https://en.defence-ua.com/analysis/frances_air_force_can_only_fight_for_three_days_before_running_out_of_weaponsand_thats_without_using_its_jets-13587.html
Funkliford@reddit
France ran into the same problem with Libya and that was strictly an air campaign. Their munitions stockpiles ran so slow they had to resort to dropping concrete bombs & had to peggy back off American logistics after the first week or so.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
Well Libya was so freaking stupid and has caused way too many problems for Europe.
But they refuse to accept those problems.
hauntedSquirrel99@reddit
> In a land war against an adversary like Russia, I think Europe is more prepared than most give them credit for.
We are not, we're not prepared for anything. Most NATO states aren't even capable of handling logistics inside their own country in peacetime.
The situation is actually so fucking bad it's impossible to describe it without sounding like you're lying.
We'd be better of just decomissioning our militaries entirely because at least then people would understand what they actually have, rather than persist in this fantasy that there is a military force capable of doing something.
Wayoutofthewayof@reddit
It might seem so because Europe is not at war. It is like saying that Serbia in 1914 had a stronger army than United States.
FFs just look at Ukraine in 2022. Currently Europe has 2 million soldiers in either military or active reserve. They would have more than enough time to adjust.
22stanmanplanjam11@reddit
The Soviet Union collapsed in ‘91 and nobody in Europe did anything to fill the power vacuum so Russia just filled it again. Bush Jr. told Europeans that Russia was looking to expand so Ukraine and Georgia should be in NATO back in 2008. Russia invaded Crimea in 2014.
Time to adjust is meaningless because the “major powers” in the EU are guaranteed to squander it just like they’ve squandered all the time they’ve had so far. If they were going to adjust it would have happened long ago.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
It was actually filled by America.
For the first time since 1945, we have European leaders who all support American policy completely, they repeat America’s line
Aenjeprekemaluci@reddit
Actually the vacuum was filled in many cases after USSR collapsed. By NATO and EU. It was just done at a slower pace and not everywhere then some would have liked, but largely filled. Its weird to state otherwise.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
You need to explain why this is.
After the Cold War, Europe demilitarized.
The war was over.
Europe took that money they used to spend on the military and they gave it back. The peace dividend.
For example, France cut way back on military expenses and instead created full universal healthcare in 2000.
Other European countries cut taxes, giving people more money. Or they poured in money into education.
Europe chose to focus on bettering their society. And that was the right move.
Overall the situation is not bad.
Europe does face serious problems but none of them are due to some outside external threat.
Those who believe that Europe needs to beef up their military are just insecure and they are projecting outward in response to internal weaknesses.
These weaknesses are mainly economic. Living standards. Job growth.
But overall it has to do with purpose and belonging.
Nations need to have an explanation of who they are and where they are going.
The Cold War gave us purpose - fighting communism - and a certain security. We knew who our enemy was. But we were United against this common foe.
When that went away, nationals had to figure out their new place in the world.
Aenjeprekemaluci@reddit
Quite frank i dont think that Europe would do well without US backing... We would not win it without US. Also nevermind that such a war will always result in the use of nuclear weapons later. As both warring parties believe their state or side is in existential danger, and if they were to lose they would disintegrate. It would be high stakes war that decreases theresholds for usage of nukes. Such a land war is too risky for anyone.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
And why does Europe need military forces again?
So is Europe going to spend $800 billion because of a country that can’t defeat Ukraine?
That’s not a good enough reason to cut education or health budgets.
MrKorakis@reddit
And right after that you go on to say:
Yeah ... displaying a real solid understanding of the situation there buddy
hauntedSquirrel99@reddit
Sure, who do you think I missed?
insitnctz@reddit
You underestimate turkey and greece, both of which have "semi-active" conscription where military service for young men, for a year is mandatory. Both of which countries have pretty good naval and air fleets. Turkey also has one of the biggest productions in drones.
Other than that UK and France are powerhouses. Some of the strongest naval fleets and air presence in the world right now, plus they have nukes.
MrKorakis@reddit
2 actual nuclear powers in the UK and France that also have powerful air forces and nuclear attack submarines? A genuine regional conventional power in Turkey that also has a good chunk of air power?
Not sure how you lookEd at things and got Finland as second place and Poland as third but that's not how any of this works.
hauntedSquirrel99@reddit
The finnish army, unlike the turkish one, is actually competent.
Neither has the ability to wage war over time. The UK doesnt have munitions in stock, it would take a week before that air force is a glorified recon force. Cant bomb shit when you dont have bombs.
The frency air force is equipped with rafale and mirage, they would get shot down and quickly become an ex-air force.
Nukes are pointless, they are only useful if youre actually willing to use them. Once you hit that button retaliatory strikes happen.you think macron or starmer are going down with the ship?
They'll skip over to canada and leave the people to rot, they certainly wont be starting a nuclear exchange.
beyondmash@reddit
No he’s right UK are only just coming of off almagation of units and no munitions. Too many Tory cuts. They literally tried binning Trident before snap election in May.
Taymyr@reddit
The Italians are strong and mighty. Half of the carabinieri know how to equip a holster.
They're back to back world war champs and I guarantee you that for WW3 they will be on the winning side.... by the end of it.
