Вата, говно будешь?

Where the warriors of Europe or the EU are guessing about something

An interesting article was published in EL PAÍS. At first I thought it was fake, because it can't be that pacifists or those who think it's real to negotiate with fucking Nazis (with katsaps) are so openly cocksucking.

Therefore, I quote the article in full, which tore up the pacifist's arse and all sorts of pink ponies + drove a bunch of katsaps into the comments (if you're interested, I'll drop a link to the original source):

"Where are the warriors of Europe?

Pacifism was a cultural revolution, and it must be taken into account, but it cannot be turned into a political platform.

Who will fight in our next wars? Or, more precisely, who will fight the next wars for us? This question has been hanging over us for a long time - it has been ignored, rejected, suppressed - but after Donald Trump's betrayal, it has become urgent. After all, there can be no doubt about it: The 47th President of the United States of America is a traitor to his friends, his allies and, above all, to the secular values of his nation.

There is a daily debate about the need for a "common European defence", increased investment in military spending, and even the possibility of deploying our soldiers along the bloody border between Russia and Ukraine. They discuss the problems that make it difficult to achieve autonomy, if not impossible independence, in the military defence of Europe against possible future aggression, which, unfortunately, is becoming more and more likely (and is already happening). The obstacles are many, vast and diverse: military-industrial, economic, technological, strategic and, above all, political.

This debate, while necessary, stubbornly ignores Europe's main drawback when it comes to conducting an autonomous defensive war: a lack of soldiers. As the recent carnage in Ukraine (and the Middle East) has unfortunately and tragically demonstrated, even the most technologically advanced wars require soldiers. And we Western Europeans do not have them, have not had them and do not have them anymore.

I'm not just talking about the shortage of combat soldiers, which is very acute: according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, protecting Ukraine's border will require the deployment of 200,000 troops, but the EU can barely deploy 60,000 in three shifts of 20,000. I am referring to the fading combat capability of cities that have lived in peace for eight decades and are demographically aging. To wage war, even if it is only defensive, you need the right weapons, but there remains, stubborn, insurmountable, terrifying, the need for young men (and women, if you like) who are able, ready and willing to use them. In other words, people who are ready to kill and die.

The most useful indicator of our failure in this task is not the size of our armies. It is the number of dead: according to reliable estimates, over the three years of the conflict in Ukraine, about 300,000 combatants have died and three times as many have been wounded, often seriously.

The war wiped out almost the entire population of Milan. Can we imagine this? No, we cannot. It is beyond our imagination, precisely because we are no longer soldiers. What happened to all those soldiers?

James Sheehan asks this question in a book that explores Europe's transformation from a devastated battlefield to a prosperous and peaceful society that has shifted all its material and moral resources from war to welfare. A more accurate formulation of the question, however, is: what happened to all these soldiers?

On our millennial trajectory, war was not only a craft, a tragic constant, an instrument of power, it was an art (a set of techniques, methods, inventions and talents) that drove European history and, in unison with it, the narrative that defined European identity. For centuries, our land was a Eurasian cape inhabited by fierce, formidable, proud and victorious warriors.
👇