Well put Mr. Tusk.

  • superkret@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    And Germany is taking on 1 trillion Euros in new debt to protect against Russia, which is currently spending less on its military than the EU, while fighting a war.

  • index@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Nobody is begging. Politicians are using “defence” as a leverage to enpower and enrich themself

  • seeigel@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    Deutsch
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    He knew that before Trump’s election but didn’t make it an issue. He also knows that it implies that Russia will never attack Poland, let alone Poland allied with Europe.

    What’s the real need for the strengthened military?

        • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          There is tons of EU countries troops in Ukraine, but officially they are all “volunteers” and “mercenaries” but there’s also some more or less official NATO soldiers serving as military advisors, trainers etc. There’s also events like the Polish general Marczak suddenly dying in sketchy circumstances coincidentally on the same day when Russia heavily bombed one of the mercenary bases.

        • robador51@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Sorry, are you talking about Poland? Then yes, Poland is part of NATO and there is US presence there, I’m not sure about other countries having a presence there. I thought you meant Ukraine, which is not part of the NATO.

            • robador51@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              There are no boots on the ground from NATO in Ukraine; They receive support and aid in the form of money, weapons, intelligence, training, and material. They still have an economy, and have international trade, so it’s not as if they’re not paying for anything themselves. Much of the aid they receive is then spend on material from the country that gave the aid, arguably the US defense industry, amongst others, makes money of this war.

              They’ve been keen to join NATO as a deterrent for Russian aggression, with very good reason. They’re fighting an existential threat. Putin has made no secret that he doesn’t consider Ukraine a country.

              This concerns all of us in ‘the West’, because we’ve built our democracies around a concept of freedom and trade that the likes of Russia have been working very hard to destroy.

            • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              Most every Russian troop being killed is via drone. Something like 96% of those drones are produced in Ukraine. Funding a war is expensive, especially when you are vastly out numbered population wise. Of course they want as much aid as possible.

                • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Where are you sourcing that from? (That’s way higher than most are claiming for either side) Also, that has nothing to do with what we were talking about

                • daellat@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Not by a long shot. Even Ukraine only claims in the region of 800,000 casualties on the Russian side, the majority of which are wounded not dead.

  • halyk.the.red@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    10 months ago

    Intent aside, wouldn’t it be easier to shore up current defences? Ukraine is already the NATO crumple zone, it would make more sense to keep them at that line.

    Now for blind conjecture. Perhaps trump sold out Ukraine to allow Russia to have the minerals and oil of Ukraine. In exchange, Europe gets the constant threat of WW3. Americans, scared to stay where they’re at, but are more terrified by the prospects of open war as it sweeps across countries, stay on American shores.

    • Barbarian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      10 months ago

      I don’t like referring to people fighting for their culture, society, family and future as a “crumple zone”.

      • halyk.the.red@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        I’m not crazy about the concept, either, but I’m also going to call a spade a spade. When Ukraine falls, the front will shift to new borders, introducing war and displacement to new areas. If Russia advances, all of Europe will have been able to help prevent it, but did not. They would have let Ukraine get ground to dust for a few years, only to fall anyway. Sure, they helped a little, with training and supplies, but the death toll is uniquely Ukrainian.

      • 小莱卡
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        welp thats what US and lackeys ultimately made Ukraine to be

      • ScoobyDope@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Seriously, what in the lack-of-empathy did I just read? Empathy isn’t that hard. Imagine you lived there. Your loved ones. How would you feel about it then?

        Edit for grammar.

        • ReakDuck@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Empathy might be hard. It just depends on the Person, mental state, perspective, etc.

          If empathy would be easy, then why did Trump win?

          • ScoobyDope@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            10 months ago

            Because propaganda hits harder. They have empathy for the poor kids that are being forced to be transgender and gay by their parents. They have empathy for the people losing their jobs and being raped by immigrants.

            • ReakDuck@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              Kits that are being forced to be transgender and gay by their parents

              Mate, I think whatever propaganda you’re talking about, worked.