Financial Times drops the mask
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/50913906
Financial Times drops the bars
Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.
View original on lemmy.dbzer0.comSyndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.
View original on lemmy.dbzer0.comcross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/50913906
Financial Times drops the bars
142 replies
No, that's like dad straight up saying "I know you need new clothes for winter, but I don't like you and I do like drinking, so I'm going to spend our money at the bar instead."
Saying we don't have the money to feed the poor is at least having some shame about it.
Europe drops the welfare state for fucking what? To spend money in weapons from usa? The same weapons that usa can disable remotely while they treat to invade iceland?
Nice...
My favourite right-wing trope is that the US can't have socialised healthcare because they spend so much on defending Europeans so that they can.
Also the same weapons the USA wastes on a completely useless war.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-has-used-virtually-all-its-long-range-precision-missiles-during-iran-war-2026-08-04/
Europe doesn't drop anything, it's an opinion peace from the Financial Times.
No, not US weapons (or rather: not only). The EU-based military industry is currently booming with countries ordering tonnes of stuff from Germany, Poland, Sweden, and France. All locally designed and built gear.
The people are what makes the continent.
If you stop defending the people, what are you defending?
Wealth. The wealth of companies and individuals that have no loyalty except to themselves.
So let’s kill what makes our countries worth to live in.
Fuck you, bootlicker!
I am worried about Russia and it's behaviour, but I totally disagree with this narrative across Europe about spending more on defence.
We spend plenty as it is, we just need to reorganise things and integrate our armies and navies. So many resources can be freed up by removing pointless duplication and redundancy, without spending more money at the expense of other parts of our economies.
It won't happen because nationalism is a disease that infects almost all European countries.
Exactly.
OK, if you're worried about Russia, let's build a few more nukes and drone factories, and call it a day. Unless you're trying to project power (the US) or use weapons manufacture as a fill-in for failed industrial policy (the US and now Germany), that's all you need.
If you want to help Ukraine, feel free to go volunteer. There's plenty of conscripts there happy to change places with you.
Using them as a proxy to bleed Russia is not helping anyone except the US and weapons manufacturers.
We just have to invest in European defense systems and stop buying shit from US. Funding the fascists is unacceptable
The Royal Navy currently has fewer than 20 vessels active, including coastal boats. This is not enough to secure fisheries, defend the home islands, interdict drugs before they arrive, and to keep open the global shipping lanes Britain relies on existentially. There is no redundancy. Until earlier this year, only one Type 45 destroyer was operable. It had to be removed from its duties and sent to defend Cyprus from air attack, but it took a week to get it ready to leave.
Since the 2010 Strategic Defence Review, British military capability has been gutted. A large investment is now needed to course correct. Many European powers fell into the same complacency trap at the same time.
Some countries, like Ireland, have never had adequate military capability. Ireland has no surface to air missiles - not even a radar tracking system - and no jet aircraft at all. Again, half of its 8 naval vessels are inactive. Russia has been camping out in or near Irish waters happily doing whatever they please. Considering the amount of European data going through Ireland, this is a concern and the Dail is considering whether they need a more comprehensive military.
Financial Times has been maskless for a long time.
It's the highest priced subscription of any paper by far. That alone should tell you something.
It's sort of there thing. FT is where the business people go to talk about business. The NYT is where they go to scream "Ah! Socialism! China! Migrant Caravans! AI Gap!" at the rubes.
I remember years ago reading an article complaining that Germans are too frugal and their frugality will negatively impact the economy because of lack of consumption. And I thought to myself: "Hang on. I thought they tell us to spend only on what we need?" And if we do spend as they have wanted, the elites will say this is why we can't afford a house because we spent it all on avocado toasts.
This is the hypocrisy, gas lighting and double standards of capitalism. They tell us such and such is good, and when we do exactly what they tell us, and it has had negative consequences, they say it's our fault. It reminds me of one of the episodes in the first season of Squid Game, in which the players were winning but the games master broke the rules to handicap the players.
Wish this wasn't evergreen.
I hate this US- American "We HaVe To DeVeNd OuR sElVeS" propaganda BS. They only have two borders. In theory no one would give a shit about them if they were actually only caring about they're safety!
