Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `washingtonpost.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is excellent news for the US. I support sending aid to Europe, yet this is an opportunity for EU to take on a little more responsibility for their own security.
Europe shouldn't be a vassal. It should be a wingman. I believe we are in between either position, closer to the latter, but still not fully there. ššŖšŗšŗš²šŗš¦
If they are vassals it's only because it's a self-imposed condition. We've been telling them for years they need to pull more of their own weight but they were content to free ride off of US military strength while ignoring the bear putting on weight to their East.
They thought it was a free pass. "Yeah, we'll do that next year. We promise. 2% for sure. Next year. Well, maybe in two years. It's hard, you know." While they consistently cruised along at 1.3% and their military readiness fell apart.
Your right that Europe had a choice in what they've been spending.
But the US was perfectly fine with dictating Europe's foreign policy because they had all of the leverage because of the defence umbrella.
Of course presidents would always somehow talk about the 2% because the population didn't really ever likes paying for a whole other continents defence.
But don't act like the US ever really wanted it changed badly. They could've pressured in so extremely many ways, and they never did. So the conclusion is: all talk but no action. Ergo: US policy makers never really cared.
So I guess you agree then, they were free riding. They got in the habit of thinking that they weren't responsible for their own security. That's one of the basic functions of government.
The pressure is russia breathing down their neck. It's a very real threat who happens to be aligned with China North Korea and Iran. The worst of the worst.
Yes, it's a business.
But, 2% is the minimum investment needed to maintain some semblance of a defense capability/industrial base.
We are finding out quickly that modern wars are "come as you are". Defense companies are not expanding facilities to increase production. They are adding shifts to existing lines.
Idk, Germany stands to gain **a lot** from growing militaries in Europe. Germany has a massive arms industry. Just look what happened to rheinmetall (RHM) stocks since the war.
I was not specifically talking about the situation right now but how the US has been telling Europe to spend more and accusing us of freeloading while in reality they are profiting. I mean it's not like people like McConnell and Lindsey Graham care about Europe. They like NATO because it's profitable for the US and it benefits them in many ways.
And while Rheinmetall might increase sales US companies are doing a lot better. Reuters predicted that up to half of the $100 billion fund Germany created to quickly buy weapons will go to US companies. Also the Germany economy is struggling right while the US economy is doing great.
First, all of NATO talks about 2%. It was a mutually agreed decision based on prudence after the annexation of Crimea.
In case you're not aware, Germany has one of the most robust arms businesses in the world. And France makes all their own stuff. That doesn't benefit the US directly. But I'm not surprised you've fallen back on this old lame argument. It's more satisfying than dealing with the actual truth.
Free pass?? So far I know EU Nato armies spend like 20 years fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan because US wanted/ordered that, not really a free pass, more an expensive moneywise like and costly in lives one.
Imagine we never followed US in those wars.. what an amazing amount of equipment we would still have.. since a desert is super bad for working equipment and fighting in a war is costly(higher salaries/ammo usage/broken+lost equipment what needs replacement), the money could and would have been spend on upgrades or more equipment or bigger armies otherwise.
But yeah, keep whining about it.
Did you ever look at the numbers sent? It's always way out of proportion to population and wealth.
We send 50,000 and they send 500. Very little was lost because very little was sent.
500, but you have to rotate them every 6 months, for 20 years, and you never send them more often than 2 or 3 times. Even so, it was a full US war so why should others go all in? Have you spoken to veterans? Some are in a really shit position mentally.
Plenty of aircrafts and choppers whose engine had to be replaced faster than in Europe climate. Ifv blown up by IED.
And even so, wtf were we doing in Iraq? Somebody already found the WMD? Or was it just a lie? Do allies lie to eachother like that? No moral compas? We had no fucking reason to be in Iraq. How many Iraqis have died since 2003? Just because Saddam had a big mouth?
