You're assuming NATO is somehow critical for the US. It is not.
NATO is critical for the European powers (those not named Russia). The US doesn't require it. The US doesn't need to defend Europe any longer. And it's clear the Europeans don't want the US there, so it works out great. Europe can boost its defense spending by ~$300 billion to make up the difference, or not, whatever they choose to do is up to them.
The US had the world's largest economy six decades before NATO existed. China is growing into a superpower entirely without a NATO-like participation. NATO is primarily beneficial to European stability. The US doesn't need NATO to defend itself at all.
This is not a one sided thing. The US has been allowed to do a lot of things under the NATO umbrella that it benefited from (such as: selling a vast quantity of arms). Soft power is a thing and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization came into being to deal with exactly the kind of situation that we are viewing today. To see the US bow out, and in fact threatening allies is duplicitous at best.
NATO members aren't particularly large customers for American weapons. Poland is the largest, but is dwarfed by Japan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Ukraine is receiving a bunch of weapons, but that math isn't so straight forward (they're getting a ton of old stock) and they don't have much choice anyway.
Total US goods exports were $2,083 in 2025. This number is 4% of all of our exported goods for the year, so actually a pretty big number when it comes to national economics. People keep talking like the US can throw away 4% here, 2% there, likes it's nothing. The same people said last week 'Trump is meme'ing about Greenland'. Now they are saying 'the hit to our economy won't be too bad' which is as truthful of a statement as 'meme'ing about Greenland' was and based on the same 'defend Trump' and not reality.
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.
Compare 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.
No, 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.
That, 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.
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.
> The only realistic threat is the US, which is an ally, in theory. Now a threat.
The realistic threat is Russia, which is currently winning a war in Ukraine through sheer attrition and will succeed unless Europe steps up big time.
I hate Trump and would much rather see the world keep on going the way it has been, but Europe's militaries grew around an American core after WWII. A few nations have serious armies (France, for one) but most of Europe is close enough to a US airbase for a small military to work fine.
This misses the point, which is that Europe and the US need each other. Without the US, Europe stands no chance against Chinese and Russian influence. Without Europe, the US cannot stand against China and Russia.
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.
>> Europe is unable to support Ukraine enough to change the course of war.
It's not unable. There is little political will in Europe and USA to support Ukraine with arms to the victory. They support Ukraine just enough to not loose. It's in their interest to grind russian meat and tanks in Ukraine as long as possible.
The US lacks political will to support Ukraine (mostly) because it's a conflict ten thousand miles away. Europe should have a much more immediate interest in Ukraine not losing.
Sadly, Europe isn't one entity and the interest wanes the further the countries are. Anyone neighboring Russia is, predictably, helping a lot while also arming themselves. Central Europe somewhat less, and the Mediterranean countries seem to concern themselves mostly with other topics. Seems like the threat should become more substantial before the whole continent awakens.
> Europe isn't one entity and the interest wanes the further the countries are.
I keep trying to make people here aware of that, but euro-enthusiasm is very good at hiding ugly and complex reality of European politics. And it is not even limited to Ukraine, but it shows itself with Greenland as well. If you really take a closer look, you'll see that different countries indeed made different reactions, even if they sent symbolic amounts of troops to Greenland.
And, above else, people tend to mistake words for action, and believe that a post made by some European leader on Twitter is somehow enough to bring things into reality.
> Seems like the threat should become more substantial before the whole continent awakens.
But Russia is not and won't be strong enough to pose a significant threat to German or French core territory, not to speak about Spain or Ireland. Moreover, as much as we in Europe like to equate Putin with some evil madman, for it makes the world simpler for us, Russian elite is rational, and invasion of Germany is nothing but stupid from their perspective. Of course there are broader interests that may motivate countries to act against Russia (for example French influence in Africa or Asia) but, at the same time, these interests may motivate them to throw Eastern Europe under the bus.
Therefore if anybody believes in some united European action, or a single European army that would actually be worth anything and won't be yet another initiative created mainly to come up with a nice catch-phrase (Steadfast Europe!), lives inside a fantasy.
The US needs greenland because Russia is that much of a threat but we don't need NATO even though it was created because of Russia(USSR) and we are hesitant to supply Ukraine with weapons even though they are actually fighting Russia because it's too expensive but we also are going to buy a country
> 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.
> 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.
