[thecopy]

The ROI to USA that it has been the dominant military power for the last decades, combined with the cooling effect of NATO across the globe – i think you can imagine the instability and increase risk of nuclear war without NATO (Japan, South Korea, Europe, etc would acquire nukes without USA guarantees)

It has enabled a very stable and predictable world. This has benefited USA immensely. It it not clear to me, that rewinding and dismantling this system will have net positive effects in the next 50 years for USA.

[alephnerd]

But in the 1990s, militaries like West Germany, Canada, etc remained competitive and helped balance the load.

There's no reason Germany (and in reality it's only Germany that's the laggard) can't rebuild their conventional fighting capacities to help load balance again.

It's just German instraginence because of their fanatical opposition to deficits that is hampering their ability to do so.

> increase risk of nuclear war without NATO (Japan, South Korea, Europe, etc would acquire nukes without USA guarantees)

As I wrote below, that is highly unlikely in much of Europe, as most European states (except the UK and France) lack the capabilities to develop credible nuclear delivery systems like ballistic missiles or nuclear submarines.

[thecopy]

>There's no reason Germany (and in reality it's only Germany that's the laggard) can't rebuild their conventional fighting capacities to help load balance again.

They could, yes. But would they need to if Russia is weak? The current strategy from USA seems to be to appease Russia, give them what they want and weaken security guarantees. The point im trying to make is that there is another way here which i beleive nets the West (both USA and Europe – USA's natural ally) more benefits than gearing up for war (aka the Peace Dividend).

>lack the capabilities to develop credible nuclear delivery systems

Is this the case? I think Sweden were months away from testing their nuclear bombs when they were conviced to dismantle the system in return for protection from USA's nuclear umbrella and were in process of producing supersonic nuclear bomber in the 1950s. They still produce today world class submarines, develops and build their own fighter jets.

I would think that Europe has knowledge and skillset. I mean, North Korea managed.

[alephnerd]

> The point im trying to make is that there is another way here which i beleive nets the West (both USA and Europe – USA's natural ally)

And this is the crux of the issue. It's hubris to assume Europe is our natural ally and should always be our top priority.

In the US, our Pacific allies (Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand) are a higher priority than our European ones.

As can be seen in US Military Deployments (the majority of US Armed Forces personnel is deployed in the Pacific) along with economic relations (APAC trade is larger than EU trade)

For the US, China is the primary adversary to worry about, not Russia. Why should European states assume the US has an obligation to always support Europe? At least France and UK have historically tried to maintain some strategic autonomy, and Eastern NATO states like Poland, Romania, and Turkiye have continued to build domestic defense capacity.

And unlike most European countries, our Asian allies (SK, JP, TW) have continued to build fairly competitive domestic defense industries. Japan and South Korea can manufacture their own ballistic missiles, tanks, submarines, airframes, heavy artillery, etc. Only France has a similar diversity of domestic defense R&D and manufacturing capacity in Europe.

> more benefits than gearing up for war (aka the Peace Dividend).

It's Europe that gets the peace dividend. Not the US. We still need to the capacity to fight a two continent war. That's a bum deal.

> I would think that Europe has knowledge and skillset.

Europe as a continent, sure. But in reality, it's a number of individuals states working on their own domestic production, procurement, and supporting their domestic champions.

France will continue to protect Thales Group, Arianne Group, Dassault Group, etc, just like how Germany continues to back Rheinmetall, ThysennKrupp, Eurofighter, etc.

There is no ability to unify production and procurement without also undermining domestic industries and jobs.

France's Ariane Group will never transfer their Medium Range Ballistic Missiles technology to a German company - they don't want to help a potential competitor.

This same thing happened with the Eurofighter project, with France deciding to back Dassault instead.

[thecopy]

>Why should European states assume the US has an obligation to always support Europe?

Well, it agreed to:

>In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer these weapons to Russia and became a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in exchange for assurances from Russia, the United States and United Kingdom to respect the Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.

I don't necessarily disgree with the central thesis of your comment and your perspectices, but i think there is a more fruitful balance to be had than what i see as completee capitulation to Russia and the abandonment of Europe (after almost a century of collaboration and investment).