'We will kill so many brown people abroad just to kill welfare' - Liberals
«Opinion» pieces are a way for news media to cover their asses.
Defend the continent from who? The teetering regime that has spent the past 5 years drawing the poorest country on the continent to a stalemate?
And the same regime definetly has the power to rule territory in which it's despised by the majority of the population. /s
Defend the continent from people whose countries are becoming unlivable, and from missing out on all the resources we might want to procure.
I'm afraid we've really entered into a new era of increasing aggression and warfare.
War is very expensive though. It makes sense to spend fraction of that on a deterrent and that's one thing EU does really well is to hedge all investments for overall stability. This is more of the same.
Interestingly it's always the welfare state that has to be sacrificed, that is too expensive etc. The foundation of our democracy IMO.
But at least the americans think about us and want to help us! /s
Well, kinda, yeah. The only reason that has been a stalemate is that Europe mustered a bunch of support for Ukraine, at great expense. They’ve needed to gather and regather the will to spend money on this throughout, if you’ve been paying attention you’ve seen it.
Now I totally object to someone saying they need to dismantle their social programs to dump all that money into warfare, but neither should we say there is no threat at all.
What exactly will happen if there are suddenly "separatists" in Narva?
There's 2.200 soldiers in Tapa which I assume would be deployed immediately.
There's a total of 27.000 soldiers deployed as part of the Enhanced Forward Presence NATO deference. So they need a little more than just "separatists"
No way to make more rich people richer than to sacrifice the underclasses benefits.
It's so unjust that I don't have everything!!
Where is a good guillotine when you need one.
Or better, send the asshole and perhaps his family to a war somewhere, so he knows first hand what he is asking about.
There's plenty of conscripts in the trenches in Ukraine who will swap spots with these NAFO chickenhawks in a second . . .
Just stop subsidizing the rich, problem solved.
I agree that Europe need to spend more on defense and be less dependant on the US, but tax the rich for crying out loud! Welfare does not need to be cut for this.
We do not need to spend more on defense, cos there is no threat. I mean Russia is losing against Ukraine, how tf are they supposed to be a threat for the rest of europe? And neither China nor India are threating Europe. The only answer I MIGHT accept is defense against the USA.
Well yes, exactly. A fascist USA is a good example for a threat if they don't get their shit together over there.
And Russia is absolutely a threat. We have been in a cold war with them for quite some time without even knowing it. Russia is a large part of why right-wing extremists parties are so popular in Europe. They are actively destroying democracy in Europe. That is an existential threat, at least to our values as society and democracy.
Yeah Russia under Putin has been interfering a lot, starting with climate change denial - but that is only possible because social media lets them. Without meaningful moderation to stem "agitprop" and hate speech and propaganda, there is no defense. Meanwhile spending more on the military industrial complex to build up this massive lobbying force that undermines democracy is the exact wrong reaction. We need to either demand the social media moderate and properly ban botnets and state agents, or ban them and create a European (moderated) alternative. You can't have for profit news or social media and expect democracy to work.
Obviously being Anti Russia doesn't change the historical fact that the CIA/NED funded and facilitated the protests and regime change in Ukraine and empowered Ukrainian Nazis to turn Ukraine Anti-Russia. And that Russia has legitimate security concerns about a Nato aligned, Nazi infested Ukraine. Which again, a military proxy adversary to Russia wasn't what we needed to fight Russia's interference. Putin/Russia does want to undermine and weaken Europe, and in that way they also profit from the destabilization the Ukraine war has caused. It's a similar dynamic to Bin Laden turning the US warmongering into overdrive and therefor ruining the US.
I agree on Europe needing its own moderated alternative to US social media.
But let's not repeat Russian propaganda on how Ukraine is "Nazi infested", it's quite the opposite, the Russian regime is the most fascist government of our age. Russia has "legitimate" security concerns about Ukrainians choosing democracy and Europe over Russian fascism. How people still fall for the reversal of the victim/perpetrator relationship in this conflict astounds me to this day.
