Russia has depleted its tank stocks: the industry is not covering combat losses
Russia has depleted its tank stocks: the industry is not covering combat losses
Yet we must triple up military budget in case they decide to invade whole europe on empty tanks...
I think at this point the unspoken truth is that we must have a military that needs to be a deterrent to the US as well.
US has thousand military facilities all over europe, you could simply lower the gap by kicking them out. Making such claim a year ago would have get you labeled as a russian troll.
Everyone upvoting your comment should take half of the money in his wallet and donate them to the government because that's how you match US trillion dollar budget.
Yes because Russia will build more tanks and other equipment in the next decade. Not a problem if Europe builds up too. But that will be a problem if Europe does nothing.
If Russia were an immediate threat, Europe would have no choice but to give Trump whatever he wants so the US will protect Europe. But with Russian forces being decimated by this war, Europe has the opportunity to build it's own arms industry to be able to produce it's own weapons to be able to counter Russia in a decade's time.
Europe does nothing.
European countries combined are already spending more money on war than russia. European countries have a big arms industry already and they export weapons all over the world, including to countries ruled by dictatorships like saudi arabia. They even sold weapons to russia in the past years that are being used in the ukraine war.
You are misinformed.
European countries combined do indeed spend more money on war than russia. What the article you posted claim is that adjusted to their buying power russia spend the equivalent of more billions. Even if we compare these adjusted spending europe and russia are pretty much there.
That’s my point. You can’t just compare raw GDP when one country is essentially isolationist. PPP statistics give a more realistic comparison and according to those, Russia spends more then the EU.
I'm going to go with what European military leaders are saying, out loud and in public. God knows what those leaders really know and talk about.
I'm guessing you're European? Well, you've had 80 years of mostly peace and prosperity. Timed to get armed, personally. (Yes my fellow Americans, Europeans can acquire guns without too much hassle. Yes, real guns. Gun ownership just isn't a major part of their culture like it is over here, and their culture isn't as diseased as ours regarding weapons.)
If you're allergic to guns, consider these two scenarios:
In which case do you expect the invader to suffer the most? Which case do you consider more likely?
I’m guessing you’re European? Well, you’ve had 80 years of mostly peace and prosperity.
I'm guessing you are american because you sound like you don't know much history
You are ignoring the elephant in the room, which is that a rising sense of militarism quickly feeds into a decay of your society, if you make an incredible amount of guns somebody is going to use them, that is how these things work.
I am not saying Europe shouldn't absolutely take being able to militarily counter Russia seriously, as they should any regional threat, but what is needed isn't necessarily to reshape Europe into a hypermilitarized environment, especially in the area of police and the militarization of police, what Europe needs is to make sure it has effective counters to a mass, mechanized land war. What conservative war hawks in Europe will advocate for is a militarization of police and of society, that is not what is needed. You need the right military assets to make a ground war incredibly costly for the Russians.
One of the most effective counters, and a decisive element of the war in Ukranian has been HIMARs, long range missiles launched from trucks and armor capable of striking mobile Russian SAM assets and other high value targets from extremely far away. These make maneuvering a large concentrated armored force much much much more costly and dangerous for an invader.
...but ultimately this all devolves into a sense of militarism that undermines the original reason for making all the guns in the first place, it is just a matter of how far you can push it in your society before that cancer becomes terminal... see the U.S. as a prime example....
Even your comment advocating for reasonable spending gets downvoted. People are mad on war propaganda.
This is how quickly the cancer of militarism spreads and why war is the favorite tool of the ruling class rich, time immemorial, to put off making concessions to society so that the average person can live a somewhat decent life.
Modern professional militaries don't need hundreds of thousands of troops, you don't need to mainline jingoism and nationalism straight into your fucking veins to defend your country from Russia, just make sure your military has the right capabilities to make a Russian land invasion as absolutely costly as possible.
What conservative warhawks will hear though is "tear our society apart and pre-emptively destroy everything we hold dear because of the threat of an enemy invader, and then in that militarism invite in corruption from Russian aligned assets anyways that exploit the opening created by the deafening roar of righteousness of the military industrial complex".
Resist them with everything you have.
European leaders are already talking about using the new army to invade the Middle East.
Source?
Could you back that up with a citation?
It's funny how easily people are deceived, imagine if your house neighbor were to buy some howitzers and hire 100 guys for "security reasons". Armies are made to wage war and most weapons are designed to kill other humans.
Just leave Lemmy already, you are cancer
Your comment is the most stupid here