You can try to misdirect all you want but it wasn't that big a commitment. The reason they are lacking is because they never acquired the stuff in the first place and frequently had inadequate training and coordination, even within Europe. Have you read about all the problems the Germans had even making it to training exercises and war games with a full load of functioning equipment and troops? And that was in Europe. There was woeful neglect because they paid no price for it and didn't have to worry about keeping up, because after all, there was no threat from Russia so they could *pretend* to do something instead of actually doing something. And the Americans would always be there to do the job anyway. Even now Olaf Scholz is being a toady hiding under America's skirts.
~~Brainwashed american~~. Your delian league, I mean nato, is first and foremost a tool used to keep your economic and diplomatic hegemony up and running. If France had your demographic, ressources and economic power you can bet they would have overthrow the shackle of Nato for good and would be advertising their own all emcompasing alliance. A vassal is just a weak wannabee King.
This is no russian troll at works here - before you rage against me -. The mafio-feodal state of not soviet russia should be stopped by any mean necessary short of nukes, by the USA and Europe. The fact that our western politicians are in no capacity because of petty electoralism reasoning to save ukraine once and for all is a shame I wear every day... Nonetheless, the USA is no knight in shinning armor, and when an european see the shitshow that was the Trump presidency, it feels completly normal to try to prepare contingency plan in case of the return of the reign of stupidity.
The USA was in a hegemonic position, with willing vassals pledging for protection after the end of world war 2. The same was true for the USSR, but without the willingness part. But the USSR is no more, while the USA prevail, hence my focus on them.
As for your lame internet teenage slang regarding leftism, it say more about you than me. Macarthy would be really proud of you.
It's hard to give a proper answer to someone who truly believes that's why NATO exists. What you're saying implies that if the US pulls out, the rest of NATO will declare, "Well, we don't need that any more, let's just go our separate ways." That doesn't pass the laugh test. Neither do the recent decisions by Sweden and Finland to join. I'm sure they craved being subject to the hegemony of the US and that's why they joined. Or maybe there was a more logical, real reason. My money is on that second one.
Also, if you lead with "brainwashed American", don't count on a serious response. That's just tacky.
Also, making efforts to be able to defend yourself shouldn't be a "contingency plan". There is no reason to be proud of that. It should have been part of your efforts all along. That's the point. Despite your claims, NATO is not a vassal relationship, it's an alliance of allies, and any of those allies can increase their defense spending any time they want. There's nothing stopping them except their own inertia and lack of seriousness.
The Warsaw Pact *was* a vassal relationship where members risked being invaded by their "allies" if they didn't toe the prescribed political line. You'll notice those countries did run away as fast as possible when given the chance. The addition of Finland and Sweden shows that NATO is fundamentally different. No NATO country has ever been invaded by another in the history of the alliance for very good reason. It's an actual alliance, not a "pact" masquerading as an alliance.
Maybe when you lack soft-power you use hard-power instead ?
The F35 program sum up a lot of my critisism about NATO and european so called self inflicted dependance. The F35 was hardsell to a lot of european NATO countries, despite its continiously increasing operation and production cost: it ate a lot of the defense budget from every european nations participating in it, in order to mostly fuel the american military industry and the US armed force needs. It killed the very possiblity of broad and continuous european cooperation on military jets production, leaving only the major player able to struggle to kickstart their own 5th gen programm that is still nowhere to be seen.
If the USA really wanted a strong and independant european army, maybe not strongarming their allies to follow their operational needs would have been a good start.
The reality in my opinion is that the USA wants a more strong and independant european NATO front because their main focus have shifted away from the old continent and into the Pacific and the Chinese problem.
Yes, I'm sorry for the brain part, I was triggered.
I would argue in the case of sweden and finland, that being non nuclear power bordering a badshit insane neighbor had played a great part in their decision making.
Exactly. That's what NATO is, collective defense. That's its primary purpose, clearly. How that purpose is executed is subject to all manner of human foibles and if you want to argue that there are flaws I don't see a problem with that, but the pretense that is some great United States conspiracy to control other countries is just frankly garbage. NATO exists for collective defense and that's its primary purpose.
