46 pointsby consumer4517 hours ago5 comments
  • anamax2 hours ago
    Every president after Clinton, and maybe him as well, (yes, including Obama) said that Europe had to become responsible for its defense. During that same time, Europe has insisted that it knows better than the US cowboys. And, Europe certainly doesn't like US global power projection.

    So, why does Europe need/want the US in NATO?

    It can't be resources - Europe is rich. More to the point, Europe has almost 10x Russia's GDP and about 2.5x the population.

    So, unless Europe is worried about Germany, it can handle its defense.

    Show the US how it's done.

    • madspindel2 hours ago
      It's about the nukes. Europe doesn't want a world where a lot of countries have nukes so the role of the US in Nato was to provide Europe with a nuclear umbrella.

      I'm a Swede and something is going on between France and Sweden related to nuclear weapons. Not sure if it's about placing French Rafael fighter jets with French nukes or some type of collaboration about Gripen fighter jets with Swedish nukes.

      • GJim2 hours ago
        > It's about the nukes

        Is the right answer.

        For all the jingoism being spouted, it would be nice if somebody had a whisper in Mango Mussolinis ear as to why NATO and the post 1945 order was formed, and who benefits from it (hint: all our democracies).

        • graemep27 minutes ago
          NATO was formed to counter the threat of the Soviet Union which no longer exists. Russia is nothing like the same threat to the US that the Soviet Union was. The US is now more concerned about China.

          Europe was economically and militarily important globally than it now is. Therefore defending it is less important to the US than it used to be, while Asia has become more important to the US.

          Russia is not even anything like the same threat to Europe that the Soviet Union was. It has been further weakened by the Ukraine war and it will take many years to recover.

          As for nukes, there are two acknowledged nuclear powers in western Europe.

          • r7214 minutes ago
            >The US is now more concerned about China.

            Ah, that's why "U.S. pulls last aircraft carrier in Asia" :)

            https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/u-s-pulls-last-aircraft-c...

          • verzali23 minutes ago
            Does the US really want to be facing a Europe with multiple nuclear powers and thousands of warheads?

            Europe is a sleeping giant. America has long seen it advantageous to keep the giant sleeping. Now it is dancing around shouting "nee-naw" while the giant slowly opens its eyes.

    • libertinean hour ago
      In my opinion it's because of:

      - nuclear deterrence - like other commenters said, no one really wants a nuclear arms race, but I think it's bound to happen. Poland, the Baltics, Sweden/Norway will probably need to develop their own nuclear deterrence, and obviously Ukraine.

      - the US for the most part has been a good friend and ally, and has a lot of weight, and above all it helped to create the EU and wanted the EU to succeed.

      - Europe has had a lot of conflicts, and a lot of parties funded by foreign states are seeking to bring EU down, including the US administration. It would be nice for Europeans if it wasn't like that.

  • defrost4 hours ago
    Tangentially related:

      House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is being accused of running away from a bipartisan effort to hold an impeachment vote on Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. 
    
      Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), the Republican driver of that effort, accused House GOP leadership of sending lawmakers back to their districts early in order to avoid a vote on his resolution to impeach Hegseth.
    
    ~ https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/johnson-hegseth-midterms
  • anon482934 hours ago
    That sounds like a brilliant idea. First get all your bases in the Middle East destroyed, then pull out of Europe. And there goes your global power projection.
  • pseudony2 hours ago
    Bye bye.

    Would be great for us (Europeans).

    On the other hand, were I an American interested in projecting power across the globe, not so much.

    I wonder if it is more of this administration’s fantastic 5d chess. Amazing how quickly a bunch of infantile idiots can dismantle the incredibly powerful US empire of the 50’s and beyond.

    • johncearls43 minutes ago
      What if you are an American who is not interested in projecting power across the globe? What if you would like to stop spending 1/3 of your budget on the military?

      I take no pride in being an Empire or hegemon. I know this will be ugly and disorderly and could almost certainly be handled better, but as an American, I am looking forward to the day when problems 5000 miles away from my home are no longer treated as my problem.

      • pjc50a minute ago
        If you look at oil prices, the Iran-US-Israel-Saudi war is now everyone's problem globally, whether they're part of the hegemon or not.

        It's very difficult to disconnect from the problems of the world when your fuel is imported (+) from the middle east and your chips are imported from the Far east. Trying to be an autarky is .. well, the US might be able to do it, but it will be fearsomely expensive.

        (+) US is currently a net exporter of oil/petroleum products, but that is a recent development and subject to change

      • orf23 minutes ago
        > What if you are an American who is not interested in projecting power across the globe? What if you would like to stop spending 1/3 of your budget on the military?

        What do you think the second, third and fourth order effects of this would be for you?

        What new problems, closer to home, would arise?

        • 16 minutes ago
          undefined
      • GJim17 minutes ago
        > I am looking forward to the day when problems 5000 miles away from my home are no longer treated as my problem.

        The USA does not live in a vacuum.

        I think you will find global events 5000 miles away ARE your problem, and mine, whether you like it or not.

      • m4rtink19 minutes ago
        Well, I guess the issue is, someone is going to do that instead & by the time it causes a problem much closer to home, it might be too late.
      • verzali21 minutes ago
        You will still be spending that money. Trump wants to increase military spending by 50%. It has very little to do with overseas force projection.
  • MadrasTh0rn4 hours ago
    Elon Thiel Trump Vance Johnson Jeffries about to break NATO

    They're also pushing dsa dems in the midterms where dsa's party position is to end nato.

    To be clear the US dollar will never survive petrodollar and NATO dissolving.

    The goon white house bending to russian demands needs to be removed

    • GuestFAUniverse4 hours ago
      Just look with whom they are partying with and invite to their inner circles normally reserved for family, relatives and _very close friends_.

      Baffling how voters fail to recognize.

      • codeduck3 hours ago
        > Baffling how voters fail to recognize

        Bread and circuses, mate

        • TFNA2 hours ago
          "Bread and circuses" refers to a public free grain dole and free entertainment events in Ancient Rome. Precious little of that in the US right now, except for food benefits whose recipients probably on balance do not support the current guy.
          • secretsatanan hour ago
            I’d say they turned the whole administration into the circus as they’re running it like a reality tv show