This isn't Russian propaganda. These are all facts you can read up on from western sources. See this for the sources you can follow up yourself.
Just because you call something Russian propaganda or because Russia said it doesn't invalidate an argument or fact. This is called a "genetic fallacy". The US did have a leading role in the regime change in Ukraine and who got into power. The US has done regime change and coups a lot of time in the last 70 years, and they said they are working towards regime change in Ukraine before it happened, they funded the movement and applied pressure.
If you deny the historical facts then you are playing right into the hands of the warmongers like OP. All they have to keep saying is that Russia is an evil Nazi regime and a clear and present danger and that any opposition to more militarism in Europe is traitorous.
If Russia was indeed such a grave danger, they would be right too. Turn Europe's economy into a war economy, start conscription, start a Manhattan project to intercept nuclear warheads and build a billion killer drones to conquer Russia. So your position isn't even consistent. Because it's double think. Russia is at the same time weak and has a smaller economy than Italy, has human wave tactics that cannot work, is on the brink of collapse for years now, and at the same time is incredibly dangerous genocidal nazi state that must be stopped at all cost.
The cost being the truth and our social democratic policies.
Are you saying they are not?
Absolutely no one in Europe wants to conquer Russia. We just want to be left the fuck alone from Russian Nazis interfering in our democracy and to leave our neighbours alone.
And the only one twisting historical facts are you, saying the Maidan revolution was a western coup instead of Ukrainians choosing to oust a Russian puppet. This wasn't some fringe group taking power, it was supported by the majority of Ukrainians.
Poll: More Ukrainians disapprove of EuroMaidan protests than approve of it (Kyiv Post, 2014)
Ah, the US dependence myth strikes again. #merica
So you're just shifting money to defense for shits and giggles then? Not because the US is no longer a reliable ally footing most of the western defense bill?
Okay.
How is it a myth? Europe is lacking for example in high-altitude air defense systems. Or are there European Systems that I am unaware of?
And thats just one example of many. Just look at how much of the European air force is composed of US Jets.
I'm an American. Y'all Europeans don't believe the horse shit they got most of my countrymen to accept.
Also, that Janan Ganesh guy looks like a putz.
Janan Ganesh wants to suck billionaire dick and lick their boots
Yeah.
"Compassionate Conservatism", well there's an oxymoron for you. And "as expressed by David Cameron" of all people. This guy really does not care about being credible, does he?
What about taxing wealth, while reducing mass taxes like the VAT to finally get people to spend again? Increasing peoples salaries would also help, and capping rent to what it costs to ensure upkeep and needed new construction - i think that would easly do the trick to fill the states coffers and get the economy out of this slump instead of filling the bank accounts of shameless, greedy people. Those will find other ways to enrich themselves, maybe through the defense industry.
And take money away from the hard working Epstein Class!?
We should have a 20% annual wealth tax on fortunes over a billion dollars. Staying a billionaire should be like trying to swim up a waterfall.
Under FDR in 1935, if you made more than $5 million, you paid a 79% tax rate.
I'm talking wealth, not income. If your total net worth is $1.2 billion, this year you owe the IRS $200 billion.
The idea is that we make being that rich an extremely temporary condition. It's like trying to run up a downward moving escalator or run against a moving sidewalk.
In fact, I would tune the tax structure to harness some of the competitive impulses of the wealthy. People that rich view their net worth as a high score. They literally view it like a personal life score. It's just a video game to them. When your net worth goes from $10 to 20 billion, your lifestyle changes very little. Past a certain point, it's just about bragging rights.
So I would harness this impulse. I would tune the tax rates so that it actually would be possible for a handful of the absolutely most skilled business owners to maintain wealth slightly above a billion (or whatever inflation-adjusted level we set) for a limited period of time. Those owning the world's most profitable companies will be able to stay a bit over the threshold for the years their company is at its peak.
If you did this, you could actually harness the competitive instincts of the rich. Remember, it's all about getting a high score. But instead of competing for the largest fortune, they would compete for how long they're able to stay on the treadmill. Instead of size, they compete for time. A year or two would be a feat. A decade above the threshold would be a once-in-a-generation achievement. You would know these people by name. They would be famous. Staying above the wealth cap for any prolonged period would make you as famous as Musk or Bezos today. The rich would still get to compete with each other for bragging rights. They still compete for a high score. We just change what the score measures.
