It is a gigantic waste.
Fear of Russia in Germany is pure hysteria.
Russia is also paranoid, but at least it has historical reasons.
back
4 comments
Russia might not be able to invade Germany in the near future, but the much more likely and concerning scenario would be Russia nibbling away at EU countries in the east like the baltic states. If that happens and the NATO/EU states hesitate to defend that would almost certainly shatter these alliances and bring a much more uncertain future.
> much more likely and concerning scenario
Based on what data? Or is this just speculation as usual?
Is there data in 2021 that would have led you to think Russia would attempt an outright invasion of Ukraine?
Is it really so outlandish to think that Russian irredentism[0] will continue?
Food for thought from 2014(!): https://youtu.be/HLAzeHnNgR8
People were claiming the Russian military buildup and troop massing did not mean they would invade right up until the day they did.
People claimed that Russians were stripping stolen washing machines for chips, that sanctions would have collapsed their economy, etc. Lots of people claim lots of things, sometime they are right.
They were just training, surely nothing to be concerned about.
Most of those people were Russian propagandists, though.
Based on previous actions by Russia, like the 2014 Invasion in Ukraine. But mostly I took this scenario from what one expert wrote (Carlo Masala), but it is just that, one scenario.
But this is similar to what other expert say, that the more concerning weak point in NATO is political. And if Russia could successfully drive a wedge between the NATO states it becomes vulnerable even if the total conventional military of its members is superior to Russian forces.
There's plenty of other experts saying that peaceful cooperation with Russia is possible. Wouldn't that be preferable to war to the last man, or a new decades long cold war?
I don't understand why don't we talk more about achieving that, instead of blindly preparing for WWIII. NATO shouldn't even exist since the URSS collapsed.
Sure. Might be. But you are here asking for Europe to preemptively roll over and give in to Russian wars of aggression.
From a game theory point of view how is that supposed to bring peace? That just shows Russia that they can do whatever they want and reach their goals. We already had the Minsk agreement Russia violated. Why should Russia stop when we give in to their demands? What‘s the logic there?
At some point you have to show strength. And earlier is probably better if you want to prevent WWIII
> At some point you have to show strength. And earlier is probably better if you want to prevent WWIII
Sure, EU combined already spends three times as much as Russia in "showing strength". I'm sure there must be a way to use what we have without tripling the expense. If nothing, because showing that we need 10 times their military expense to keep up with them would only show that we are in fact weaker.
Unless the goal of rearmament is only to make a few weapon manufacturers richer, then I'd say we've found the most efficient way to do it.
I don’t think re-armament is the only or the best solution. It’s just that with the US having left the picture Europe does have to show strength if it has to have any hope of keeping Russia at bay. That‘s not just arms, that’s also credible deterrence. How can Europe achieve that absent the US without spending on arms?
I do think that Ukraine is instructive in terms of Russia not being as almighty as they might seem, but in terms of outcome Putin is scary close to achieving practically all of his war aims short of Ukraine ceasing to exist. I learned that Putin is patient. He can take it step by step. He does not value human life. And that’s dangerous.
At great cost to the Russian people, sure, but does Putin care? Another five to ten years and he can give something else a go. And suddenly he is in the Baltcis or at the Polish border.
Sure that would be preferable if Russia was willing to accept that. But they proved those experts wrong in 2022 and have not changed their ways since. Maybe you could argue in the 90s that NATO shouldn't exist but Russias actions proved such arguments wrong
After how many slaps in your face will you raise your hands? Europe tried peace with Russia and Russia invaded country after country over the past decades. Where would you draw the line?
As far as I know, invading other countries and bombing civilians is an informal requirement for friendship with the EU.
We've been friends for decades with the US, Israel, Turkey, and more, after all.
I understand Russia is a bit low in terms of amount of civilians killed, but we could make an exception for them if it avoided WWIII.
Line where?
There's a saying if you want peace prepare for war. Especially with Russia who seem to have a habit of cooperation with countries that can defend themselves and invasion of those who can't.
> There's a saying if you want peace prepare for war.
Sure, EU combined already spends three times as much as Russia in "showing strength". I'm sure there must be a way to use what we have without tripling the expense. If nothing, because if we need 10 times their military expense to keep up with them we'd only show that we are in fact weaker.
Based on the way Russia has been gradually pushing more and more. Step by step. Slowly.
They take what they want. They are appeased. A couple years nothing happens. They take what they want. They are appeased … etc.
Invading Ukraine should be a clear warning that Russia will not just stop. For appeasement to end and for Europe to seriously look for viable paths to peace. Not just yearlong pauses in fighting that allow Russia to regain strength. That is not peace.
A "just peace through strength", right? Orwell would be so proud, Newspeak has become the official European language.
The allies actually did create a just peace through strength in Europe during and after WWII. So I’m not sure why you are so offended by that thought? Would there have been a better way to create a peace that all in all has been lasting for more than three quarters of a century now? Would it have been better to further appease the facists?(Obviously not a perfect or complete peace. Obviously the Cold War also sucked. Not disputing any of that.)
Also, obviously I hope that this time around it’s not too late to prevent facists from burning Europe to the ground before we can defeat them.
Do you dispute that showing strength is an element to peace? (I’m not talking about killing people or invading other countries. I’m talking about a demonstrated and credible willingness to defend your values and alliances.)
> The allies actually did create a just peace through strength
They won the war, the goal was clearly defeating the axis. Did you have a shower today or did you achieve a just and long lasting personal hygiene through water?
You should at least be brave enough to say it like it is: you want to win the war.
The only problem is that this time the enemy has enough nuclear weapons to trigger a new ice age, so you resort to Newspeak.
> Also, obviously I hope that this time around it’s not too late to prevent facists from burning Europe to the ground before we can defeat them.
