- cross-posted to:
- i_r
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- i_r
- [email protected]
Archive: https://archive.is/2025.03.08-050706/https://www.ft.com/content/76937db3-0b3b-44d4-9005-9709512acd53
A proposed €150bn injection into the EU’s defence industry has become a new flashpoint in a long-standing battle between France and Germany over the continent’s rearmament drive and whether it should include countries outside the bloc.
Spooked by US President Donald Trump’s threats to end generations of American protection, Europe has pledged to increase defence spending dramatically and scale up their domestic capabilities that have withered since the cold war.
Last week the European Commission proposed to raise €150bn that would be lent to capitals to boost their military production. While the broad idea has received unanimous political backing, the details are still being fleshed out, with heavy lobbying over whether the cash could be spent on arms made outside the bloc.
You must log in or register to comment.
TLDR: They didn’t clash, but merely shared their insights, which were actually quite similar.
The insight we needed. Thank you.
From now on, I’m only buying Saab Gripen fighter jets for my family at Christmas.
All the cool kids fly Eurofighter tho
A Gripen is very cool, tho. :)
I see enough space for both: those who want a twin engine solution can take that route, those who want a smaller single engine jet take the Gripen
Oh no, the community has been overtaken by warring richkids. :/
I am sure Pepsi is going to sell some for cheap soon.
I’ll race you on my Rafale…
American engine so it’s not a viable option for obvious reasons unfortunatly. Eurofighter or rafale is more european I guess or are they bad too?
Including foreign producers keeps the local ones honest, otherwise they will overcharge even worse than usual.
It would be probably best to just use some of the money to nationalize a few local producers instead if you really want to push for local production only. But obviously you will not read about that option in the Financial Times.
Maybe publicly include them, but then only buy “local” - that way the offers stay fair and you get the best of both deals!
Well, you need to be a bit smarter about it, otherwise the bidders will know about your plan to buy only local and ripp you off anyways. It’s very hard as a state to keep such ideas secret.
This question changes a lot depending on if the non-EU partner in question is the US or a country like South Korea
I’m all for supporting local markets, but in the grand scheme I find it a bit pointless, when there’s absolutely no plan or intention from anyone to deescalate the situation. I guess that’s the point, so big bucks can be made, but I can’t help being a romantic and hoping for long term peace
The only way to deescalate is to arm ourselves to the teeth. The only language Putin understands is the language of strength and ignoring that can only lead to more war. Economically this is going to be a major stimulus which Europe really needs at the moment, especially Germany with their failing industries. My main worry on long term peace would be what happens to military output capacity once it’s no longer needed but we’re mostly concerned about survival. There should be also more discussion on profit redistribution so that we don’t increase wealth inequality even more with this stimulus.
Tanks made in the same lines of production than trucks, military aircrafts made in the same lines than civil ones, … When the need of new military equipment is reduced the lines can balance to more civil production. And then be prepared in case we need more military equipment.
That’s my hope but that’s assuming there will be demand and Germany can become competitive again. Right now those industries are failing because of expensive energy and that’s not about to change. In fact, it might get worse because Europe is getting LNG from the US now, and they’re not exactly friendly.
I thought the energy prices came down significantly since the gas crisis in Germany?
Prices spiked then stabilised but remained at much higher levels than before. Russian gas was really cheap because of multiple factors and couldn’t be replaced without cost.
Energy is energy. Raising the renewable sources enough could lead to not needing that much oil or gas.
Yeah, energy source can be replaced but it’s boring reality that bites you in the butt. Chemical plants need natural gas and aren’t really able to switch as they’d have to engineer loads of things from scratch. Then things like tires and o-rings get really expensive and so on and so on.
It’s not that I don’t understand the logic. It’s that I don’t believe scare tactics lead to peace. I agree that short term I it might scare of Putin, and that’s obviously good, but it’s a bandaid, not a solution, and one that, IMHO, is not easy to get away from.
Also, I find it sad that whenever someone mentions peace he gets ratioed and called a Putin apologist (not here but I see it a lot).
It is possible to want peace and still be against Putin. I get that it’s a sensitive topic and intense times, but we just keep alienating and polarizing more and more people. We need a better approach.
It’s that I don’t believe scare tactics lead to peace.
It takes just one state actor that doesn’t play by the rules and it all falls apart. Let’s not be naive because being exploited for this will be extremely unpleasant. I live in Poland which spent over 100 years under Russian occupation. Now we live under American one which is slightly less exploitative but not great either. The cognitive dissonance is strong in our nation after Obama forced us to reset relations with Russia after they invaded Ukraine for the first time lol.
All of us want peace but appeasement has been tried and failed time and time again. Lay down the arms and get steamrolled and then get exploited for another 100 years until another empire inevitably falls? Nah.
I never said lay down arms. I just said that there is no plan for deescalation.