I don't want to eat the rich. I want to harness their greed. Imagine a donkey being lead by a carrot. Except the donkey is on a treadmill, and the treadmill is powering an electric generator. I want to turn every billionaire into that for the public treasury.
Yeah but that's income, the billionaires don't do that any more (loopholes loopholes!)
Tax the compound wealth (too).
The other alternative is a 100% inheritance tax above a threshold, and make it impossible to transfer wealth to the next generation
Because these locusts leave and take everything that is taxable with them.
And i doubt a one time moving Tax is a good deterrent.
The only Thing the state could do is seizing the means of Produktion before Hand, but we can barely Imagine a wealth Tax. State capitalism is was of the Charts for Most peoples Imagination.
They can't take real estate with them, and there's no reason why a foreign owner of real estate can't be taxed more than a local owner. Dividends of stocks in local businesses can still be taxed, as can transfers of ownership of those stocks on the local stock exchange. They're also dependent on the state they left for any governments bonds they own as well as for enforcing any loans local legal persons owe them.
They can sell all those things, of course, but that just means other people have to start paying more taxes.
So we have to make sure that most of the world implements these taxes. Tax havens should be ostracized. In this specific case, there's no need for a communist revolution, just political will to change something, diplomacy and unwillingness to budge towards countries who don't want to play fair.
Arent we already trying?
Why should they care? They have more Money now. Of course not as much as they could have, but more than they Had previously.
The people everywhere already try the diplomatic way, but breaking political will with capitalist media is part of the counter Offensive of the Bourgeoisie against the reformist struggle.
The need to Organize is equally important in reformist battles as in revolutionary Battles. Furthermore, the dependancy of the plan on global scale action means organization of scale unheard of in human History.
Because austerity measures worked so well after the housing bubble burst. 🙄
Europe could get more for less if they bought less low quality, super expensive, american made, defensive shit.
I hear Ukraine have some interesting and well proven kits for cheap.
Tbf a lot of that spending is to keep relationships with the US. That's kinda the entire shtick of EU is to bind competing parties through global economy and while Russia is an outlier I do think it's mostly a success story.
Yeah but what about binding our economy with some other countries (that don't threaten to attack us)?
They're working quite actively on that with things like Mercosur, the free trade agreements with India and Australia and strenghtening ties to Canada among other things.
Many were already in the works, but got boosted considerably when Trump got in for a 2nd time.
Yeah I know, irony at its finest 😁
I would assume the Ukrainians are not looking to sell right now.
On the contrary, it is one of their main sources of income.
License the build in another country and get some of the produce.
Well, you know, no way to defend if you forget about nuclear weapons, lol.
Yeah but you drop a nuke on a tribe of houthis shooting up ships and people lose their minds. So Brimstone it is.
Violence is the only language humanity speaks. No translation necessary.
In the US we don't really have money for either.
It's mostly deficit / debt spend. But don't worry, we'll always be able to service debt easily because the USD is standard and in large amounts of demand. Nobody would ever be stupid enough to screw that up and get people to look for alternatives.....oh wait, here's that Trump guy again.
Yeah you do. Your corrupt politicians just keep giving most of it to the rich and powerful, and their corporations.
As non American it's always funny to see one of the richest country in the world never have any money for anything but yachts and mcmansions. Have americans checked their couch cushions? There must be 1 healthcare there somewhere.
last time i checked the federal budget in the US was 23% of total GDP, with about 6% of GDP being from new debt. so the rest (17% of GDP) came from taxes. the US does tax, just too little IMO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
It's all going as planned.
Whose plan tho?
It's like the author saw the gap in the market left by the glorious demise of Rod fucking Liddle, and figured he'd toss his hat in the ring.
In Holland the new center-left government proposed a “freedom tax” to fund the army, which was widely supported. They implemented it half heartedly though, so there’s no line of “freedom tax” on your tax report. But the model might definitely work elsewhere
I don't get it. Seems like a very center left thing? You socialize the costs for protecting your freedoms - a freedom tax if you will.