The 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.
The intelligence community are not US policy makers, and that threat assessment is not policy.
The US intelligence community is correct in its assessment, but US policy is not acting in any way consistent with both the US being the dominant world power and taking that ODNI assessment seriously.
Current US policy makers are instead trying to hide in their shell like a turtle, and greatly restrict US power so that it must not confront or deal with the threat from China.
There 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
There 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:
> 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:
>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.
Looking 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.
> 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.
Indeed. 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.
Until 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.
The only country that ever actually asked for help as NATO member was USA. And they helped. And now, the biggest threat is USA, who is trying to cast itself as a victim.
This is not the case of Europe externalizing the cost. It is the case of USA using other countries for own benefit, then starting aggression against them while trying to cast itself as victim.
Don'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?
Surely you are aware that Denmark doesn't come as a little isolated package? Your country, the US, gets a group deal. Your allies in Europe have sent soldiers to die for you very recently. Including, little Denmark.
On the back of pax Americana, supported by your allies, you have continued to live as the most prosperous nation the world has ever seen. That system did not arise out of altruism. It was a strategic bargain. Allies accepted US leadership and some constraints on autonomy in exchange for security guarantees and access to the US-led economic order. The US, in return, gained disproportionate influence and long-term economic advantages.
I've seen you hand wave this away (because of course you would) suggesting the US was rich already.
Why do you even feel the need to suggest that Denmark is irrelevant to the US? It is only technically true if Denmark was the only ally you had. I think you're smart enough to know this, so why are you saying it?
> I've seen you hand wave this away (because of course you would) suggesting the US was rich already.
How is it "hand waving?" Whether or not the U.S. has gained "long-term economic advantages" from its leadership of NATO is a key factual question. It's the central premise of your paragraph about "pax Americana." You can't simply assume that fact is true.
The relative gaps in GDP per capita between the U.S., Denmark and the Netherlands, and France and Italy, were basically the same in 2005 as in 1825: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/bdvazr/top.... France and Italy have had a rough couple of decades since the financial crisis. But in 2025, Denmark and the Netherlands basically 15-20% behind the U.S., which is exactly where they were in 1825.
So what's your response? If your theory is that the U.S. has enjoyed outsized gains from the U.S.-led economic order, why is it the case that the U.S. is in the same position relative to Western Europe as it was 200 years ago?
Let's just quote you then, for avoidance of doubt:
"Denmark isn’t an “ally.” An alliance is a mutual relationship. Denmark offers the U.S. nothing. "
You either wrote that or someone temporarily borrowed your laptop but as far as I can see there are no third options. Unless of course you have some creative definition of what you consider to be an ally but until only a short while ago the EU was given a pretty concise description of that word by the US and we all agreed on that definition.
This isn't about money or some kind of ridiculous quid-pro-quo, it is about principle.
I’m sorry for using figurative language on the internet where Dutch people are around. The full relevant part is below:
> Denmark isn’t an “ally.” An alliance is a mutual relationship. Denmark offers the U.S. nothing. It’s a country the size of Maryland…
In the construction “it’s not an X, it’s a Y,” X and Y are read in contrast to each other. Denmark isn’t an “ally” in the sense that it can’t offer meaningful aid to the U.S. in a war because it’s a tiny country. Obviously Denmark is an “ally” in the legal sense that we’re both part of NATO.
Ahh, the True Scotsman equivalent of not quite an ally. FFS man, at least own your words and stop weaseling, I have absolutely no problem with figurative language, I was speaking English before you were born.
Not a valuable, meaningful, or significant ally. Your reading of what I wrote erases the scare quotes around "ally" and renders the comparison to the size of Maryland a non-sequiter.
Why would I need to respond to a random reddit thread and few figures you throw around?
You're wanting to overturn the widely held orthodox view that pax americana worked as intended. I'm sure there is an enormous amount of literature about that you could read. I don't think the onus is on me to come up with proof that you're wrong and the orthodox view is in fact, correct.
That view is orthodox among whom? When I was young, the idea that Americans actually benefit from the empire was a view held by Bush/Cheney neocons and World Economic Forum types. Your average Gore/Kerry voter thought it was a scam to redirect money to the military industrial complex: https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/d3te8h5g76htb7k...
