You have to factor in the length of human life. There isn't a lot of living memory from ww2 anymore. And the ones that are still living are too far gone to have any influence. It's also hard to justify higher taxes in peacetime for weapons that might never be used.
And the ones with living memory of the great wars remember how the buildup of European militaries led to the decimation of the European population. Large armies are costly and so need to do something to justify that cost, this leads to wars, wars inevitably lead to wholesale destruction and death of civilians, why build up again for that to happen.
Unfortunately while Western Europe didn’t build up, the Muscovy focused on expansion after the fall of the union. Now Russia is looking west at a continent not as armed as it should be and backed by an America that is once again isolationist, it’s a return to the status of the 1930s and I don’t see it ending well
No it's because we survived 2 VERY destructive world wars in our homes and don't have the stomach for massive military operations anymore.
Add to that the numerous laws and constitutional bans against building militaries too large (supported by America!). Austria constitutionally forced to remain neutral, Finland forced to remain neutral due to Russia, etc.
Do you really no tunderstand why Germany was discouraged and was resistant to building it's military after two fucking world wars it started?
Really?
It's not as simple as you make out. Europe also isn't one country and one law.
Someone in this thread said Americans are reticent to support Ukraine because of pointless wars in the Middle East. Well imagine how fucking reticent you'd be if a massive chunk of your population died fighting wars in your own homes and back yard?
But the EU is kind of one country with one law. It is a federal system, but you can make a federal military structure. And the current European defense structure has been failing for a generation, constantly requiring American involvement and leadership.
And the EU initially started as way to tie together industries tied to defense as a way to keep the peace. At this point, might as well tie together the militaries as well.
( european here ) we are an Usa colony, the Usa set the foreign agenda, laws and cultural norms , immigration policy... We have been damaged by sanctions on russia... And we have to pay to help our master to expand his empire? Your empire, you pay. The only state that slight oppose your foreign policy, hungary, is bullied to hell.
The Usa is the only empire that pretend to not be an empire.
You want europe to pay for the army? Remove every usa base from europe... No? Why?
the reason for this is, i guess, related to undelete feature. it's available for limited time, because unlimited storage of things like this would be probably GDPR violation
Because that ducking idiot Sarkozy came to power and loves US cocks so much he decided to join NATO and fulfill the prophecies. And her we are now, just like De Gaulle had foretold!
Ah right, UK and France, two countries known for their pacifist ways. Or Finland and Poland, countries totally not ready to defend against a Russian offensive.
They havnt. Its literally only when you compare directly to America that their militaries seem sub par.
Britain or France alone could go toe to toe with Russia in a conventional war. And would utterly dominate basically any county on the planet other than China Russia or the US. If it ever came to an all out war between Europe and Russia, Russia wouldn't stand a chance. There would be Eurofighters over Moscow within a week.
beacuse we spent the last 20 years helping America perform aforementioned counter-insurgency in the middle east, to the obvious detriment of peer-to-peer conflict.
It's probably because sending old scraps to Ukraine doesn't make any money. Sending soldiers to die in Afghanistan was futile and guaranteed the production, sale, and shipment of more military tech/vehicles. Sending shit that was already made just costs money and doesn't fellate the military industrial complex.
Not to mention that a Ukraine that survives the war relatively intact will then be familiar with NATO-standard equipment and not particularly likely to want to buy things from Russia
And will then join NATO as the 3rd, 4th, or 5th most combat prepared force. I’d assume they’d be behind the US and UK but in the mix of France, Germany, and Turkey.
Does it really cost money though? I would think that it's far more expensive to just store & maintain our massive pile of outdated equipment. I imagine the military would be relieved to finally get rid of their hundreds of shitty A-10s rather than constantly pay for their existence at least, it seems like it'd save a lot of money. hint hint
I mean I wouldn't wish using the A-10 upon anybody (eugh), especially Ukrainians. But it would be good for money
The idea that you think people in the Bush administration sent soldiers to Afghanistan to make money is insane, and shows me you have never worked in government or met anyone who has. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant Iraq, not Afghanistan (since the US was attacked and the whole world agreed on going into Afghanistan). But even for Iraq, no one is making calculations on what's good for the military industrial complex - they're guessing on if the cost of human life is worth the human lives saved and suffering prevented, and yes "spreading democracy". We can certainly mock it now, and talk about the WMD justification proving false, but the idea of going to war to somehow make money is insane. War is a net negative (look up broken window theory) and everyone in government knows it. The point of war is to change the global order, not pad pocketbooks, and effecting global change still would be the point even if it worked for making money - which it doesn't.
The idea that you think people in the Bush administration sent soldiers to Afghanistan to make money is insane, and shows me you have never worked in government or met anyone who has.
The fact that you think this is so insane shows that you have no idea how the actual finances of sovereign currency works. What'd it cost them? Numbers on the "debt" that's so astronomically high that it's a joke?
since the US was attacked and the whole world agreed on going into Afghanistan
Yeah, sounds like you "worked" too closely to this militarization. That's just blatantly false. Portions of the fucking US itself, the target of the attacks, still protested and was against going there.
War is a net negative (look up broken window theory) and everyone in government knows it.
Many huge corporations disagree, and profit off of this. Even in the early 2000s, while it was happening, Haliburton and Cheneys relationship were heavily criticized, because even if it's some "net" negative or positive, there are people that stand to make a lot of money off one side of that equation.
The point of war is to change the global order, not pad pocketbooks
There were large issues people took with many international conflicts being about money and companies lining pockets. Whether it's oil in the middle east, fruit in central America, or any of the others, there are many conflicts in the "global order" which have had huge impacts for the aggressor and their economy. If you want to try to justify each one, sure, but many points point to a trend.
Because the half of the country that drools over the prospect of sending American sons and daughters to their death love dictators, like Putin, and hate liberals, like that Zelenskyy guy (I hear he's not even a Christian!)
Because Putin is bankrolling two or three minor political parties and the front runner of a major political party. That fucking anti-war protest in DC was the dumbest shit. Yeah let’s have two political parties that agree on absolutely fucking nothing except for hating Ukraine co-host an event where Ron Paul’s bitch ass makes up stories about how congresspeople told him that they needed to start a war to fix the economy while some limpdick tankie waves the Soviet flag around in the background
Most people posting as tankies today aren’t tankies.
As someone who has done extensive reading in modern Marxism, Rawlsian doctrine, anarchism both historical and modern, and so on and so on (and yes that was a Žižek reference), many of those posting as far leftists are coming from wholly self-constructed positions. They’re either deliberately playing the role of an agent provocateur or they’re people who have unwittingly become broadcast nodes with the same effect.
One of them on chapotraphouse said “I’m gonna vote for Trump just so see the US finally burn to the ground” and I replied “horseshoe theory: confirmed” and the mods removed my comment lmao
I opened accounts on multiple instances due to the instability (and information propagation dynamics) of individual ones. I figured “why not?” I had several Reddit accounts, after all, and it just seemed to make sense.
I thought lemmy.ml was for machine learning. The UI I was using didn’t include self-descriptions.
Crazy how tankies support Russia (despite them not even being communist, domestic abuse, treatment of gay people, and ties with conservatives). And are just okay with Russia killing entire villages of Ukraines because their supposed Nazi government (didn't let a Russian puppet in government).
They’re either deliberately playing the role of an agent provocateur or they’re people who have unwittingly become broadcast nodes with the same effect.
That's... a tankie, at least functionally. If they're spouting the propaganda, I don't care where it came from or whether it's officially certified as doctrine.
