26 ms·

Since WWII you're living under the umbrella of the US, as client states. There was no reason Europe could not amass a significant military power that would gran

Since WWII you're living under the umbrella of the US, as client states. There was no reason Europe could not amass a significant military power that would grant its sovereignty, but money went to increasing quality of life instead. Trump the 45th even implored EU to do so and bolster NATO.

RealityVoid 7mo ago
That's rich, the guy threatening the existence of NATO more than any other factor is trying to bolster NATO. I struggle to imagine how you square this in your mind.
- y-curious 7mo ago
  You don’t think that the person you’re replying to is Donald Trump, do you? He’s not wrong even though I can see why amassing independent defense didn’t feel necessary all this time
  - RealityVoid 7mo ago
    > You don’t think that the person you’re replying to is Donald Trump, do you? I'm confused how this interpretation could ever come about. No, I mean his point about "Trump trying to bolster NATO" is comic, as Trump is actively weakening NATO, no matter his stated goals wrt. improving funding and having member states "carry their load". _Especially_ his threats to Greenland and Canada, for no apparent reason. It's really mind-boggling. Perhaps my fault, since I expect mental consistency from post-truth populists and authoritarians.
    - jfengel 7mo ago
      Turns out consistency is overrated. We talk as if it's a bare minimum, but there isn't actually any penalty for violating it. We've still got some kind of karmic notion that inconsistency is bad for you in the long run. Maybe it is, but that run keeps getting longer and longer.
      - RealityVoid 7mo ago
        Having contact with reality is quite important when critical moments arise. Fantasy can proper you quite high, but there is a breaking point where it can't carry the day. Trump & Co are both post-truth and detached for reality. I am a bit scared for your country when you get a post-truth populist that is NOT detached from reality. If you can't deal with a buffoon like Trump, how will you be able to deal with someone who is half competent? Truth be told, I don't know how to deal with these people. Not that my country fared any better with this kind of rhetoric in last couple of years. But we don't have the democratic tradition as rich as you had (or at least I felt you had). I feel like despair will be the feeling for me this decade.
        jfengel 7mo ago
        It's a good question. His supporters like the buffoonery. It allows them to see what they want to in his actions. It's remarkable that he has the full-throated support of the theocrats while being blatantly an atheist. And conversely he has surrounded himself with people who clearly hate Christianity, but gloss over his pandering to the religious right. That wouldn't be possible if he were any smarter. Nor is he a Boris Johnson type character, playing the clown while being quite well educated in private. The right wing coalition will survive and thrive even without him. But it's hard to predict just how, because it will have to adapt.
- flyinglizard 7mo ago
  At the outset, he doesn't want to carry the burden of NATO alone. Maybe he has other strategic interests in mind where US deviates from the rest of the world (like Greenland) but he's entirely right that NATO really depends on the US. Trump's attitude towards NATO member state spend it widely publicized [0] so I don't think there's much to debate here. Trump wanted member states to spend more, not less. He was somewhat prescient during his 45th presidency, given what happened in Ukraine in 2022 and how it forced US to spend huge amounts of money and military hardware which the EU simply didn't have. Maybe with a stronger standing EU army, that invasion would not have happened in the first place. [0] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01495933.2021.1912511 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01495933.2021.19...
