- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmit.online
- worldnews@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmit.online
- worldnews@lemmit.online
Summary
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte warned that the alliance must adopt a “wartime mindset” to prepare for long-term confrontation with Russia.
Speaking in Brussels, he urged members to increase defense spending beyond the 2% GDP target, noting that only 23 of 32 members currently meet it.
Rutte emphasized boosting defense production, addressing cyber threats, and countering China’s military buildup and actions toward Taiwan.
His remarks come as Donald Trump threatens to withhold defense support from NATO members failing to meet spending commitments, raising concerns about alliance unity.
You must log in or register to comment.
Should have done that a few years ago
I agree, but better late than never. And absolutely better now than when putin starts bombing some civilians in a NATO country.
Finland seems to be the only member of NATO who hasn’t forgotten who their neighbors are. But yes, better late than never.
As an Estonian, I obviously know some jokes about Finns. But I won’t go into anything weird or racist because my favourite one is actually relevant and not racist, but more like historic satire.
It’s the Winter War. Russians in Finnish territory make camp. Then a voice from the nearby forest yells: “I’m all alone, come and get me!”
The Russian commanders discuss for a moment and agree: Better not send just one man, or the Finn might best him. So they send ten.
Half an hour later, nobody is back, but they again hear the Finn: “I’m still alone, come and get me!”. They send a hundred, thinking this will surely be enough.
Finally, the commanders get really irritated to hear the Finn’s voice again, so they send a thousand, and this time one man comes back, all bloody and ragged: “Don’t listen to that lying piece of shit! There’s two of them!”
I love this joke! Thanks for sharing
Finland isn’t the only one. Poland, Baltic states remember well. Even more so than Finland. And that being said as a Finn. Their economy is just either smaller or they have a longer way to go to catch up.
This is Poland erasure.
Edit: and also the Baltics
Like when the war started?
Can’t say I’m a military analyst but if Russia can’t take over Ukraine why should NATO be worried, 2% or otherwise? Russia’s ongoing sabotage against NATO countries is a job for intelligence and policing. Greasing the palms of the arms industry won’t touch that.
Because the industrial base for producing critical things like ammunition is nearly nonexistent. Despite USA and European arms support Ukraine has been permanently shell-starved for the entire course of the war. Three years later, even after spinning up some new production, Ukraine’s allies still don’t make enough shells to get anywhere close to 1:1 with what the Russians fire at them (and that was before North Korea started supplying the Russians)
The invasion of Ukraine has made it crystal clear that Europe’s military industrial base is utterly incapable of responding to an actual peer conflict on their own soil, let alone providing a deterrent to wars of expansion outside of it. It would be foolish not to be investing in sovereign military capability in today’s world.
You’re talking like the whole of Europe has been pouring everything it’s got into the war in Ukraine, which it hasn’t even come close to.
I think Czechia is the only country who has not immediately replenished military aid given to Ukraine. UK arms manufacturers continue to supply the international market. Meanwhile Russia is pulling tanks out of museums, begging from impoverished North Korea and has spent nearly three years capturing 20% of a non-NATO country below Egypt and Australia in military rankings.
The issue here is not that Europe is vulnerable to Russia, it’s that there is a renewed American mandate to cut spending on other people’s wars and deterrents and they are wondering whether Europe should cough up more money. Mark Rutte licks Trump’s anus and is making what he thinks are the right sounds. Fair enough. On the flipside European lawmakers are going to be wondering whether Donald will go back to keeping intelligence documents in his bathroom, whether US military bases in their countries are really worth it and whether they want much to do with the US at all as gets more and more nutty.
Other countries should be jumping at the opportunity to shed their american shackles.
instead of war let’s use critical weather as an analogy.
it’s getting colder, and there’s 16 extra feet of snow on the local mountain range than usual.
do you:
a) prepare for a long hard winter by increasing your grocery budget by 25%
b) do nothing because the snow is up there and you haven’t seen more than 4 ft id snow in 45 years.
instead of war let’s use critical weather as an analogy
That’s hard to agree with. War efforts are largely dependent on finite resources, of which the upstream comment argued that if Russia is struggling (and losing those finite resources for later use) in Ukraine, they’re sure to have even less if they spread their efforts elsewhere.
Weather generally doesn’t get “used up” the same way, so it would make more sense to be prepared for that theoretical unlimited supply of snow.
Do I think countries around Russia should be on alert? Yes. Do I think their position is weaker now than it was before they invaded Ukraine, which would continue further if they tried the same thing elsewhere? Also yes.
