I'm an American. Y'all Europeans don't believe the horse shit they got most of my countrymen to accept.
Also, that Janan Ganesh guy looks like a putz.
I'm an American. Y'all Europeans don't believe the horse shit they got most of my countrymen to accept.
Also, that Janan Ganesh guy looks like a putz.
What about taxing wealth, while reducing mass taxes like the VAT to finally get people to spend again? Increasing peoples salaries would also help, and capping rent to what it costs to ensure upkeep and needed new construction - i think that would easly do the trick to fill the states coffers and get the economy out of this slump instead of filling the bank accounts of shameless, greedy people. Those will find other ways to enrich themselves, maybe through the defense industry.
Defend the continent from who? The teetering regime that has spent the past 5 years drawing the poorest country on the continent to a stalemate?
And the same regime definetly has the power to rule territory in which it's despised by the majority of the population. /s
Defend the continent from people whose countries are becoming unlivable, and from missing out on all the resources we might want to procure.
I'm afraid we've really entered into a new era of increasing aggression and warfare.
War is very expensive though. It makes sense to spend fraction of that on a deterrent and that's one thing EU does really well is to hedge all investments for overall stability. This is more of the same.
Well, kinda, yeah. The only reason that has been a stalemate is that Europe mustered a bunch of support for Ukraine, at great expense. They’ve needed to gather and regather the will to spend money on this throughout, if you’ve been paying attention you’ve seen it.
Now I totally object to someone saying they need to dismantle their social programs to dump all that money into warfare, but neither should we say there is no threat at all.
What exactly will happen if there are suddenly "separatists" in Narva?
I am worried about Russia and it's behaviour, but I totally disagree with this narrative across Europe about spending more on defence.
We spend plenty as it is, we just need to reorganise things and integrate our armies and navies. So many resources can be freed up by removing pointless duplication and redundancy, without spending more money at the expense of other parts of our economies.
It won't happen because nationalism is a disease that infects almost all European countries.
We just have to invest in European defense systems and stop buying shit from US. Funding the fascists is unacceptable
Exactly.
OK, if you're worried about Russia, let's build a few more nukes and drone factories, and call it a day. Unless you're trying to project power (the US) or use weapons manufacture as a fill-in for failed industrial policy (the US and now Germany), that's all you need.
The Royal Navy currently has fewer than 20 vessels active, including coastal boats. This is not enough to secure fisheries, defend the home islands, interdict drugs before they arrive, and to keep open the global shipping lanes Britain relies on existentially. There is no redundancy. Until earlier this year, only one Type 45 destroyer was operable. It had to be removed from its duties and sent to defend Cyprus from air attack, but it took a week to get it ready to leave.
Since the 2010 Strategic Defence Review, British military capability has been gutted. A large investment is now needed to course correct. Many European powers fell into the same complacency trap at the same time.
Some countries, like Ireland, have never had adequate military capability. Ireland has no surface to air missiles - not even a radar tracking system - and no jet aircraft at all. Again, half of its 8 naval vessels are inactive. Russia has been camping out in or near Irish waters happily doing whatever they please. Considering the amount of European data going through Ireland, this is a concern and the Dail is considering whether they need a more comprehensive military.
I remember years ago reading an article complaining that Germans are too frugal and their frugality will negatively impact the economy because of lack of consumption. And I thought to myself: "Hang on. I thought they tell us to spend only on what we need?" And if we do spend as they have wanted, the elites will say this is why we can't afford a house because we spent it all on avocado toasts.
This is the hypocrisy, gas lighting and double standards of capitalism. They tell us such and such is good, and when we do exactly what they tell us, and it has had negative consequences, they say it's our fault. It reminds me of one of the episodes in the first season of Squid Game, in which the players were winning but the games master broke the rules to handicap the players.
The people are what makes the continent.
If you stop defending the people, what are you defending?
Wealth. The wealth of companies and individuals that have no loyalty except to themselves.
So let’s kill what makes our countries worth to live in.
Fuck you, bootlicker!
Europe could get more for less if they bought less low quality, super expensive, american made, defensive shit.
I hear Ukraine have some interesting and well proven kits for cheap.
Tbf a lot of that spending is to keep relationships with the US. That's kinda the entire shtick of EU is to bind competing parties through global economy and while Russia is an outlier I do think it's mostly a success story.