  - RealityVoid 7mo ago
    > NATO really depends on the US. Yes. By design. But if the US decouples, the rest of the countries can and will make their own alliance, with blackjack and hookers. Greenland thing is peak wierdness and the only explanation of it would be pride, stupidity or active undermining of NATO. > Trump's attitude towards NATO member state spend it widely publicized [0] so I don't think there's much to debate here. Trump wanted member states to spend more, not less. Yes. But, you have a very shallow reading of this and you're taking things at face value. He latched on the spending as a pretext, and as a way to increase US income for the defense industry. He doesn't give a rat's ass about the security of NATO countries. US has entered a very transactional, bully, phase and this is a bad way to maintain international standing.
  - adwn 7mo ago
    > it forced US to spend huge amounts of money and military hardware which the EU simply didn't have - Europe's monetary aid for Ukraine far outweighs that of the US. - The US military aid for Ukraine mostly consisted of old and obsolete hardware. - Since about a year or so, all weapons and munitions delivered by the US are paid for by Europe.
    - RealityVoid 7mo ago
      > - Since about a year or so, all weapons and munitions delivered by the US are paid for by Europe. Huh, I wonder what happened a year or so ago? What could have led to the US cutting off so much support? /s
lukan 7mo ago
"Trump the 45th even implored EU to do so and bolster NATO." All he wanted was EU to buy more US weapons (also to help with his wars). Guess what is happening now, we still do buy US weapons where there is no other choice, but apart from that, we build and buy our own things now. Try to get rid of US software depenencies - in general, get rid of any dependency we have towards you. If this was Trump's goal, great job I have to say.
adwn 7mo ago
> Since WWII […] Europe didn't slack off militarily during the Cold War. Germany, for example, poured massive amounts of money and resources into the Bundeswehr to be able to fend of the Soviets. The US relied as much on the European members of NATO as the Europeans did on the US. After the Cold War, both the US and Europe scaled back their military spending and enjoyed the peace dividend. It was only after 2001 that the US increased its budget again – but to fight insurrectionist wars (which EU members aren't particularly interested in), not in a peer conflict. They're not prepared for a pro-longed war against a near-peer power. So although I agree that Europe should be rearming heavily, and should have started in 2022 at the very latest, it's not like the US did really much better. They're really good at curb-stomping much weaker opponents, like Venezuela or Iran, but they haven't seriously prepared for a war against China.
- generic92034 7mo ago
  > They're really good at curb-stomping much weaker opponents, like [..] Iran That remains to be seen, though. Really winning that war requires either lots of boots on the ground and a long occupation (where the outcome might still be like in Afghanistan) or using nukes, which could escalate quite badly for us all. There is a reason no other POTUS has attacked Iran before. Of course Trump can at every point in time just declare victory and leave the mess to all others for cleaning up. That is the most likely outcome, IMHO.
jurgenburgen 7mo ago
> Since WWII you're living under the umbrella of the US, as client states. There was no reason Europe could not amass a significant military power that would grant its sovereignty, but money went to increasing quality of life instead. Trump the 45th even implored EU to do so and bolster NATO. Problem is that Trump wants to eat the cake and have it too. If we’re no longer being protected by the US then US companies should not expect preferential laws and access to the EU market.

