9 ms·

Although I agree with the conclusion that the necessity of NATO is to be questioned, some of the observations made are purely in the eye of the beholder. E.g.

by m000 2y ago

Although I agree with the conclusion that the necessity of NATO is to be questioned, some of the observations made are purely in the eye of the beholder. E.g. > Nations apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets. From a European perspective, the "growing security burden" is largely an American self-serving assertion. Standing on the other side of the pond, one could also read the situation as "the USA apparently willing and eager for European taxpayers to assume the growing burdern to maintain the apparatus required for global American hegemony".

Ekaros 2y ago
As European I only care about what might go in continental Europe. Any other part can fend of themselves, whoever the aggressor might be. It probably being USA... We really should focus on isolationism and global trade. Even securing shipping lines is short term thinking. Let the conflicts happen and then things stabilize.
- Khaine 2y ago
  That makes no sense. If you care about global trade, you care about securing shipping lines. As has been shown, piracy from Somali and attacks from Yemen has significantly increased the cost of shipping, which puts a dampener on international trade.
  - rightbyte 2y ago
    The problem is that you get the whole package, like WOT, color revolutions and so on.
suraci 2y ago
Common people and rulers usually have different perspectives. As a European, you would have such a perspective. But in the eyes of European politicians, they wouldn't view the issue as you do. This is because their sole purpose of existence is to be vassals of the hegemony. They are unable to accept the consequences of a U.S. strategic contraction. If the U.S. withdrew from Europe, Europeans would still be Europeans, but the politicians might not necessarily be.
skybrian 2y ago
Who benefits from the defense of Ukraine? It seems to me that both the US and Europe see some benefits, but it's primarily Europe?
- krige 2y ago
  Weaning Europe off Russian energy supply used to be seen as a strategic goal for US, and Ukraine could have done just that with what was in the occupied areas.
  - ChocolateGod 2y ago
    > Ukraine could have done just that with what was in the occupied areas Didn't Ukraine switch to Europe as it's energy supply? Imho the Russian invasion pushing Europe to secure its energy supply has been a positive impact from the war.
    - krige 2y ago
      Eastern bits of Ukraine have very large untapped stores of hydrocarbons. It is unknown what exactly were/are the goals for the ongoing invasion (assuming there are any plausible ones in the first place) but one of the more reasonable guesses is denying Ukraine access to those stores in order to maintain russian supremacy in providing cheap gas and oil to Germany etc. both as a source of revenue and a political tool.
- mopsi 2y ago
  > Who benefits from the defense of Ukraine? Everyone who values peace and cooperation over war and conquest. US military spending is currently at a historic low, at 2.7% of the gross domestic product (GDP). During the Cold War, military spending never fell below 4.5%. Chart: https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Photos/igphoto/2002099941/ https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Photos/igphoto/2002099941... As of 2024, 1% of US GDP equals approximately 290 billion dollars per year. A return to Cold War era baseline would mean 1.8% increase or about 520 billion more spent on the military each year. (Probably even more, since the US entered the Cold War with a massive WWII-era army and the industry to support it. The US isn't currently capable of producing a new main battle tank every 20 minutes like back then.) The US has spent 120 billion in all forms of aid (military, financial, humanitarian) to Ukraine over three years. That's 40 billion dollars per year on average. Why would anyone throw away the current support for Ukraine that effectively keeps Russia in check, only to replace it with renewed Cold War standoff in the middle of Europe that is bound to cost at least ten times more? It's as if some people have fallen into collective amnesia and forgotten what the world looked like just 40 years ago. Germany was split in half by barbed wire and minefields, and civilians were gunned down from machine gun nests if they