> I pointed out that Denmark is a country the size of Maryland and couldn't meaningfully move the needle in any serious engagement involving the U.S. military. If the U.S. went to war with China, having Denmark in our camp versus not having Denmark in our camp would make literally no difference.
Destroying NATO and our relations with the western states that have heretofore been either formal allies or friends-inclined-to-cooperate with the US has much wider consequences than not having Denmark “in our camp”, both on security issues in the narrowest physical sense and on the broad range of softer issues that impact the security landscape, as the almost immediately way the current crisis over Greenland has resulted in overtures from erstwhile allies to China demonstrates pretty dramatically.
Any reasonable substantive analysis of the situation can't possibly limit itself to just the direct benefits of "having Denmark in our camp", especially considering the context of this thread. Would having the support of Denmark be the make or break factor in a war between the US and China? Almost certainly no. Would the second and third order effects of the US ending its alliance with Denmark and/or NATO, and potentially turning them into enemies, by forcibly taking over Danish territory or something similar impact the US ability to fight a war with China? Almost certainly yes.
> Why do you always respond to substantive posts with feelings and personal attacks?
You get the audience that responds to you, mate. If what you want is reasoned debate, you need to apply positive feedback when people come to you with reasoned debate. You’re negatively conditioning the “reasoned debate” population with every ideological screed.
Then there’s the willingness to violate social norms (e.g., zero respect for foreign soldiers who died for your country) and insult or denigrate people on the basis of their culture/religion/status. That probably doesn’t help you find dispassionate debate partners.
Wait—when did I “disrespect” Danish soldiers? I love Danish people. I literally use them as an example of a local optimum in civilizational development. But that doesn’t change the fact that “US + Denmark against China” is basically the same war as “US against China.” In my post I literally spelled out why Denmark is militarily insignificant: it’s got a population the size of Maryland. Obviously this wasn’t a comment on the courage of Danish soldiers.
Grown ups should be able to have a discussion about generalities without getting emotionally invested in them.
I feel like I’ve seen commenters called out here for misquoting their interlocutors before, so perhaps it’s worth noting here. (I said “zero respect” earlier, but his emotional appeal works better if I had said “disrespect.”)
So if I'm talking about how Denmark is a militarily irrelevant country because it's the size of Maryland, I need to first do a bunch of throat clearing about how brave Danish soldiers are, pound-for-pound?
You love the Danish people, but you're ok with the US threatening war against them and removing itself from NATO over a piece of land that we don't need?
There is no rationality in your position. Loving people shouldn't lead to attacking them, that's the abuser's mindset, and in that there is no real love.
No, that's a response based in fact. I have no dog in that race, I'm not Danish and strongly believe that following the USA on that particular ill advised adventure was a mistake. But the people that went went because the USA invoked article 5 and that's what allies do.
For you to belittle that - and in fact to deny it - is utterly ridiculous. You believe you are making substantive posts but I really can't tell the difference between some of the worst trolls on HN and what you are putting out there. The only thing I give you credit for is that you are doing this under your own name rather than hiding behind anonymity like the bulk of the rest but that does not change the nature of what you communicate one bit.
If you want substantive posts you are going to have to stop posting what arguably is the worst kind of flamebait.
You're defining "allies" in terms of legal obligations. But obviously Denmark is legally an ally of the United States. I don't need to spell that out. My post about Denmark being the size of Maryland was clearly about whether Denmark is a meaningful ally in terms of conferring a real military advantage to the United States through the alliance.
> For you to belittle that - and in fact to deny it - is utterly ridiculous.
I'm neither belittling it nor denying it. It's just completely irrelevant to my point.
> You believe you are making substantive posts but I really can't tell the difference
Because you react emotionally to discussions about uncomfortable facts.
Yes, yes, it technically didn’t but the result was largely the same, and as we all know technically correct is the best kind of correct.
> The final resolution, unanimously adopted by the North Atlantic Council on September 12, was a compromise that only contingently invoked Article 5, dependent on a later determination that the attacks had originated from abroad.[7] According to the final text of the declaration, "if it is determined that this attack was directed from abroad against the United States, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty".
