7 ms·

It's been US policy for years to beg NATO members to increase military spending, it took the war in Ukraine for them to finally do it. Part of NATO's charter i

It's been US policy for years to beg NATO members to increase military spending, it took the war in Ukraine for them to finally do it. Part of NATO's charter is literally "spend minimum 2% GDP on military" and it was just ignored for much of the time. But honestly I don't know why this entire comment section has turned to NATO NATO NATO. Ukraine isn't in NATO. And if the Budapest Memorandum is what you're referencing, France and UK signed too. It's not as if the US hasn't contributed to the war already.

lambdasquirrel 2y ago
The flip side of this is that the NATO countries have traditionally toed the U.S. stance on diplomatic matters, even on issues that are quite unpopular at home. The understanding abroad is that the U.S. can dictate what it wants, but then the Allies will simply drag their feet.
- _bin_ 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - plussed_reader 2y ago
    I look at the regulatory capture of tech in the US and applaud the EU regulation that can't get traction in the companies' originating country.
- PartiallyTyped 2y ago
  More Danish men died per capita than American men when the Us invoked article 5 and had us in the Middle East for the nth time.
meitham 2y ago
>>> Ukraine isn’t in NATO Ukraine’s potential NATO membership is one of Russia’s main demands for ending the war. Additionally, Ukraine participated in the coalition that invaded Iraq in 2003.
ulnarkressty 2y ago
Not quite: > Europe’s dependence on the United States for its security means that the United States possesses a de facto veto on the direction of European defense. Since the 1990s, the United States has typically used its effective veto power to block the defense ambitions of the European Union. This has frequently resulted in an absurd situation where Washington loudly insists that Europe do more on defense but then strongly objects when Europe’s political union—the European Union—tries to answer the call. This policy approach has been a grand strategic error—one that has weakened NATO militarily, strained the trans-Atlantic alliance, and contributed to the relative decline in Europe’s global clout. As a result, one of America’s closest partners and allies of first resort is not nearly as powerful as it could be. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/case-eu-defense/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/case-eu-defense/
- jopsen 2y ago
  The US wants increased spending because many small European countries spend that money in the US. Honestly, the interesting thing question here is: (A) Does the EU have to political will to bankroll Ukraine. (B) Will the US keep selling weapons the Ukraine, if funded by the EU. I suspect (B) is a hard YES. Anything would end US military industry. On (A) I'm less certain, the EU has had a hard time finding consensus. The EU can do big things, even when it's hard, the EU did so under covid.
  - com 2y ago
    > Europe as a whole has clearly overtaken the US in terms of Ukraine aid [0] 0. https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/news/ukraine-support-after-3-years-of-war-aid-flows-remain-low-but-steady-shift-towards-weapons-procurement/ https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/news/ukraine-support-af...
basisword 2y ago
I didn’t mention NATO, Ukraine, or the Budapest memorandum… Defence is only a part of this. The economy is a big part. Europe is far too reliant on US tech for example. Given US citizens can’t be trusted not to elect a lunatic the US should no longer be relied upon in any capacity.
- ignoramous 2y ago
  > Given US citizens can’t be trusted not to elect a lunatic I mean, that's true for any democracy. The EU has its fair share of them elected to high offices.
  - akie 2y ago
    Tell me about ways your life in the US was ever seriously negatively impacted by who got elected to the EU commission? Complaining about cookie popups or the GDPR doesn't count.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      France enstated a very unpopular ruling of raising the minimum retirement age to 68 IIRC. This sets precedent and started having the US discuss the same thing. So potentially that decision will affect me long term via precedent.
      - basisword 2y ago
        I don’t think this is right. I believe they raised it to 64 which is still 3 years earlier than the US.
Epa095 2y ago
> Part of NATO's charter is literally "spend minimum 2% GDP on military" and it was just ignored for much of the time. No, it is literally not. The charter is here[1], read it yourself. To my knowledge it was first mentioned in 2006, the press briefing [2] states Finally, I should add that Allies through the comprehensive political guidance have committed to endeavour, to meet the 2% target of GDP devoted to defence spending. Let me be clear, this is not a hard commitment that they will do it. But it is a commitment to work towards it. And that will be a first within the Alliance. It comes back again in 2014 [3], where they agree to: aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade A decade after 2014 is 2024, and most, but not all, countries managed. 1: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm 2: https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2006/s060608m.htm https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2006/s060608m.htm 3: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm
- remarkEon 2y ago
  Thanks for this. It's an annoying point that people make. It's much better to acknowledge that the deal the United States signed up for was to cover security for the entire European continent until 2024.
  - Propelloni 2y ago
    That's just more transactional thinking. NATO is not a deal but an alliance, a mutual pledge of support by people in the same boat. A pledge, I might remind you, the NATO members upheld when the USA invoked article 5 in 2001 and provided troops, material, and logistics in supporting the US invasion of Afghanistan and the resulting occupation. This narrative that all NATO members are just freeloading of the USA is a fiction.
    - pclmulqdq 2y ago
      All alliances are deals, especially to the current administration.
    - 2y ago
sebazzz 2y ago
> Ukraine isn't in NATO. Arguably the US isn’t either anymore . It is pretty clear that Trump won’t enforce Article 5 when Russia is the aggressive party. Which, by itself, might be a preparation to take Greenland. Both US and Russia are already interfering in the upcoming elections there. It doesn’t sound crazy anymore, considering the shitshow we’ve seen the last four weeks sounded crazy before the inauguration.

lambdasquirrel 2y ago

The flip side of this is that the NATO countries have traditionally toed the U.S. stance on diplomatic matters, even on issues that are quite unpopular at home. The understanding abroad is that the U.S. can dictate what it wants, but then the Allies will simply drag their feet.

