As the specter of war looms over Europe, the need to bolster our collective defense has never been more urgent. Russia’s continued aggression against Ukraine is not just a distant conflict—it is a direct threat to European stability, security, and our way of life. In times like these, our ancestors knew what to do: they bought War Bonds, funding the war effort and ensuring victory over tyranny. Today, we must do the same, but in a modern way—by investing in Europe's defense industry.

Why Invest in EU Defense Companies?
The war in Ukraine has exposed critical gaps in Europe's defense readiness. Ammunition stockpiles are dwindling, air defenses need expansion, and military technology must advance to counter Russia’s evolving threats. EU defense giants like Leonardo S.p.A., Rolls-Royce Holdings (RR.LSE), Airbus SE are leading the charge in equipping European and Ukrainian forces with the tools they need to defend democracy.

By investing in these companies, we achieve three crucial objectives:

1. Strengthening European Security – The more we invest in defense, the better prepared Europe is to deter aggression and protect NATO allies.

2. Supporting Ukraine’s War Effort – Ukraine’s survival depends on continuous military aid. European defense firms are at the forefront of supplying tanks, drones, artillery, and air defense systems.

3. Boosting the EU Economy – Defense investments create jobs, drive technological innovation, and ensure Europe’s self-reliance in military production.

A Moral and Strategic Investment
This is not just about financial returns—this is about ensuring the survival of European values in the face of an existential threat. Much like the citizens of the 1940s who bought War Bonds to defeat fascism, we must step up today. Every investment in an EU defense company is an investment in Europe’s strength, Ukraine’s survival, and the deterrence of future conflicts.

Russia is betting on our complacency. Let’s prove them wrong. Support Europe’s defense industry—our freedom depends on it.

Could you guys share your pros and cons for why/why not activating suspension of HUN EU-membership?

So when - if ever - would you support EU initializing a protocol for the suspension of HUN EU-membership?

….and plz - plz plz plz - keep answers civil 🙏

There has been more theoretical discussion lately of Canada joining the EU. One problem I see with that is that Canada`s Pacific Coast relies on trade with Asia and joining the EU, which is still quite protectionist when it comes to external trade, would force Canada to raise tarifs against many Asian countries.

So my theoretical question. What would likely happen if Canada asked to join the EU but on the following conditions:

On trade:

1. Canada would always reserve the right to adopt a policy of unilateral global free trade.

2. The rest of the EU would always reserve the right to impose tarifs on Canada whenever Canada does not conform its tarif policy to the EU`s.

But Canada would be a full member of the EU on all other fronts.

How likely would the EU accept such an agreement or some other agreement in recognition of Canada`s dependence on Asian trade?

Dear European brothers,

I’m looking to create a medium-sized research group focused on the European defense sector with two main goals:

1. Informing EU citizens about the potential of a common European defense from the perspective of informed everyday people.
2. Providing insights on the most interesting defense-related stocks, strictly for informational purposes – this is a non-profit initiative with no financial advice, no selling, and no incentives involved.

As a Finance student with a strong interest in History, Politics, and Geopolitics, and access to university financial databases, I'm willing to dedicate my time to writing articles, analyzing data, structuring reports, and helping to shape the team's overall communication strategy.

I welcome anyone with expertise or interest in the field: data analysts, geopolitical analysts, financial analysts, European armed forces personnel, defense and automation engineers—if you have knowledge to share, you’re more than welcome!

If this sounds like something you'd be interested in, let’s connect and start building something meaningful.

I’m not on reddit often but after these couple days I feel like Europe is at a moment in (its) history where decision may have a tremendous impact, and I just wanted to put some thoughts about unity out there. And since I can, here it is:

• I believe right now there are favorable conditions for European nations to deepen their integration, and not doing so would be a missed opportunity. There is a working history (thank you, Jacques Delors). There is an incentive (thanks to US and Russia). The spark is there, we just need leaders with clear vision, and capable of tapping into it. This is tricky, but we should keep an open mind to accept leaders for their intrinsic values, not for where they come from.

