• MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    13 hours ago

    The EU still has more soldiers, tanks, planes and so forth then Russia, even without the US. The reason to increase military spending is mainly to make sure Russia does not attack, as that would be even more expensive.

    At the same time talking about capabilities is important. However there also needs to be a discussion about potential threats. For example the EU imports nearly all of its fossil fuels, mainly from countries it does not like too much. So reducing fossil fuel consumption might be a better investment, then military spending for some foreign mission. Similar story with China and manufacturing.

      • bluGill@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Europe’s plan for war didn’t need lots of artillery shells. However Europe isn’t providing Ukraine with the air power needed to fight without lots of artillery which makes one wonder if they have enough capacity to build more if a competent Russia had attacked Europe instead.

        • realitista@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          Fair point. A united Europe can certainly defeat Russia, it’s only a divided one I’m concerned with.

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Or both, military spending because there is a war in Europe, more renewables (I think nuclear is late to the party, and we import the fuel from not the nicest countries too) so that we can phase out lots of oil, coal, gas consumption.