It's hardly administrative trivia; the thrust of this argument is widely cited as an example of European NATO states helping to defend the US in a time of need. But the article you cited is replete with examples of US ambivalence, if not outright disinterest in a coordinated NATO action:
> On the evening of September 11, 2001, NATO's Secretary General, the Baron Robertson of Port Ellen, contacted United States Secretary of State Colin Powell with the suggestion that declaring an Article 5 contingency would be a useful political statement for the alliance to make in response to the attacks earlier that day. Powell indicated the United States had no interest in making such a request to the alliance, but would look favorably on such a declaration were NATO to independently initiate it.
[...]
> In one interagency meeting in which the option of tapping NATO forces for the planned U.S. military campaign was mentioned, U.S. Gen. Tommy Franks reportedly dismissed the idea by saying "I don't have the time to become an expert on the Danish Air Force". In a September 20, 2001 appearance before the North Atlantic Council, United States Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage bluntly stated that his presence was to convey information only and he "didn't come here to ask for anything".
> Several weeks later, on October 2, 2001, the North Atlantic Council issued a further resolution affirming that the September 11 attack originated from outside the United States. The United States privately dismissed the resolution, with one senior official reportedly commenting "I think it's safe to say that we won't be asking SACEUR to put together a battle plan for Afghanistan".
And indeed, immediately following your cited paragraph:
> No action resulted from NATO's September 12 resolution.
Finally:
> According to the RAND Corporation, NATO hoped that by invoking Article 5 the United States would invite NATO states to participate in its planned military response against Al Qaeda, though no such invitation ultimately materialized and "NATO did not contribute any of its collective assets to Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan". American reticence to involve NATO states was due to its perception that NATO's previous intervention in the Kosovo War was an inefficient example of "war by committee". For their part, European states felt U.S. standoffishness in accepting multilateral support was emblematic of American "arrogance".
> In response to a request by the United Nations, NATO later raised and deployed the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) with the objective of stabilizing Afghanistan following the United States invasion of that country. ISAF operated under a NATO flag but was composed primarily of U.S. forces and was at all times under operational command of American officers. It continued operations in Afghanistan until 2014, withdrawing seven years prior to the United States' 2021 retreat and the ensuing Taliban victory.
Who cares about reputation? He's spent countless hours advocating for telcos and neutering the FCC without disclosing the significant income he earned or his work as a telco lobbyist, so why start now?
That's news to me. Citation needed, and as much as I detest Rayiner and what he stands for I think that if you make statements like that you should do it under your real account.
I've never worked as a lobbyist. I'll also point out that nobody who works for Google/Meta/etc. "discloses" that fact, even though those companies have a vested financial interest in commoditizing broadband as layer below their services: https://gwern.net/complement. Folks on HN have a strong financial industry in turning telecom infrastructure into “dumb pipes” so their employers can capture the quasi-monopoly profits at the next level up.
Also, the accusation I post on HN for self interest is hilarious. If that was true I’d pretend to be a liberal.
NATO was a thing in 1960. France and the UK spend lower proportions of their GDP than in 1960 not because of an increase in the amount of white-knighting America does on their behalf but because they are no longer administering global empires (France was in active conflict at the time), and because per capita spend isn't a great way of measuring ability to project military power either particularly not post Cold-War; the US has also cut it and is still relatively more powerful than it was in 1960.
The US military industrial complex primarily does invest domestically and sells more overseas than it buys. It employs millions of US citizens, sells more US tech than it buys and subsidised the creation of dual use technology the wider US economy does rather well out of, including an early version of the internet we're interacting over. And if it's too big or too wasteful, that's a decision made entirely by the US, which fights the wars which - for better or worse - the US wants to fight (it's actually Europe throwing lives at American wars; last time the UK actually had to defend its own territories US support was restricted to sharing intel and selling us some missiles). Same goes for the bases in Europe. The Trump administration is furiously trying to sanewash Trump's acquisitiveness into an imperative to have more bases close to Russia on European territory - if its that important, kind of hard to argue there hasn't been a benefit to any of the other bases over the past 80 years...
His comments align much more closely with the plurality of 2024 voters than do yours.
> Effectively you've departed reality and you are now in a world of your own making where the facts are no longer relevant, just how you can stretch and twist everything to make it fit your worldview.
> Americans are split about the U.S. capturing Maduro — with many still forming opinions — according to a poll conducted by The Washington Post and SSRS using text messages over the weekend. About 4 in 10 approved of the U.S. military being sent to capture Maduro, while roughly the same share were opposed. About 2 in 10 were unsure. Republicans broadly approved of the action, while Democrats were largely opposed to it.
