The war in Ukraine has shifted thinking — both among politicians and the public — on the need to spend more on defense.

The war in Ukraine has shifted thinking — both among politicians and the public — on the need to spend more on defense.

The European public and politicians are in agreement that EU countries should do more to increase weapons production.

That’s according to the results of the latest Eurobarometer poll, obtained in advance by POLITICO Playbook, and a draft of the EU’s Strategic Agenda seen by POLITICO.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine more than two years ago has dramatically shifted the rhetoric around defense spending, pushing it up the agenda across the bloc — often at the expense of other policy areas like tackling climate change.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldEnglish
        41·
        6 months ago

        Not really. Defense is easier than offense at this point. And offense becomes a lot cheaper in a world where everyone is keeping the prices of weapons lower.

        Don’t be an economist, be smart and look at data to see where it goes. America vs Afghanistan. Using a ten million dollar missile to take out a guy with a hundred dollar rifle. Or look at Russia unable to beat a country right on their border that they greatly outnumber.

        War is expensive, offensive war more expensive. Everyone armed means arms cost less money. We don’t require that the entire world be pacifist to get peace just enough, just like we don’t need every single person to agree to not commit rape to enforce rape laws.

        • wewbull@feddit.ukEnglish
          2·
          6 months ago

          What do you actually think is causing Europe to build weapons?

          Do you think they are planning a era of conquest? Or maybe they’ve got an aggressor on their border and they feel the need to defend themselves.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            6 months ago

            Putin. Now why does Russia have so many weapons? Is it because they were doing well selling them for so very long?

            Like I said, stop thinking like an economist. Follow the data. An economist will ramble about game theory and argue that the only two worlds are possible a. No war b. Always war. Someone actually viewing the data will point out that humanity has had decades of very little war. That the changes in human society have made conquest super fucking expensive and the only countries capable of a war anymore are the very rich ones. The more nations give up warfare the more expensive it will become.

            The solution to a problem is very rarely more of the same problem. And the actual data we have doesn’t point to a situation where if one nation out of 190 decides war is good but the other 189 disagree that suddenly that 1 cheater wins. Put another way: if the US gave up it’s military tomorrow do you think Cuba would conquer the US the next week?

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.worldEnglish
        78·
        6 months ago

        Which shouldn’t be too much to ask for since everyone agrees that war is awful. Just not hard enough not to constantly make up excuses for why it’s ok to keep murdering people.

    • fluxion@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      6 months ago

      Climate crisis is out of control and Putin ends up dragging us all off to war and weapons production. Absolute worst timeline.

    • Rooskie91@discuss.onlineEnglish
      52·
      6 months ago

      O man if you hate that don’t think about how WW I basically happened the way it did because everyone spent the previous few years building up their militaries “just in case.”

    • Colour_me_triggered@lemm.eeEnglish
      1·
      6 months ago

      Better familiarise yourself with the ins and outs of performing a blood eagle. I know I’m going to just in case. Also you should look into making Molotov’s and IEDs.