3 ms·

I'm not saying there are line items in the US defense budget for European programs. I'm saying the existence of NATO and the guarantee of a robust US response

I'm not saying there are line items in the US defense budget for European programs. I'm saying the existence of NATO and the guarantee of a robust US response to any attack on a member has allowed Europe to prioritize doing other things with their tax bases and budgets than fund robust militaries. And that a lot of the scoffing online about how Europe is somehow more "enlightened" than the US by having more generous social safety nets is at least partially due to said social safety nets being able to be paid for because the US is guaranteeing military support in the event of a crisis. Now, under Trump (whether or not you agree), there are going to have to be some hard choices in European capitals on how to fund a military deterrent to Russia if the US policy is "maybe we will, maybe we won't." Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty is still the law of the land, but a Trumpist government may decide to provide only the bare minimum support needed.

senderista 1y ago
> Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty is still the law of the land, but a Trumpist government may decide to provide only the bare minimum support needed. Or a Trumpist government may decide to provide no support at all, given how they have treated "the law of the land" so far.
- MonkeyClub 1y ago
  Pulling out of NATO or just not honoring Art. 5 wouldn't be unthinkable for Trump, and your comment is relevant to GP's and to the thread; I don't know why you're getting downvoted. Downvotes are supposedly for culling irrelevant comments, not to express dislike, or am I confusing things?
ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
People are downvoting you, but you're absolutely right. Funny enough, when talking about European problems I've often found that downvotes happen in the (US) morning (when the Euros are still awake) and upvotes happen in the (US) evening
panick21_ 1y ago
The whole 'military explains everything' point isn't really accurate. Many US troops stationed in Europe were paid for by Europe. Most US military spending was on things other then Europe. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, non have anything to do with Europe. Lots of military spending was needed even if the US had been by itself. And the US made lots of money selling military equipment to Europe. Depending on what nations you compare it to, the difference during the cold war was a few % of GDP. Not enough to explain all the difference in social and other state programs. As the difference in spending is often 15-20%pt or more. So the real difference is clearly willingness for taxation and social programs. And of course nations like Finland and Sweden were never part of NATO.
Epa095 1y ago
In 1989 average NATO military spending was 4% of GDP, in 2014 it was dropped to 1.4%. The peace dividend is real, but it don't explain everything. European countries had cheap higher education and healthcare in 1989 as well, even with higher military spending (and higher than USA has today, which is roughly 3.37%). Estonia and Poland both spend more than the US, and they both manage cheap higher education and public healthcare. This indicates that it's also a choice of priorities, where European countries seem more willing to increase taxes for these kind of services. Personally I think it has something with the sense of belonging, where Europeans belong to a country, most of them with less than 30 million people. Americans are one in 350 million, so it makes sense to me that it's harder to feel 'part' of the same tribe as the other 350 million people. But you are right that Europe will have to face some hard choices, both because we get less support from the US, and because Russia is more aggressive than before. Personally I am quite convinced that in 5-10 years most European countries will still have cheap higher education and healthcare, but maybe higher taxes.

senderista 1y ago

> Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty is still the law of the land, but a Trumpist government may decide to provide only the bare minimum support needed. Or a Trumpist government may decide to provide no support at all, given how they have treated "the law of the land" so far.

MonkeyClub 1y ago
Pulling out of NATO or just not honoring Art. 5 wouldn't be unthinkable for Trump, and your comment is relevant to GP's and to the thread; I don't know why you're getting downvoted. Downvotes are supposedly for culling irrelevant comments, not to express dislike, or am I confusing things?

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago

People are downvoting you, but you're absolutely right. Funny enough, when talking about European problems I've often found that downvotes happen in the (US) morning (when the Euros are still awake) and upvotes happen in the (US) evening

panick21_ 1y ago

The whole 'military explains everything' point isn't really accurate. Many US troops stationed in Europe were paid for by Europe. Most US military spending was on things other then Europe. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, non have anything to do with Europe. Lots of military spending was needed even if the US had been by itself. And the US made lots of money selling military equipment to Europe. Depending on what nations you compare it to, the difference during the cold war was a few % of GDP. Not enough to explain all the difference in social and other state programs. As the difference in spending is often 15-20%pt or more. So the real difference is clearly willingness for taxation and social programs. And of course nations like Finland and Sweden were never part of NATO.

Epa095 1y ago

In 1989 average NATO military spending was 4% of GDP, in 2014 it was dropped to 1.4%. The peace dividend is real, but it don't explain everything. European countries had cheap higher education and healthcare in 1989 as well, even with higher military spending (and higher than USA has today, which is roughly 3.37%). Estonia and Poland both spend more than the US, and they both manage cheap higher education and public healthcare. This indicates that it's also a choice of priorities, where European countries seem more willing to increase taxes for these kind of services. Personally I think it has something with the sense of belonging, where Europeans belong to a country, most of them with less than 30 million people. Americans are one in 350 million, so it makes sense to me that it's harder to feel 'part' of the same tribe as the other 350 million people. But you are right that Europe will have to face some hard choices, both because we get less support from the US, and because Russia is more aggressive than before. Personally I am quite convinced that in 5-10 years most European countries will still have cheap higher education and healthcare, but maybe higher taxes.