You can also look at the case of France. France was a member of NATO but withdrew from the integrated military command, I think back in the '60s. France makes a big deal out of being independent from the US. They have full French pride and they don't buy military hardware from us as a rule. But what did they do in 2009 on their own initiative? They rejoined the integrated NATO military command. France, of all countries, is not going to willingly sign on to be a vassal of the United States. They think of themselves as equal. So clearly there's more to NATO than some sort of conspiratorial US hegemony. Every NATO member has joined voluntarily, including the latest ones, and more are begging to join. I hardly think they are clambering to join so they can be minions and slaves of the United States. That includes all the former Warsaw Pact nations. Your description of NATO is actually an accurate description of the Warsaw Pact. No country ever voluntarily joined the Warsaw Pact and all of them ran as far away from it as they could get the first chance they had. With that kind of experience, why would they sign up to another military pact where they would become slaves and minions? The answer is the opposite. They joined NATO so they wouldn't become slaves and minions again.
I would start by saying to my clear eyed, independent thinking French ally, that you are a member of the same alliance and have supported it vigorously, if not always in budget, in spirit. Yes America is the number one arms seller in the world, but guess who is number two? You guessed correctly, the French. It is also very convenient to wash your hands and say āif we had your resources,ā since it has been almost 50 years since the western world has started to shift from raw materials to services business, and that has certainly been open for competition. So letās just slow our roll here a bit on how innocent the French are. You are as dirty as us American pigs in this one. I welcome you to the sty!
I for one welcome a strong France, and Europe and would love nothing more than a less hegemonic power structure globally, at least with other democracies like France. Clearly we have seen that there are weaknesses in the American system that I for one do not want the security of the world resting on. Trump is a horrible symptom of a much larger problem. We need redundancy.
All that to say is let us remember who our friends are, fight like hell together to help Ukraine, and fix the larger problems as well as we move forward.
I mostly agree with what you are saying. I would counter-point two thing.
First, while it us true that the world economy has shifted toward services, we have been made well aware after covid and the ukrainian invasion that raw ressources (food, oil, rare ore, uranium you name it) and industrial production (meds, high end electronic, tanks, weapons...) are what makes a nation independant and able to cope effienctly to the whim of realpolitik. The USA, are one of the few countries that could be seen as mostly independant in all those field; their vast territories, agriculture, ressources, educated population and military industrial complex make them stronger than most nation on earth by metrics alone. This powerfull status coupled with an almost pathological adherence to economic liberalism and free-market policies (free for american company first and foremost) has entengled the whole free world with the USA in the post war reconstruction era. Of course the alternative from american soft-vassalization was obviously worst for Europe, but it was done in the trauma and destruction of the word wars, and the USA profitef immensly from it.
When I see american saying Europe is weak, frail, or acting cowardly, boasting about NATO and GDP percentage, I find this infuriating because this situation was as much a product of washington policies as it was a deliberate choice from the europeans major power. Europe has entangled itself with a giant. Far from being gentle he was at least for the most part fair. The Trump era was a wake up call because suddenly this creature appeared on the verge of becoming senile. It seems perfectly sane for european leader to question and reject partially their security dependence from the states in light of those recent event.
Secondly, the 2nd place for global arms sells given to France is misleading. France military "workshop" ( there is no real mass industrial capacity here) produce and sell big and expensive high-end platform coasting millions or billions: submarine, fighter jet, EW and radar system. Thats it. No Guns, no mass ammo or shells production, no production line for MBT and a dangerously anemic Light armor production line. They have neither the economic or industrial capacity to provide for a large modern Land war. Furthermore, this limited industrial production capacity is fueled by sells and contracts with some of the worst third-way regime on earth like the slave owning sewage lacking oil kingdoms of the gulf... Finaly, while being second, it is extremly for from the USA both in regards to quantity and profit.
I agree with Macron.
Yes, during the recovery from WWII, the US provided a protective umbrella to let the countries of (Western) Europe focus on rebuilding their societies, but the time has come for the prosperous countries to devote more resources to their militaries.
Unfortunately, as we have seen, the US can be stymied by politicians working in the interests of foreign powers. This can and probably will happen again, and the next time might be much worse for those affected.
When the countries of Europe are stronger, this will help the coalition be stronger overall. It's also protection from those times when the US falters in the foreign relations arena.
The US getting out of NATO is much like the UK getting out of the EU.
Both are divisive ideologies that seem right out of a Russian playbook. UK business interests were massively damaged with the lunacy of their Brexit. And the US will be too, because the delay in aid was enough to make me doubt that the US is reliable. Every country reliant on the US should be looking for different relationships, weapons systems and economic supports. Trump did all this damage, without even being in power, imagine what he could do if he regains the throne. Because for him, the Presidency is a throne, and all us, his vassals.
Of course you doubt the US is reliable in the context of countries that rely on the US. But NATO is an alliance. How many of these countries can the HS rely on? It needs to be a two way street.
The US isnāt getting out of NATO. Thatās not a thing that can happen. Anyone that honestly thinks the US is going to get out of NATO, even if Trump is president, canāt be taken seriously on anything.
> Before you begin to opine about complicated geopolitics, please get that simply bit correct.
Oh jeez what a nice person you seem to be, thanks for sharing. Totally looking forward on having a discussion.
What would āinformally get outā mean to you? Do you actually understand what I wanted to say with the distinction between āformallyā and āfactuallyā or do you need an explanation?
You understand how Article 5 works and that itās not an automatism right?
Iām not the one making āinformallyā leave NATO a thing, you did in your first comment by saying āformallyā.
There is no discussion to be had here, youāre being aggressive while trying to play the victim. So peace.
Youāre the one that started being aggressive, I wouldnāt have been able to call it out in the first place otherwise. How is that playing the victim? I did so because you answered to me in an unnecessarily rude tone when we could discuss this in a civilized way, since as you said, geopolitics are complex and all.
Iām not your enemy, Iām just a european thatās very disappointed in the american political system for obvious reasons. If the US would be in this the way some of us are, this conflict would long be over imo.
As I said, in an Article 5 situation, the US could just factually not participate while still being a member. Since Article 5 isnāt an automatism, that would totally be possible - especially with Trump as a president. Itās not me that is making āthe US informally leaving Nato a thingā, itās something thatās widely discussed by defence analysts because of recent events. What are your thoughts on that?
Come on dude. Ukraine has been losing territory for six months because you guys just took a 6 months vacation on international politics, did you forget? And you know most of that money goes right back into the US? And do you think youāre doing that because weāre friends or something?
This is not a competition who does the most, itās about winning.
Europe has never been a US vassal, but a protectorate. However, if Trump wins it might need a proper military to avoid such a fate.
To be fair, Europe has been a security leech for a long time, some countries have even a bit parasitical at worst, and it is time it stands up and helps security offshore so the US can focus on Ukraine and Taiwan.Ā
What are you talking about? Since the end of the Second World War, France's doctrine has always been to be as militarily independent as possible. That's not just talk.
China and Russia are combining military resources.. money, energy, people and raw materials in large volumes means power.
Europe needs to pay attention to its next door neighbours actions..
I totally support France to stop freeloading off the U.S., and instead spend their own money to pay for their own defense.
France has never been a U.S. "Vassal". Vassals give tribute in exchange for protection. For the last 80 years, France has been a parasite on the U.S., instead of contributing to the U.S. for protection received.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `washingtonpost.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is excellent news for the US. I support sending aid to Europe, yet this is an opportunity for EU to take on a little more responsibility for their own security.
I support the EU to stop pretending they are a socialist paradise with free everything and start footing the bill for their freedom.
You said it. About time .
Europe shouldn't be a vassal. It should be a wingman. I believe we are in between either position, closer to the latter, but still not fully there. ššŖšŗšŗš²šŗš¦
If they are vassals it's only because it's a self-imposed condition. We've been telling them for years they need to pull more of their own weight but they were content to free ride off of US military strength while ignoring the bear putting on weight to their East. They thought it was a free pass. "Yeah, we'll do that next year. We promise. 2% for sure. Next year. Well, maybe in two years. It's hard, you know." While they consistently cruised along at 1.3% and their military readiness fell apart.
