4 ms·

Europe is doing no such thing. They are preparing for physical war by drastically increasing military spending [1], and some countries are already sending out "

by tensor 2y ago

Europe is doing no such thing. They are preparing for physical war by drastically increasing military spending [1], and some countries are already sending out "be ready for war" information sheets. [2] [1] https://www.euronews.com/2024/04/22/military-spending-in-western-and-central-europe-higher-than-end-of-cold-war-data-shows https://www.euronews.com/2024/04/22/military-spending-in-wes... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjr4zwj2lgdo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjr4zwj2lgdo

eastbound 2y ago
“Drastically” Common, everyone cried at all the demons when Trump asked Europe to reach 2% of GDP on military spending in 2018. Had we done it, we’d have DOUBLED our spending. Russia is at 6.3%, USA at 3.4% (7x Russia’s in absolute spending), Europe at 1.3%. Culture-wise, it’s unthinkable for Europe to come around and revive the military-industrial complex. We’re basically trying to win this war by crossing our fingers, like the French did in 1936 (the famous Congés Payés were offered in 1936, with beautiful photos of parisians going to the beach, while our German cousins were in factories manufacturing guns. Guess who won the war).
- falcor84 2y ago
  I know what you meant to say, but it's important for me to just emphasize that it wasn't the Germans who won that war.
  - diordiderot 2y ago
    Well it certainly wasn't the French
- Terr_ 2y ago
  > everyone cried at all the demons when Trump asked Europe to reach 2% of GDP on military spending in 2018. No, that's not what people had a problem with, and it's barely even what Trump said. Trump claimed (again) that the less-spending-than-recommended nations somehow owed payments to the US, and threatened that the US would violate the treaty if they somehow didn't keep him satisfied! That's the stuff that was new and controversial, and for damn good reasons.
  - diordiderot 2y ago
    > the US would violate the treaty Other parties were already violating the treaty by not spending 2%. It's simple Tit for tat. > Trump claimed (again) that the less-spending-than-recommended nations somehow owed payments to the US The US was shouldering the cost of international security (being a hegemon) You take European stability and welfare for granted, we can't know what the world would look like without pax Americana but I'm certain it would be worse. The 'rules based international community' You couldn't even stop a genocide on the EUs front door. > for damn good reasons Hopefully I've demonstrated otherwise
    - piva00 2y ago
      > Other parties were already violating the treaty by not spending 2%. It's simple Tit for tat. I'd ask you to share an official document outlining this requirement of the treaty. I will be sitting though.
    - Teever 2y ago
      The 2pc spending thing is not in the treaty.
    - dralley 2y ago
      I'm as frustrated as anyone about Europe not pulling their weight, but it's not in violation of the treaty. The 2% guideline has nothing to do with the treaty itself. It's precisely that, a non-binding guideline.
    - Terr_ 2y ago
      > Other parties were already violating the treaty by not spending 2%. That is not a requirement in the treaty, merely a recommendation. Stop making things up to sanewash Trump.
- rfrey 2y ago
  >Culture-wise, it’s unthinkable for Europe to come around and revive the military-industrial complex I'm not sure that means what you think it means. Eisenhower wasn't being complementary when he coined that term.
  - ahartmetz 2y ago
    He also wasn't exactly disparaging it. He said we need it, but we must not let it become too powerful or influential. The truth of that hasn't really changed.
    - rfrey 2y ago
      "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." He absolutely disparaged it, in fact he considered it a fundamental threat to democracy. "Military industrial complex" isn't about maintaining a large, dominant military. It's about industry becoming so entwined with the military that they start calling the shots, and military decisions begin to be made for the benefit of corporations rather than the nation.
schroeding 2y ago
Europe isn't a homogeneous block in this question, though. Some parts do what GP said, IMO. For example, Germany also increased its military spending, true - but from a low starting point, with an army even sometimes lacking basic supplies like dumb ammunition due to massive underfunding since the end of the cold war. The (possible, maybe!) reintroduction of drafting will be agonizingly slow, as the military doesn't have the capacity anymore (and will lack it for years to come!) to even examine even a small percentage of each year, let alone equip and train them. There are no KWEAs (Kreiswehrersatzämter, drafting centers) anymore, and the new "Career Centers" have abysmal throughput. We sold a very very significant chunk of our military bases and heavy equipment. Those are gone, the federal government often doesn't even own the land anymore. We have almost no working bunkers anymore, both military and public. Etc, etc. Those are things which we would have to start to change immediately, as it takes ages until we see results. We do sorta, but on a tiny scale - it's not the massive investment you would expect for a country readying itself for conflict. German politics / state departments are, IMO, in no way readying the public for the real prospect of military conflict. Pistorius, the German defence minister, basically screams into the void. Yes, many agree in talk, but the walk is quite underwhelming. The defence ministry says we have to be ready for war until 2029. Most projects which are started now will, based on information by the same ministry, never ever be finished until before the 2030s. And yet, there is no hurry visible. We still have time.
- DirkH 2y ago
  A friend of mine visited Germany and talked to Germans about the threat of nuclear war and what they may or may not be doing. She said there was a very bizarre "it will never happen" vibe wherever she asked. Germans basically laughed at her for taking it as a serious concern worth discussing, even smart Germans with solid academic backgrounds. In the US it is a very different story. Whether a Stanford alumni or a rando at a bar Americans are much less likely to laugh you off for taking the prospect of nuclear war seriously. So everything you say seems to fit to me.
  - lukan 2y ago
    You can also ask germans directly here. I would tell you, many people take it serious, judging from HN comments, way more than americans, some just like to remain in their safe space bubble.
sinfulprogeny 2y ago
lol we get those pamphlets sent out every now and then. Of course it's related to the increase tension, but it's not the huge call sign you make it out to be. "be ready for war" means "be ready in case something happens", not "be ready for what's about to happen."

