"Moeten we echt zo bang zijn van Poetin?": PVDA verzet zich tegen meer geld voor Defensie, ook Pax Christi past voor oorlogslogica
"Moeten we echt zo bang zijn van Poetin?": PVDA verzet zich tegen meer geld voor Defensie, ook Pax Christi past voor oorlogslogica
Als het van de radicaal-linkse PVDA afhangt, moet het budget voor Defensie niet stijgen. Volgens Vlaams Parlementslid Jos D'Haese vergroot het risico op oorlog net door de nieuwe "wapenwedloop". Dat zegt hij in een interview in De Zondag. Ook de katholieke vredesbeweging Pax Christi past voor die oo...
I really can't understand how the narrative "Russia is going to invade us" is so spread around.
First of all, Russia has struggled for 3 years to only conquer a 20% of Ukraine. How are they supposed to try to attack any NATO country, which would create for them a WW3 against an army more than twice their size? Not speaking about Russia attacking our beloved Belgium (first they would have to pass Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Poland, etc..)
I am in favor of an EU organized army, independent from USA, but if we take in account together all the EU military investment, that counts nowadays as even more than the Russia's one. Why should we invest even more in military then?
And what type of military organization is NATO? there is actually no coordination whatsoever between NATO country members?
Why we were told that public pensions were "unsustainable" but now we are told that there is no problem for us to invest whatever it takes in weapons? I don´t know, Rick...
It's a false choice. We can and should fund a strong enough army to fulfill our obligations to NATO. Which is definitely necessary. Wars are no longer about boots on the ground, and Russia has been at war with us in that sense for a long time.
But it's not a choice between that and social security unless you believe politicians who want reasons to cut social security for any reason anyways, or Russian apologists like this guy. And it's incredibly annoying because stuff like this means PVDA literally makes them an unviable party to vote for. Either they are dumb and naive, or they're smart enough and deceptive.
What is the point of NATO? I thought the main point was to have a powerful group of nations that would prevent any attack for Soviet Union / Russia? NATO has 3 times the military power of Russia. Is that not enough for you to prevent an attack? If NATO does not provide safety, and it is ruled by the now semi-fascist US (Trump), what is the point of fulfilling any NATO obligation?
It's war mongering and ever since the invasion of Ukraine, emotion has taken over. 10 years ago we were all remembering the First World War and how it should never happen again, and yet here we are: attacking anyone who tries to argue for peace as being a traitor...
Some thoughts:
- All wars end in negotiations, so the sooner the better;
- We need to get the fuck out of NATO - the US is a rogue state and we, as Europeans, have no say whatsoever in its functioning;
- We need a European defense alliance that's credible - meaning: if we say it's about defense and our so-called western values, we shouldn't be part of imperialist adventures;
- Russia isn't going to attack the EU, it makes no sense - the amount of mental gymnastics that pundits are making to make Russia both menacing as incompetent is staggering;
- Europe already spends three times as much on defense as Russia - if there's one sector that could really use some of that magic Free Market Efficiency™, this would be the prime candidate for austerity;
- Rearmament doesn't make the world safer, on the contrary, it makes war more likely - if all you have is an army, everything looks like a military conflict;
- Rearmament will only line the pockets of the industrialists and other capitalists and cost the working people in their well being or even their lives if we start throwing them into the meat grinder.
You can tell the dumb left-wingers from the smart left-wingers by looking at which ones joins the far right in repeating Putin's talking points and doing his dirty work for him. Horse-shoe theory is completely accurate in this case.