16 ms·

There was an incredibly stubborn post-Cold War "end of history" complacency in Europe that really should have ended after the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Inst

• rightbyte 3y ago
  Sure. But the fundamental problem seem to be for the political gaist to be "defence friendly" while also not war mongering. The same few collegues I have that don't trust the politicians, the gov, collective endouvers etc with anything seem hell bent to project "we" want to die for them. It is beyond insane. If people want to lie in a trench led by Ursula ... well. Have fun.
  • The_Colonel 3y ago
    Being "defence friendly" means also cultivating the mentality that lying in the trenches for your country/culture/values might be necessary. Forget arms industry or military budget as a percent of GDP. The main problem is that Europe lacks the fighting spirit (with some exceptions like Poland). Countries like Germany will fold / capitulate to any demands if they suffer thousands of casualties.
    • jevoten 3y ago
      > cultivating the mentality that lying in the trenches for your country/culture/values might be necessary. That would mean cultivating the mentality that a country is more than just an economic platform, because that's not something anyone is willing to die for. It means cultivating the dreaded nationalism.
      • The_Colonel 3y ago
        > That would mean cultivating the mentality that a country is more than just an economic platform Is it just that, or does it perhaps protect also other rights? Is the economic prosperity the only reason one might prefer living in Germany over Russia?
        • jevoten 3y ago
          Point taken. But what about in Germany over Canada? Or Italy? Or Spain, or Australia, or the US, or New Zealand, or UK, or Iceland, or Taiwan, or Japan or... there are lots of mostly free countries (so long as you don't engage in the growing category of hate-speech) one can run to, once freed from the concepts of homeland and nation.
          • The_Colonel 3y ago
            Will your whole family and friends run too? Will you move your whole social life with you or are you ready to accept your life will be torn apart? Once Germany gets submitted without a fight, how long will it take until Italy is attacked? I mean, with this "running away" philosophy it's pretty easy to take countries without facing a resistance now.
            • jevoten 3y ago
              > Will you move your whole social life with you A small price compared to dying in war. I'm not saying it's the right choice, but if you have no attachment to your country and people beyond it being a comfortable place to live, that's the choice most will make.
              • The_Colonel 3y ago
                Let me present you an alternative. Europe can build up a credible defense capability which will provide a strong deterrence to Russia. In that case you don't have to die in the trenches and you don't have to spend your life running away from the aggressor. Nazi Germany did not invade Switzerland, USSR did not invade Finland (after suffering horrible losses in the Winter war), even though both had their own claims on them, because the costs of such an adventure were considered too high. A big part of this deterrence was a population willing to fight to defend their homeland.
    • hackandthink 3y ago
      I lack fighting spirit, don't want to spend money for weapons and I'm not afraid of Russia (live in Germany). There is a lot of fear mongering. Ukraine should make a deal instead of sacrificing people without limits. So many people died, for loosing later. If they wait too long there won't be any deal.
      • The_Colonel 3y ago
        > Ukraine should make a deal instead of sacrificing people without limits. Imagine you're an Ukrainian. Is there a deal which you would not accept and rather continue fighting or would you accept literally any deal (including unconditional surrender)?
        • hackandthink 3y ago
          I would have been the first to leave Ukraine. (I dodged the draft in Germany) And I'm fine with all the Ukrainians in Germany who do not want to fight. (and I would welcome Russians who do not want to fight) Ukraine has no good options. Mearsheimer predicts a territorial loss of 40% and no NATO membership for the rest of Ukraine.
          • The_Colonel 3y ago
            > Mearsheimer predicts a territorial loss of 40% and no NATO membership for the rest of Ukraine. Losing 40% is much better than losing 100%. (Also it's Mearsheimer, what a joke)
          • riku_iki 3y ago
            > Mearsheimer predicts a territorial loss of 40% and no NATO membership for the rest of Ukraine. many predicted Kyiv will fall in 3 days in 2022.
            • armitron 3y ago
              That would have certainly been a lot better for the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians that went straight to an early grave.
    • leereeves 3y ago
      Nobody wants to lie in the trenches to protect other people's wealth, but that's what usually happens. The poor are sent to fight and die, or to return home to poverty and disability if they survive. I'm amazed anyone is willing to sign up to risk their life for $2K/month, even here in the US where military service has long been glorified.
      • nebula8804 3y ago
        As with many things Gen Z is leading the way in breaking the mold (in a good way in my opinion) [1]:https://www.wavy.com/news/military/u-s-military-sees-record-breaking-low-recruitment-numbers/ https://www.wavy.com/news/military/u-s-military-sees-record-...
      • Etherlord87 3y ago
        This is why you need various manipulation* techniques: religion (to decrease the fear of death), patriotism, anger, glorification of war and heroism... I sometimes wonder if maybe the poor state of modern education is not just incompetence or a result of a cynical idea "stupid society is easier to control", but instead someone analyzed that an intelligent society would become atheist/cynical/pragmatic etc. resulting in severly decreased motivation to fight for the government. * I think the word "manipulation" implies an intent to mislead someone, while some techniques influencing others are used by people unaware of the effects or (in)correctness of the propaganda; maybe rather than "manipulation" I should say "indoctrination".
        • tim333 3y ago
          If you look back at history mankind seems quite naturally inclined towards fighting wars. The manipulation techniques are more needed to maintain peace. Indeed if you look at our closest animal relatives, the chimps, they are quite inclined to wipe out their neighbours without needing religion or cash payment.
      • oneshtein 3y ago
        Your speech targeted at young men with no family and children, so they may think that they protect "wealth".
    • ajb 3y ago
      I'm sorry, but this is rubbish. For example, the UK citizenry was almost completely pacifist two years before world war II, much more than Germany is now, and for stronger reasons; having lost a huge number of men during world war I. It didn't take the population very long at all to change its ideas once it was clear what was going to happen. People make shallow remarks. You can't use that to predict what they will do when the chips are down.