> Nearly half of Americans, 45%, were opposed to the U.S. taking control of Venezuela and choosing a new government for the country. About 9 in 10 Americans said that the Venezuelan people should be the ones to decide the future leadership of their country.
> In December, a Quinnipiac poll found that about 6 in 10 registered voters opposed U.S. military action in Venezuela. Republicans were more divided: About half were in support, while about one-third were opposed and 15% didn’t have an opinion.
This is the usual claptrap Euros and Eurosimps come up with when Americans gripe about subsidizing Europe's defense.
"Soft power" isn't putting money back in Americans' pockets, and the primary beneficiaries of NATO clearly didn't like us very much even before Trump's return, when Biden was still president and the aid flowed freely to Kyiv: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/06/11/views-of-the-u...
> Sweden: 47% had a favorable opinion of the US.; Germany: 49%; France: 46%; The Netherlands: 48%
This is the "soft power" that Americans should rue having lost under Trump? A continent of entitled ingrates, who constantly crow about their generous welfare states ("six months paid vacation!") they enjoy partially through neglect of defense, and condescendingly lecture us ("As a European...") about how everything we do is wrong, who apparently don't like us very much even when we do come to their defense?
Yeah, they're the ones trying to gaslight Americans into believing that NATO hasn't been a completely lopsided relationship since the end of the Cold War, and that it makes complete sense that Americans be treaty-bound to defend nations like Sweden (which lifted not one finger when Finland was invaded by the Soviet Union and its territory annexed, and also later when Norway was invaded and occupied by Nazi Germany), a country where less than half of the population had a favorable view of us as a nation, before Trump.
Obviously I don't agree with his threats over Greenland, but acting like the end of NATO would be a huge loss for the US is ridiculous. Look at how obsequious European heads of government are towards Trump, even in the face of these threats; that tells you all you need to know about whom NATO truly benefits. They know if the US withdraws from Europe completely, they'll have to up their military spending considerably to plug the gaps, which will strain the welfare state.
>Yeah, they're the ones trying to gaslight Americans into believing that NATO hasn't been a completely lopsided relationship since the end of the Cold War, and that it makes complete sense that Americans be treaty-bound to defend nations like Sweden
Sweden just joined NATO in 2024, so what does the cold war have to do with it?
> a country where less than half of the population had a favorable view of us as a nation, before Trump.
Ok? Yes, it was looking like Sweden thought Russia was the bigger threat, so they joined NATO in 2024, but I guess Trump is making them regret this.
Apart from it just being morally and ethically righteous for rich countries to share their wealth globally, American "soft power" serves as a gesture of good will to the world so they will tolerate a strong dollar (so we get to play global economics on easy mode) and American hegemony generally. When we stop exercising "soft power" everyone will just resent our relative comfort and suddenly decide they aren't okay with us being on the throne anymore. And we'll find ourselves playing on hard mode because we'll be iced out from global trade.
Is it morally and ethically righteous toward the people of the rich countries? A country owes everything to its citizens and nothing to anyone else, and pretending otherwise led to resentment toward foreign aid including some realpolitik justified programs like USAID. When programs are sold to the people as being selfless while people are less fortunate than the social media influencers they watch every day, it’s only natural that they resent the government for seemingly giving resources away.
I find it interesting how people say "The US" to refer to groups under the US government that are often completely at odds with the interests of the actual US public. There are virtually no Americans who want our government to be acting in the interests of arms manufacturers except the arms manufacturers themselves and the politicians they pay.
How many groups do you know in other countries that you refer to by name rather than the name of the country and the general idea that the government of that country must represent at least at some significant level the will of it's people?
We own the consequences of our actions, our votes. Yes, we as a country, for whatever reasons, voted for someone who very clearly telegraphed he would be doing exactly what he's been doing. FAFO, and we're not even close to the full spectrum of what the FO part implies.
We the people are responsible for the government we get.
Don't like the consequences? Make better voting choices next time.
If elections were held today, regardless of who the candidates were, the GOP candidates would receive roughly half the votes. Just like they always do. It's not like there's a regime in place totally at odds with the broader will of the people. It's only at odds with about half of the people.
Why wouldn't Americans want government to act in the interest of their companies (e.g. arms manufacturers)? That's more into GDP, more jobs etc. Unless it takes a business away from other companies, of course. But any American should be glad that, say, Raytheon won a big contract over some company in another country.
