15 ms·

If Europe had taken seriously: 1- in 2008 the invasion of Georgia 2- in 2014 the first invasion of Ukraine 3- in 2016 the shift in American politics and its

If Europe had taken seriously: 1- in 2008 the invasion of Georgia 2- in 2014 the first invasion of Ukraine 3- in 2016 the shift in American politics and its disinterest in Europe then a small re-militarization would have been more than enough to avoid the second invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and all what has unfolded. Instead, Europe is now fighting for its survival and is reacting rather than acting - in such desperate times, climate change can wait ...

hackinthebochs 2y ago
>Europe is now fighting for its survival What makes you think this hyperbole is true or useful?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > What makes you think this hyperbole is true or useful? The EU is explicitly called out as an enemy of Russia and America by its ruling parties’ elites.
- marsovo 2y ago
  [dead]
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  Hyperbole? The current US president already threatened annexation of Greenland, which is a Danish territory, not to mention the ongoing trade war. There's no hyperbole there.
jfengel 2y ago
Europe has plenty of time for its militarization. If it had done it before then they wouldn't have to be doing it now, but it wouldn't have deterred any of those events. Delaying was a reasonable choice given the information at the time, hoping that Putin was not a moron and that he would not take control of the US. They are reacting adequately, at a deliberate but not reckless pace, in response to the new information.
johnea 2y ago
> fighting for its survival From what? There's no serious indication of a russian threat to invade western europe. > climate change can wait That's actually the exact opposite of the truth. Like "rust never sleeps", neither does any other ongoing chemical process. Climate change will keep on chugging 24/7 and receive exactly the amount of productive attention it's already received, which is none. Every effort by equity since the broad awareness of this reality has been to obstruct any action that would disrupt current revenue streams. Any educated, and even marginally objective person cannot deny the ongoing disaster of human environmental devastation in all forms, and it's ever increasing impact on all human activity. However all major investors in the status quo are also clear on another fact: they're old enough to be dead before the worst of the consequences come to bear. So they advocate burning it down for profit today, and fuck the future. I'm also old enough to not have to face to worst of it, but I actually feel we should steward our environment, not just burn it down for this quarters returns. All of this is in addition to the reality that peace is more economically productive, and war is just one big murderous disaster. The use of military force through the so called cold war, and into the present, has left us with these festering military operations that are depriving all of us from a peaceful and productive life, and for what? So some hyper-rich asshole can have more. That's what "glory of god and country" is all about. Getting the idiot herd to dismember itself to see which ruling class asshat gets more stuff.
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  > From what? There's no serious indication of a russian threat to invade western europe. The current US president threates to annex Greenland. This would be an act of war. EU has to be able to defend itself. As for the rest of your comment, I think at this point climate change is a secondary concern, when you need to stand up to threats from east and west.
- fabianholzer 2y ago
  > From what? There's no serious indication of a russian threat to invade western europe. Well, either you are not following the openly stated intentions of the Russians or you are not taking them seriously. The former would be sheer ignorance, the latter would be a grave mistake.
WinstonSmith84 2y ago
I don't care about points, but I find however that very interesting for getting downvoted. As someone who has traveled the world and lived on different continents, I thought my comment would be pretty obvious. But it isn't for a majority, and I truly wonder who is disagreeing then: 1- I believe that Americans overall, whether left or right, let alone far right, can't disagree with that statement - that Europe doesn't (didn't) take its security seriously and Americans don't want to be involved anymore 2- Europeans? I don't know, maybe some still live in their bubble and all is good? Reading some of the comments, I can see such people but that's certainly surprising to see a majority 3- And then the rest of the world ... the ROTW doesn't care much about what's happening in Europe, and climate change is the least of many people's problems.

hackinthebochs 2y ago

>Europe is now fighting for its survival What makes you think this hyperbole is true or useful?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> What makes you think this hyperbole is true or useful? The EU is explicitly called out as an enemy of Russia and America by its ruling parties’ elites.
marsovo 2y ago
[dead]
surgical_fire 2y ago
Hyperbole? The current US president already threatened annexation of Greenland, which is a Danish territory, not to mention the ongoing trade war. There's no hyperbole there.

jfengel 2y ago

Europe has plenty of time for its militarization. If it had done it before then they wouldn't have to be doing it now, but it wouldn't have deterred any of those events. Delaying was a reasonable choice given the information at the time, hoping that Putin was not a moron and that he would not take control of the US. They are reacting adequately, at a deliberate but not reckless pace, in response to the new information.

johnea 2y ago

> fighting for its survival From what? There's no serious indication of a russian threat to invade western europe. > climate change can wait That's actually the exact opposite of the truth. Like "rust never sleeps", neither does any other ongoing chemical process. Climate change will keep on chugging 24/7 and receive exactly the amount of productive attention it's already received, which is none. Every effort by equity since the broad awareness of this reality has been to obstruct any action that would disrupt current revenue streams. Any educated, and even marginally objective person cannot deny the ongoing disaster of human environmental devastation in all forms, and it's ever increasing impact on all human activity. However all major investors in the status quo are also clear on another fact: they're old enough to be dead before the worst of the consequences come to bear. So they advocate burning it down for profit today, and fuck the future. I'm also old enough to not have to face to worst of it, but I actually feel we should steward our environment, not just burn it down for this quarters returns. All of this is in addition to the reality that peace is more economically productive, and war is just one big murderous disaster. The use of military force through the so called cold war, and into the present, has left us with these festering military operations that are depriving all of us from a peaceful and productive life, and for what? So some hyper-rich asshole can have more. That's what "glory of god and country" is all about. Getting the idiot herd to dismember itself to see which ruling class asshat gets more stuff.

surgical_fire 2y ago
> From what? There's no serious indication of a russian threat to invade western europe. The current US president threates to annex Greenland. This would be an act of war. EU has to be able to defend itself. As for the rest of your comment, I think at this point climate change is a secondary concern, when you need to stand up to threats from east and west.
fabianholzer 2y ago
> From what? There's no serious indication of a russian threat to invade western europe. Well, either you are not following the openly stated intentions of the Russians or you are not taking them seriously. The former would be sheer ignorance, the latter would be a grave mistake.

WinstonSmith84 2y ago

I don't care about points, but I find however that very interesting for getting downvoted. As someone who has traveled the world and lived on different continents, I thought my comment would be pretty obvious. But it isn't for a majority, and I truly wonder who is disagreeing then: 1- I believe that Americans overall, whether left or right, let alone far right, can't disagree with that statement - that Europe doesn't (didn't) take its security seriously and Americans don't want to be involved anymore 2- Europeans? I don't know, maybe some still live in their bubble and all is good? Reading some of the comments, I can see such people but that's certainly surprising to see a majority 3- And then the rest of the world ... the ROTW doesn't care much about what's happening in Europe, and climate change is the least of many people's problems.