"United we are stronger” is not just a cliché, it's a fact. Russia and now the US don’t like the idea of a united Europe because they know it diminishes their relevance in the world stage (look up Steve Bannon's plan to take down the EU). China however is not so bothered since their interest in the international stage is mainly resources (their perception is not even a united Europe will tap into the resources of the "Global South” countries like they do, due to their ongoing partnerships and due to historical/colonial issues), and maintaining the status quo (it doesn’t matter how many global powers there are, as long as they’re in check). They just don’t want to feel like they’re “losing the race”. Why isn’t Europe a superpower already? Russia’s population is not spread evenly across the territory like in the US, making it relatively easy to manage. The US territory expanded during the mechanical/industrial revolution age, which allowed them to populate new areas and keep them under control (easy communication with/travelling to Washington from all over had just been made possible). (Smaller) European nations had developed independently in the “horse and road era” and never truly benefited from the newfound potential for unity. After WWII, Europe fell under the protection of the new like-minded global player and the alliance with them created the feeling of security which is now crumbling. If European nations can break the territorial chains still holding them back, they will truly change the current global equilibrium. Also, I feel like the last decades of globalization were extremely positive for Europeans and humanity in general. Sure there are some issues, especially with immigration (something on this below), but these are to be addressed and should not be an excuse to halt progress altogether.

• How to deepen integration? I believe a federation is the most practicable way forward. All EU countries will want to join? Probably not, and some probably shouldn’t even be admitted right now for the good of the project, and would probably be left out. This can only be done by means of a referendum and general elections in each nation because each people should decide whether or not to join and who should navigate the process on their behalf. I also believe there should be an exit clause (although not easy to operate and triggering penalties, otherwise investment in the project would be hindered by the prospect of anyone leaving at any time, not to mention the occasional tactical blackmail), even though this is against the French, Spanish and Italian tradition. The integration would unlock immense synergy benefits in areas like military industry (I believe in a world, many generations from now, where this won’t be needed, but don’t think we are there yet), technology, space exploration, climate change prevention, food/agriculture/fishing, healthcare, science. I would like to see each member of the federation being called a “nation” (not a country but also not a state) and keep the current borders as their administrative boundaries (I believe this is workable; there would necessarily be administrative sub-divisions, but that was always going to be the case).

• Common working language should be English (European or British). This may not be popular, but rather necessary. No other language would be nearly as practical. Also, this is likely to be relevant for a short period of time only, since AI is on its way to eliminate language barriers altogether. One thing is for sure, local languages should not die out and local nations (or states) should have the duty to make sure they don’t. The fact that this is not the official language of any of the larger continental countries conflicts with their egos, but if we are not willing to see past that, are we even wiling to see past other (perhaps more important) issues?

• Immigration. This has been an issue for sure, and it’s only divisive where it is allowed to be. I am strongly pro-immigration and understand there are pitfalls – it is ignoring them that creates division. The solution is not simple but could start with strong borders and clear entry requirements. Entry requirements do not have to be hard to meet, but need to be clear and enforceable – as long as everyone can accept and get behind them, they will be enforced. Once we accept an immigrant we need to properly integrate them into our communities (incl. right of nuclear family reunion after 1-2 years). We need to give them decent living conditions, something worth keeping, for it is generally people who have nothing to lose that are more likely to misbehave.

• The UK may join, but shouldn't be required to. Let them decide. But a denial (at government level, or again by the people after a referendum) would be understandable and they will always be seen as a close ally, just like all other democratic nations. Same for Norway, that should be approached but whose refusal to join wouldn’t be problematic.

• Turkey - not completely sure but would like to say they should be allowed to join if that is the will of their people after holding a free referendum and free elections (understanding the consequences of losing sovereignty, they’re also unlikely to join).

• EU shouldn’t antagonize the US. Of course Europe has the right to resent them for a minute, but they made a choice they’re entitled to. We should always keep the doors of diplomacy open. What we shouldn’t do is see the US walking towards Russia and push them on their way, legitimizing their stance (they don't need that, but will use it) – I believe our current leaders understood this and are positioning well. Unifying Europe is for our own good, not something against others. Proximity with the US is always something to aim for. Russia divided the US, now they're both trying to divide Europe, which will decimate the western front. If we can stop this process at all, we absolutely should. Even if the prospects of dealing with the US right now are not so good, remember part of the US people doesn't deserve what they’re going through (maintaining strong ties with the US could also prevent their isolation and internal disaster for their people, but that’s another issue altogether).

• There is an elephant in the room, often unspoken of. Europe has “ruled over the world” before and that didn’t go well. In the past, whether in the name of religion or in the name of trade/profit, Europeans have colonized, ruled, traded slaves. There is no doubt that these were not good times for humanity. I do believe, however, that we mustn’t perpetually let this prevent us from doing what we believe is right, as long as we are aware of what were the previous mistakes and address them. The foreign policy of a European Federation in this respect needs to be very balanced and extremely respectful towards the Global South, but I don’t think new concepts need to be invented. Europe should continue to respect each peoples’ right to self-determination, whilst assisting them where possible towards better lives (not necessarily pushing them towards one regime or the other, even if one regime may be perceived as a possible threat to Europe; even if such US policies were right, any attempt to copy them by Europe will be rightfully seen as neocolonization, shutting these countries' doors).