C'mon, what a lame excuse. Well then, show us that democracy works and vote for a goverment which doesn't? If I follow your reasoning, you've just demonstrated that democracy is a failure, because the US government acts in the interests of arms manufacturers since a very long time, no matter if Dems or Reps are in power.
It gets annoying how americans try and wash their hands of everything their government does. You live in a democracy. Freedom comes with responsibility. The average american voter is at least partially to blame.
The Euros also underfunded their defense obligations and received huge amounts of US investment in facilities, enabling them to upfund social programs, socialized healthcare and most egregiously 8 - 12 week vacations which are completely unheard of in the US.
You are spending too much time in an echo chamber if you think that those things that are unheard of in the US could not have been done in the US. They could have been, but it would have required a different kind of path than you chose.
The EU has chosen to try to cooperate rather than to be at war all the time and it looks like that may have been a wrong bet but that is mostly because first one (Russia) and now another (USA) party have reneged on the deals that were in place.
Sorry, but that's just dumb. You could have done all that and more. You're being used to defend massive wealth inequality and wealth concentration over the backs of the poorest 95% or so of the country. The two have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. The USA is not 'unable to have a more decent balance of life because they are carrying Europe's defense obligation'.
Austria has 30 days leave after 25 years service (other wise 25 days) - so that is 6 weeks, plus 13 public holidays. So some people get around 8 weeks there.
Here in the UK, I get 29 days leave, I buy 5 more, plus get 8 bank holidays - so 42 days leave - or 8 weeks. Plus volunteering days and training days... but that isn't that common.
Australia has 6 weeks of leave at similar service levels, plus 11 public holidays. Turns out many countries have figured out how to not work themselves to death.
> Who has 8 week vacations, let alone 12? No European country I’m aware of, but I didn’t check all…
All teachers and most politicians. Teachers do enjoy the same vacation as students: schools aren't open during vacation. Two months of vacation + 6 additional weeks of vacation during the year + a few special one-day holidays.
As for politicians: my stepfather was working at a national parliament but only when there would be official questions and only when these would be in his native tongue (country had two official languages). And when the country would be without a government, he'd have as much as 500 days (500 days: you read correctly, and it didn't happen once but twice) of vacations. It's only if there was a super urgent matter where the parliament would be opened that he'd have to work: so he'd quickly hop on a plane and go back to his native country.
So "who": some public servants. Not all but some public servants definitely do enjoy 8 to 12 weeks of vacation and even much more than that.
At the expense of working, taxpaying, citizens.
EDIT: for the 500 days... He would not know beforehand it'd be 500 days. He'd just know there was no government anymore. So he was fully paid but basically had to do jack shit until there'd be a government again. Which nobody could tell when it'd happen. But you read correctly: half a thousand days+. You all read that correctly. His vacation on the sunny french riviera paid by the taxes of the people.
> The Euros also underfunded their defense obligations and received huge amounts of US investment in facilities, enabling them to upfund social programs, socialized healthcare and most egregiously 8 - 12 week vacations which are completely unheard of in the US.
It's hard to detect sarcasm through the screen but in case you're being serious and just repeat what Trump says, he does this because Americans are not stupid and are asking, why Europeans can enjoy free healthcare, education and 4-week holidays and we cant? The answer "because we sponsored them" makes no sense but finds fertile ground in the hearts of some people.
If this were true, and if you want to give credit to Trump for EU defense spending increases, then (1) why is Trump asking for a dramatic increase in US military funding and (2) when will the US savings on defending the EU be spent on US workers?
1. Obviously the Trump admin is requesting an increased military budget because of looming global conflict. We don't want to get caught with our pants down.
Russia obviously bears the moral blame for starting this war, but Putin clearly was tempted by Western weakness. Had European states kept large and effective militaries and credibly threatened to employ them in Ukraine's defense, we probably wouldn't be where we are right now. So in some not insignificant measure, historical European underspending has contributed to the need right now for dramatically increased spending across the entire alliance.
2. I disagree with GP and agree with your cynicism there. US domestic policy failures are in no way caused by foreign intransigence of any kind. IIRC we spend more on health care per capita than (almost?) any other nation yet rank nowhere near the top in health outcomes. That's on us.