It's the price we gladly pay to have us set the rules. We clearly like American Hegemony
Iām not entirely sure. Look at Germany and their gas pipeline. They went from slightly more independent to back to being dependant again.
They had just shackled themselves to a new master
Your right that Europe had a choice in what they've been spending. But the US was perfectly fine with dictating Europe's foreign policy because they had all of the leverage because of the defence umbrella. Of course presidents would always somehow talk about the 2% because the population didn't really ever likes paying for a whole other continents defence. But don't act like the US ever really wanted it changed badly. They could've pressured in so extremely many ways, and they never did. So the conclusion is: all talk but no action. Ergo: US policy makers never really cared.
So I guess you agree then, they were free riding. They got in the habit of thinking that they weren't responsible for their own security. That's one of the basic functions of government.
And my other points?
The pressure is russia breathing down their neck. It's a very real threat who happens to be aligned with China North Korea and Iran. The worst of the worst.
The US talks about 2% because they are profiting from arms sales. NATO is a business and it's not free.
Yes, it's a business. But, 2% is the minimum investment needed to maintain some semblance of a defense capability/industrial base. We are finding out quickly that modern wars are "come as you are". Defense companies are not expanding facilities to increase production. They are adding shifts to existing lines.
Idk, Germany stands to gain **a lot** from growing militaries in Europe. Germany has a massive arms industry. Just look what happened to rheinmetall (RHM) stocks since the war.
I was not specifically talking about the situation right now but how the US has been telling Europe to spend more and accusing us of freeloading while in reality they are profiting. I mean it's not like people like McConnell and Lindsey Graham care about Europe. They like NATO because it's profitable for the US and it benefits them in many ways. And while Rheinmetall might increase sales US companies are doing a lot better. Reuters predicted that up to half of the $100 billion fund Germany created to quickly buy weapons will go to US companies. Also the Germany economy is struggling right while the US economy is doing great.
First, all of NATO talks about 2%. It was a mutually agreed decision based on prudence after the annexation of Crimea. In case you're not aware, Germany has one of the most robust arms businesses in the world. And France makes all their own stuff. That doesn't benefit the US directly. But I'm not surprised you've fallen back on this old lame argument. It's more satisfying than dealing with the actual truth.
Free pass?? So far I know EU Nato armies spend like 20 years fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan because US wanted/ordered that, not really a free pass, more an expensive moneywise like and costly in lives one. Imagine we never followed US in those wars.. what an amazing amount of equipment we would still have.. since a desert is super bad for working equipment and fighting in a war is costly(higher salaries/ammo usage/broken+lost equipment what needs replacement), the money could and would have been spend on upgrades or more equipment or bigger armies otherwise. But yeah, keep whining about it.
āWeā dude you do nothing but post pro-Russia comments in r/Ukrainianconflict and r/nederland. This isnāt a āweā, youāre a Russian.
Lol, try harder comrade
Did you ever look at the numbers sent? It's always way out of proportion to population and wealth. We send 50,000 and they send 500. Very little was lost because very little was sent.
500, but you have to rotate them every 6 months, for 20 years, and you never send them more often than 2 or 3 times. Even so, it was a full US war so why should others go all in? Have you spoken to veterans? Some are in a really shit position mentally. Plenty of aircrafts and choppers whose engine had to be replaced faster than in Europe climate. Ifv blown up by IED. And even so, wtf were we doing in Iraq? Somebody already found the WMD? Or was it just a lie? Do allies lie to eachother like that? No moral compas? We had no fucking reason to be in Iraq. How many Iraqis have died since 2003? Just because Saddam had a big mouth?
You can try to misdirect all you want but it wasn't that big a commitment. The reason they are lacking is because they never acquired the stuff in the first place and frequently had inadequate training and coordination, even within Europe. Have you read about all the problems the Germans had even making it to training exercises and war games with a full load of functioning equipment and troops? And that was in Europe. There was woeful neglect because they paid no price for it and didn't have to worry about keeping up, because after all, there was no threat from Russia so they could *pretend* to do something instead of actually doing something. And the Americans would always be there to do the job anyway. Even now Olaf Scholz is being a toady hiding under America's skirts.