_bin_ 2y ago
[flagged]
- plussed_reader 2y ago
  I look at the regulatory capture of tech in the US and applaud the EU regulation that can't get traction in the companies' originating country.
PartiallyTyped 2y ago
More Danish men died per capita than American men when the Us invoked article 5 and had us in the Middle East for the nth time.

meitham 2y ago

>>> Ukraine isn’t in NATO Ukraine’s potential NATO membership is one of Russia’s main demands for ending the war. Additionally, Ukraine participated in the coalition that invaded Iraq in 2003.

ulnarkressty 2y ago

Not quite: > Europe’s dependence on the United States for its security means that the United States possesses a de facto veto on the direction of European defense. Since the 1990s, the United States has typically used its effective veto power to block the defense ambitions of the European Union. This has frequently resulted in an absurd situation where Washington loudly insists that Europe do more on defense but then strongly objects when Europe’s political union—the European Union—tries to answer the call. This policy approach has been a grand strategic error—one that has weakened NATO militarily, strained the trans-Atlantic alliance, and contributed to the relative decline in Europe’s global clout. As a result, one of America’s closest partners and allies of first resort is not nearly as powerful as it could be. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/case-eu-defense/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/case-eu-defense/

jopsen 2y ago
The US wants increased spending because many small European countries spend that money in the US. Honestly, the interesting thing question here is: (A) Does the EU have to political will to bankroll Ukraine. (B) Will the US keep selling weapons the Ukraine, if funded by the EU. I suspect (B) is a hard YES. Anything would end US military industry. On (A) I'm less certain, the EU has had a hard time finding consensus. The EU can do big things, even when it's hard, the EU did so under covid.
- com 2y ago
  > Europe as a whole has clearly overtaken the US in terms of Ukraine aid [0] 0. https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/news/ukraine-support-after-3-years-of-war-aid-flows-remain-low-but-steady-shift-towards-weapons-procurement/ https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/news/ukraine-support-af...

basisword 2y ago

I didn’t mention NATO, Ukraine, or the Budapest memorandum… Defence is only a part of this. The economy is a big part. Europe is far too reliant on US tech for example. Given US citizens can’t be trusted not to elect a lunatic the US should no longer be relied upon in any capacity.

ignoramous 2y ago
> Given US citizens can’t be trusted not to elect a lunatic I mean, that's true for any democracy. The EU has its fair share of them elected to high offices.
- akie 2y ago
  Tell me about ways your life in the US was ever seriously negatively impacted by who got elected to the EU commission? Complaining about cookie popups or the GDPR doesn't count.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    France enstated a very unpopular ruling of raising the minimum retirement age to 68 IIRC. This sets precedent and started having the US discuss the same thing. So potentially that decision will affect me long term via precedent.
    - basisword 2y ago
      I don’t think this is right. I believe they raised it to 64 which is still 3 years earlier than the US.

Epa095 2y ago

> Part of NATO's charter is literally "spend minimum 2% GDP on military" and it was just ignored for much of the time. No, it is literally not. The charter is here[1], read it yourself. To my knowledge it was first mentioned in 2006, the press briefing [2] states Finally, I should add that Allies through the comprehensive political guidance have committed to endeavour, to meet the 2% target of GDP devoted to defence spending. Let me be clear, this is not a hard commitment that they will do it. But it is a commitment to work towards it. And that will be a first within the Alliance. It comes back again in 2014 [3], where they agree to: aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade A decade after 2014 is 2024, and most, but not all, countries managed. 1: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm 2: https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2006/s060608m.htm https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2006/s060608m.htm 3: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm

remarkEon 2y ago
Thanks for this. It's an annoying point that people make. It's much better to acknowledge that the deal the United States signed up for was to cover security for the entire European continent until 2024.
- Propelloni 2y ago
  That's just more transactional thinking. NATO is not a deal but an alliance, a mutual pledge of support by people in the same boat. A pledge, I might remind you, the NATO members upheld when the USA invoked article 5 in 2001 and provided troops, material, and logistics in supporting the US invasion of Afghanistan and the resulting occupation. This narrative that all NATO members are just freeloading of the USA is a fiction.
  - pclmulqdq 2y ago
    All alliances are deals, especially to the current administration.
  - 2y ago

sebazzz 2y ago

> Ukraine isn't in NATO. Arguably the US isn’t either anymore . It is pretty clear that Trump won’t enforce Article 5 when Russia is the aggressive party. Which, by itself, might be a preparation to take Greenland. Both US and Russia are already interfering in the upcoming elections there. It doesn’t sound crazy anymore, considering the shitshow we’ve seen the last four weeks sounded crazy before the inauguration.