3 ms·

The EU just announced a series of financial measures designed to support a massive level of re-armament by member states. I don't think we are in denial. Whethe

The EU just announced a series of financial measures designed to support a massive level of re-armament by member states. I don't think we are in denial. Whether we can effectively respond is a different question.

throwaway48476 2y ago
Rearmament is stupid. For every $1 spent destroying Russian equipment it's equivalent to $10 not spent on deterrence over the next 10 years. The only thing more expensive than a war is an arms race.
- consp 2y ago
  It's also a way to subsidize your own country by subsidizing the arms industry. Pretty much what has happened in the US in the past years (pretty much all "gifts" are subsidies of the arms industry).
- ethbr1 2y ago
  The combination of both is usually optimal. - Investing in deterrence is cost effective... up to a point. - Directly sending Ukraine arms is cost effective... up to a point. Right now, it's fair to say that (relative to Russia) Europe has been underinvesting in defense for a couple decades. Good news: they seem to have recognized this and invested in recapitalizing their industrial defense base.
- Bayart 2y ago
  It's not just Russia we need to be weary about. America needs to be guarded against.
- edouard-harris 2y ago
  Rearmament is deterrence. Unless you have a big enough stick, you can't deter anything.
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    You don't need to deter what doesn't exist.
    - Tadpole9181 2y ago
      Makes sense a throwaway account is spreading Russian propaganda and self conflicting within 1 comment of itself. > We should spend money on deterrence. Then > You don't need to deter what doesn't exist. I guess next you'll say Russia isn't even at war with Ukraine and we shouldn't believe our lying eyes?
      - throwaway48476 2y ago
        ??? I'm suggesting europe take the 800 billion they're going to spend on deterrence and instead buy weapons for Ukraine today. This would degrade russias military sufficient to need to spend less on deterrence in the future. In no way is this supportive of russia. As an example: If europe gave Ukraine enough cruise missiles to wipe out russias Tu 95 fleet that would be a permanent loss. They were built by the Soviet Union and rebuilding them would take a hundred years at least. What europe fails to see is the massive ROI from supporting Ukraine today.
        marcosdumay 2y ago
        Europe seems to be doing exactly that. Things just changed, so it will take a while to see what is actually happening. But they did claim to have increased a lot what they send to Ukraine.
    - edouard-harris 2y ago
      Deterrence is usually the reason why a category of nation-state aggression doesn't exist. Otherwise, the fact that we've never had a global nuclear war would be sufficient to prove that we don't need to deter a global nuclear war.
    - regularjack 2y ago
- Paradigma11 2y ago
  I agree somewhat but this is also aimed at independence from the US. The US has shown itself to be an unreliable ally that can get you in a dangerous position and then leave you hanging. So much of that money is going to close the capability gaps.

throwaway48476 2y ago

Rearmament is stupid. For every $1 spent destroying Russian equipment it's equivalent to $10 not spent on deterrence over the next 10 years. The only thing more expensive than a war is an arms race.

consp 2y ago
It's also a way to subsidize your own country by subsidizing the arms industry. Pretty much what has happened in the US in the past years (pretty much all "gifts" are subsidies of the arms industry).
ethbr1 2y ago
The combination of both is usually optimal. - Investing in deterrence is cost effective... up to a point. - Directly sending Ukraine arms is cost effective... up to a point. Right now, it's fair to say that (relative to Russia) Europe has been underinvesting in defense for a couple decades. Good news: they seem to have recognized this and invested in recapitalizing their industrial defense base.
Bayart 2y ago
It's not just Russia we need to be weary about. America needs to be guarded against.
edouard-harris 2y ago
Rearmament is deterrence. Unless you have a big enough stick, you can't deter anything.
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  You don't need to deter what doesn't exist.
  - Tadpole9181 2y ago
    Makes sense a throwaway account is spreading Russian propaganda and self conflicting within 1 comment of itself. > We should spend money on deterrence. Then > You don't need to deter what doesn't exist. I guess next you'll say Russia isn't even at war with Ukraine and we shouldn't believe our lying eyes?
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      ??? I'm suggesting europe take the 800 billion they're going to spend on deterrence and instead buy weapons for Ukraine today. This would degrade russias military sufficient to need to spend less on deterrence in the future. In no way is this supportive of russia. As an example: If europe gave Ukraine enough cruise missiles to wipe out russias Tu 95 fleet that would be a permanent loss. They were built by the Soviet Union and rebuilding them would take a hundred years at least. What europe fails to see is the massive ROI from supporting Ukraine today.
      - marcosdumay 2y ago
        Europe seems to be doing exactly that. Things just changed, so it will take a while to see what is actually happening. But they did claim to have increased a lot what they send to Ukraine.
  - edouard-harris 2y ago
    Deterrence is usually the reason why a category of nation-state aggression doesn't exist. Otherwise, the fact that we've never had a global nuclear war would be sufficient to prove that we don't need to deter a global nuclear war.
  - regularjack 2y ago
Paradigma11 2y ago
I agree somewhat but this is also aimed at independence from the US. The US has shown itself to be an unreliable ally that can get you in a dangerous position and then leave you hanging. So much of that money is going to close the capability gaps.