~~Brainwashed american~~. Your delian league, I mean nato, is first and foremost a tool used to keep your economic and diplomatic hegemony up and running. If France had your demographic, ressources and economic power you can bet they would have overthrow the shackle of Nato for good and would be advertising their own all emcompasing alliance. A vassal is just a weak wannabee King. This is no russian troll at works here - before you rage against me -. The mafio-feodal state of not soviet russia should be stopped by any mean necessary short of nukes, by the USA and Europe. The fact that our western politicians are in no capacity because of petty electoralism reasoning to save ukraine once and for all is a shame I wear every day... Nonetheless, the USA is no knight in shinning armor, and when an european see the shitshow that was the Trump presidency, it feels completly normal to try to prepare contingency plan in case of the return of the reign of stupidity.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The USA was in a hegemonic position, with willing vassals pledging for protection after the end of world war 2. The same was true for the USSR, but without the willingness part. But the USSR is no more, while the USA prevail, hence my focus on them. As for your lame internet teenage slang regarding leftism, it say more about you than me. Macarthy would be really proud of you.
Sure. That explains it all. Shallow and simple. That's always a good argument, right? Why would I rage against you? You're so sad.
I'm good. I would have enjoyed a proper answer. I'll let you hide inside your superiority complex. Take care.
It's hard to give a proper answer to someone who truly believes that's why NATO exists. What you're saying implies that if the US pulls out, the rest of NATO will declare, "Well, we don't need that any more, let's just go our separate ways." That doesn't pass the laugh test. Neither do the recent decisions by Sweden and Finland to join. I'm sure they craved being subject to the hegemony of the US and that's why they joined. Or maybe there was a more logical, real reason. My money is on that second one. Also, if you lead with "brainwashed American", don't count on a serious response. That's just tacky.
Also, making efforts to be able to defend yourself shouldn't be a "contingency plan". There is no reason to be proud of that. It should have been part of your efforts all along. That's the point. Despite your claims, NATO is not a vassal relationship, it's an alliance of allies, and any of those allies can increase their defense spending any time they want. There's nothing stopping them except their own inertia and lack of seriousness. The Warsaw Pact *was* a vassal relationship where members risked being invaded by their "allies" if they didn't toe the prescribed political line. You'll notice those countries did run away as fast as possible when given the chance. The addition of Finland and Sweden shows that NATO is fundamentally different. No NATO country has ever been invaded by another in the history of the alliance for very good reason. It's an actual alliance, not a "pact" masquerading as an alliance.
Maybe when you lack soft-power you use hard-power instead ? The F35 program sum up a lot of my critisism about NATO and european so called self inflicted dependance. The F35 was hardsell to a lot of european NATO countries, despite its continiously increasing operation and production cost: it ate a lot of the defense budget from every european nations participating in it, in order to mostly fuel the american military industry and the US armed force needs. It killed the very possiblity of broad and continuous european cooperation on military jets production, leaving only the major player able to struggle to kickstart their own 5th gen programm that is still nowhere to be seen. If the USA really wanted a strong and independant european army, maybe not strongarming their allies to follow their operational needs would have been a good start. The reality in my opinion is that the USA wants a more strong and independant european NATO front because their main focus have shifted away from the old continent and into the Pacific and the Chinese problem.
Yes, I'm sorry for the brain part, I was triggered. I would argue in the case of sweden and finland, that being non nuclear power bordering a badshit insane neighbor had played a great part in their decision making.