Pretending that military spending is about "protecting your freedoms" is jingoistic (and thus right wing) propaganda.
Also, a few corporations, billionaires, and hectomillionaires get richer every time military spending goes up. Taxing everyone to pay them is a reverse Robin Hood move not in accordance with left wing ideology.
How does a community of people protect themselves if not collectively pooling their money to "buy guns"?
There's nothing left or right wing here - spending on protection is needed be paying someone else to do it or developing your own guns. So despite the flavorful wording here of "freedom tax" i dont see how this could be anyone's problem.
You know, whether you like it or not, there are bad people out there who will attack you if they think you look weak. There's a pecking order to the world and the ones with the big guns think they have to go around and rub some "shithole country" into the dirt ones every 5 years.
I believe that we, as a species and by mutual agreement between peoples, must rid ourselves of weapons in order to defuse and degrade the capabilities of despots and mercenaries. But unilateral disarmament won't work when a few countries think its their civilizational duty to come and murder your mother and extract your resources.
Fun fact: most of Europe being part of the same military alliances makes the necessary military spending per nation to avoid this MUCH lower than current levels.
Especially when the biggest threat is a country already teetering on the brink of economic and military collapse from overextending itself.
Agreed.
Neither will multilateral unnecessary military spending increases.
None of which are anywhere near capable of carrying out said "duty" against the full force of two of the biggest military alliances ever, the EU and NATO.
I agree overall. But the irony is that Europe's cooperation with the United States is a major source of instability. So I'd rather see NATO replaced by an international alliance of smaller countries and middle powers or smaller countries that reject aggression and abide by international law.
I also think that the whole "must spend X" obsession largely comes from NATO propaganda which assumed that Europe would use that money to buy weapons from the American MIC. That doesn't invalidate all additional spending, especially if temporary, but I think it's important to recognize the role it has had in shaping the United States (force the poor to join the military) and to vehemently reject that model.
NATO famously was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans [read Europeans] down".
It is not in our interest to be vassals of the US, as they've shown multiple tiimes.
Couldn't agree more. It's long past time to wean Europe off of dependence on the US of any kind, but especially military and economic.
That and propaganda on behalf of the European MIC, which is also a thing, though a lot smaller.
True, but the arguments for it being necessary not holding water does.
Yeah, because militaries and the rich people and corporations never make sure that "temporary" subsidies and government contracts become effectively permanent 🙄
The military spending is not protecting any freedoms
Center-left is a big stretch. There's a (sort of) center-left party in it, but the other 2 are center-right to right and you can see that in their proposed policies.
Also, the "freedom tax" affects the lower and middle class more than it does the rich class.
And they still cut back on the welfare state.
What center-left government are you talking about? There's not a single leftist party in the government.
Only desperate people, right-wing gun nuts and neo-nazis join the army voluntarily, so that sounds about right.
The class war doesn't stop happening if you dont fight back.
I normally don't wish death on people, but the author of this hate-piece....
you don't need to wish death on him, just for him to follow his own advice and actually go to war
Given what Russia is doing, and how the US is bailing on its European allies, it does make sense for Europe to focus a bit more on defense, sad to say.
The US otoh has no excuse.
The US maintains a military the size it does to control the world economy
I’m sure Europe are spending a bit more now but I don’t think we need to worry about our neighbours like Russia, and legitimate defence is cheaper than what the USA does
Sure, but not at the expense of the welfare state. The two can defiintely co-exist.
Certain irony in this article being turned out by a guy who would likely get pulled out of his car and beaten to death in any of the White's Only No Go Zones of Europe.
Can you elaborate on the No Go Zones in Europe? I did not hear about any such zone nearby, can you link an article or something?
The "no-go zones" trope is a disgusting, racist conspiracy theory created by American right-wing xenophobes, and exported to their anti-immigrant counterparts across the pond. It is a product of the era immediately following the attacks on September 11, 2001.
