Berlin says EU should prepare for war by end of decade

There's a war going on right now in Ukraine, helping them win it will make Russia launching a next war less likely and further off.
- This is exactly what I am thinking as well. Russia is clearly threatening the stability of the EU right now. If the EU wants to send a strong signal against aggression and meddling, it needs support Ukraine in a way that makes it clear to any would-be-adversary, that the EU is willing and capable to defend itself and its allies.
  
  Not to mention, it makes them less reliant on the US -- which as an American, means we can reduce our defense spending. Which means we can finally have really good welfare programs.
- what are the odds Ukraine actually takes back their territory? The vaunted summer counteroffensive was a complete and abject failure
  
  They stopped and presented most of their combat power when it looked like it was going to be a waste like Russia's recent offensives. They shifted to an attritional fight. You are right in line with the Russian narrative though.
  
  High on taking back northern regions by Kiev, the northern parts and Odessa, medium on eastern territories, and low on Crimea.
  
  LOL, Russia has already LOST the war. Now they are just desperately trying to take dirt.
  
  Ukraine doesn't have to take back its territory.
  Russia will be forced by NATO to do that, just like how Germany lost so many territories it conquered after WW1.
- Folks this is a troll who created the account two hours ago.
  
  in three weeks, right? home for christmas.
  
  Hahahaha. Old Nato Stock is destroying Russian equipment with ease. But sure, Russia with non-existing new weapons (except on paper) is much more powerful. What kind of person are you?
  
  Ukraine isn't part of NATO, which is why you didn't see Abrams rolling up to the Kremlin a year ago.
  
  Thanks for the laugh, Ivan. Now go back to your bread line and piss off.
  
  Russia is just much more powerful than them even with full NATO support.
  Not so sure about that: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293174/nato-russia-military-comparison/
  Anyway it's been a while since a war has been won in the traditional sense. I find the conditions of victory hard to define for Ukraine or Russia.
  
  🤖🇷🇺
  
  This isn't a black or white "win or lose" scenario. You know that, right?
  
  löl
  
  is just much more powerful than them
  Debatable
  even with full NATO support
  Absolutely not lmao. We haven't seen full NATO support, because it would mean the conflict would be over in an instant. NATO wants to stay formally out of the war however and not put boots on the ground. If Russia invades a NATO country in tandem with Ukraine, it's all over for them.
  
  Sure thing, not even one hour old account with two comments.
  You totally didn't use this account to get around being defederated from this instance.
  
  Da, comrade.
  
  Curious how all that power isn't really reflected on the battlefield.
  
  So who's winning the current 3 day special operation that totally isn't a war?
  Edit: And by win, I mean who's sustained more losses? Who's lost more ground? Who's conscripting more people?

Sweats in Polish
- I laughed

My history teacher used to say that over the course of history every generation faces a full scale war that directly impact them. Looking through the last couple of centuries that seems about right. I haven't been in a war yet and I'm a45 years old so, yeah, I'm kinda scared.
This same teacher also used to say that the only "good" thing about a civil war is that the country that faces it nerves goes through another one ever again. Seeing how things are good in the United States now I'm starting to think that this teacher might be wrong.
- Yeah, your teacher seemed to deal in absolutes: "it always happens" or "it will never happen again". I think that events can always happen (again) but they don't have to.
  
  Ah, so this history teacher was a Sith Lord!?
- Plenty of countries have had multiple civil wars.
  
  I was going to say, I'm pretty sure this is just historically inaccurate in addition to the fact that there can always be a first for anything.
  