I’m happy to hear of a plan, I might be unaware.
Also, I get that people disagree. That’s fine. But at least disagree with something I actually said.
I’m not sure what the proposition is here though. We can’t discuss with Russia using reason, ethics or morals, there’s only strength. If someone proposes ceasefire then Russia will agree to it only if they intend to exploit that even further because that’s the only dimension they consider. The only hope you have to win by deescalating is that they die out of laughter.
Wars are won by not playing by the rules and there’s strong evidence that due to technological proliferation it’s much harder for a large state to overpower a smaller one (I think Trump recognises that and that’s why US is retreating in general). This is the time to stand up against every empire, not just Russia or US but the irony is that Europe might become an empire again in the process.
I do not have a concrete proposition, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask it of me or anyone here. I’m just a random person. But neither does the EU, USA or anyone for that matter. That’s exactly my point, there are no measures taken for a solution by anyone. It’s a race to power, which, just as appeasements, never work.
People nowadays hear the word diplomacy and immediately think it’s treason. Has there ever been a war where the enemy is not being portrayed as the greatest evil, whether it is or isn’t true. Both sides will claim that for their enemies. With that logic there would never be any diplomacy anywhere. Of course, I have to make the disclaimer, Putin is the aggressor. Putin is the worse of the two sides. There is no question about it. That doesn’t mean we are good, or will be, if we have the military power. We’ll still be relying on the whim of a few people, just friendlier as they will be from “our” side.
This is the time to stand up against every empire, not just Russia or US but the irony is that Europe might become an empire again in the process.>
That’s the point, isn’t it? We’re just happy that it might be EU who “wins” because we live here and will feel safer.
This might sound off topic but some time ago I stopped isolating myself in a bubble because I couldn’t reconcile feeling any accomplishment with constant preaching to the choir or trying convince someone entirely opposite of my worldview. I still want to discuss productively and I think it’s worth trying here. People could still recognise that we’re not in that much of a risk of Russian invasion because EU is still pretty strong but there’s a strong possibility that defense efforts will be engineered in a way where wealthy get even wealthier again and that’s bringing us to our own Trumps closer again. That’s all assuming that France doesn’t turn to Le Pen or UK to Farage in the next election cycle and hoping for anything else might be wishful thinking. Still worth an effort.
How about counter invasion, or would that damage your flat in Moscow? You are correct, they will build up momentum in the long term. This is why in the mid term they should be rebuffed and eventually reorganized into several smaller democracies. It’s the only way to end this great power nonsense. No amount of diplomatic talks is going to do better than re-armament even if it does fail in the long term, that it’s not a sustainable solution doesn’t mean a better one exists.
What are you really going on like this for?
I want people to stop dying for pointless wars from which they have nothing to gain
False equivalency. The war was started pointlessly but to end it once and for all isn’t pointless in the least. You conflate the two sides in this, Russia chose it so they can lose for it instead of us. The latter means annihilation, stopping that is what we have to gain.
You said I have a flat in Moscow because I don’t agree with your opinion. You throw terms like “false equivalency” hoping it sticks. I was talking about peace and you talk about counter invasion, not sure what the point in that is. Russia started the war so let’s invade them and show them is not very productive or reasonable. We seem to have diametrically opposed opinions on war in general.
The point in it is to create a permanent peace. You asked for a solution and I gathered you hadn’t heard that one before. I think your opinion on war is similar to Putin and Trump’s, in that you talk directly or otherwise in favor of a pyrrhic peace that only empowers the aggressor. The better solution, the solution available to any victim being cornered and no-one else to come help them, is to throw a damn punch, ideally a crippling one. There’s no moral equivalency between an aggressor forcing their target to capitulate and a defender forcing the aggressor to capitulate, that’s what makes your implications of such an equivalency false. I think you might be a Russian agent, (in spirit at least hence the hyperbolic image of you cowering in some oblast) because you cling to an anachronistic pacifism and stall genuine conversation and preparation for what’s to come.
And it is coming, I think you know that.
It’s easier to negotiate for peace when you’ve more guns than the idiot on the other side who only understands strength.
I agree, I just don’t believe there is a negotiation plan. I think the “plan” is to keep the enemy in line with superior military power. Good short term, not really solving anything long term.
How exactly do you negotiate with someone who constantly breaks peace agreements he signed?
In the comment you responded to, I said I agree, it’s easier to negotiate from a position of power. What’s the plan afterwards? Everyone keeps saying that we need power to be able to negotiate, and I keep agreeing, and saying that there is no plan for later, and this is what I am worried about. I’m really interested in an answer for this question, but I just keep getting the same argument, which I’m not even opposed to.
It is the ONLY thing that solves it long term. Politics of the larger army have always worked.
It does extend peace time until putin can die of old age. Also, it is in russian culture to respect strength.
