49
EU’s ability to defend against invasion remains in doubt, finds official report
(www.theguardian.com)
NATO Propaganda
The European court of auditors (ECA) said the EU was much better prepared than before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine of 2022, but achieving its goal of defence readiness by the end of the decade would be difficult.
I'm sure if it became more pressing and necessary, some things would change much more rapidly, just like decoupling from Russia and increased defense spending did.
What is "defense readiness"?
the European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said “readiness 2030” meant “to have rearmed and developed the capabilities to have credible deterrence” and “an industrial base that is a strategic advantage”.
I don't know. The EU seems plenty deterrent already, certainly to invade, but also economic strength. Could more strength deter someone like Putin? I don't know, who doesn't go by reason? Seems like a pretty diffuse definition and goal to call doubt on "the goal" or "readiness".
Maybe the negative framing is necessary to pressure for an effective military that would be better able to defend and act? What does "defend" mean? There would certainly be damage no matter the strength.
Depends on who does the invading. Russia or the US? Pfff those losers can easily be beat. China? No clue honestly.
I mean Russia‘s ability to invade remains disproven.
No, they lack the ability to successfully invade. They are absolutely capable of killing lots of people
They are absolutely capable of killing lots of people
In the EU? How do they maintain their front against EU air superiority?
Air superiority relies on having sufficient ammo. And if the recent war in Europe has shown us anything, it's that having just a couple of really good weapons doesn't really work unless you also have a shitload of other stuff.
While Russia can barely maintain a front against Ukraine, they are more than capable of killing people far behind the front lines.
Like I said, Russia won't win, they probably wouldn't hurt us as much as we would hurt them. But they WOULD hurt us.
Like I said, Russia won’t win, they probably wouldn’t hurt us as much as we would hurt them. But they WOULD hurt us.
That's true for any country. Additionally Russia could even anhilate us with their nuclear weapons. Yet do we have to worry as much and pay as much for defence as our politicians tell us to do? At least the EU starts to publish some numbers.
That's true for any country
Yes, but Russia is the only one who has shown they're extremely likely to do so.
Yet do we have to worry as much and pay as much for defence as our politicians tell us to do?
Well if I could predict the future, I would be really stinking rich, and many poor people would be less poor. Unfortunately, here we are.
has shown they’re extremely likely to do so.
What are the signs that it is extremely likely?
Well if I could predict the future
We make the future if we spend on arms instead of health, renewable energy and education. If the risk is overstated it costs lives, just not on the battlefield.
With the US as an open ally they will be more capable
I wonder why. The EU combined spends more on defense than China.Maybe—call me crazy—but maybe we should just coordinate that spending and not spend more in the stupidest way possible.
Major nation-states remain amazingly eager to gear up for World War 3, finds every international arms dealer.
Traditional defense and diplomacy is overrated. Just pack as much drones as you can with bombs, send them to Moscow on autopilot and blame this on software bug.
this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2026
49 points (98.0% liked)
Europe
11933 readers
565 users here now
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS