Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Would German military spending of 5% GDP have prevented the Crimea annexation?

Probably not Crimea, but you'd think that the annexation would have caused some rethinking of "soft power".

The lack of European defense spending since 95 means that Europe doesn't have much to help Ukraine. (EU countries brag about "100% to Ukraine" but never talk about how little that 100% is.) It also means that Europe doesn't have much in the way of a defense industry. (And then they whine when money gets spent on US weapons.)

Getting serious in 2014 (after Crimea) would have given Europe options.

> EU military spending only really came up under Trump

Trump's comments, the actual words, on EU defense spending were basically the same as Obama and W's.

The difference was in how Europeans, especially the Germans, reacted.

BTW - do Europeans know how "But we have better work/life balance" comes across? The reaction by many Americans is "Why am I paying to defend their work/life balance?"



> Getting serious in 2014 (after Crimea) would have given Europe options.

Realistically, what options? The only thing that could have really helped in my view in hindsight was either massive visible arms-deliveries to the Ukraine before 2022 (to discourage Russia), or to demonstrate willingness to join the fight (with soldiers). That willingness is and was not there (in neither US/EU), and spending more would not really have helped that.

> you'd think that the annexation would have caused some rethinking of "soft power".

You mean giving up on Russian gas early? It's a much harder call without hindsight in my view if Crimea is the main focus. The whole second Chechen war was much more problematic than that annexation in my view, and if you're not drawing the line for that, than why'd you change your opinion for Crimea?`

I do fully agree with you though that there should have been harsher consequences after 2014, and that those might have actually helped more than anything else (by making the "happy path" for the 2022 invasion worse): I think Putin considered the 2022 invasion as "quick regime change, some yapping from the west and then business as usual in a few years"; the west/EU demonstrating willingness for self-sacrifical sanctions to punish expansionism in 2014 might have discouraged this strongly.

> BTW - do Europeans know how "But we have better work/life balance" comes across? The reaction by many Americans is "Why am I paying to defend their work/life balance?"

I'll give you my European perspective:

1) Yes the US is overspending on its military, but that is entirely their own decision

2) American military spending profits itself first and foremost, because spending mainly goes to domestic industry, and forces are mainly used to further domestic interests

3) Europe is already paying for the humanitarian fallout of ill-advised US interventionism in the middle east, and indirect costs from this alone are in the "percent GDP" range as well

Don't get me wrong, I think it is a really good thing that the US did provide substantial aid during the Ukraine invasion. I personally wish that "the west" did even more, but the sad reality is that a good part of the population considers the Ukraine conflict a "not my problem", and is simply unwilling to pay more to defend human rights abroad (and the attitude is very similar between especially western Europeans and US-americans in my view).




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: