3 ms·
NATO came into being to deal with the USSR, which was the preeminent threat to all NATO members. The US wasn't expected just to come save Europe; European state
by kyboren 9mo ago
NATO came into being to deal with the USSR, which was the preeminent threat to all NATO members. The US wasn't expected just to come save Europe; European states had real military power and the will to bring it to bear against the US's main adversary. In a conflict with the USSR, the US could rely on Europe to fight with them. Very valuable.
Today, US policymakers see China as the main adversary. But European states have no real military power--certainly none that can be projected in the Pacific theater--and wouldn't have the will to deploy it even if they did. Europeans now expect America to fight Russia for them, not with them. So now NATO is basically all risk and cost for the US with no benefit against their main adversary.
I think it's a shortsighted view of American national security imperatives: American security relies as it ever did on security in both Western Europe and Eastern Asia. Abandoning one theater to focus on the other just leaves a giant blind spot.
However, this has led Europe to take its own security more seriously and stop relying on America to fight the Russians for them, something multiple POTUSes have tried more diplomatically to achieve--and failed--for decades.
- epolanski 9mo ago> Europeans now expect America to fight Russia for them, not with them. As an European: nobody has this expectation, unless you're using some strange subreddit comment as a source of information.
- SR2Z 9mo agoCompare the strength of the militaries of Europe with the United States and you'll see how that claim is believable. That's changing, but for many years European nations did not spend very much on their militaries. A large part of why is the protection of NATO and US bases in various countries.
- epolanski 9mo agoNo, that's the logic of a 15 years old playing call of duty. Europe has spent less on military because after the cold war and still today, it never had any realistic threat. Russia can't even take few miles off Ukraine. The only realistic threat is the US, which is an ally, in theory. Now a threat.
- jacquesm 9mo agoThat, and as the main theater for two world wars Europe is - and likely will remain - sick of war. We'd rather avoid it, unless it comes knocking on our door, and then, reluctantly, we'll do what needs to be done.
- wolvesechoes 9mo ago[flagged]
- ulrashida 9mo agoNone of this is necessary.
- wolvesechoes 9mo ago> None of this is necessary. And this is why poor and ravaged Ukraine is the only country in Europe that is capable of bringing any real harm to Russians. They have learned how to be violent, for they had to. Rest of Europe didn't. And no, sending some special forces to kill few people in Iraq or Libia is not enough.
- wolvesechoes 9mo ago> Russia can't even take few miles off Ukraine And yet Europe is unable to support Ukraine enough to change the course of war. Which is the direct cause of the current situation. If Europe was so strong and ready, war in Ukraine would be over, Russia was defeated, and US wouldn't even think of doing what it is doing. Everything else is copium.
- jacquesm 9mo agoThe course of war has already changed.
- wolvesechoes 9mo ago
- DrScientist 9mo ago> Compare the strength of the militaries of Europe with the United States and you'll see how that claim is believable. That's the wrong comparison - the comparison in this context is the size of the European military versus Russia. Is it just me that finds it odd that the same people say that both Russian is an imminent threat to Europe - where its tanks could roll over the continent - and at the same time say just one more push to win in Ukraine? If Russia attacked a united Europe it would lose - the slow defeat in Ukraine is purely a matter of will, not capability. ie it matters more to Russia than Europe. Note most Europeans don't see the war in Ukraine as an attack on Europe by the Russians - despite what the hawks would like to paint - that's why the hawks can't bounce Europeans to put significant boots on the ground in Ukraine.
- Braxton1980 9mo agoHow is US military spending say that Europe was letting the US fight Russia? The US spending could be the result of so many other factors.
- bobthepanda 9mo agoThis is essentially what happened in Libya when Cameron and Sarkozy badgered Obama into participating
- jacquesm 9mo agoI set your house on fire, so maybe now you will take fire insurance more seriously?
- notahacker 9mo agoThis, but with the US owning the penthouse suite above the apartments it set on fire...
- orwin 9mo agoFrance have tactical nukes. If Russia ever tried to really invade, a warning shot will be fired, and then no invasion.
- xorcist 9mo ago> stop relying on America to fight the Russians for them, That's a very uncharitable take. Europe relies on NATO to fight the Russians. Of course it does. There is no alternative, and the US would never allow other credible alliances to form. Because why would they? It's certainly not in their interest. It's good that Europe spends more in security, and it's good that Europe seems to be serious about Ukraine. However western Europe is something else. If push really would come to shove, there is zero chance Russia could take and hold continental Europe. The population is larger, the economy is larger by a ridicolous amount, and there are French and British nukes positioned all over. What Europe is mainly lacking military projection in the Pacific and the Middle East, and that's not likely to change.