by tensor 2y ago

eastbound 2y ago

“Drastically” Common, everyone cried at all the demons when Trump asked Europe to reach 2% of GDP on military spending in 2018. Had we done it, we’d have DOUBLED our spending. Russia is at 6.3%, USA at 3.4% (7x Russia’s in absolute spending), Europe at 1.3%. Culture-wise, it’s unthinkable for Europe to come around and revive the military-industrial complex. We’re basically trying to win this war by crossing our fingers, like the French did in 1936 (the famous Congés Payés were offered in 1936, with beautiful photos of parisians going to the beach, while our German cousins were in factories manufacturing guns. Guess who won the war).

falcor84 2y ago
I know what you meant to say, but it's important for me to just emphasize that it wasn't the Germans who won that war.
- diordiderot 2y ago
  Well it certainly wasn't the French
Terr_ 2y ago
> everyone cried at all the demons when Trump asked Europe to reach 2% of GDP on military spending in 2018. No, that's not what people had a problem with, and it's barely even what Trump said. Trump claimed (again) that the less-spending-than-recommended nations somehow owed payments to the US, and threatened that the US would violate the treaty if they somehow didn't keep him satisfied! That's the stuff that was new and controversial, and for damn good reasons.
- diordiderot 2y ago
  > the US would violate the treaty Other parties were already violating the treaty by not spending 2%. It's simple Tit for tat. > Trump claimed (again) that the less-spending-than-recommended nations somehow owed payments to the US The US was shouldering the cost of international security (being a hegemon) You take European stability and welfare for granted, we can't know what the world would look like without pax Americana but I'm certain it would be worse. The 'rules based international community' You couldn't even stop a genocide on the EUs front door. > for damn good reasons Hopefully I've demonstrated otherwise
  - piva00 2y ago
    > Other parties were already violating the treaty by not spending 2%. It's simple Tit for tat. I'd ask you to share an official document outlining this requirement of the treaty. I will be sitting though.
  - Teever 2y ago
    The 2pc spending thing is not in the treaty.
  - dralley 2y ago
    I'm as frustrated as anyone about Europe not pulling their weight, but it's not in violation of the treaty. The 2% guideline has nothing to do with the treaty itself. It's precisely that, a non-binding guideline.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    > Other parties were already violating the treaty by not spending 2%. That is not a requirement in the treaty, merely a recommendation. Stop making things up to sanewash Trump.
rfrey 2y ago
>Culture-wise, it’s unthinkable for Europe to come around and revive the military-industrial complex I'm not sure that means what you think it means. Eisenhower wasn't being complementary when he coined that term.
- ahartmetz 2y ago
  He also wasn't exactly disparaging it. He said we need it, but we must not let it become too powerful or influential. The truth of that hasn't really changed.
  - rfrey 2y ago
    "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." He absolutely disparaged it, in fact he considered it a fundamental threat to democracy. "Military industrial complex" isn't about maintaining a large, dominant military. It's about industry becoming so entwined with the military that they start calling the shots, and military decisions begin to be made for the benefit of corporations rather than the nation.

schroeding 2y ago

Europe isn't a homogeneous block in this question, though. Some parts do what GP said, IMO. For example, Germany also increased its military spending, true - but from a low starting point, with an army even sometimes lacking basic supplies like dumb ammunition due to massive underfunding since the end of the cold war. The (possible, maybe!) reintroduction of drafting will be agonizingly slow, as the military doesn't have the capacity anymore (and will lack it for years to come!) to even examine even a small percentage of each year, let alone equip and train them. There are no KWEAs (Kreiswehrersatzämter, drafting centers) anymore, and the new "Career Centers" have abysmal throughput. We sold a very very significant chunk of our military bases and heavy equipment. Those are gone, the federal government often doesn't even own the land anymore. We have almost no working bunkers anymore, both military and public. Etc, etc. Those are things which we would have to start to change immediately, as it takes ages until we see results. We do sorta, but on a tiny scale - it's not the massive investment you would expect for a country readying itself for conflict. German politics / state departments are, IMO, in no way readying the public for the real prospect of military conflict. Pistorius, the German defence minister, basically screams into the void. Yes, many agree in talk, but the walk is quite underwhelming. The defence ministry says we have to be ready for war until 2029. Most projects which are started now will, based on information by the same ministry, never ever be finished until before the 2030s. And yet, there is no hurry visible. We still have time.

DirkH 2y ago
A friend of mine visited Germany and talked to Germans about the threat of nuclear war and what they may or may not be doing. She said there was a very bizarre "it will never happen" vibe wherever she asked. Germans basically laughed at her for taking it as a serious concern worth discussing, even smart Germans with solid academic backgrounds. In the US it is a very different story. Whether a Stanford alumni or a rando at a bar Americans are much less likely to laugh you off for taking the prospect of nuclear war seriously. So everything you say seems to fit to me.
- lukan 2y ago
  You can also ask germans directly here. I would tell you, many people take it serious, judging from HN comments, way more than americans, some just like to remain in their safe space bubble.

sinfulprogeny 2y ago

lol we get those pamphlets sent out every now and then. Of course it's related to the increase tension, but it's not the huge call sign you make it out to be. "be ready for war" means "be ready in case something happens", not "be ready for what's about to happen."