[the_gipsy]

You're making a textbook strawman argument. While I get the dislike for conspiracy nutjobs, I did not make any such statements or implications. I merely have stated two facts:

1. The USA has put up military infrastructure around the world by its own volition. 2. The USA is the richest country in the world.

> The same way that a farmer considers it in his pecuniary interest to grow and sell vegetables, and we are vicarious beneficiaries in that we have access to affordable food we can eat.

So what is the handout here, exactly? Your argument is an oxymoron.

[troad]

> While I get the dislike for conspiracy nutjobs, I did not make any such statements or implications

Fair! Withdrawn.

> So what is the handout here, exactly? Your argument is an oxymoron.

I'm not sure how it's an oxymoron. I don't believe I called anything a handout. The fact that others have let themselves become dependent on your behaviour does not make your behaviour a handout to others. The US has made a strategic calculation that defending Europe is of security interest to the US, which has caused it to undertake vast expense on that continent between 1945 and now.

It is an open question whether the US was actually correct in that calculation. Perhaps it was a costly mistake with minimal security benefits for the US but positive externalities for others. Or perhaps it was initially correct, but ceased to be so after the end of the Cold War. Either way, the US may conclude that a continuing presence in Europe no longer serves its security interests going forward. In that case the confluence of interests will simply have ended.

The fact that Europe did not take the many decades it had to prepare for this moment is quite unfortunate, but not really something the US is responsible for. The US has done nothing but encourage Europeans to step up their security efforts for over fifty years. Ultimately it is Europe that faces the consequences of its own decisions, not the US or the rest of the world.

I realise the word 'eurocentrism' is not in vogue, but it is so very apt. If Europe managed to see itself as a region like any other, the way the rest of the world sees it, it may find it easier to understand why the rest of the world does not feel responsible for underwriting the cost of Europe's defense. Why is it America's job to fund the defense of Europe? Why it is not the reverse? Or perhaps Europe should be funding the defense of Southeast Asia? It's certainly got the money. There are far more people in SE Asia than in the EU. They are no less deserving of safety and security than anyone in Europe.

Of course, the reason this doesn't happen is that people cannot just expect free security umbrellas from countries on the other side of the planet. Except Europeans, that is, who for some reason not only do expect this, but also act absolutely outraged when anyone queries this assumption.

[the_gipsy]

Well I got the sentiment from "the Idaho mum paying for Hungary's security". Which I think is a direct segue from "world police", that is, framing America's military deployment around the world as serving no self-interest.

I do agree that there is a possibility that some defence deployment agreements may not longer be desirable for America, and that they are in no way obligated to perpetually defend Europe. NATO had specific goals, which could be considered fulfilled even, long ago.

So for example regarding the Ukraine invasion, there is (or has been lol) an expectation of support from America, both because of some vague NATO-proxy implication or simply due to historical ties. And the Idaho mum not wanting to pay for some far away war is valid, but... we must add two things into this equation. One, an implicit and practical part of the agreement has historically been that the protected allies spend a large amount of their budget on American suppliers. And two, that at least in the past, this was a huge deterrence against any communist-like regime changes that have directly ejected any American neo-colonialism wealth extractions.

Perhaps, today allies are spending less, and the threat of communism has more or less collapsed. So America might be much better off without paying for foreign security. But all this really was never in place out of some noble spirit of world peace, that's all I'm saying.

PD.: a hundred percent agree on Europe being too slow and incapable of reacting to any of this, and embarassing itself. As a European, I hope we can slowly get out of the whining and towards some kind of proper self-defence pact, as many member states actually do have very capable militaries, just individually and not coordinated. I'm not saying, as advanced or experienced as the USA, but if you'd make a "top list" we wouldn't be helpless near the middle or bottom.

[troad]

I probably can't keep this debate up for too much longer, but know that I hear you. And I hope I was heard in return.

More broadly, I don't think any of us arguing in this thread are really all that far apart. Nothing would please me more than if Europe got its act together. (Hell, I'd love to see a federal Europe. But I'm not holding my breath for that one.)

[the_gipsy]

Yes I hear you, and moreover I admit that I misheard you in the beginning :)