And I think it's important to correctly identify the root cause of our broken domestic policies, because I suspect fixing that issue will fix more governance failures than just healthcare.
Oh, right. I forgot that European states have no agency or responsibility and are innocent victims of big bad America. Mea culpa.
I wrote "Western" rather than "European" specifically because I believe American weakness has played a role, too. But would it really make it better if Russia invaded Europe solely because of American weakness? That European states are so weak and helpless that they hardly even factor into Putin's calculus?
We would fund nationwide health care and more robust social programs if it weren't for all the money we are spending on defense is simply not something the US right-wing and centrists ever put out there. When they fought those things it was with the ideological argument that they were intrinsically wrong. OMG Socialism!
6 decades before NATO was formed, Britain was the largest economy and financial empire. The US was up-and-coming but had not yet had its war with Spain to demonstrate their arrival. Nato was formed "To keep the US in, the Germans down and the Russians out" (per Ismay). The first clause is now inoperative. The second clause is being reversed by the various Euro states and the third, unfortunately, remains.
There was also a benefit to the US maintaining NATO - it could nudge/encourage/guide other countries into doing things it wanted done (such as Afganistan). This soft power is being discarded with NATO.
Last time the US won a war without the assistance of any allies (and not against yourself), it was 1848 and you were fighing Mexico.
The US economy is only the largest if you don't adjust for purchasing power, at which point the US and EU are in joint second place way behind China, and separated from each other by a rounding error despite Brexit.
If the US wants to go alone, sure we'd miss you, but it's welcome to go in peace… so long as it doesn't steal Greenland on the way out.
This is effectively a defection, which in game theory may make sense but we're talking about a lot of lives and the established world order here. You mess with that at your peril, the idea that you can just pretend we're playing a game of Risk here is idiotic. But once you get past a certain point momentum takes over. We may already be there, maybe not quite, but this is about as dangerous as it has been in a very long time.
I agree, but due to the revealed preference of the current rhetoric and how this becomes a defacto method of departure, rather than the choice to depart itself.
It's a decision either way, whether announced or not doesn't really make a difference.
There was some measure to ensure that Trump could not take the US out of NATO, he seems have been trying to find some alternative that has the same effect and he may well have found it.
I wish europe was out of NATO. It does nothing to defend europe, bring us in wars we didn't ask for, and manufacture crisis European still suffer from (Syria refugee). It force its "allies" to buy defective weapons that are basically spyware, and still spy on them just in case. It force other allies to spill their blood in the middle East.
The only "good" thing it did was breaking Sarajevo's siege in the mid 90s, but event then it isn't actually clear if the Serb wouldn't have backed off anyway at the end of the month because they couldn't progress due to the UN presence. Still saved a few hundred civilian lives, in exchange for a thousand of proto-nazi, so i can't say it was bad.
No one will attack any EU country anyway, as long as france doens't change its nuclear doctrine, which, i will state here once again, include a "warning shot".
I am an American, so my view of the situation over there is not...well informed. But I have wondered whether the EU couldn't set itself up as the New NATO. All European (unless Canada decides to join you), and omitting some of the old NATO provisions that are causing problems, like the ability of one member country to veto everyone else (I'm looking at you, Hungary). Would it work? Or is the EU infrastructure to weak to do that?
The issue is that this kind of authoritarian military organization needs a clear leader, and without that, cannot function properly. That leader used to be the US. Even under Trump 1 (and even though i disagree with the decision), forcing NATO member to think about the 3% rule was ultimately something someone have to do (my preference would have been to lower the threshold), and that someone was the US. I also think it would need a pre-2008 France, who refused to be under the integrated command, to build a sort of trust and respect between members.
Ultimately though, the Irak invasion shattered the trust and status quo, and i agree 100% with people saying NATO must die. Alliance that are more than a reactive defensive pact and force member into attacking unrelated countries should disappear. Just get nukes, and pray you won't have to use them.
NATO is a rootkit, a foothold for lateral movement in a literal sense, for the US in Europe. Is is not "critical" for anyone, in some theoretical sense, but it has proven very effective over the better part of a century to keep European military in check and guaranteed not to form any other alliances than with the US.
The EU itself was viewed critically from Washington until it could be proven that it had no intention of becoming a military alliance. So while it could be true that the US does not need NATO in a strict sense, the idea that it has not been net beneficial to the US is absurd. No Danish soldiers would have died in middle eastern wars if it wasn't for NATO.