tried to flee from totalitarian oppression in East Germany to the free West Germany. Along the border that separated free people of Europe from those under Moscow-controlled dictatorships, massive armies stood facing each other. I understand why Putin wants it all back. This was the world he was born into, the system he grew up with and indoctrinated into at the KGB. These were the glory days of the Russian empire of his time. But why on earth would any European or American want to turn back time? European countries closest to Russia have already started increasing military spending to about 5%, and even countries as far west as France have floated the same idea. With the return of Cold War era threats that the sitting American president is cheerleading, it's just inevitable.
southernplaces7 2y ago
>the USA apparently willing and eager for European taxpayers to assume the growing burdern to maintain the apparatus required for global American hegemony". What you say here is sort of absurd. The USA has by far spent much more on subsidizing and covering European defense than it has ever asked European powers to pay into its own global hegemony. Europe has inordinately benefited from this for decades, regardless of whether it also helps the U.S in its own defense or for that matter hegemonic needs, or not.
- tw1231656 2y ago
  During the cold war the US needed markets in Western Europe. Countries like Germany were literally supposed to stop communist armies until the US troops arrive and possible get nuked in the process. That does not sound like a win at all, except for the US. Furthermore, without US military spending and protection claims, the dollar would collapse.
- AtlasBarfed 2y ago
  It's almost like both sides benefited enormously from the relationship. But this is likely a very costly mistake for the US. The hegemony was chaired by the US obviously which was on the other side of an ocean. It's true that the US is a maritime power and is therefore easy to defend, but maritime empires are also difficult to administer and exert direct influence. Imagine if Germany had the level of hegemony (not in the nazi sense, just the absolute geopolitical power sense), being any country around it would be very dangerous, because it is inevitable that continental superpowers throw their weight around in ground military actions. Example: Russia obviously, and they aren't even really a superpower. This may awaken a sleeping tiger in the EU. An unreliable US and a common enemy (Russia) may integrate the largest collective GDP association and a half a billion people into a cohesive military power. France has occasionally been pseudo-imperialist in Africa in recent years, but the EU is poised to dominate Africa and possibly (if it can defeat them in the correct way) all of Russia if it properly arms. Because if you force people to militarize, there has to be a justification for it economically. The natural justification of a militarized EU is to dominate its continental neighbors and exert trade dominance over its hemisphere. The US should be concerned about its naval dominance as well, the pillar of its maritime power. The Ukraine war has shown that drones make littoral combat extremely dangerous for any capital surface ship, and it's likely in the next ten years that a swarm drone fleet will do the same for submarines in nearshore. The next question is when drones become usable against deepwater ships. Carrier groups may still be able to project air power, but air drones may whittle away at even high altitude air superiority that carriers can project. Brazen nazi salutes by US leaders are critically damaging the "brand" of the United State in EU. I can't think of anything short of actual military action against the EU that would more motivate disentanglement from the US. People need to remember that the US doesn't really make anything anymore, it was all outsourced to China. Our maritime dominance kept us (eg the petrodollar system) in a position of global economic control, but if the EU and China simply cut America out of the equation, and only treat it as a consumption market (what would the EU need from America that Africa and Asia/China could not provide?).
rayiner 2y ago
Then Europe should be cheering that the US now has an administration that’s no longer interested in maintaining American hegemony. If that were so valuable, Germany or France would be rushing in to displace the U.S. as hegemon, right?

