[yostrovs]

Europe wouldn't spend the agreed 2% of GDP on the military. Many presidents for many years tried to make them comply with the agreement, but they just ignored it. It was thought better to spend on the healthcare of the public and mock Americans for not having universal government healthcare. Many people in countries in Europe, like Spain and Ireland, that effectively don't have militaries, are still laughing and mocking.

[roughly]

Again, this was a considered policy choice on the part of the United States. Unipolar military supremacy bought us a quiet Europe, a stable and high dollar, and the ability to set the terms on nearly every other negotiation we made with European countries. This was an intentional trade: we will spend on the military so you don’t have to. In the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union, some US policymakers deluded themselves into thinking geopolitics didn’t exist anymore, and so we’ve come to start bitching more about our side of paying that bill, but we bought the American century with military spending.

And, to be clear, the US not having health care is a policy decision on the part of the US, not some lack of funding, as becomes clear when one looks at the expenditure per capita on healthcare in the US compared to other developed countries.

[yostrovs]

American supremacy was due to the previous superpowers smashing themselves against each other, and then being relatively poor for decades after while rebuilding the continent.

[roughly]

Sure, but we also spent time, money, and effort building a unipolar system and getting buy-in for that from Europe as a considered strategic choice. To turn around and then say “they’re freeloading” when the policy of the United States was to encourage them to freeload so we had unfettered control over large sections of the world’s geopolitical policy - yes, they took the deal we offered.

[Timon3]

Which agreement are you referring to? The commonly cited 2% agreement that I'm aware of was for 2025 - which all members reached. When was Europe ever non-compliant?

[spwa4]

It's part of the conditions for NATO membership. Oh and to have 4% as a target.

Of course they have renegotiated, and so now the target is 2% by 2027, with all historical arrears forgiven, and several countries have already publicly announced they agreed to it, won't do it (Ireland and Spain I'm aware of, I doubt they're the only ones)

You could also see this as most countries joining, promising to do this starting in 1949. Not even in the first years did most countries do this (except France). So most countries are let's generously say 1% of GDP in arrears, for 75 years now ...

[Timon3]

> It's part of the conditions for NATO membership. Oh and to have 4% as a target.

Could you please share where the 2% were defined in the requirements since 1949, and where the 4% are currently defined?

As I already stated, the 2% requirement I'm aware of was negotiated in 2014, to be reached by the end of 2024. If this is indeed where the 2% come from, it's obviously completely ridiculous to act like the member countries didn't meet the requirements - it wasn't a requirement of the treaty they signed!

[yostrovs]

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/econographics/whos-at-...

[Timon3]

So yes, you're talking about the target of 2% by 2025. Why are you saying that the countries didn't comply with the target, when they did?

If the US wanted the 2% target to be met before then, you should have negotiated an earlier deadline. Don't agree to one deadline and then cry because an arbitrary earlier one hasn't been met.