The main claim is that there are specific areas within European cities which have been "taken over" by immigrants, usually Muslims, which have become "unsafe" for white or non-Muslim citizens to exist in, especially after dark. The more extreme claims state that "islamic extremists" have replaced the existing order with "sharia law".
This is racist, Islamophobic, and false.
In reality, racists and xenophobes simply do not like immigrants (especially the brown kind who talk funny and pray the wrong way) forming their own solidarity networks, running their own schools, and getting involved in their own local governments. They especially do not like them making time and space for their own forms of worship in their own communities, and will often claim that forced conversion is occurring in these areas, and that schools and governments have been "islamized".
European Ethno-Nationalist and White Supremacy Groups
Chronic across the continent, but particularly in neighborhoods with poor education, low incomes, and a saturation of military age males.
Money has to go from somewhere. And Trump isn't exactly a reliable ally so EU has to increase their own defence spending.
Don't know what's controversial here
The fact that the vast majority of countries are already spending much more than necessary (yes, even assuming no help from the US) on their militaries and much less than necessary on social programs.
Since the main function of unnecessary military spending is to enrich already rich people and companies and social spending goes mostly to people poorer than average, this is straight up reverse Robin Hood policy.
That's just not true. EU states spend tons of money on healthcare and other programs - the price is much higher taxation than US.
And now we have crazy ruskie try hard invading our neighbour and we're paying tons of money to stop him.
And since Trump withdrawn support for Ukraine we have to pay even more to compensate for the crazy US jackass who wants to wage war in the middle east instead.
Funny, I (a very high earner) moved from the US to Spain.
My taxes went from roughly 42% to 45%. I also now get health care and education for my kids at a fraction of the price.
I don't get F-35s that crash in the rain as much, but I'm trying to somehow make due.
You ever think that maybe the US wasn't sad about that, and in fact wanted that proxy war? Because they said openly they liked it - see the recently departed Lindsey Graham.
The US might benefit from these nonsense games - they certainly profited from LNG sales after they blew up NordStream. But unlike them, we live next to Russia, so maybe it might be in our interest to live peacefully with them, instead of demanding their complete submission to NATO.
Your particular case is irrelevant.
If you look at total taxation as government spending in GDP, in US it's like ~30%
In France or Germany ~50%
Your figures are just nowhere near reality - and this -
total taxation as government spending in GDPisn't a thing.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue
No, it's not. Because it shows exactly why your logic is nonsense.
The US has low overall tax rates - because it cuts the taxes for wealthy people while having tax on labor that is similar to most EU nations. It then also imposes large costs on middle class families to support its spending, which is very much pushed to the arms you seem to think are a good idea.
Its low quality of life isn't unrelated.
It is a thing, it just measures taxation in a different way.
What you linked is measure of what is officially considered as tax
Meanwhile spending to GDP measures every fee that state collected + deficit spending. That includes regular taxes, state run healthcare insurance, social security, deficit spending, fines, ect. You can find more about in under the term 'Tax Freedom Day'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Freedom_Day
It's much better measure of actual burden of state 'tax' collection on the society because it encompasses everything.
Oh, I'm familiar with that term. It's marketing nonsense brought to you by the same people that thought the Laffer Curve was not only real, but that the United States was on the right side of it.
As even your article states, the argument against it is beyond simple, as the figure ignores what the taxes buy. And the exact point is that Europe, with slightly higher taxes, provides significantly more to its citizens for their taxes.
How does it do that? Well, it's pretty simple - it spends far less on expensive weapons systems (which as the Iran War has shown are overpriced failures at best), and less on things that go to corporate bottom lines, like private medical care.
That alone is the argument for US involvement. If the goal is to damage Russia, the support should flow.
Maybe that's a correct course of action against country ran by genocidal motherfucker? You seriously think you can live peacefully with Putler? Ukraine thought that too. Funny how that worked out for them
What course of action - please be specific.
And note these same governments you're saying should be arming Europe are currently arming Israel as well, a nation which unlike Russia (which has a CoE vote against it) actually has a full genocide displayed and levied by the ICC.
Given that Russia is next to Europe, are you suggesting instead that we invade Russia and kill hundreds of millions of people? Or overthrow their government?