    • seydor 3y ago
      It s not that european nations arent aggressive (unfortunately nationalism is only sleeping in Europe, not dead). But the idea of collective european nation only appeals to the 3-4 core countries. Most eu nations have a different notion of national interests. Even with Ukraine which is supported by all, the level of support and expectations vary very widely
• Detrytus 3y ago
  Actually, it should have ended even earlier, after Russian aggression on Georgia in 2008.
  • argentier 3y ago
    Was that when the Georgians caught the Russians by surprise by attacking Russia's protectorates? Took the Russians quite a while to get their act together. Are the aggressors usually caught on the hop?
• heroiccocoa 3y ago
  I don't agree with your comment. Unpreparedness is one thing, but you paint a picture of weakness and reliance. Why are there no Dutch F-35s or French warships in Ukraine? Where are the British special forces? Let alone the non-NATO countries of Switzerland Austria, Cyprus, Ireland, Malta, and Sweden. Some NATO members have huge militaries, albeit with many NATO commitments, i.e. not even close to being utilized to their full potential. Others like Ireland have enough resources to fund those of close allies. Think of all those taxes paid over decades into defense. Together we could have stealth bombers in Moscow within minutes and helicopters and troops soon after. Wagner could have done it by themselves had they had the self-confidence. But no one is doing anything at all, simply because Putin has threatened to nuke us all.
  • diordiderot 3y ago
    Incredibly out of touch comment. Dutch have contributed massively relative to gdp. The British special forces trained Ukraines special forces after the war started. Sweden is in NATO. And you can't bomb a nuclear state.
    • heroiccocoa 3y ago
      The NL have contributed massively. I never meant that they didn't, I was selecting some powerful, random countries with still untapped resources to counter your comment that implied weakness. It was not at all my intention to diminish their contributions (consider that I didn't even mention those of Poland and the Baltics; even though I hate using GDP for this, but that is another discussion...): Again, my point was that, relative to what I imagine Europe's real military might is, it has not even really gotten started compared to what we could be doing, if only we weren't so scared of nukes. Just think of how we could have annihilated the soft target that was the disorganized 64 km Kyiv convoy, back in 2022. A quick search yielded that we have 1703 fighter jets in the EU-28, let alone the large warships, and who knows how many other assets. If we declared war (I'm not a lawyer, but it would easy to prove casus belli, and have jus ad bellum, given Russia's literal aggression and genocide). We could be attacking them along their entire (gigantic) border all the way to the east that they couldn't possibly hope to defend being so spread out. It would look totally different than the "weak" image we are projecting now because we aren't at war. Sweden is not yet in NATO. They are on the verge of it, with Orban signing approval today, but Hungary has not yet formally submitted their instrument of ratification. Details matter when correcting people.
• greg_V 3y ago
  That's not complacency, that's a feature. The key to peace in Europe is the unified free trade zone on one hand, but on the other it's also disarmament while relying on NATO. Besides putting territorial questions aside, one of the main requirements of joining NATO was to discontinue the draft! The entire security failure is by design, one that has been made a long time ago when the US force was way more capable and threatening in their stance. The annexation of Crimea was in a way calling that stance a bluff, and now everybody is juggling the question of rearmament like a hot potato. Because we were all calm when the saying was that no two countries which had McDonalds would go to war against one another - and then they did, and now we all have McDonalds but we don't have standing combat capable armies besides NATO operable specialized arms for a good reason.
  • kuratkull 3y ago
    Are you sure? Estonia still has compulsory defense forces draft of 8 or 11 months for young men.
    • greg_V 3y ago
      AFAIK small states are treated as exceptions because the conscription leaves you with the same amount of men as professional armies of bigger countries. But there has been a lot of talk in the past few years of changing this, but politically it would be immensely unpopular.
      • unmole 3y ago
        Turkey has the second largest standing military in NATO and still has conscription.
  • philwelch 3y ago
    The majority of NATO members had conscription at the time they joined NATO. Also, the United States has been pressuring NATO members to increase defense spending for decades; Trump’s threats to withdraw from NATO were a hardball negotiating tactic towards this longstanding foreign policy goal.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• rancour 3y ago
  Lol, what ended exactly?
• simpletone 3y ago
  > There was an incredibly stubborn post-Cold War "end of history" It's hard to tell whether all these comments are part of online propaganda or people regurgitating propaganda they watched on youtube. Like clockwork, the same talking points with the same key words. > What's been starkly revealed since is that Europe is woefully unprepared to respond to any kind of aggression Europe is one of the largest arms manufacturers in the world. Maintains the largest armed forces in the world. And is one of the biggest aggressors in the world. Ask the north africans, middle easterners and sub saharan africans, etc. > wholly reliant on America. It's either be reliant on america or become our competitor. Besides, what's your point here? That europe wants a nuclear war with russia? > At some point you have to get serious and live in the real world where threats still exist. Europe is the threat. It's funny how the war in ukraine is between european military powers and yet you claim europe is unprepared for aggression. Most of europe is part of NATO, the biggest source of violence and aggression in the world.
• dsq 3y ago
  Losing the UK's Royal Navy, special forces, and nuke force due to Brexit was also a strategic mistake, due to peacetime conplacency. It would have made more sense to be a bit more flexible with Britain.
  • margana 3y ago
    It wasn't lost though. Collective defense commitments are much stronger in NATO, which UK is still a part of, than they are in EU.
    • dsq 3y ago
      Good point. I think, however, that there is still some validity in differentiating the two. Some NATO countries are outside the EU, and vice vetsa. Also, the US dominates NATO, and not the EU.