5mo ago

It's morally and strategically inexcusable for Russia to outspend Ukraine on defence, says Sanna Marin | Yle News

yle.fi /a/74-20144020

Summarized: The article discusses former Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin's views on Europe's response to the Ukraine war. Marin argues that it is morally and strategically unacceptable for Russia to outspend Ukraine on defense. She suggests that Europe could close the resource gap between Ukraine and Russia by allocating just 0.2% of its GDP. Marin emphasizes that supporting Ukraine is a matter of will and that Europe must take leadership in its own security. She also notes that Europe can no longer rely solely on transatlantic cooperation for its defense. Marin's comments were made in the context of a report by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, where she now works as a strategic advisor.

23 comments

- You're not wrong, but it's a bad idea to rely on just one country for something so important. Every nation should stand against hostile foreign powers by helping Ukraine defend itself. Step up that funding!
  
  Can individuals also support Ukraine? What about corporations? Does Ukraine accept donations from private entities?
- And why does it go back to the American voters that Europe has democratically chosen time after time to ditch defence spending and push the tab on the US?
  FFS, the American Left has been begging for us to get out of the "World Police" mindset for decades now. The US exiting NATO and not getting involved in another European "you're the wrong type of white person" ethnic conflict is a decidedly good thing for everyone who isn't a wealthy Western Euro'n.
  
  Europe is spending more than America to help Ukraine.
  
  The "world police" issue is when America gets involved uninvited and clearly with ulterior motives. This is an entirely different situation
Note the inexcusable part is that we allow it, and it's that they are allowed to outspend Ukraine and allies!!.
Totally.
Build your entire budget around making sure warmongers get an extra few hundred bill every single year. Worked great for those of us here in the US.
- Can you point out where she said that?
  The difference here is that the US doesn't pour all their money into their army because they need to (be prepared to) defend their country, but rather to use it for invasion and sticking their nose where it doesn't belong.
  As much as I hate our current government, if you aren't from a country to which Russia is an active threat or an expert on relevant subjects, please keep your opinions to yourself.
Well, yeah, but firstly Europe's gotta come up with the finances, and I don't believe societies built around yearly 5 week holiday time for their workers, and "free" health care for their citizens are going to allow massive sacrifices in those and so many other social services where the GDP will need to be funneled to purchase and fabricate the weaponry needed to enable Ukraine to continue to defend itself from the Russian war machine. That's not even taking into account, how much more of their GDP Europe is going to need to divert, to do the same for themselves. Now let's talk about fabrications and purchasing or weapons, and standing up massive boots on the ground conventional armies, Europe doesn't have that sort of expertise, or infrastructure, and the worlds largest arms producer is now likely off the table as an arms supplier for any fight with Russia. Europe is at least starting to make the right noises, though little concrete forward movement, still, yet I', pretty positive it's already way too late.
- It says right in the summary that it’s 0.2% of the GDP, which shouldn’t impact other services greatly. There’s no need to turn into a dog-eat-dog style war machine to counter realistic foreign threats.
  I like NATO as an alliance of countries looking after each other, but no such alliance should fall apart if any one member falls short and I’ve never been thrilled with the US role of world police. Europe needs to be able to defend itself on its own and stepping up their own contribution to NATO (and their own defense capabilities) is a good thing.
- The annual return on Norway's sovereign wealth fund is over 100 billion euros. So there's that. It's really not going to impact us if a chunk of that is used to buy weapons. The money is just getting reinvested for a rainy day and it looks a lot like it's shitting it down rn.
  
  and yet, almost none of that has gone to defense, i mean you folks sure have got the best prisons in the world, and healthcare to beat the band, lot's of suicide though, but without the us as overwatch, or supplier of future weaponry to be used vs russia even on offer to purchase any longer, and without any standing army of any note, or much in the way of weapons stockpiles, and trump about to institute global reiprocal tarrifs sure to plunge the country and world into global depression (coincidentally) not seen since the 1930's, i wish you the best of fortune

23 comments