Yeah but what about binding our economy with some other countries (that don't threaten to attack us)?
They're working quite actively on that with things like Mercosur, the free trade agreements with India and Australia and strenghtening ties to Canada among other things.
Many were already in the works, but got boosted considerably when Trump got in for a 2nd time.
No way to make more rich people richer than to sacrifice the underclasses benefits.
Because austerity measures worked so well after the housing bubble burst. 🙄
Janan Ganesh wants to suck billionaire dick and lick their boots
Yeah.
Ganesh co-authored Compassionate Conservatism (2006) with Jesse Norman, which received the T. E. Utley Memorial Prize for young journalists.
Norman and Ganesh argue that Britain faces the two great problems of trust and security in the 21st century, and only a compassionate conservatism as expressed by Conservative prime minister David Cameron can provide the understanding of what British society is and could be that is necessary to solve them.
"Compassionate Conservatism", well there's an oxymoron for you. And "as expressed by David Cameron" of all people. This guy really does not care about being credible, does he?
No, that's like dad straight up saying "I know you need new clothes for winter, but I don't like you and I do like drinking, so I'm going to spend our money at the bar instead."
Saying we don't have the money to feed the poor is at least having some shame about it.
In the US we don't really have money for either.
It's mostly deficit / debt spend. But don't worry, we'll always be able to service debt easily because the USD is standard and in large amounts of demand. Nobody would ever be stupid enough to screw that up and get people to look for alternatives.....oh wait, here's that Trump guy again.
In the US we don't really have money for either
Yeah you do. Your corrupt politicians just keep giving most of it to the rich and powerful, and their corporations.
Europe drops the welfare state for fucking what? To spend money in weapons from usa? The same weapons that usa can disable remotely while they treat to invade iceland?
Nice...
Europe doesn't drop anything, it's an opinion peace from the Financial Times.
No, not US weapons (or rather: not only). The EU-based military industry is currently booming with countries ordering tonnes of stuff from Germany, Poland, Sweden, and France. All locally designed and built gear.
My favourite right-wing trope is that the US can't have socialised healthcare because they spend so much on defending Europeans so that they can.
Financial Times has been maskless for a long time.
It's sort of there thing. FT is where the business people go to talk about business. The NYT is where they go to scream "Ah! Socialism! China! Migrant Caravans! AI Gap!" at the rubes.
It's the highest priced subscription of any paper by far. That alone should tell you something.
Where is a good guillotine when you need one.
Or better, send the asshole and perhaps his family to a war somewhere, so he knows first hand what he is asking about.
In Holland the new center-left government proposed a “freedom tax” to fund the army, which was widely supported. They implemented it half heartedly though, so there’s no line of “freedom tax” on your tax report. But the model might definitely work elsewhere
center-left
“freedom tax” to fund the army

I don't get it. Seems like a very center left thing? You socialize the costs for protecting your freedoms - a freedom tax if you will.
Pretending that military spending is about "protecting your freedoms" is jingoistic (and thus right wing) propaganda.
Also, a few corporations, billionaires, and hectomillionaires get richer every time military spending goes up. Taxing everyone to pay them is a reverse Robin Hood move not in accordance with left wing ideology.
How does a community of people protect themselves if not collectively pooling their money to "buy guns"?
There's nothing left or right wing here - spending on protection is needed be paying someone else to do it or developing your own guns. So despite the flavorful wording here of "freedom tax" i dont see how this could be anyone's problem.
You know, whether you like it or not, there are bad people out there who will attack you if they think you look weak. There's a pecking order to the world and the ones with the big guns think they have to go around and rub some "shithole country" into the dirt ones every 5 years.
I believe that we, as a species and by mutual agreement between peoples, must rid ourselves of weapons in order to defuse and degrade the capabilities of despots and mercenaries. But unilateral disarmament won't work when a few countries think its their civilizational duty to come and murder your mother and extract your resources.
You know, whether you like it or not, there are bad people out there who will attack you if they think you look weak. There's a pecking order to the world and the ones with the big guns think they have to go around and rub some "shithole country" into the dirt ones every 5 years
Fun fact: most of Europe being part of the same military alliances makes the necessary military spending per nation to avoid this MUCH lower than current levels.
