this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2025
293 points (98.7% liked)

Europe

5580 readers
1238 users here now

News and information from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in !yurop@lemm.ee. (They're cool, you should subscribe there too!)
  8. Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
  10. Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.

(This list may get expanded as necessary.)

Posts that link to the following sources will be removed

Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media. Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com

(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)

Ban lengths, etc.

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to any of the mods: @federalreverse@feddit.org, @poVoq@slrpnk.net, or @anzo@programming.dev.

founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
 

This article is about Germany rapidly increasing defence spending, and also the fact that they're considering conscription. I also found this interesting:

A recent YouGov poll showed that 79% of Germans still see Vladimir Putin as "very" or "quite" dangerous to European peace and security. Now 74% said the same for Donald Trump.

Thoughts?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I see your attempt of derailing, but I'll play the game.

How does appeasement prevent a war? It didn't work for the First or Second World War.

[–] Matombo@feddit.org -3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You are just naive in thinking that weapons can prevent a war.

[–] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You are just naive in thinking that querfronts can prevent a war.

I never said that I think weapons prevent wars.

Wars with erratic actors like Putin cannot be prevented, because certainty of peace is built on trust, but Putin cannot be trusted.

[–] Matombo@feddit.org -1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

So your solution is just to lay down and die (pobably litteraly)?

[–] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The country I live in tries to be prepared for war and so do many countries in Europe.

I and my in-group have a lot to lose when countries like Russia, USA or China expand their influence onto Europe, by indirect, hybrid or direct intervention.

European society is already split enough, it doesn't need further authority (from outside).

[–] Matombo@feddit.org 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

MAD only works if all sides have nuclear anxiety and the existence of nuclear weapons doesn't rule ballistic weapons out of existence, especially for countries without nuclear weapons (see Ukraine). I'm not advocating for nuclear proliferation here.

The equilibrium of MAD (as in "The only way to win is not to play") might be relevant for countries with nuclear weapons (i.e. Russia, USA, China), but telling the Ukraine defense that "The only way to win is not to play" is insulting and privileged.

Germany does not intend to test how far Russia is going with ballistic weapons and cannot rely solely on the power of MAD's equilibrium from France, NATO or USA.

[–] Matombo@feddit.org 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

but telling the Ukraine defense that “The only way to win is not to play” is insulting and privileged.

now you are derailing the argument

btt

The equilibrium of MAD (as in “The only way to win is not to play”) might be relevant for countries with nuclear weapons (i.e. Russia, USA, China),

But all i hear is we need more conventional weapons to defend against russia?

Still wanna know how that increases the peace?

[–] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

"Conventional" weapons make a defensive war less deadly to civilians and more expensive for the other side.

[–] Matombo@feddit.org 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

“Conventional” weapons make a defensive war less deadly to civilians

How?

and more expensive for the other side.

If this counts then there must be a diplomatic solution mustn't it? because a war is always more expensive.

[–] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

For examply by increased range: Weapons that shoot down rockets/drones before they hit can protect a city or region.

a war is always more expensive

Call the Kremlin/White House/Zhongnanhai, I think you're onto something there.

"Diplomatic Solution" is only viable if rulers care about pre-war military economics. Authoritarians don't always do that.

[–] Matombo@feddit.org 1 points 2 weeks ago

For examply by increased range: Weapons that shoot down rockets/drones before they hit can protect a city or region.

nothin' shooting down a nuke, just sain'

“Diplomatic Solution” is only viable if rulers care about pre-war military economics. Authoritarians don’t always do that.

so they also don't care about cost increase afterwards

[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So your solution is to do nothing and die (Very likely literally)?

[–] Matombo@feddit.org 1 points 2 weeks ago

I don't have a solution, but unlike the militarist I don't pretend to have one.