this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2025
430 points (98.6% liked)

World News

43681 readers
8839 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

European leaders holding emergency talks in Brussels have agreed on a massive increase to defence spending, amid a drive to shore up support for Ukraine after Donald Trump halted US military aid and intelligence sharing.

But the show of unity was marred by Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orbán, failing to endorse an EU statement on Ukraine pushing back against Trump’s Russia-friendly negotiating stance.

The 26 other EU leaders, including Orbán’s ally Robert Fico, the Slovakian prime minister, “firmly supported” the statement. “There can be no negotiations on Ukraine without Ukraine,” said the draft statement, a response to Trump’s attempt to sideline Europe and Kyiv.

top 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 101 points 5 days ago (3 children)

And just like that America lost that much foreign power.

Good work EU.

[–] sik0fewl@lemmy.ca 22 points 5 days ago

But they finally got what they've wanted - NATO spending their agreed amount. Let's see how it goes 🤷‍♂️

[–] RufusFirefly@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

You could always invest in the European defense industry, rather than US stocks https://i.imgur.com/cUpqyJo.png . In any case I'm not looking forward to the US becoming Russia 2.0.

[–] samus12345@lemm.ee 3 points 5 days ago

Maybe the US's collapse will be good thing long-term. Sucks that so many people have to suffer before that, though.

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 14 points 5 days ago (7 children)

Trump is an asshole, and the US should absolutely be the leader in defending Ukraine given its stockpiles and technologies and the immediacy of the need.

At the same time, Europe was able to fund some pretty nice social programs by minimizing defense spending over the last few decades. They could only do that with aggressors on their borders by relying far too heavily on the US.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 65 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

The US government spends more per total capita on healthcare than any country with nationalized healthcare, but in the US it covers less than a third of the population.

The US spends more on defense than anyone but it keeps fucking things up all around the world to justify those spendings.

The US can afford social programs, it decides not to, so give us all a fucking break.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I have only one correction and it’s a small one. The US spends more on healthcare but that spending isn’t all by the US government. Your main point still stands. The system sucks.

More on this:

In 2022, the United States spent an estimated $12,742 per person on healthcare — the highest healthcare costs per capita across similar countries.

Healthcare spending is driven by utilization (the number of services used) and price (the amount charged per service). An increase in either of those factors can result in higher healthcare costs. Despite spending nearly twice as much on healthcare per capita, utilization rates in the United States do not differ significantly from other wealthy OECD countries. Prices, therefore, appear to be the main driver of the cost difference between the United States and other wealthy countries.

There are many possible factors for why healthcare prices in the United States are higher than other countries, ranging from the consolidation of hospitals — leading to a lack of competition — to the inefficiencies and administrative waste that derive from the complexity of the U.S. healthcare system. In fact, the United States spends over $1,000 per person on administrative costs — almost five times more than the average of other wealthy countries and more than it spends on long-term healthcare.

Source

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago

What you quoted doesn't say what you think it does... That's governmental spendings and then there's private spendings over that.

[–] straightjorkin@lemmy.world 29 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The eu sent $5b more in arms to Ukraine than the us did.

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io -5 points 5 days ago

They need to increase that but also keep more for themselves.

[–] makyo@lemmy.world 14 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I keep hearing this but I'm a skeptic at heart. You wouldn't happen to have some sources would you?

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Lots of people are saying Trump is an asshole.

[–] Nalivai@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago

That is the only part of your comment that doesn't need additional sources

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 3 points 5 days ago

More than likely possible depending on how they came up with valuations on old stock piles from the cold war. Depends on if you value them based on their original cost, or the modern cost to replace them.

[–] commander@lemmings.world 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

They could only do that with aggressors on their borders by relying far too heavily on the US.

Not true. They can always take money from their ruling class and give it to their working class.

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 3 points 5 days ago

That statement applies to minimizing defense spending. Of course you can raise revenues and spend more. If you spend less in other areas, you don't need to.

[–] NotSteve_@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The US spends more per capita on healthcare than any country with socialised healthcare

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io -1 points 5 days ago (2 children)

You're the second person to write that, and it's entirely irrelevant to European military spending, Russia, and Ukraine.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 8 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It's completely relevant to your fallacious argument that other countries have social programs because the benevolent protection from the US.

The US could have the best healthcare systems in the world without reducing military spending. It only doesn't for the sake of the profit of insurance companies.

Your social programs don't suck because of your "benevoloent protection" (which has turned into a mafia protection racket now) but because American hyper-capitalist ideology is a barrier against being able to create effective social programs.

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 0 points 4 days ago

I feel like I'm responding to AI at this point. I already responded ad nauseum that I was not arguing anything about the US system. Now people want to use my comment as representing their favorite Boogeyman.

[–] NotSteve_@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

What I’m saying is that you can have those social programs that you say Europe has and the USA would actually be able to put even more money towards your military. Your current system is wildly less efficient because it’s setup to enrich middlemen (insurance companies).

The social programs existing have nothing to do with military spending in Europe

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 0 points 4 days ago

Your first point has already been made by others and is off-topic for the post.

European governments have budgets. With a set amount of revenue, they can spend more on social programs if they spend less elsewhere. If they want to keep their social spending and spend more elsewhere, they will have to increase their revenues. Not having the extra expense has made things better for them, and now that is going to end.

It's very simple, and maybe people should stick to the point and not feel triggered to respond against hyper-capitalist America.

[–] CosmoNova@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

They could also afford to make the disgustingly rich even richer. By a lot.

[–] WarlockoftheWoods@lemy.lol 2 points 5 days ago

About fucking time

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

UvdL is same as Orban, just much smarter and more evil. In general, requirement for unilateral decisions makes it the obvious suspicion that when Hungary vetoes something, in a different decision-making process it would be half of the member states, not just Hungary.

Anyway, this is not even about decisions, just "shows of unity".

I think European defense companies are going to make a lot of money, though. Rearmament is a word that even aesthetically invokes images from German 30s, or Soviet 30s, with those production lines making tanks and field artillery pieces faster than they make cars today. Of course, IRL the game mechanics have changed and they are going to produce different things mostly.