Especially when the biggest threat is a country already teetering on the brink of economic and military collapse from overextending itself.
I believe that we, as a species and by mutual agreement between peoples, must rid ourselves of weapons in order to defuse and degrade the capabilities of despots and mercenaries
Agreed.
But unilateral disarmament won't work
Neither will multilateral unnecessary military spending increases.
a few countries think its their civilizational duty to come and murder your mother and extract your resources.
None of which are anywhere near capable of carrying out said "duty" against the full force of two of the biggest military alliances ever, the EU and NATO.
I agree overall. But the irony is that Europe's cooperation with the United States is a major source of instability. So I'd rather see NATO replaced by an international alliance of smaller countries and middle powers or smaller countries that reject aggression and abide by international law.
I also think that the whole "must spend X" obsession largely comes from NATO propaganda which assumed that Europe would use that money to buy weapons from the American MIC. That doesn't invalidate all additional spending, especially if temporary, but I think it's important to recognize the role it has had in shaping the United States (force the poor to join the military) and to vehemently reject that model.
Europe's cooperation with the United States is a major source of instability. So I'd rather see NATO replaced by an international alliance of smaller countries and middle powers or smaller countries that reject aggression and abide by international law.
Couldn't agree more. It's long past time to wean Europe off of dependence on the US of any kind, but especially military and economic.
I also think that the whole "must spend X" obsession largely comes from NATO propaganda which assumed that Europe would use that money to buy weapons from the American MIC.
That and propaganda on behalf of the European MIC, which is also a thing, though a lot smaller.
That doesn't invalidate all additional spending
True, but the arguments for it being necessary not holding water does.
especially if temporary
Yeah, because militaries and the rich people and corporations never make sure that "temporary" subsidies and government contracts become effectively permanent 🙄
NATO famously was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans [read Europeans] down".
It is not in our interest to be vassals of the US, as they've shown multiple tiimes.
What center-left government are you talking about? There's not a single leftist party in the government.
Center-left is a big stretch. There's a (sort of) center-left party in it, but the other 2 are center-right to right and you can see that in their proposed policies.
Also, the "freedom tax" affects the lower and middle class more than it does the rich class.
And they still cut back on the welfare state.
Only desperate people, right-wing gun nuts and neo-nazis join the army voluntarily, so that sounds about right.
I normally don't wish death on people, but the author of this hate-piece....
It's like the author saw the gap in the market left by the glorious demise of Rod fucking Liddle, and figured he'd toss his hat in the ring.
'We will kill so many brown people abroad just to kill welfare' - Liberals
Given what Russia is doing, and how the US is bailing on its European allies, it does make sense for Europe to focus a bit more on defense, sad to say.
The US otoh has no excuse.
The US maintains a military the size it does to control the world economy
I’m sure Europe are spending a bit more now but I don’t think we need to worry about our neighbours like Russia, and legitimate defence is cheaper than what the USA does
Sure, but not at the expense of the welfare state. The two can defiintely co-exist.
Certain irony in this article being turned out by a guy who would likely get pulled out of his car and beaten to death in any of the White's Only No Go Zones of Europe.
Can you elaborate on the No Go Zones in Europe? I did not hear about any such zone nearby, can you link an article or something?
Can you elaborate on the No Go Zones in Europe?
European Ethno-Nationalist and White Supremacy Groups
Chronic across the continent, but particularly in neighborhoods with poor education, low incomes, and a saturation of military age males.
The "no-go zones" trope is a disgusting, racist conspiracy theory created by American right-wing xenophobes, and exported to their anti-immigrant counterparts across the pond. It is a product of the era immediately following the attacks on September 11, 2001.
The main claim is that there are specific areas within European cities which have been "taken over" by immigrants, usually Muslims, which have become "unsafe" for white or non-Muslim citizens to exist in, especially after dark. The more extreme claims state that "islamic extremists" have replaced the existing order with "sharia law".
This is racist, Islamophobic, and false.
In reality, racists and xenophobes simply do not like immigrants (especially the brown kind who talk funny and pray the wrong way) forming their own solidarity networks, running their own schools, and getting involved in their own local governments. They especially do not like them making time and space for their own forms of worship in their own communities, and will often claim that forced conversion is occurring in these areas, and that schools and governments have been "islamized".
And Canada wants to join that shitshow?
top 89 comments