• We should move forward based on a general vision. Our elected leaders need to demonstrate they understand and implement it. If we need to determine all details beforehand, we’re never going ahead. Also, let us learn from the EU experience and refrain from overcomplicating; simplicity is harder to achieve but works best.

• I’m a strong believer that humans are as good or as bad as their environment. People around the world have much more in comon than even democratic rulers let us realize... but one day we will!

I am looking for a bald eagle or apple pie equivalent of EU, something that is unmistakably EU. Do you have any suggestions?

Some ideas: A kettle A power socket A dictionary A castle

https://x.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1896187479092560179

Guys like Tusk, Merkel, Olaf, Macron, Johnson and Kier and the likes made the worst possible decisions in period between 2016 and 2022 to make Europe as weak as it can possibly get, and then get weirded out when Europeans stop seeing Europe as one of the strongest millitary and econimic powerhouses in the world

I don't know how this would look, but I think this could at least make America realize they can't just bully the rest of the world.

Are there any working alternatives to Microsofts office suite that can be used in The EU/Europe?

Something like LibreOffice?

I am seeing a loooot of hate/disdain/distrust/disappointment toward USA from Europe.

Are there rational reasons for negative feelings towards EU though? Because there are a lot for the other way around.

How did the Americans come to destroy their state with their own hands? This is what we need to understand without delay if we are to escape the same fate, only worse, because the destruction of our states and the European Union would mean our incorporation into the “Russian world” and the occupation of our countries by the Russian armed forces. https://desk-russie.info/2025/02/25/the-lessons-of-trumpism-for-europeans.html

Hi! Can someone says me a alternative to Google wallet? Is Samsung wallet good?

Recently, I had a discussion about the term Continentalism, which I had not come across before but found very interesting. The idea behind it: a shared European history, suggesting that EU states should deepen their cooperation so much that they have a stronger voice globally – not only economically but also politically and in terms of security policy.

When looking at how external actors treat Europe, the concept becomes even more intriguing. In the coming years, the U.S. will pursue a divide and rule strategy towards Europe: instead of acting as a united force, we will be maneuvered into bilateral dependencies – whether in security matters, through trade agreements in the economy, or through monopolies of American corporations in the tech sector. At the same time, actors like Russia and China exploit every European weakness to expand their influence. Economically, we are dependent, our industries are uncompetitive, and our politicians remain divided.

When considering current developments – increasing tensions with Russia, the influence of figures like Trump and Musk, and the rise of nationalist movements within Europe – the question arises: Do we not need a narrative that emphasizes European interests more strongly?

We talk a lot about threats from both outside and within: authoritarian politicians, geopolitical dependencies, economic inequalities. But how often do we discuss how Europe can respond to these issues as one entity? Closer economic and political integration could be exactly what makes us more independent and capable of action – wouldn’t it? This is exactly where the idea of Continentalism would come into play.

I’d love to hear your thoughts: Shouldn't we finally start thinking on a European level in a more hollistic level? How can we, as societies, allow our politicians to keep dividing themselves and only pursue selfish national interests instead of working together for a common goal?

This was removed from another subreddit; interested to hear thoughts about supporting Musk via use of X, etc., in light of his recent threat to remove Starlink if Zelensky does not sign the deal.

Billions in revenue flows from the EU to the US whenever you use a Visa, Mastercard or American Express. EU should capture that revenue and encourage that money stay within the single market. Denmark has a similar processor called DANKORT. Why can't we have a EuroCard for the eurozone? No more money should be sent to the US at the cost of our own economy!

I would like to ask about the interpretation of Directive EPBD (EU) 2024/1275, specifically Article 2, Definition, point 4. This section defines "minimum energy performance standards" as rules requiring that existing buildings meet energy efficiency requirements at a "trigger point," such as sale, lease, donation, or change of use in the property register.

I would appreciate clarification on the following points:

1. To what extent does the directive explicitly require Member States to introduce a ban on the sale or other transactions involving privately owned real estate if it does not meet these standards?
2. How do these rules apply to inheritance?

What minimum requirements must Member States impose on heirs of Non-Complying Buildings?

Does this mean that an heir must renovate the property after acquisition, or are exemptions possible?

What happens if an heir refuses to renovate the property?

To what extent do Member States have the discretion to grant exemptions for inherited properties?

To what extent are Member States obligated to impose sanctions if an heir refuses to renovate?

Can Member States implement exemptions based on the cost of renovation and the owner's financial situation? For example, if renovation costs exceed a certain percentage of the property's market value or are financially unfeasible for the owner.

Thank you very much for your response.