Discussion
Like NZ, the Eurozone has been cosplaying at defence since WW2;
Buying US cast-offs that aren't strategically useful in their context, and relying on the US as world police, so never expecting to have to actually use the junk in a live defence situation.
(1/?)
In case anyone hadn't noticed, Pax Americana is over. Buying expensive toys from the US as a way of currying favour with Empire serves no purpose, because that empire is crumbling and has been since 2008, if not much longer.
Also the US has spent almost a century preparing for a rematch of WW2, and their weapons systems - particularly the obsolete ones they sell to allies - are mostly unsuitable for the conditions of 21st century warfare.
(2/?)
On #euro defence spend: To be fair Smart money was on no war. War is not good for prosperity. Any idiot can see that. But the wold created better idiots.
On US weapon system trash: It was quite evident when US sent switchblades to #Ukraine.
x10 times cost, single use drone, at the time whe Ukraine was getting 3 bombing runs missions from an OTS drone.
The US bet on peace too. Developing weapon systems too expensive and too mission specific, reliant on superb logistics and quiescent staging areas for maintenance.
I had a tiny glimpse at the US style weapons development process and it's a corporate welfare scam.
The US department of war is getting back to basics now: riot shields and batons. Tells you who the new enemy is...
...since the US "leadership" looks up to dictators.
The EU needs to completely rethink its defence needs for a 21st century context. And when I say defence, I mean defence. Unlike US hawks, I do not buy into the Han Solo principle, that "the best defence is a good offence".
First, the EU needs to secure their energy supplies. Moving as rapidly as possible to renewables. Even where that means using transitional tech like biofuels to keep existing equipment running until EoL. But also investing in post-fossil equipment for the future.
(3/?)
Second, the EU need to secure their digital networks. Particularly those related to energy grids, communications, health services, and other key infrastructure.
All of these systems and more need to be rapidly rebuilt using audited Free Code software and digitally sovereign hosting. With no dependence on proprietary software and services, prone to rapid enshittification. Especially any controlled by US technofascists, whose loyalty is more likely to be with Putin than with EU nations.
(4/?)
Third, the EU needs to analyse the types of attacks that have been used in the invasion of Ukraine, and brainstorm the cheapest piece of easily reproducible equipment that could hamstring each one. Again, using Free Code software and sovereign control systems, not technofascist bloatware. Making maximum use of materials and components that can be obtained within the EU, and from countries that remain reliable allies.
(5/?)
@strypey
Preparing to fight the previous war?
One must be, but then one has equipment that is outdated, in the next war.
As well as new stuff.
@Photo55
> Preparing to fight the previous war?
Presuming Putin succeeds in conquering Ukraine and rolls on into Poland - I'm not convinced Russia has the capacity but the EU must prepare for the possibility - it's *not* the previous war. But a continuation of the same war.
Also, the best way for EU nations to prevent that is to keep Putin bogged down in Ukraine (with no guarantee of US support), or even help Ukrainians push his forces back into Russia. Again, current war, not previous war.
One thing that would help the EU repel Putin's expansionism is if the people of the UK can defeat the US-backed fascists trying to cosplay the backstory of V for Vendetta. Then rejoin the EU.
Either by rejuvenating the UK as a functioning constitutional monarchy with guaranteed protections for human rights and civil liberties. Or by overthrowing the UK and becoming independent democratic nations, each making its own decision about EU membership.
(6/?)
Britons have seen off the Romans, the Germans (at least 3 times), and the Norse (at least twice). Can they really be brought to heel by Sir Stammer and Nigel For-rage?
Somehow I doubt it.
(7/?)
Ironically, our best hope for a peaceful 21st century might be Pax Orienta. Despite claims to the contrary, the Chinese are not military expansionists. This is just the US projecting its own dark side onto China.
The atrocities of Japan's invasion in WW2 still cast a shadow on their older generations, including their leaders. So they are certainly taking steps to protect their supply lines and their territorial integrity. And yes, in their minds that does include Taiwan, Tibet, etc.
(8/?)
The Chinese certainly aspire to be a world power, both military and economic. But IMHO this is mainly a defensive play, and not one based on the Han Solo principle either.
As the US empire continues its flamboyant spiral down the toilet, the Chinese Navy will likely become the world's most powerful. Just as the US Navy took preeminence from the British Empire, and the British from the Spanish.
(9/?)
As the US crumbles, it will fall to China to secure shipping lanes, as the US has done since WW2. Although less and less effectively, since about the time Dubya misinvested a huge chunk of their remaining military power in an unwinnable and never ending war in the Middle East.
Fortunately for us, China is a manufacturer and exporter - like the US after WW2 - and securing global shipping serves their interest as much as it does everyone else's.
(10/?)
Securing global shipping requires more than just the military capacity to shut down piracy. It also requires the global fleet to be transitioned to running on renewable energy. An area China is now a world leader in, witness the recent scaling up of sodium ion battery production.
It also requires the securing of shipbuilding capacity, and port maintenance. Which are also affected by a renewables transition. Both in what kind of ships suit the available renewables, and how they're built.
(11/?)
So if I'm right that the Chinese leadership will continue to focus on doing what's good for China, IMHO that will benefit the rest of us too. And not only by keeping global trade possible in a world without Pax Americana and shipping powered by fossil fuels.
China is part of the BRICS, which means they have a unique insight into Putin's plans for Russia. Because world war is bad for trade (unless you're an arms dealer like the US), the Chinese have an incentive to talk Putin down.
(12/?)
Someone is bound to ask why China haven't done this already. Fair question. Simple; so far, it's not been in their interests.
The invasion of Ukraine, for all its horror, has been contained enough to have no major impact on the Chinese. It's also kept the US distracted, and given them a boogieman to rattle their sabres at who isn't the Chinese. Without the Ukraine invasion, the only fodder for US war propaganda would be their brinkmanship in the South China Sea. Not good for China.
(13/?)
Let's be clear, I'm not spinning a yarn where Xi Jinping and the CCP are the good guys. The Marxist left made that mistake with that old fascist Stalin and the USSR, and it's not a mistake this old anarchist intends to repeat.
What I'm saying is that Chinese foreign policy is self-interested, but *not* expansionist in a military conquest sense. This does not appear to have helped the people of Ukraine much. But in a world where Pax Americana is clearly over, it may be a ray of hope.
(14/14)
This analysis fits the pattern of a US whose power on the world stage is in decline. While China is ascendant, but just taking care of business, not showing any expansionist ambitions (unlike Putin);
A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate
