3 ms·

> NATO is a tool of American influence Are you saying this as an American or European? Because right now most Europeans I know are looking at Russia and being

> NATO is a tool of American influence Are you saying this as an American or European? Because right now most Europeans I know are looking at Russia and being very supportive of NATO. Also, while they happily spend US money, NATO develops very different security policies and technologies so US influence doesn't seem to amount to much.

mytailorisrich 2y ago
I am European in Europe. Europeans have been served extremely strong propaganda since the war in Ukraine started and perhaps some, especially young ones, buy it. But historically and in fact NATO is obviously an American tool (and a good way to sell military hardware). France's De Gaulle left NATO's integrated command because he knew that this meant loss of independence (and he didn't want foreign military bases on French soil), for instance. The point here is that the US aren't dropping support for NATO, and certainly not over X.
- Arnt 2y ago
  There's a timescale problem that you may be overlooking. One part of NATO is a quid pro quo: It's in the interest of the nuclear powers, most of all the US, that other countries don't build their own nuclear weapons. You might say that US offers an alliance (including nuclear weapons) in exchange for Norway, Finland, Poland, Austria, Italy etc. spending their budgets on non-nuclear weapons. All of those have advanced economies and generally sufficient resources that they could build nuclear weapons, but doing it is a decade-long project. Imagine yourself as the government of Poland. Make a choice about the 2026 defense budget. Start a nuclear bomb project that you think will take ten years, or trust that if Russia invades in 2035 the US will stand by its promises? What do you choose if you feel a tinge of doubt in the trustworthiness of half of the recent US presidents, or in the statements of many leading US politicians? That Vance person may be president in 2035, is he reliable? He spoke the words "drop support for NATO if", he suggested forcing your neighbour to cede territory, will he sacrifice American lives if Russia invades Poland?
Terr_ 2y ago
Not parent-poster, but as an American, I have no problem saying "NATO is a tool of American influence"... and a tool for EU influence, and a tool for UK influence, and an overall force-for-good. The statement isn't some shameful secret, to be reluctantly dragged into the light by a wily interrogator, but an obvious and normal feature of an alliance which is neither one-sided nor zero-sum. P.S.: Even among the Americans who disagree, it's usually because they consider it ineffectual, rather than nefarious. Heck, they'd probably like it more if you told them it was a swaggering tool of US hegemony.
- BillyTheMage 2y ago
  [flagged]
TooSmugToFail 2y ago
> Also, while they happily spend US money Are you claiming that the EU is spending US money under NATO? This is a textbook trumpian fallacy: a gross oversimplification aimed at spinning facts so they support his false premise. Truth is that US defense spending benefits primarily US companies and US economy. Further to this, EU defense spending also primarily benefits US companies and US economy: 63% of it actually goes to US suppliers [1]. So Trump insisting on 2% GDP spending on defense for NATO members was a pretty effective racket: forcing them to spend more of their public budgets in the US. Incidentally, this also benefitted EU NATO members in the context of the Europe’s developing security situation, but Trump was not interested in giving his EU partners some tough love, he simply wanted them to buy more US weapons. Now, your claim is even worse than Trump’s false re-framing: you go even further, claiming that somehow EU (NATO?) is spending US money. This fabricates an image where poor US is somehow forced to foot the bill for entire NATO, which is false, naive, and frankly ridiculous. In reality, NATO is effectively a US-dominated organisation. The only country to ever invoke Article 5 was US in 2001, after September 11, leading to a series of devastating wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and ultimately Syria, in which US dragged its NATO partners. NATO exists primarily because it is in US interest. I believe it is also in the interest of European member states, but the US has been driving it because the administration knows it is in US interest. In the long term, dismantling NATO, or distancing US from it would hurt US the most. It will lead to further strengthening of defense spending by the European countries, accelerated development of EU-specific defense structures and organisations independent of NATO, and it will give tailwinds to (dominantly French) efforts to decrease European spending on US-made systems and increase buying those built at home. This is either yet another short-sighted populist move aimed at scoring points at home, or if it’s somehow strategic, it’s a sign of US scaling down its global ambitions, realising its waning power and influence. [1] https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240909-the-eu-buys-too-much-defence-equipment-from-abroad-report-says https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240909-the-eu-buys-too-...