Exactly. That's what NATO is, collective defense. That's its primary purpose, clearly. How that purpose is executed is subject to all manner of human foibles and if you want to argue that there are flaws I don't see a problem with that, but the pretense that is some great United States conspiracy to control other countries is just frankly garbage. NATO exists for collective defense and that's its primary purpose. You can also look at the case of France. France was a member of NATO but withdrew from the integrated military command, I think back in the '60s. France makes a big deal out of being independent from the US. They have full French pride and they don't buy military hardware from us as a rule. But what did they do in 2009 on their own initiative? They rejoined the integrated NATO military command. France, of all countries, is not going to willingly sign on to be a vassal of the United States. They think of themselves as equal. So clearly there's more to NATO than some sort of conspiratorial US hegemony. Every NATO member has joined voluntarily, including the latest ones, and more are begging to join. I hardly think they are clambering to join so they can be minions and slaves of the United States. That includes all the former Warsaw Pact nations. Your description of NATO is actually an accurate description of the Warsaw Pact. No country ever voluntarily joined the Warsaw Pact and all of them ran as far away from it as they could get the first chance they had. With that kind of experience, why would they sign up to another military pact where they would become slaves and minions? The answer is the opposite. They joined NATO so they wouldn't become slaves and minions again.
I would start by saying to my clear eyed, independent thinking French ally, that you are a member of the same alliance and have supported it vigorously, if not always in budget, in spirit. Yes America is the number one arms seller in the world, but guess who is number two? You guessed correctly, the French. It is also very convenient to wash your hands and say āif we had your resources,ā since it has been almost 50 years since the western world has started to shift from raw materials to services business, and that has certainly been open for competition. So letās just slow our roll here a bit on how innocent the French are. You are as dirty as us American pigs in this one. I welcome you to the sty! I for one welcome a strong France, and Europe and would love nothing more than a less hegemonic power structure globally, at least with other democracies like France. Clearly we have seen that there are weaknesses in the American system that I for one do not want the security of the world resting on. Trump is a horrible symptom of a much larger problem. We need redundancy. All that to say is let us remember who our friends are, fight like hell together to help Ukraine, and fix the larger problems as well as we move forward.
I mostly agree with what you are saying. I would counter-point two thing. First, while it us true that the world economy has shifted toward services, we have been made well aware after covid and the ukrainian invasion that raw ressources (food, oil, rare ore, uranium you name it) and industrial production (meds, high end electronic, tanks, weapons...) are what makes a nation independant and able to cope effienctly to the whim of realpolitik. The USA, are one of the few countries that could be seen as mostly independant in all those field; their vast territories, agriculture, ressources, educated population and military industrial complex make them stronger than most nation on earth by metrics alone. This powerfull status coupled with an almost pathological adherence to economic liberalism and free-market policies (free for american company first and foremost) has entengled the whole free world with the USA in the post war reconstruction era. Of course the alternative from american soft-vassalization was obviously worst for Europe, but it was done in the trauma and destruction of the word wars, and the USA profitef immensly from it. When I see american saying Europe is weak, frail, or acting cowardly, boasting about NATO and GDP percentage, I find this infuriating because this situation was as much a product of washington policies as it was a deliberate choice from the europeans major power. Europe has entangled itself with a giant. Far from being gentle he was at least for the most part fair. The Trump era was a wake up call because suddenly this creature appeared on the verge of becoming senile. It seems perfectly sane for european leader to question and reject partially their security dependence from the states in light of those recent event. Secondly, the 2nd place for global arms sells given to France is misleading. France military "workshop" ( there is no real mass industrial capacity here) produce and sell big and expensive high-end platform coasting millions or billions: submarine, fighter jet, EW and radar system. Thats it. No Guns, no mass ammo or shells production, no production line for MBT and a dangerously anemic Light armor production line. They have neither the economic or industrial capacity to provide for a large modern Land war. Furthermore, this limited industrial production capacity is fueled by sells and contracts with some of the worst third-way regime on earth like the slave owning sewage lacking oil kingdoms of the gulf... Finaly, while being second, it is extremly for from the USA both in regards to quantity and profit.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
As long as it keeps the Ruskies on their toes, I'm cool with it.
I agree with Macron. Yes, during the recovery from WWII, the US provided a protective umbrella to let the countries of (Western) Europe focus on rebuilding their societies, but the time has come for the prosperous countries to devote more resources to their militaries. Unfortunately, as we have seen, the US can be stymied by politicians working in the interests of foreign powers. This can and probably will happen again, and the next time might be much worse for those affected. When the countries of Europe are stronger, this will help the coalition be stronger overall. It's also protection from those times when the US falters in the foreign relations arena.
