We will probably disagree on whether we’re defended enough. Is our defense budget sufficient to ensure that Russia won’t sweep through Europe without resistance? Sure. But the desired outcome is not to withstand the invasion further into Europe (at some point) but rather to:

stop the already ongoing invasion into Ukraine
prevent any further attempts to invade again

Without increasing our defense, we will always be at a risk that Russia will try to invade even if it would be fully aware that it couldn’t conquer the whole continent. They can always do what they’re doing right now:

Depend on other allies to provide weapons/manpower
Try to grab single country and hope that the rest of Europe consider it to be too big of a hassle to defend it
Sow discord among Europeans and try to sway people by “rationally explaining” that “why should France invest in defense when they’re far far from potential front line?” (and similar)

We also need to admit, that our numbers spent on defense can’t be directly compared with Russia’s, because they are a single country. They have better control over their budget and over the control how and if the budget is spent. It’s a lot more complicated to get 100% of Europe on the same page when deciding how the money is spent.

The best way to avoid all of this is by making ourselves not worth attacking. And not just by Russia alone, but by Russia backed by their peers. Do you believe our current budget is sufficient for that?

[–] alykanas@slrpnk.net 0 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

There is no evidence of Russian ambition into Europe. So that would be a starting point. Then, I’d look at the peace that have been maintained on the continent for more or less 80 years. Established and maintained with free trade. Russia was happily selling oil and gas - and buying real estate and professional service in Europe. Germany believed in it so much, they built a crucial pipeline to seal the deal - to the annoyance of the USA.

In the issue of the Ukraine. Most people imagine the Ukraine as a united territory with a clear, defended border. This has never been the case. Eastern Ukraine has never been very loyal or obedient to the elites in western Ukraine. Eastern UKraine is Russian speaking , and has always overwhelmingly supported Russian leaning presidents - because if the deep cultural and economic ties that exist.

None of this is to diminish Russian aggression and illegal invasion of Ukrainian territory. However, it speaks to a localised dispute that everyone should surely work to diffuse, and not escalate.

In light of this, and in light of the mutual defence treatise and agreement that exist is Europe, and the fact the Britain and France have nuclear weapons - my answer is yes, Europe is sufficient defend.

I would further suggest, and you may not like it, that should Europe disentangle from the US (which is being discussed but i believe impossible ) - Europe would be even less of a target .

Europe should be working harder a peace, not at war, and I suggest that the boys of the internet calling for war, would feel very differently when the letter telling them to report the local military base arrived at their house.

[–] Vlado@feddit.org 2 points 47 minutes ago* (last edited 25 minutes ago) (1 children)

There’s no evidence? Other than Russia saying that they want their “sphere of influence” and so on? What you are saying right now is the same that was already said in 2014. “Let’s don’t anger Russia. Let’s keep them dependent on trading with us and they won’t attack”. And look how much good this has done for Ukraine. So I’m going to flip your argument and ask a rhetorical question: Is there any evidence/precedent that Russia won’t invade again?

Maintaining trading as a manner of keeping peace only works if you’re dealing with rational actors. And if you look around the world, you’ll see that this is not what is happening. You will see USA making threats to Canada, to Panama, to Greenland. These countries were doing what you’re proposing. Trading. And now they’re the target. And it only took “few” irrational people that have other priorities than trade (even if that negatively influences their countries).

Regarding your stance on Ukraine: This is making me pretty annoyed. Because I’m already pretty sure that when Russia is going to invade Slovakia or Baltics or Romania, we’ll keep hearing the same thing. “But a lot of people were pro-Russian there. You don’t understand the intricacies of their local politics.” When Russia is going to invade Germany, you can also use the same argument that eastern Germany is a lot more open towards Russia then the rest of country. You can say this about a lot of countries.

I will repeat myself, but you’re saying things that were said in 2014. They’re being said now. And they will be also said during next invasion. So I can tell you what’s going to be said regarding French nuclear arsenal: “Oh you want to destroy the world/ww3 because of some small country that was already pretty pro-Russian to begin with?”. You can take your whole comment and apply it on all the future conflicts.

And before I reply to your last paragraph, I need to mention that pretty much all of your points are also raised by politicians in my country. Politicians which are proven to be paid by Russia and points which are mostly on Russia’s behalf. Because of that I simply don’t believe you’re arguing in good faith and because of that I won’t reply to any of your replies to this comment. Feel free to reply, but I don’t think it makes sense to continue this discussion. And now to the reply: The only one who conflates Europe having a bigger army with “calling for war” is you. This is what we keep hearing from Russian apologists since 2022. “Europe are warmongers. Kids on internet are pro-war”. The exact point for having bigger army is to NOT need to use it. No one is saying “let’s build an army to invade Russia”, so your point about anyone “wanting” to go to war is moot. What people are saying is that they want bigger army to make us a less-feasible target. And the only people who have objective problem with that are Russians, because it makes their dreams of conquest harder to execute. This is why when anyone uses this argument about “kids are heroes on internet”, it makes me not take the discussion with them seriously.

[–] StarlingDE@feddit.org 1 points 26 minutes ago

I think they're a Russian sea lion.

[–] Renohren@lemmy.today 2 points 9 hours ago

As someone who lives in Europe and has fulfilled, as any other fellow citizen my age my service: what are you on about?

Being dependant on Russian allies (what the US became) and their tech IP for protection is not bearable and IS the way to war against our interests, it has already started in Ukraine.

Independence and having a deterring army is what guarantees peace on our mainland and territories.