mytailorisrich 2y ago

I am European in Europe. Europeans have been served extremely strong propaganda since the war in Ukraine started and perhaps some, especially young ones, buy it. But historically and in fact NATO is obviously an American tool (and a good way to sell military hardware). France's De Gaulle left NATO's integrated command because he knew that this meant loss of independence (and he didn't want foreign military bases on French soil), for instance. The point here is that the US aren't dropping support for NATO, and certainly not over X.

Arnt 2y ago
There's a timescale problem that you may be overlooking. One part of NATO is a quid pro quo: It's in the interest of the nuclear powers, most of all the US, that other countries don't build their own nuclear weapons. You might say that US offers an alliance (including nuclear weapons) in exchange for Norway, Finland, Poland, Austria, Italy etc. spending their budgets on non-nuclear weapons. All of those have advanced economies and generally sufficient resources that they could build nuclear weapons, but doing it is a decade-long project. Imagine yourself as the government of Poland. Make a choice about the 2026 defense budget. Start a nuclear bomb project that you think will take ten years, or trust that if Russia invades in 2035 the US will stand by its promises? What do you choose if you feel a tinge of doubt in the trustworthiness of half of the recent US presidents, or in the statements of many leading US politicians? That Vance person may be president in 2035, is he reliable? He spoke the words "drop support for NATO if", he suggested forcing your neighbour to cede territory, will he sacrifice American lives if Russia invades Poland?

Terr_ 2y ago

Not parent-poster, but as an American, I have no problem saying "NATO is a tool of American influence"... and a tool for EU influence, and a tool for UK influence, and an overall force-for-good. The statement isn't some shameful secret, to be reluctantly dragged into the light by a wily interrogator, but an obvious and normal feature of an alliance which is neither one-sided nor zero-sum. P.S.: Even among the Americans who disagree, it's usually because they consider it ineffectual, rather than nefarious. Heck, they'd probably like it more if you told them it was a swaggering tool of US hegemony.

BillyTheMage 2y ago
[flagged]

TooSmugToFail 2y ago

> Also, while they happily spend US money Are you claiming that the EU is spending US money under NATO? This is a textbook trumpian fallacy: a gross oversimplification aimed at spinning facts so they support his false premise. Truth is that US defense spending benefits primarily US companies and US economy. Further to this, EU defense spending also primarily benefits US companies and US economy: 63% of it actually goes to US suppliers [1]. So Trump insisting on 2% GDP spending on defense for NATO members was a pretty effective racket: forcing them to spend more of their public budgets in the US. Incidentally, this also benefitted EU NATO members in the context of the Europe’s developing security situation, but Trump was not interested in giving his EU partners some tough love, he simply wanted them to buy more US weapons. Now, your claim is even worse than Trump’s false re-framing: you go even further, claiming that somehow EU (NATO?) is spending US money. This fabricates an image where poor US is somehow forced to foot the bill for entire NATO, which is false, naive, and frankly ridiculous. In reality, NATO is effectively a US-dominated organisation. The only country to ever invoke Article 5 was US in 2001, after September 11, leading to a series of devastating wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and ultimately Syria, in which US dragged its NATO partners. NATO exists primarily because it is in US interest. I believe it is also in the interest of European member states, but the US has been driving it because the administration knows it is in US interest. In the long term, dismantling NATO, or distancing US from it would hurt US the most. It will lead to further strengthening of defense spending by the European countries, accelerated development of EU-specific defense structures and organisations independent of NATO, and it will give tailwinds to (dominantly French) efforts to decrease European spending on US-made systems and increase buying those built at home. This is either yet another short-sighted populist move aimed at scoring points at home, or if it’s somehow strategic, it’s a sign of US scaling down its global ambitions, realising its waning power and influence. [1] https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240909-the-eu-buys-too-much-defence-equipment-from-abroad-report-says https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240909-the-eu-buys-too-...