No, of course not. Your plan is to fight Russia to the last Ukranian.
You mean when the government was overthrown in 2014 to decide to join an anti-Russian alliance with a history of illegal invasions?
I don't like Russia, but to pretend that they're just evil orcs is the stupidity usually reserved just for Americans. We need a peace that will enable Europe and Russia to work together, not to have us bleed for the benefit of the Americans.
You're sick.
WTF are you even talking about? Democratic elections?
I'm blocking you, this goes nowhere.
So, no actual plan, just "let's keep stoking the war fires then act surprised when they catch".
Because you don't think it'll be you fighting, I'm willing to guess. Like most chickenhawks, you're eager to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian - and no further.
Fun fact: the US spends more tax money on healthcare than almost every EU member state and STILL it's so fucking expensive when it's free at point of service in most of Europe.
How is that possible, you might ask?
By most of those tax dollars going to insurance and pharmaceutical company profits, marketing, and lobbying to prevent a better system.
True, but guess what? The investment in that particular conflict already paid off so well that Russia is teetering on the brink of economic and military collapse, thus constituting a threat to anyone other than Ukraine and soon might not be even that.
Nope. The war is as good as won already and the overwhelming success of the Ukrainian drone program means that they can pay for much more of it themselves now than in the beginning.
Tl;dr: there's no good reason to cut social services OR increase military spending in most EU member states
I see what you did there. US has 5-10x the population than any single EU member state. What matters is spending per capita. Your argument is invalid.
It's not. The frontline is a slaughterhouse with hundreds if not thousands of casualties every day, many of which are rotting on the battlefield as we speak.
If EU was properly armed, this war would be actually over, with borders restored and invader removed from Ukrainian territory. And increased military spending is necessary to ensure this clusterfuck of a war won't happen again in the future
I WAS talking about per capita. Your ignorance is showing again.
The rest of your comment is just fallacious warmongering propaganda so blatant I won't even dignify it with a rebuttal.
Orange numbers are from yesterday
Edit: Source, if you think I'm lying
https://mod.gov.ua/en/news/total-russian-combat-losses-in-ukraine-as-of-august-4-2026
What kind of argument is this?! Ukraine is not part of the EU.
Geopolitics are wider than EU borders
Ukraine already receives military aid from EU countries.
There’s no reason whatsoever for the EU to engage in open war with Russia.
Taking money from social programs to feed the military-industrial complex.
It’s quite clear.
Social programs aren't worth shit, if they aren't backed by security at national level
No amount of military equipment is worth shit if there's nobody to operate them. What kind of loyalty does it inspire when the state will just abandon people because they were unwilling to consider other ways of funding the military? This isn't America, Land of the Masochists.
Make poverty, and income and wealth inequality structurally impossible, then we can talk about reducing funding to social programs.
Right, buying F-35s is worth letting EU citizens starve or die from preventable diseases. Got it.
What a shit take.
And Canada wants to join that shitshow?
Fun fact: the opinions of The Financial Times do not dictate EU policy. At least not usually 🤷🏻
We should just nuke Moscow and get it over with. Send one to Tel Aviv while we're at it.
Great idea, I'm sure they wouldn't just unload their entire nuclear arsenal in response.
Oh no, I will miss out on decades of rent payments!
I will be a shadow burnt into a wall, and my boss will be so fucking pissed I left him short handed at work.
She'll be right.
I don't even believe Russia is capable of that anymore.
Why wouldn't they. They haven't used any and even if we assume they can't finance the upkeep of their entire arsenal, you can be pretty sure they at least finance SOME of them, and idk about you, but with nuclear weapons, one is kinda enough to ruin my day.
Username fits but insane_comment would be a great username as well lol
Don't forget nuking the whales!
About damn time.
I'm still waiting for Trump to decide to attack Iran with nucular weapon(s)
He still has over 2 years left. Wouldn’t surprise me to do something that stupid
It's insane Americans are even allowing him two more years. What happened to those guys, where did the spine go?
We’re too busy working and trying to just survive. They got us right where they want us. And the crazies with all the guns are trump supporters