BendicantMias@reddit
Turkey is FAR from window dressing. They're stronger than both Finland and Poland.
barc0debaby@reddit
France had had as much success in Mali as the US did in Afghanistan.
Aenjeprekemaluci@reddit
Turkey is stronger then Finland or Poland together. Btw we also lack industrial prowess now. We need to train people in this again in masses even if civilian branch for now. It takes many years doing so maybe even a decade to reconstitute the prior prowess we once had. The problem is the continious population decline that seems unstoppable and degrading pensions security. Europe is casualty averse for good reasons though but just borrowing for rearming isnt gonna solve the multilayered problems Europe faces. Also African operations are always a big clusterfuck.
krombough@reddit
Here's the thing. Europe has increasingly been pushing a less fragmented, more unified concept of itself. And that is not a bad thing. It has numerous benefits, in many areas, but can also have drawbacks.
And this is one of the drawbacks. It's hard to push for unity, when some nations are being threatened by Russia, and others are positioned fortuitously on the Bay of Biscay, and will never have to worry. Having the Baltic states and Poland need to be serious about defense, but not Spain, or Italy, strains the idea of the European Union.
Europe sees as well as anyone that the US is an erratic defense partner, and if you told me they would no longer be in NATO in 5 years, I would beleive you.
The best way to do this would be taxing the shit out of the rich and corporation, as their profits rely off of a free populace able to spend on their products and services, but every goddamn nation on the planet seems allergic to that idea, so here we are.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
They aren’t pushing any vision.
They are basically just bullying people into going with the group.
But the EU has not changed its internal structure at all to reflect a more United concept. Instead it has become focused on managing Europe.
The only reason why we are seeing this is because Europe has become much weaker internally.
It has become more fragmented. You had Brexit. You have a wave of eurosceptic parties gaining power.
You have the larger centrifugal forces tearing Europe apart. Regional independence movements. Etc.
On top of all that, Europe is stagnating. Economies are stagnant. Younger people are not enjoying the same level of prosperity their parents enjoyed.
You have pretty large and serious riots. Often they become very violent.
Europe is projecting outward and imaging external enemies to escape those problems and unite their populations.
But it will fail.
It will be like America’s war on terror.
UpperInjury590@reddit
The Russian threat isn't imaginary
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
It is imaginary.
It is also confusing.
How is a country both failing to beat the poorest country in Europe and also some big threat that wants to invade Germany?
UpperInjury590@reddit
Tell that to the baltic states. Besides, even if Russia is doing badly, its army is still better than most of Europe. Plus the Ukraine army is very strong.
Mundane_Emu8921@reddit
That still doesn’t answer why we need more weapons and stuff.
FlexLikeKavana@reddit
Don't European nations already tax the shit out of the rich and corporations to fund all their social programs?
moderngamer327@reddit
Yes and no. They do tax the rich more but they tax everyone more. To give an example the lowest income tax bracket in Sweden is higher than the the highest federal income tax bracket in the US
FlexLikeKavana@reddit
And they can't fund their defense programs with that?
moderngamer327@reddit
I guess not
FlexLikeKavana@reddit
This is one of Trump's broken clock moments. The money is there, they just need to actually spend it on defense and not just rely on the U.S.
ShaunDark@reddit
Only if your comparison is the race to the bottom that is the US policy in this regard.
moderngamer327@reddit
US has more progressive income tax rate than European countries though. European countries just have a higher rate in general
ShaunDark@reddit
Income tax really isn't targeting the rich and corporations. I was thinking about taxes like the corporate tax which actually would affect the income of those mostly owning stuff.
moderngamer327@reddit
Corporate tax doesn’t really affect the rich much. Rich people don’t make most of their money off of dividends. They make it off of selling shares which is not effected by corporate tax at all. If anything corporate tax is someone regressive because it’s a cost that will be just passed onto consumers. It’s main use is encouraging reinvestment into the company instead of just paying out large dividends
MrKorakis@reddit
Having the Having the Baltic states and Poland tell Spain, or Italy, that dealing with the endless migrant flows from Africa and the middle east is their problem to deal with alone also strained the idea of having a Union.
So they can either sleep in the bed they made now or they will need to somehow convince the rest to not pay them back in kind.
Inquisitor2222@reddit
Yeah terrible mistake indeed. Once russian bombs start dropping we will just ask goverment for help instead you know fight back
Sudden-Pie1095@reddit
The eu has a problem. The ecb. They don't have modern fiscal tools because they all use a shared currency. So their spend is funded by taxes, not as policy decision of where to allocate resources. They got to cut from somewhere to spend more on rearming.
Plethorum@reddit
As long as russia remains a threat to European peace and security, and we cannot rely on the US to help us with arms or troops if a European country is attacked, then spending more money on defence is necessary to deter further attacks, unfortunately.
The cost of increasing defence spending is much smaller than the cost of war.
AutoModerator@reddit
The link you have provided contains keywords for topics associated with an active conflict, and has automatically been flaired accordingly. If the flair was not updated, the link submitter MUST do so. Due to submissions regarding active conflicts generating more contrasting discussion, comments will only be available to users who have set a subreddit user flair, and must strictly comply with subreddit rules. Posters who change the assigned post flair without permission will be temporarily banned. Commenters who violate Reddiquette and civility rules will be summarily banned.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.