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.

    • JeffKerman1999@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      I agree, but better late than never. And absolutely better now than when putin starts bombing some civilians in a NATO country.

      • NegativeLookBehind@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 days ago

        Finland seems to be the only member of NATO who hasn’t forgotten who their neighbors are. But yes, better late than never.

        • rammer@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 days ago

          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.

        • boonhet@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          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!”

  • Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    10 days ago

    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.

    • punkfungus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      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.

      • Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        10 days ago

        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.

    • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      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.

      • spongebue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 days ago

        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.

      • Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        10 days ago

        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.

        • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 days ago

          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.

    • InFerNo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 days ago

      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…

        • InFerNo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 days ago

          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.

          • Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 days ago

            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.

            • GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 days ago

              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)
    • stinerman [Ohio]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 days ago

      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.

    • Maalus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 days ago

      Because Russia doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Also it is better to be prepared and not need it, rather than not be prepared and lose a large portion of the population, industry, potentially getting genocided away etc.

      • Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 days ago

        I agree about that but in the case of defence against a potential Russian invasion of European NATO members I think it’s a false dichotomy. We are already stronger than Russia by nearly all measures and would be better off investing in infrastructure that makes us more prosperous and resilient whatever the future holds.

        • Maalus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          Are we stronger than Russia + China + Iran + any other country that joins them?

          If we were strong enough, we could have helped Ukraine win. Multiple countries have neglected their military up to a point it should be considered treason.

          • Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 days ago

            There seems to be a general misconception that Europe has been unable to help Ukraine more when it has actually been a free choice for them. That’s the whole purpose of NATO - it binds member states to shared defence. Ukraine was not a member when it was invaded.

            Russia + China + Iran +

            Russia: Ukraine. China: needs to keeping selling us stuff to keep its property bubble from crashing the economy, far away. Iran: Israel.

            Imagining a terrifying and powerful threat and gearing up for a world war is a good way of helping that to actually happen. Fair enough. Some people want that. Perhaps because they stand to profit individually from the economics of it, are lacking purpose or are simply bored.

            • Maalus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 days ago

              “Imagining a terrifying and powerful threat and gearing up for a world war is a good way of helping that to actually happen”

              Except the threat isn’t imaginary. Same shit was said about Russia in 2008, 2014 and here we are, after 2022 happened. Three years and they are still occupying a significant amount of Ukraine. The truth is - if NATO is a defensive alliance, then gearing up with a shitloads of weapons to defend any offensive action doesn’t make a world war happen easier - quite the opposite. It prevents opportunists who would grab territory with no consequence - like Russia did in 2008 and 2014.

              And all the time the eastern flank of NATO was screaming about a threat and being told by the western part to calm down and don’t be hawks, when their entire existence was threatened. All because it’s pretty simple - because the western part of NATO is only possible to be invaded when the eastern side has been taken over and capitulated. Hence why the idiotic policy that was luckily reversed, to let Russia capture the Baltics in case of a war, and retake them later. Everyone on the eastern flank knows what happens to people under russian occupation, it just doesn’t get through to people who don’t have to worry about the consequences of doing nothing and pushing the problem down the line with appeasement and ignoring it altogether.

              Also, Ukraine had a pact with the US for defense if the integrity of the country was ever touched. And then 2014 happened and what? If a threat big enough exists that countries are scared of fighting it, NATO means fuckall. It’ll be the start of WW2 again with alliances that don’t do anything when their “buffer zone” is being taken over by hostiles.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      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.

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    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.

  • FinishingDutch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    9 days ago

    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.

    • Ksin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      9 days ago

      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.

      • FinishingDutch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        9 days ago

        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 ;-)

      • FinishingDutch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        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.

  • hark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    10 days ago

    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.

    • Maalus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 days ago

      The organization got complacent with the countries not developing their armies and letting them wither away and lose effectiveness instead. The entire eastern flank of NATO screamed that Russia is still a threat, even with the USSR breaking up. Those countries were called “war hawks” and then 2008 happened, 2014 happened and now 2022 happened. Apparently it wasn’t enough to shake them up.

      • hark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 days ago

        2008 is about 17 years after the collapse of the USSR. Within that time, Russia experienced an economic crisis with the push for a “free market” and actually had lower life expectancy than during the USSR. Unless you want to argue that Russia is just inherently a warmongering country, surely something could’ve been done to prevent this later aggression. Similar to trump, putin getting elected is a symptom of a broken system.

        • Maalus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 days ago

          Oh sorry, they needed time to build up. Fuck em, and fuck their genocidal, warring regime.

          • hark@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 days ago

            Your assumption is that it’s always been a genocidal, warring regime, and that it’s just been building up the entire time. I disagree with that defeatist attitude. If Germany can be de-nazified and Japan can transform from the ruthlessness displayed during and before world war 2, then surely something similar could be done with Russia. If you think this is impossible, then what solution do you propose?

            • deadcream@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 days ago

              Both Germany and Japan were defeated in war (that they themselves started) and occupied by foreign forces. Their “denazification” was enforced by occupiers. You are arguing against your own points (not that you have any, except “war is bad and America is to blame for Russia’s actions”).

              • lad@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 days ago

                America is to blame for Russia’s actions

                I’m not sure I saw this point being made, although I agree that not much actionable ideas were proposed

            • Maalus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              8 days ago

              Oh yeah, Russia hasn’t ever been genocidal, not since its tsarist days huh.

              The solution I propose is to arm ourselves so that Russia doesn’t think about attacking anyone ever again. And neither does China and neither does Iran or any other asshole that wants war.

              • hark@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 days ago

                Both Germany and Japan were defeated in a hot war, as opposed to a cold war, so your point about occupation is irrelevant in the case of Russia. Germany and Japan also received generous economic benefits, a far more relevant point that you ignored for whatever reason. Are you trying to argue that Russia was a genocidal warring regime right when the USSR collapsed? I guess we should just nuke them out of existence because you seem to think it’s in their genes or something.

              • hark@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                8 days ago

                Oh yeah, Russia hasn’t ever been genocidal, not since its tsarist days huh.

                I didn’t say that.

                The solution I propose is to arm ourselves so that Russia doesn’t think about attacking anyone ever again. And neither does China and neither does Iran or any other asshole that wants war.

                The US is the most armed, most advanced military in the history of humanity. Somehow this hasn’t achieved peace in the world.

                • Maalus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  8 days ago

                  We live in unprecedented peaceful times compared to any other age in history. You don’t achieve peace by disarming yourself and hoping your aggressive neighbor magically flips on the decades of genocidal intent and imperialism. I won’t be replying to you further, I hate going in circles about something that has shown to be true time and time again.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 days ago

      The USSR fell and has now been replaced with someone with far more warlike intentions than anyone since Stalin.

      • hark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        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.

          • hark@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 days ago

            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.

              • hark@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 days ago

                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.

  • lnxtx (xe/xem/xyr)@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    36
    ·
    10 days ago

    Stop spreading cold war propaganda. Made people scared.
    Provoking each other. Buying expensive killing machines.

    We have more important social problems to solve.

    Make love, not war.