39
Andrius Kubilius: The EU’s peacetime defense architecture no longer fits
(www.theparliamentmagazine.eu)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2026
39 points (97.6% liked)
Europe
11283 readers
1179 users here now
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
What are the gaps?
Which must mean US spendig went from 60% to 30% and not that Germany stopped buying from the EU.
What does that mean? The following doesn't make sense.
That won't work. Smaller players means fragmentation.
The EU has learned nothing from Boeing's dominance. They are bound to create big players that fix bad products with lawyers and corruption.
The national approaches are top down. To call that bottom up and assume that it will be better when the EU dominates it sounds like a very dangerous idea to me.
You know. I've literally told you only yesterday. What are you doing here?
The things you list there are NATO gaps, based on NATO's, or more correctly the US' ambition to project power and play world police.
Why do we need heavy air transport capabilties when we have rail lines? How is Ukraine right now handling destruction of Russian air defense (not even speaking about their actual performance vs what they should be able to do on paper) with just a fraction of the EU's SEAD/DEAD capabilties? How are they even operating without the US sharing data for more than a year? Might Europeans actually be able to gather information about a neighbour on the same land mass effectively with less ressources? And why is the ability for nuclear annihilation not enough, but the ability to destroy the planet another 50 times after that is somehow a gap?
Yeah, we know. NATO is weaker without the US, but that's true for any member. Just because some clown in the White House is too stupid to realize this and plans artic warfare after alienating basically 95% of NATO's artic capabilities or getting a strait blokced by mines while insulting allies with the actual demining capabilities, we don't need to make the same stupid mistake. The US capabilities mostly align with US requirements. Ones that are no longer NATO requirements when the US decides to not be a part anymore.
You need heavy air capabilities for two reasons.
First, most of the EU's frontier has non-European gauge track. So, it doesn't help to be able to rely on rail when you have to stop rail shipments well behind the front lines. Upgrading the rail is going to be a generational project.
Second, rail infrastructure can be destroyed and it is generally harder to get rail infrastructure back up after being bombed. Not being able to deploy forces while you wait for repairs.
Adapting to Western track gauge (thus also not running on the standard Russia uses for their logistics would indeed be a worthwhile investment in a countries defense, doubling also as a investment into civilian transport capabilities.
Reality disagrees, heavily so as Russia is demonstrating for years now. And you're probably underestimating the complexity of keeping runways of a quality, width and length to support heavy transports operational. Anti-runway bombs and missiles are a whole class of weapons developed just for that reason.
PS: Speaking of... is this not accurate?
Sorry to tell you, but given the existence of Kaliningrad and Belarus the actual front line will not be far from Poland. (And Scandinavia and Finland are mostly irrelevant for this discussion as neither flight nor rail will be the primary mode of transportation to get there.)
Regarding adapting non-Western gauge track, it is worth making the transition. The item that I addressed and you dodged is timeline.
Regarding Russia rebuilding its rail infrastructure, Russia has invested a significant amount of money in military engineering brigades to repair rail corridors. Also, Russia isn't fighting off an invading force.
You're still leaving out Finland and the Baltics. It also depends on what Russia may attempt to take back. Putin's current goals appears to be reestablishing control over Soviet territory. That puts the Baltics at risk. You could see Russia attempt to take the Baltics similar to how it took the Crimean Peninsula and make the EU choose if it is worth it to conduct a war to liberate the Baltics like Ukraine had to debate liberate the Crimean Peninsula.
I explicitly mentioned Finland (transport by ship instead of rail or air) and implicitly addressed the Baltics as any attack on them will start with an attempt to close the Suwalki gap between Kalinigrad and Belarus, which makes Eastern Poland the front line.
Some rail lines in the Baltics were already reworked, some were build new, years ago with a new track guage not matching the former Russian one but intentionally not to EU standard. So I'm not addressing the timeline because there was obviously no interest in the first place.
Asking for other opinions.
Looking for engagement.