At some point one need to ask oneself: what am i defending?

[alephnerd]

I agree that we in the US need to continue defending the Budapest Memorandum and helping Ukraine where possible.

That said, individual European nations have had over a decade to re-arm and further help Ukraine (even before the 2022 invasion), but it ended up primarily being US, UK, Canada, and Turkiye providing support and training for the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

European states are starting to step up, but using Trump as a punching bag to distract from the very real issue of Central Europe's pigheaded lack of preparedness is foolish.

We are starting to see these changes now with Starmer and Macron's announcements, but plenty of individual European states are not viewing this crisis seriously enough, as Poland's Donald Tusk pointed out today [0]

[0] - https://tvn24.pl/polska/szczyt-w-paryzu-donald-tusk-przed-wy...

[rasz]

Donald Tusk also said today there is no option of sending Polands army to Ukraine because "Polish army is for defending Poland borders", its like he forgot what happened in 1939 :|

[thecopy]

Agreed

[wakawaka28]

We can't afford to police the whole world. NATO expansionism is one of the causes of the latest conflict in Ukraine.

It's not clear to me that unwinding our interventionism around the world is going to make the world more stable. But it is clear to me that we can't afford to keep doing it. China is eating our lunch and they have about 3x as many people as we do. Neither Europe nor the US are producing much, and the entire West is in massive debt. Do you seriously think we can win the inevitable war with China? We can't even defeat Russia in Ukraine, and China would fight much dirtier than Russia. It's time to get real, restructure our debts, and rebuild our own country.

[mopsi]

> NATO expansionism is one of the causes of the latest conflict in Ukraine.

There's no such thing as NATO expansionism. Eastern Europe became dead set on joining NATO after seeing the destruction of Russian democracy by the remnants of the Soviet security-military complex. They correctly predicted that Russia would degenerate into an authoritarian dictatorship that would turn outwardly expansionist after KGB hardliners consolidated power and crushed all internal dissent.

Eastern Europe's entry into NATO is like townsfolk signing up for neighborhood watch after seeing the social order break down in the next town and fearing that criminality will spill over into their own community. The criminals, of course, are disturbed that people are setting up security cameras and looking out for each other. Breaking into houses would be much easier in a town where everyone keeps to themselves.

Eastern Europe managed to break free of Russian military occupation only in 1994. Criminal gangs had taken over our town by force at the end of WWII and prevented us from living normal lives for half a century. Now, the same criminals demand that we dismantle cameras, fire security guards, and stop cooperation amoung ourselves because "neighborhood watch expansionism" violates their "interests." Damn right it does.

[thecopy]

>Do you seriously think we can win the inevitable war with China?

I believe showing Russia, China, and the world, that USA stands behinds it commitments and allies, defends the rule based world order and is true leader of the democratic society would deter leaders such as Putin and Xi from trying anything.

NATO is (imo) close to collapsing. All it would take is a minor just-under-war incursion, e.g. in northern Finland by Russia. Would USA (Trump) defend Finland in this scenario? If not, NATO is dead and the next 100 years belong to China and Russia.

[wakawaka28]

If we are defeated by China or Russia, it will have been because of decades of political malfeasance and hollowing out of our industrial base.

>I believe showing Russia, China, and the world, that USA stands behinds it commitments and allies, defends the rule based world order and is true leader of the democratic society would deter leaders such as Putin and Xi from trying anything

Half of the European countries now are anti-democratic, and actively work against the will of their own people. As for "rules-based order" I think we are just the cleanest shirt in the dirty laundry. Don't kid yourself. Our governments have been up to a lot of nefarious things around the world. We don't have a clear moral high ground as the propagandists would have you think. But we're stuck in our own countries for better or worse. We have to do what we can to straighten things out.

[fifilura]

> inevitable war with China

Never a better time to throw your allies under the bus.

[wakawaka28]

If our allies can't defend themselves despite being wealthier than their enemies and having more people than we do, we are literally worse off than being on our own without such allies. There's nothing wrong with asking them to pull their own weight at minimum.