  But their name changed in between so it doesn't count /s
- We won't have other one*
  *While the generations affected are alive.
  Once the living memories are gone it's much harder to prevent, since anyone can argue a stance from a history book.
- This reminds me of how WWI was at one point known as 'the war to end all wars'.
  How fucking naive were the people who really thought that!
  
  they were hopeful...
- We were in a weird spot after the Industrial Revolution but before globalism.
  Post WWII recovery changed that, when most of the developed world (sans America) was literally in shambles.
  I don’t think we’ll ever see another full out war between major powers. Capitalism and the all-mighty dollar will prevent that. But at the same time it will encourage proxy wars.
  Scarcity is a concern but again mostly for the smaller powers. More than likely it’ll be some sort of indebtedness between impoverished countries and their pimp nations backing them out of the proxy wars they created.
- They also said we get a financial crisis every generation. How many have we had?

Article 5
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.'
- each party will take action as they deem necessary
  tbh this reads like the "security guarantees" that Ukraine got for giving up their nuclear weapons: not worth the paper it's written on
  
  Who worded those "security guarantees"?

Why has every comment here been downvoted?
- Russia troll farms I imagine.
  
  We're big enough that troll farms think we're relevant! We did it, Lemmy!
- The comments don’t feel like people that are interested in a good faith discussion with a dash of troll
- What do you mean?
  
  When I wrote that comment, there were like 6 comments. All of them were at negative scores, and they were all very different opinions while some were not opinions at all, just info. Just looked strange.
- Lemmy bugs lol

Here we go again
- The usual money flow. What future generation will be able to stop these should-be-retired chiefs?

And into the apocalypse we go
- Berlin will do anything to justify pumping money into their failing industrial sector
  
  Oh hey look, it’s a Russian troll bot!

Oh no not again

Why Berlin? Why?

fuck

Knowing germany, this sounds like a threat
- Russian army is a joke if you look at their technology. I'd say it stinks like old mentality
  
  This is useful context. Ich wil du hast links 2, 3, 4 und mutter, ja?
- Nah dude. It will be refreshing to once not be part of the source of a world war. #fingerscrossed
- I've already poisoned you, my friend
- I know Germany. Been there many times. And, no.
  
  You and Germany are like 🤞
- You don't know Germany. Even with a lower case G.

is this a threat
- I don't see, after having read the article, how one could consider it a threat. How did you come to question?

thanks Germany!

Is that a threat, Berlin?
- to russia? yes
  We should make it very clear to enemies like Russia that we do not want a war but are ready for one, if they are stupid enough to start one.

We are already paying for 2 wars, nothing new
- Paying to have your neighbors build weapons.

More money for the death-machine and profits for the shareholders, hurray!
- Pacifism is great and all, but Putin clearly shows that you need to be able to defend yourself, if you don't want your rights and your freedom eroded away by foreign interests. Granted, no military will help you defend against threats to your rights from within, but it makes it at least less likely that those threats from within get backing from foreign threats.
  
  While I really wish we would do more that Russia loses this war sooner rather than later and their economy is shattered, because that's the only way I see out of this with Putin losing power, I have to say that Putin only got into the powerful position he's in now due to mutual escalation for decades. This includes permanent provocations by NATO versus Russia. NATO is a bunch of warmongering pieces of shit, but Putin was so fucking stupid that he basically made the biggest PR campaign that NATO could ever have wished for, and now everyone wants to suck off Jens piece of shit Stoltenberg.
  I despise NATO with every fibre of my being, yet I am fully aware that the stupid fucks have played their cards well enough that now even I see the need for a total econominal crushing of Russia. Only with a regime change we could then try to help the next Russian regime with humanitarian aid to prevent famines etc.
- you're right, we should just let the aggressors take everything, that way nobody has to die
- This is not Iraq. This is a dictatorship invading democracies. I protested the same as you did, we lost the conservatives won. That doesn't mean this is our second chance.
- I don't have nor do I want shares in the arms industry. I'm not a fucking ghoul.
- This is exactly what this saber rattling is about. But judging by the downvotes, most readers don't have the mental capacity to see that separately from the need to help Ukraine in the current situation.
  
  Really? Is that really what it's about? Or is there any chance that it might be about a country invading and trying to conquer its neighbor?