[OvbiousError]

Signalling? Talks about investing 800 billion in the military industry across the EU would have been unthinkable 4 months ago. Now they're proceeding at a speed that is staggering when you see how long these talks/processes normally take.

EU cloud is certainly much discussed, and more than that. Holland for instance voted and accepted a resolution last week for more digital sovereignty. This doesn't mean we'll have an AWS competitor overnight, but we're also only 3 months in.

[627467]

The problem is precisely that most things have been (and continue to be) "unthinkable" "impossible" "unreal" in Europe for a long time. The unthinkable has the tendency to hit the many walls that exist in the corrupt and disfunctional European institutions. Lots of virtue signaling, lots of talk, lots of discussion, lots of failure, little action, little results. Put me in the skeptical bucket that European leader (and population) have the will power to sustain the unthinkable beyond an American election cycle.

[whiplash451]

It's unclear how this EU momentum will stand the test of time, even if the war in Ukraine were to stop quickly.

Where do these 800 bn really come from, how fast they will transform into R&D and products, how much the industrial status quo is going to change? These are hard questions that remain unanswered.

[moooo99]

> It's unclear how this EU momentum will stand the test of time, even if the war in Ukraine were to stop quickly.

I don’t think it really is unclear. The war in Ukraine served as an initial trigger that did spark some notesble changes. But the trump administration even more so. Ask the former UdSSR and Warsaw pact states. They were sounding the alarm bells for a long time and don’t appear to be willing to take any chances going forward.

> Where do these 800 bn really come from,

Government deficit.

> how fast they will transform into R&D and products

R&D is not really the issue. While there are some notable exceptions, the European defense industry has lots of very capable system that match or exceed the capabilities of US counterparts. The problem is primarily production capacity.

And production capacity is a problem that is relatively easily solved by throwing money at it and committing to long term purchases.

The main risk is that states want to ensure that if they want to spend more, they also get proportionally more. With production capacity being a bottleneck, increased spending could lead to inflationary pricing.

[BlackFly]

> Ask the former UdSSR and Warsaw pact states.

With the inexplicable exception of Hungary.

[nodoll]

>Government deficit.

And where does that come from? Obviously, it should come from the people of the country or its natural resources.

But we don't like to say that, do we?

[dmurray]

It comes from the future production of the countries, the exact thing the spending is meant to boost.

If the 800bn creates more than 800bn in (time-adjusted) future productivity, it pays for itself. If not, it was a bad investment.

[nodoll]

>the exact thing the spending is meant to boost.

Sure, but that is 800bn that could have been spent on more meaningful things. People would be more happy to redeem that by their work..

[moooo99]

> But we don't like to say that, do we?

Because it not true. The only body emitting currency is a government

[nodoll]

a currency is backed by value generated by the people and the natural resources of a country.

[thyristan]

I think the momentum doesn't come from the Ukraine war. It comes from the US going back on NATO article 5, declaring any promise of mutual defense dubious at best. And it comes from the US threatening NATO allies such as Canada and Denmark (to which Greenland belongs) with invasion.

When you treat your closest allies like that, you instantly become untrustworthy. And you will remain untrustworthy far longer than Trump can stay in office, be it with the current terms or some Putin-like term extensions.

Also, the 800bn are a huge bunch of money that politicians would have never gotten otherwise. Now they have it an can spend it on their military-industrial-cronies. They won't let that opportunity go to waste, even if the reason were gone.

[_zamorano_]

What do europeans have to show for the money spent in the "Next Generation" plans?

Allocating the money and printing feel good stories on regulations is the EASY part.

Now, delivering on the cut-throat tech competition on a reasonable time frame seems not part of the european ethos.

[snickerbockers]

>Talks about investing 800 billion in the military industry across the EU would have been unthinkable 4 months ago.

Okay, but if that's true then what does that say about the relationship between Europe and the United States when they could have done this the whole time and chose not to? Especially when the last 4 or so presidents have all complained about European nations neglecting to meet their NATO defense spending targets only to be politely ignored or in some cases laughed at in public by European counterparts?

[swat535]

Obviously, this comes at a cost.

I assume Europeans are willing to forgo some, maybe even most of their social benefits in exchange for increased military spending? I understand many currently enjoy fairly generous government support.

If not, then will there be an even bigger increase in taxes? How does EU plan to roll this out?

[pjc50]

Germany has altered its constitution to go into debt for this purpose.