Just a reminder that NATO troops have always been rallied by Washington and on top of that the US is the only country to have ever invoked article 5.
The European allies have put their money and more importantly blood into these conflicts.
Yes, we can all look at a geographical map and state that the USA is blessed geographically by being split by two oceans from anything major in the world and thus conclude that the US does not need Europeans to defend its borders.
In essence you're completely ignoring how US allies in form of NATO allowed US to thrive as the global military power by providing a deep web of support, logistics, bases, ports, intelligence and allowing the US to have a huge influence it has consistently leveraged for decades to its own benefit or needs. And that includes financial reasons (like buying US weaponry).
If US wants to pull out of NATO it is what it is, but this whole nonsense of NATO benefitting only the European allies when it's always Washington asking for other's blood and bases and logistics is just it: nonsense.
> Following the September 11 attacks, the Secretary General of NATO, George Robertson telephoned Colin Powell and said that declaring an Article 5 contingency would be a useful political statement for NATO to make. The United States indicated it had no interest in making such a request itself; however, it would not object to the council taking such action on its own.[55][56]
NATO was formed as a defense against Russia. Which is a major threat to the US so I don't see why it's useless. We operate bases in Germany, Spain, and others.
If we need Greenland so bad because Russia is that dangerous then isn't NATO important?
The US does not benefit from a stronger, more unified Europe. Thanks to NATO, "the west" has effectively become an empire in all but name, with the US having enough influence to be the de facto leaders of this empire.
If US pulls back from NATO, and Europe builds up military power to compensate, then the US loses this de facto leadership seat of an empire.
Today, the US appears in parallel to be doing two things:
1. Causing fragmentation in Europe, by promoting right-wing nationalist politics in the EU
2. Threatening to drastically reduce their role in NATO
At the very least we can both agree that these two efforts are completely in contradiction with each other, and it's very unlikely that Europeans will want to go for more fragmentation without the military power of the US on their side, right?
it's true that if the bet of creating fragmentation in the EU works out, then the destruction of NATO might also work out, because the US would not have created another military power with a hostile attitude to balance them.
If that bet is actually being made by Putin, hmm, I'm worried, but then again the implementation of the anti-NATO project is being run by Trump, so I think the EU just might come out on top. The whole Greenland thing for example, seems like an EU solidifying step, at the same time as it is NATO destroying.
Just one example: Elon Musk (at that time part of US government) tried to directly influence German elections by prominently featuring AfD (German right-wing extremists).
Last February, JD Vance had a meeting with the AfD leader in Munich, after delivering a stupefying speech at the Munich Security Conference where he accused European nations of failing to defend free speech, calling out Germany in particular. He complained that the AfD was being ostracized and called for it to end. Marco Rubio followed up by calling the designation of the AfD as a right-wing extremist party as "tyranny in disguise."
Actions like these where US leadership is heavily distorting the facts make it much easier for the AfD to present themselves as a legitimate political movement allegedly being wrongfully suppressed by the “authoritarian” incumbents. The AfD currently scores 25% in representative nationwide polls, higher than any other political party in Germany. In some federate-state elections they scored over 30%, in one of them again higher than any other party. You can’t just ignore them as “crazy“.
These people are extremely good at "social" media like Tiktok etc. And the algorithms massively reward rage content and the platforms do not remove fakes.
- USA will be free to enjoy Chinese submarines coming via GIUK gap (if POTUS keep doing what they are, these submarines will probably base directly in UK and Norway).
- If EU gets some more vertebrate leaders (something that tends to happen in times like this even in the most spineless countries), the first thing they will do is probably go get some allies in the Pacific to make up for this - and Pacific is much more sensitive to US.
Of course, all of this is phenomenally stupid and everyone will be far worse off.
NATO is critical for the European powers (those not named Russia). The US doesn't require it. The US doesn't need to defend Europe any longer. And it's clear the Europeans don't want the US there, so it works out great. Europe can boost its defense spending by ~$300 billion to make up the difference, or not, whatever they choose to do is up to them.
The US had the world's largest economy six decades before NATO existed. China is growing into a superpower entirely without a NATO-like participation. NATO is primarily beneficial to European stability. The US doesn't need NATO to defend itself at all.