by m000 2y ago

Ekaros 2y ago

As European I only care about what might go in continental Europe. Any other part can fend of themselves, whoever the aggressor might be. It probably being USA... We really should focus on isolationism and global trade. Even securing shipping lines is short term thinking. Let the conflicts happen and then things stabilize.

Khaine 2y ago
That makes no sense. If you care about global trade, you care about securing shipping lines. As has been shown, piracy from Somali and attacks from Yemen has significantly increased the cost of shipping, which puts a dampener on international trade.
- rightbyte 2y ago
  The problem is that you get the whole package, like WOT, color revolutions and so on.

suraci 2y ago

Common people and rulers usually have different perspectives. As a European, you would have such a perspective. But in the eyes of European politicians, they wouldn't view the issue as you do. This is because their sole purpose of existence is to be vassals of the hegemony. They are unable to accept the consequences of a U.S. strategic contraction. If the U.S. withdrew from Europe, Europeans would still be Europeans, but the politicians might not necessarily be.

skybrian 2y ago

Who benefits from the defense of Ukraine? It seems to me that both the US and Europe see some benefits, but it's primarily Europe?

krige 2y ago
Weaning Europe off Russian energy supply used to be seen as a strategic goal for US, and Ukraine could have done just that with what was in the occupied areas.
- ChocolateGod 2y ago
  > Ukraine could have done just that with what was in the occupied areas Didn't Ukraine switch to Europe as it's energy supply? Imho the Russian invasion pushing Europe to secure its energy supply has been a positive impact from the war.
  - krige 2y ago
    Eastern bits of Ukraine have very large untapped stores of hydrocarbons. It is unknown what exactly were/are the goals for the ongoing invasion (assuming there are any plausible ones in the first place) but one of the more reasonable guesses is denying Ukraine access to those stores in order to maintain russian supremacy in providing cheap gas and oil to Germany etc. both as a source of revenue and a political tool.
mopsi 2y ago
> Who benefits from the defense of Ukraine? Everyone who values peace and cooperation over war and conquest. US military spending is currently at a historic low, at 2.7% of the gross domestic product (GDP). During the Cold War, military spending never fell below 4.5%. Chart: https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Photos/igphoto/2002099941/ https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Photos/igphoto/2002099941... As of 2024, 1% of US GDP equals approximately 290 billion dollars per year. A return to Cold War era baseline would mean 1.8% increase or about 520 billion more spent on the military each year. (Probably even more, since the US entered the Cold War with a massive WWII-era army and the industry to support it. The US isn't currently capable of producing a new main battle tank every 20 minutes like back then.) The US has spent 120 billion in all forms of aid (military, financial, humanitarian) to Ukraine over three years. That's 40 billion dollars per year on average. Why would anyone throw away the current support for Ukraine that effectively keeps Russia in check, only to replace it with renewed Cold War standoff in the middle of Europe that is bound to cost at least ten times more? It's as if some people have fallen into collective amnesia and forgotten what the world looked like just 40 years ago. Germany was split in half by barbed wire and minefields, and civilians were gunned down from machine gun nests if they tried to flee from totalitarian oppression in East Germany to the free West Germany. Along the border that separated free people of Europe from those under Moscow-controlled dictatorships, massive armies stood facing each other. I understand why Putin wants it all back. This was the world he was born into, the system he grew up with and indoctrinated into at the KGB. These were the glory days of the Russian empire of his time. But why on earth would any European or American want to turn back time? European countries closest to Russia have already started increasing military spending to about 5%, and even countries as far west as France have floated the same idea. With the return of Cold War era threats that the sitting American president is cheerleading, it's just inevitable.

southernplaces7 2y ago

>the USA apparently willing and eager for European taxpayers to assume the growing burdern to maintain the apparatus required for global American hegemony". What you say here is sort of absurd. The USA has by far spent much more on subsidizing and covering European defense than it has ever asked European powers to pay into its own global hegemony. Europe has inordinately benefited from this for decades, regardless of whether it also helps the U.S in its own defense or for that matter hegemonic needs, or not.

tw1231656 2y ago
During the cold war the US needed markets in Western Europe. Countries like Germany were literally supposed to stop communist armies until the US troops arrive and possible get nuked in the process. That does not sound like a win at all, except for the US. Furthermore, without US military spending and protection claims, the dollar would collapse.
AtlasBarfed 2y ago
It's almost like both sides benefited enormously from the relationship. But this is likely a very costly mistake for the US. The hegemony was chaired by the US obviously which was on the other side of an ocean. It's true that the US is a maritime power and is therefore easy to defend, but maritime empires are also difficult to administer and exert direct influence. Imagine if Germany had the level of hegemony (not in the nazi sense, just the absolute geopolitical power sense), being any country around it would be very dangerous, because it is inevitable that continental superpowers throw their weight around in ground military actions. Example: Russia obviously, and they aren't even really a superpower. This may awaken a sleeping tiger in the EU. An unreliable US and a common enemy (Russia) may integrate the largest collective GDP association and a half a billion people into a cohesive military power. France has occasionally been pseudo-imperialist in Africa in recent years, but the EU is poised to dominate Africa and possibly (if it can defeat them in the correct way) all of Russia if it properly arms. Because if you force people to militarize, there has to be a justification for it economically. The natural justification of a militarized EU is to dominate its continental neighbors and exert trade dominance over its hemisphere. The US should be concerned about its naval dominance as well, the pillar of its maritime power. The Ukraine war has shown that drones make littoral combat extremely dangerous for any capital surface ship, and it's likely in the next ten years that a swarm drone fleet will do the same for submarines in nearshore. The next question is when drones become usable against deepwater ships. Carrier groups may still be able to project air power, but air drones may whittle away at even high altitude air superiority that carriers can project. Brazen nazi salutes by US leaders are critically damaging the "brand" of the United State in EU. I can't think of anything short of actual military action against the EU that would more motivate disentanglement from the US. People need to remember that the US doesn't really make anything anymore, it was all outsourced to China. Our maritime dominance kept us (eg the petrodollar system) in a position of global economic control, but if the EU and China simply cut America out of the equation, and only treat it as a consumption market (what would the EU need from America that Africa and Asia/China could not provide?).

rayiner 2y ago

Then Europe should be cheering that the US now has an administration that’s no longer interested in maintaining American hegemony. If that were so valuable, Germany or France would be rushing in to displace the U.S. as hegemon, right?