[Eupolemos]

We have opened for €800 billions in investments through the EU.

So, no.

Calling anything "alarmist positions" now is just uninformed; Putin has said Russia wants the USSR territory back, their entire industry is now turned to produce weapons, their schools are "Putin-Jugend", they are currently invested in the first "great war" since WW2.

And the US isn't just getting out of Europe - they have gone full turncoat.

This is an unmitigated disaster for both US (citizens) and EU, and the EU is trying to manage what they can.

[throwaind29k]

This conflict may be a disaster for Ukraine, but how is this conflict a disaster for Europe?

Is Europe going to ratchet military spending at Putins's bluff?

[ascorbic]

If they succeed in Ukraine then they are free to re-arm. Meanwhile Trump has made it clear that article 5 is worthless, so the Baltics are there for the taking. As much as I'd like to say they can rely on the rest of NATO, I'm really unsure if the UK or France would be willing to sacrifice London or Paris for Tallinn or Vilnius.

[pixelpoet]

10 month old account with a handful posts calling Putin's actions in Europe a "bluff"... spidey sense is tingling.

[grey-area]

Because Putin will take whatever he can of Europe, starting with Ukraine and the baltic states.

Putin’s Russia is already at war with Europe - assassinations, destabilisation operations, sabotage.

[WA]

I think the parent poster has a point. It's a good idea to pause for a moment and think about this critically: Why would Putin attack the EU? Just because he can? What's the gain?

> destabilisation operations

This might actually start to become more of a self-inflicted wound. The uprise of right-wing parties is already happening in the EU. Mostly voted for by people with less education and less wealth. If we spend more money on defense and less on social security, right-wing parties might get even more traction, which causes further destabilization.

> sabotage

Yes and it sucks. There's actually not much you can do about it, because of how international waters are treated legally. But you think rearming the EU will prevent sabotage in the future? I have my doubts.

The current narrative seems to be "Ukraine is almost an EU member state and if we do not defend Ukraine, the EU will be next". Another view of the situation could be: "Ukraine is a special case and Putin would be very dumb to invade the EU".

[grey-area]

The gain is more resources to plunder. You're thinking of Putin from a western democratic mindset as an accountable leader who has to at least pretend to serve the interests of his country. It was also dumb to invade Ukraine if you think in terms of Russian interests. Leaders do lots of dumb things which are incredibly damaging for their country and often are driven purely by self-interest, especially dictators.

Re-arming is unfortunately the only answer to naked aggression from dictators and the US cannot be trusted any more as an ally. Putin has clearly stated his aims - to reconstitute the USSR (and if possible enlarge it) and to defeat the west.

Europe now stands alone against that.

[MaxPock]

If you,Europeans believe that Russia is such an existential threat,why not attack preemptively ?

[snozolli]

George W. Bush showed the world what "preemptive defense" leads to.

"Speak softly and carry a big stick" seems to be a better plan for stability while keeping aggressors in check.

[outer_web]

Nuclear retaliation.