RealityVoid 7mo ago

That's rich, the guy threatening the existence of NATO more than any other factor is trying to bolster NATO. I struggle to imagine how you square this in your mind.

y-curious 7mo ago
You don’t think that the person you’re replying to is Donald Trump, do you? He’s not wrong even though I can see why amassing independent defense didn’t feel necessary all this time
- RealityVoid 7mo ago
  > You don’t think that the person you’re replying to is Donald Trump, do you? I'm confused how this interpretation could ever come about. No, I mean his point about "Trump trying to bolster NATO" is comic, as Trump is actively weakening NATO, no matter his stated goals wrt. improving funding and having member states "carry their load". _Especially_ his threats to Greenland and Canada, for no apparent reason. It's really mind-boggling. Perhaps my fault, since I expect mental consistency from post-truth populists and authoritarians.
  - jfengel 7mo ago
    Turns out consistency is overrated. We talk as if it's a bare minimum, but there isn't actually any penalty for violating it. We've still got some kind of karmic notion that inconsistency is bad for you in the long run. Maybe it is, but that run keeps getting longer and longer.
    - RealityVoid 7mo ago
      Having contact with reality is quite important when critical moments arise. Fantasy can proper you quite high, but there is a breaking point where it can't carry the day. Trump & Co are both post-truth and detached for reality. I am a bit scared for your country when you get a post-truth populist that is NOT detached from reality. If you can't deal with a buffoon like Trump, how will you be able to deal with someone who is half competent? Truth be told, I don't know how to deal with these people. Not that my country fared any better with this kind of rhetoric in last couple of years. But we don't have the democratic tradition as rich as you had (or at least I felt you had). I feel like despair will be the feeling for me this decade.
      - jfengel 7mo ago
        It's a good question. His supporters like the buffoonery. It allows them to see what they want to in his actions. It's remarkable that he has the full-throated support of the theocrats while being blatantly an atheist. And conversely he has surrounded himself with people who clearly hate Christianity, but gloss over his pandering to the religious right. That wouldn't be possible if he were any smarter. Nor is he a Boris Johnson type character, playing the clown while being quite well educated in private. The right wing coalition will survive and thrive even without him. But it's hard to predict just how, because it will have to adapt.
flyinglizard 7mo ago
At the outset, he doesn't want to carry the burden of NATO alone. Maybe he has other strategic interests in mind where US deviates from the rest of the world (like Greenland) but he's entirely right that NATO really depends on the US. Trump's attitude towards NATO member state spend it widely publicized [0] so I don't think there's much to debate here. Trump wanted member states to spend more, not less. He was somewhat prescient during his 45th presidency, given what happened in Ukraine in 2022 and how it forced US to spend huge amounts of money and military hardware which the EU simply didn't have. Maybe with a stronger standing EU army, that invasion would not have happened in the first place. [0] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01495933.2021.1912511 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01495933.2021.19...
- RealityVoid 7mo ago
  > NATO really depends on the US. Yes. By design. But if the US decouples, the rest of the countries can and will make their own alliance, with blackjack and hookers. Greenland thing is peak wierdness and the only explanation of it would be pride, stupidity or active undermining of NATO. > Trump's attitude towards NATO member state spend it widely publicized [0] so I don't think there's much to debate here. Trump wanted member states to spend more, not less. Yes. But, you have a very shallow reading of this and you're taking things at face value. He latched on the spending as a pretext, and as a way to increase US income for the defense industry. He doesn't give a rat's ass about the security of NATO countries. US has entered a very transactional, bully, phase and this is a bad way to maintain international standing.
- adwn 7mo ago
  > it forced US to spend huge amounts of money and military hardware which the EU simply didn't have - Europe's monetary aid for Ukraine far outweighs that of the US. - The US military aid for Ukraine mostly consisted of old and obsolete hardware. - Since about a year or so, all weapons and munitions delivered by the US are paid for by Europe.
  - RealityVoid 7mo ago
    > - Since about a year or so, all weapons and munitions delivered by the US are paid for by Europe. Huh, I wonder what happened a year or so ago? What could have led to the US cutting off so much support? /s

lukan 7mo ago

"Trump the 45th even implored EU to do so and bolster NATO." All he wanted was EU to buy more US weapons (also to help with his wars). Guess what is happening now, we still do buy US weapons where there is no other choice, but apart from that, we build and buy our own things now. Try to get rid of US software depenencies - in general, get rid of any dependency we have towards you. If this was Trump's goal, great job I have to say.

adwn 7mo ago

> Since WWII […] Europe didn't slack off militarily during the Cold War. Germany, for example, poured massive amounts of money and resources into the Bundeswehr to be able to fend of the Soviets. The US relied as much on the European members of NATO as the Europeans did on the US. After the Cold War, both the US and Europe scaled back their military spending and enjoyed the peace dividend. It was only after 2001 that the US increased its budget again – but to fight insurrectionist wars (which EU members aren't particularly interested in), not in a peer conflict. They're not prepared for a pro-longed war against a near-peer power. So although I agree that Europe should be rearming heavily, and should have started in 2022 at the very latest, it's not like the US did really much better. They're really good at curb-stomping much weaker opponents, like Venezuela or Iran, but they haven't seriously prepared for a war against China.

generic92034 7mo ago
> They're really good at curb-stomping much weaker opponents, like [..] Iran That remains to be seen, though. Really winning that war requires either lots of boots on the ground and a long occupation (where the outcome might still be like in Afghanistan) or using nukes, which could escalate quite badly for us all. There is a reason no other POTUS has attacked Iran before. Of course Trump can at every point in time just declare victory and leave the mess to all others for cleaning up. That is the most likely outcome, IMHO.

jurgenburgen 7mo ago

> Since WWII you're living under the umbrella of the US, as client states. There was no reason Europe could not amass a significant military power that would grant its sovereignty, but money went to increasing quality of life instead. Trump the 45th even implored EU to do so and bolster NATO. Problem is that Trump wants to eat the cake and have it too. If we’re no longer being protected by the US then US companies should not expect preferential laws and access to the EU market.