In your analogy it’s like increasing your grocery budget by 25%, knowing that you already have more than enough groceries to see you through the winter and that extra 25% will rot before it gets used. Spending that extra money on groceries has also cost you the opportunity to buy a backup generator in case the snow knocks out your power supply as well as a new starter motor for your snowmobile.
you do realized there’s shelf stable food that can last years…right?
also, buying a generator or motor would also go towards your “defense budget” of your impending blizzard…
that means you either didn’t understand the analog or you’re arguing under the false pretense that Russia isn’t a credible threat.
and although I tend to agree that Russia is not an advanced threat, even a broken old dog is able to bite you once so we should prepare for it at least.
Hey man you chose groceries as an analogy, not me.
Agreed in part. We should absolutely continue to support Ukraine in any/all ways possible against Russia. However Russia doesn’t have the economy to really do much to the rest of Europe. Rubles are going to be worth more as toilet paper than money in the next few years.
If you put aside the argument that Russia isn’t capable of running over Ukraine, cities are still laid to waste, people are getting killed…
Why put that aside? It was the whole point of their invasion.
Wether or not Russia is capable of taking over Ukraine, lives are lost in Ukraine. That’s a reason to be worried. You can laugh at Russia’s failure to carry out the task they put before themselves, but in the end people are suffering.
The whole point of their operation wasn’t to “not be capable to take over Ukraine”, it was “(to be capable) to take over Ukraine”.
I think you misunderstood me.
Don’t get me wrong, what has happened to Ukraine is absolutely awful. But the argument that European NATO countries should respond by spending more money on arming themselves is wrong IMO. First because it’s unnecessary and second because we have other important things that need investment like energy, transport and healthcare. I dont want these things to be neglected for the sake of handing over billions to big arms companies for weapons that sit unused in a warehouse for decades. We need to be invested in a stable and peaceful future.
Well the good news (/s) is that they won’t be sitting in a warehouse - they will instead be sold to one of many conflicts around the world to “test” their product.
“never let a disagreement go unarmed”
- weapons manufactures (probably)
does intelligence count as defense spending?
Ukraine is receiving a TON of military aid, a lot of which is about the cease.
Trump is Putin’s pet, and the new US National Intelligence director is a Russian asset. Ukraine is about to be railroaded.
Cold wartime, maybe. For sure we’re not at the “assess tolerable casualty percentage” stage of conflict yet, which is what that means to me.
Well, give us all a rifle, a hundred rounds and some marksmanship training, you knobhead. I’ve always been a big proponent of arming your populace in defense of a large threat from beyond your borders. And this seems like the right time to do it.
I’ll gladly follow a week’s worth of training and do a background check if it means I get to keep a machine gun in my closet.
My dude you are Dutch, if the russians make it to the Netherlands for you to shoot at then the west will already be ashes.
Could be. But I was also around when the Soviet Union was still a thing and reached to East Germany.
Also, if you think I trust those shifty Belgians, you’re very wrong ;-)
A week’s worth of training? I’d be more likely to shoot you by accident than any Russian soldier.
Honestly though, a week should be fine for most purposes if we’re talking simple infantry weapons and general population readiness.
Most weapons are so easy, a child can use them. And they do. If the average Afghan dirt farmer can use a Kalashnikov, it wouldn’t be too hard to train you or anyone to use something like an AR-15 or a Glock pistol. Or indeed even a Kalashnikov, should you be able to liberate one from an invader.
Most people in Europe have never held a gun, much less shot one. That makes it a scary, unknown thing. A week’s worth of training should at least make people more comfortable with them and allow them to shoot one if the need arises. Think of it like learning first aid, only… the opposite.
We’re also talking deterrence here. To make it very unappealing to invade somewhere. You’re not going on the offensive.
You mean it wasn’t already? The organization was created to counter the USSR and never really drifted from that, even when the USSR fell, funnily enough.
The USSR fell and has now been replaced with someone with far more warlike intentions than anyone since Stalin.
We need to examine the conditions that allowed such a figure to get elected. It wasn’t an instantaneous transition to putin, it took about a decade of a miserable economy where people had to sell whatever they could (including vouchers for shares in previously state enterprises they were given, which ended up being bought up by oligarchs to consolidate power) just to eat. Life actually got worse than during the USSR. Along comes putin and luckily for him, the price of oil increases while he’s in power and things look like they’re improving. Is it any wonder that someone like that could grab power during such a turbulent time? It’s happened in the US with trump and things are a lot less dire here than they were in Russia post-USSR-collapse.
What do you think examining them will do?
Help us to prevent it from happening again in the future and perhaps give a hint as to how to resolve the issue now. Changing the status quo is much harder than preventing it from becoming the status quo in the first place or, put another way, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Either way, it’s important to learn how/why things happen if we wish to have them not happen.
You can’t get rid of a warmongering dictator through careful examination.
That’s why I said changing the status quo is much harder. You can, however, prevent a warmongering dictator from rising by preventing the conditions in which they rise. To know what those conditions are, you need the careful examination.