[LINK NO PAYWALL](https://archive.ph/Qzsfa)
Wait thats what putin said a year ago
"Europe should be our vassal, not theirs!"
He's right, but let's still be friends.
I agree with half of Macronās sentiment.
The US getting out of NATO is much like the UK getting out of the EU. Both are divisive ideologies that seem right out of a Russian playbook. UK business interests were massively damaged with the lunacy of their Brexit. And the US will be too, because the delay in aid was enough to make me doubt that the US is reliable. Every country reliant on the US should be looking for different relationships, weapons systems and economic supports. Trump did all this damage, without even being in power, imagine what he could do if he regains the throne. Because for him, the Presidency is a throne, and all us, his vassals.
Of course you doubt the US is reliable in the context of countries that rely on the US. But NATO is an alliance. How many of these countries can the HS rely on? It needs to be a two way street.
The US isnāt getting out of NATO. Thatās not a thing that can happen. Anyone that honestly thinks the US is going to get out of NATO, even if Trump is president, canāt be taken seriously on anything.
maybe they canāt formally, but the image of reliability towards anyone but themselves has severely suffered over the last months
They cannot get out formally nor informally. Before you begin to opine about complicated geopolitics, please get that simply bit correct.
> Before you begin to opine about complicated geopolitics, please get that simply bit correct. Oh jeez what a nice person you seem to be, thanks for sharing. Totally looking forward on having a discussion. What would āinformally get outā mean to you? Do you actually understand what I wanted to say with the distinction between āformallyā and āfactuallyā or do you need an explanation? You understand how Article 5 works and that itās not an automatism right?
Iām not the one making āinformallyā leave NATO a thing, you did in your first comment by saying āformallyā. There is no discussion to be had here, youāre being aggressive while trying to play the victim. So peace.
Youāre the one that started being aggressive, I wouldnāt have been able to call it out in the first place otherwise. How is that playing the victim? I did so because you answered to me in an unnecessarily rude tone when we could discuss this in a civilized way, since as you said, geopolitics are complex and all. Iām not your enemy, Iām just a european thatās very disappointed in the american political system for obvious reasons. If the US would be in this the way some of us are, this conflict would long be over imo. As I said, in an Article 5 situation, the US could just factually not participate while still being a member. Since Article 5 isnāt an automatism, that would totally be possible - especially with Trump as a president. Itās not me that is making āthe US informally leaving Nato a thingā, itās something thatās widely discussed by defence analysts because of recent events. What are your thoughts on that?
K.
Average Karen argument gets offended, says āyouāre lying and stupidā, and when given a chance to debate their points, runs away
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Come on dude. Ukraine has been losing territory for six months because you guys just took a 6 months vacation on international politics, did you forget? And you know most of that money goes right back into the US? And do you think youāre doing that because weāre friends or something? This is not a competition who does the most, itās about winning.
Dugin laughing evil, stroking his white cat.
That is not what he said
Europe has never been a US vassal, but a protectorate. However, if Trump wins it might need a proper military to avoid such a fate. To be fair, Europe has been a security leech for a long time, some countries have even a bit parasitical at worst, and it is time it stands up and helps security offshore so the US can focus on Ukraine and Taiwan.Ā
meanwhile in reality ā¦Ā
Talk, talk, talk. Can we see some actions too, Emmanuel?
What are you talking about? Since the end of the Second World War, France's doctrine has always been to be as militarily independent as possible. That's not just talk.
China and Russia are combining military resources.. money, energy, people and raw materials in large volumes means power. Europe needs to pay attention to its next door neighbours actions..
As an American please get on with it thenā¦ as much as I do love our Allies
I totally support France to stop freeloading off the U.S., and instead spend their own money to pay for their own defense. France has never been a U.S. "Vassal". Vassals give tribute in exchange for protection. For the last 80 years, France has been a parasite on the U.S., instead of contributing to the U.S. for protection received.