this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
73 points (97.4% liked)

Ukraine

8549 readers
598 users here now

News and discussion related to Ukraine

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦ Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.

🌻🀒No content depicting extreme violence or gore.

πŸ’₯Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title

🚷Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human involved must be flagged NSFW

❗ Server Rules

  1. Remember the human! (no harassment, threats, etc.)
  2. No racism or other discrimination
  3. No Nazis, QAnon or similar
  4. No porn
  5. No ads or spam (includes charities)
  6. No content against Finnish law

πŸ’³πŸ’₯ Donate to support Ukraine's Defense

πŸ’³βš•οΈβ›‘οΈ Donate to support Humanitarian Aid

πŸͺ– 🫑 Volunteer with the International Legionnaires


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 23 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I agree, and I see no downsides to it. A stronger unified Europe is a stabilizer. The irony is that there was, at one time, a path for Russia to be included in that unity with Europe. Instead Putin chose unsuccessfully to try to build an empire.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'll go a few steps further. Whatever happens in the US, Europe is now heading to be a more united Europe, completely united as a federal collection of States. Europe will become effectively a super power with little reliance on the US militarily and financially. Europe has very little choice with Putin and Trump. This is if Europe can get its act together better and stave off their rifts such as Hungary and general foot dragging out of fear of Putin.

Meanwhile the US will most likely be left in a weakened position through isolation and huge internal divisions that are being caused by Trump and the Republicans. China's push for soft power is also weakening the US.

There's a lot of talk of Ukraine, Middle East and Taiwan developing into full war but I think the fourth conflict will be a civil one in the US if Trump gets to the Whitehouse. I hope I'm wrong.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

The maximum bad would be Europe uniting to handle Ukraine and russia, the US not being involved, Europe pulling back on US military bases and trump agreeing in anger. This would greatly weaken the US in the next 100 years, and if and when China goes after Taiwan at some point after, the US may find itself leading β€œa collation of the few” while Europe sits that one out.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I mean I can see why it is necessary but the downside obviously is less money for social programs and improving peoples lifes. I guess we can thank Putin for that πŸ™

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's not really true. Because the money invested in the military goes back to the local economy. And it is a much more real economy than finance.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Well a good share goes back that's true, but certainly not everything. I mean the plants could've also built school busses and ambulances instead of military vehicles, right? I was just pointing out that "no downsides" is a bit optimistic, the costs are very real. And it is a pity that in this day and age we still have to put up with that πŸ™

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I mean the plants could’ve also built school busses and ambulances instead of military vehicles, right? I was just pointing out that β€œno downsides” is a bit optimistic, the costs are very real. And it is a pity that in this day and age we still have to put up with that πŸ™

You're not recognizing the reality that existed before this if that is your stance. The plants were already building the military vehicles except those plants were in the USA with the vehicles being shipped to Europe for Europe defense. The difference in this particular aspect is that now Europeans will have a stronger hand in their own defense.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Well I guess if you consider "the west" as one common block then yes, maybe it is a net-zero game. And maybe that really is the fair assessment. But from the purely european point of view it sure was nice when we had a peace divident that we could invest elsewhere.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Well, indeed it is a cost for the society. But when people are forced to work to be allowed to live, the problem is not the workforce.

It is a pity in this day and age that there are still wars, but it is an even greater pity that we have to work artificial jobs to be allowed to live imo.

Money shouldn't be a concern.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

You're not wrong, at least building military things does add value to society especially in times like these. Maybe working some bullshit job is worse in that regard πŸ˜‰ Still I would prefer to live in a world that wouldn't need both of these things.