- anigbrowl 9mo agoIndeed. And every initiative in the past to create a 'European army' was strenuously opposed by previous US administrations, who wanted their alliances fragmented. US policymakers have said that any European military integration must avoid the '3 D's: Decoupling (from NATO), Duplication (of NATO command/legistic structures), and Discrimination (against US and Israeli arms vendors). This has been policy from at least the Clinton administration, and it has worked great to ensure that the US remains the biggest fish in the NATO pond, even if it is not bigger than all the others put together. Now that the current administration is tearing NATO in real time and the President is saying that his 'personal morality' trumps international law and treaties (never mind that ratified treaties stand on the same level as the Constitution, per the Constitution itself), I would imagine that the other members are working around the clock to implement their contingency plans and ramp up domestic military production and other avenues of procurement.
- kevin_thibedeau 9mo agoUntil recently, most NATO members were not meeting their commitment to spending 2% minimum GDP on defense. They were demonstrably externalizing their defense costs onto the US.
- Timon3 9mo agoWell yes, since the commitment was to spend 2% by 2025.
- epistasis 9mo ago> Today, US policymakers see China as the main adversary. That is not evident at all in how any US policymaker acts these days. China is stronger than ever, precisely due to US actions. Every day, the US gives up power and throws it away, and China picks it up off the ground for free. The supposed "China Hawks" are all chicken hawks without anything to back them up.
- bluGill 9mo agoThere is not one single person here. A number see China as the biggest problem and act that way. A number don't, and act that way. The combined looks like a 'chicken hawk' policy though
- epistasis 9mo agoThere is a US policy though, and none of the supposed China Hawks have even voiced a "kee-ahh" in response to US policy empowering and elevating Chinese power. Way back in September last year, which feels like forever ago, there was this good summary from Politico: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/05/pentagon-national-defense-strategy-china-homeland-western-hemisphere-00546310 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/05/pentagon-national-d... > Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon’s policy chief, is leading the strategy. He played a key role in writing the 2018 version during Trump’s first term and has been a staunch supporter of a more isolationist American policy. Despite his long track record as a China hawk, Colby aligns with Vice President JD Vance on the desire to disentangle the U.S. from foreign commitments. A supposed "China Hawk" is the one writing the policy that hands power to China! Calling them "frauds" is fully appropriate, and even though the author admits he dashed this off in a single day, I find it quite convincing: https://secretaryrofdefenserock.substack.com/p/the-final-evolution-of-the-gop-china https://secretaryrofdefenserock.substack.com/p/the-final-evo...
- FuriouslyAdrift 9mo agoThe ODNI Threat Assesment is the only official stance and is apolitical. China has been top of the list for nation-state threats for more than a decade. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2025/4058-2025-annual-threat-assessment https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/...
- tim333 9mo ago>Europeans now expect America to fight Russia for them, not with them I note in the current Europe/Ukraine vs Russia fighting there are no US troops, although they did send weapons for which we are grateful >China as the main adversary neither China nor Russia are about to bomb the US but in terms of threats to US interests and hybrid warfare we have the full scale war in Ukraine vs only some threats over Taiwan and on the hybrid front I hear rumors the the Russians cultivated a US property developer code name Krasnov and he went on to cause some havoc back in the US.
- smogcutter 9mo agoExcept for the Europeans that are literally fighting Russia.
- kyboren 9mo agoUnfortunately Ukraine is not a NATO member, despite the US's attempts to bring them into the alliance. You can thank France and Germany for that: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/nato-allies-reject-u-s-push-for-membership-for-ukraine-georgia-1.748342 https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/nato-allies-reject-u-s-push-fo...
- rainsford 9mo agoLooking at it in terms of the direct near-term military benefit of NATO in a conflict with China is focusing on the wrong thing. The real question isn't how strongly NATO membership would directly benefit the US military in a conflict with China; it's how strongly the act of blowing up the NATO relationship would negatively impact the US ability to deal with China in a future conflict. And those are two extremely different questions. Are the French going to be parking the Charles de Gaulle alongside American aircraft carriers in the Taiwan Strait if push comes to shove in the Pacific? I wouldn't entirely discount it. But maybe more importantly, even if they're not, does making an enemy of the EU negatively impact the ability of the US to park American aircraft carriers there? Certainly damage to the Atlantic trade relationship is unlikely to do the US any favors economically, which is important if the US wants to keep funding the Navy. And a potential loss of European controlled military bases has the potential to negative effect the US military's logistics, which is where the real superpower status comes from. Maybe most significantly, how would such a shift in alliances impact the willingness of Pacific allies to support the US, which obviously does have a direct impact on any conflict with China.
- matthewdgreen 9mo agoDon't be ridiculous. The US alone cannot stand up to China. We can't even build ships anymore. Parity is only possible with an alliance comprising the full economic and manufacturing might of the "free" developed world, which includes Europe and the rest of Asia. Losing Europe as a close military and trading ally is suicidal all by itself, but it has knock-on effects: once you've abandoned Europe, do you think the rest of your allies are going to believe you're there for them? Why should South Korea risk its security building ships for a US military alliance, once we've signaled that the US values its military alliances at zero?