3 ms·
I'm less interested in performative statements and more interested in underlying motivations and incentives. It's not a question of who is "right" but of what
by pfdietz 9mo ago
I'm less interested in performative statements and more interested in underlying motivations and incentives. It's not a question of who is "right" but of what the actors get out of it.
Of course Europe was leaning on US defense. This enabled resources to be diverted to social spending instead, something that has become all the more vital as populations age. And it's not clear what the US gets out of defending Europe now. There's no perceived Soviet juggernaut and Russia can't even conquer Ukraine.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- 1718627440 9mo ago> There's no perceived Soviet juggernaut and Russia can't even conquer Ukraine. It looks a bit like that to be the case, but legally Russia still isn't at war with the Ukraine, according to their own internal law. Hence the use of mercenaries and "volunteers" and the pinky promise that conscripts are not used near the Ukraine.
- dvfjsdhgfv 9mo ago> Europe was leaning on US defense. This enabled resources to be diverted to social spending instead While each of these statements seems true, there is an imprecise implication that the USA was sponsoring Europe's social security. There are several problems with this implication, starting from the fact that the USA wanted to be present in Europe and benefited from it. Sure, increasing military budgets means less money is available for other things, including social spending, but increasing it from 2% to 5% like they're doing now or even 9% doesn't mean that Europe stops offering free healthcare and education to its citizens. So while I understand why Trump is promoting this narrative, it is his typical lie.