For how I see it we got them already in the commission and doing all they can to burn the EU to the ground.
> Based on what data
History.
In general, divide and conquer (aka defeat in detail) is an excellent way to test and break the resolve of a military alliance, or a poorly organised but massively overpowering enemy in the aggregate.
Recent history from 2014 to 2022?
I need logic. Everything else is just speculation, the equivalent of believing that since for the past few days it rained then we're certain that tomorrow will rain as well. It all sounds perfectly reasonable, if you are an ignorant.
Ok, if you want it spelt out, the logic would be something we all learnt in grade school. The only language bullies understand are consequences. Putin annexed part of another sovereign country in 2014 and faced no consequences. He therefore launched a full on occupation of the same country in 2022.
Also, there is no need for ad hominem attacks. Contrary to what you might think, they don't actually serve any purpose in putting your point across.
> The only language bullies understand are consequences. Putin annexed part of another sovereign country in 2014 and faced no consequences. He therefore launched a full on occupation of the same country in 2022.
So yesterday and the day before that were rainy, therefore we come to the conclusion that it has to rain tomorrow as well, am I right?
If only we knew a bit more about how the weather works!
> Also, there is no need for ad hominem attacks.
The "unless you are an ignorant" wasn't directed at you, I just used it to make a point.
When it was raining yesterday, and people with weather experience say "it might rain tomorrow", do you insist umbrellas should be left at home because it's just speculation?
Except in this scenario it's still raining as we speak. What data do you have that Russia will stop?
There are many experts saying that tomorrow won't rain, unless we make it rain ourselves. Don't make it sound like there's a clear consensus.
> What data do you have that Russia will stop?
I’m not the one suggesting we throw away €800 billion, excuse me for asking why. Still, I'll try to explain.
Russia has lots to lose and nothing to gain from a direct war with NATO. The last thing it needs is more land and resources, so we can exclude that as well. I also genuinely think the cause of this war is Russia feeling threatened by NATO expansion and a civil war on its border, whether you consider that legit or not.
The only reason for Russia to not stop is if we don't allow it, at this point.
This sounds exactly like what people were saying right up to February 2022: it doesn't make sense, Russia won't invade Ukraine, Russia has enough land, it is geopolitical suicide. And yet, here we are!
And does it really seem like the USA is going to come to the rescue if Russia pushes into the Baltics? Heck at this point they may very well use the distraction to invade Greenland.
So what's the deterrent but for Europe to buy its own umbrella?
Assuming Russia is not already attacking in a low key way https://archive.ph/Mnl6E
> Russia is also paranoid, but at least it has historical reasons
From retaining most of the historic Russian Empire?!
"I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended?"
(Putin 2007 in Munich, Wikipedia)
This is kind of paranoid. But there are historical reasons:
Poland/Lithuania (Władysław), Napoleon, The German Kaiser, Hitler
Władysław predates Russia by a century. How is that a threat?
I am referring to the Polish Russian War from 1609 to 1618.
"The King of Poland, Sigismund III Vasa, declared war on Russia in response in 1609, aiming to gain territorial concessions and to weaken Sweden's ally. Polish forces won many early victories"
"Sigismund's son, Prince Władysław of Poland, was elected tsar of Russia by the Seven Boyars in September 1610, but Sigismund refused to allow his son to become the new tsar unless the Muscovites agreed to convert from Eastern Orthodoxy to Catholicism"
In fact, I don't have an overview of all the wars and carnage in which Russia and neighboring countries were involved.
It should simply come to an end.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Russian_War_(16...
Ah, that was Władysław IV.
It’s pretty insane to go back 400 years, to a war where none of the pretexts could apply today, and claim that’s a reason to be afraid of NATO.
I agree. But did you listen to Putin? He starts with the Kievan Rus when rambling about history.
The funny thing is that EU already spends 3 times as much as Russia in defence. Rearm EU is clearly a huge gift to weapon manufacturers and not much else. If we really cared about our defence we'd focus first on making what we have more efficient.
If we need to spend more than a trillion € to keep up with Russia's measly $145 billions, then we've already lost.
We need to spend a lot more and do defence very differently than Russia, because Europe values human life a lot higher than Russia.
Russia can attack with ten million men armed with knifes and clubs. They will March on, kill and destroy, until they starve to death or someone stops them.
We won't defend by sending twenty million similarity armed persons into the meat grinder. We will want to arm and armour our troops so that there is minimal loss of life and limb.
Russian may attack with chemical weapons, we are not interested in hitting back the same way.
Russia will target hydro dams and other civilian infrastructure with potential for mass destruction. We care about protecting those things to avoid harm to our citizens, Russia does not care.
The conflict is assymetrical on many levels.
> Russia can attack with ten million men armed with knifes and clubs.
This is just baseless propaganda and you know it. What a shame would it be for the west and Ukraine if an army of men armed with clubs was able to stand its ground against them.
> Russia will target hydro dams and other civilian infrastructure with potential for mass destruction. We care about protecting those things to avoid harm to our citizens, Russia does not care.
Of course, just like we did with Iraq's infrastructure[0] for example?
I suggest you use the effort you put in writing such uninformed rethoric in informing yourself, it will pay out at some point.
- [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damage_to_Baghdad_during_the_I...
> stand its ground
Now there’s propaganda.
Whataboutism is of course another clear sign. Ironically your example would imply Iraq should have built up its military to defend from such an attack.
Things would have looked quite different in Iraq, if Saddam had focused his military spending on defense of civilians and civilian infrastructure!
Not making excuses for all the wrongs done by US and allies before, during and after the invasion. It was a terrible idea, badly executed. But it didn't come out of nowhere, Saddam had a history of attacking his neighbours, he and his party had it coming.