"500M Europeans Are Begging 300M Americans for Protection from 140M Russians Who Have Been Unable to Overcome 50M Ukrainians for Three Years"

A nice line from Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk (Politico.Eu). I have no well-informed view on the proper role of the U.S. in the defense of Europe (though my intuitions are in favor of strong U.S. support for NATO, I can't speak with confidence about the subject). But I thought this was a well-put call for action, from a country that is estimated to have spent 4.12% of its GDP on defense in 2024, compared to a 2.02% average for European NATO members and Canada, and 3.38% for the U.S. "The Polish military is now about 200,000, which makes it the third-largest in NATO after the U.S. and Turkey and the largest among the alliance's EU members."

Tusk added,

By the end of the year, we want to have a model ready so that every adult male in Poland is trained for war, and so that this reserve is adequate for possible threats…. Every healthy man should want to train to be able to defend the homeland in case of need. We will prepare it in such a way that it will not be a burden on people.

By the way, the only other NATO member that spent a higher fraction of its GDP than the U.S. is Estonia, at 3.43%. Latvia and Lithuania are also high, at 3.15% and 2.85%, well above everyone else except Greece at 3.08%. The one behind Lithuania (though closer to the middle of the pack) is Finland, at 2.41%. See a pattern?

Comments

[Michael P]

Is Greece's relatively high level of spending motivated mostly by Turkey? (I suspect it is.)

[Hugo S. Cunningham]

I was going to make the same remark, but you got there first.

[Publius_2020]

The spending is also measured as a percentage of GDP, and Greece has one of the lowest GDPs per capita in Europe. Well behind Poland, for example.

[Absaroka]

I saw a listing of tanks per NATO country a few days ago ... a selection:

USA 2509
Turkey 2255
Greece 1345
France 421
UK 158
Germany 328
Poland 595 (and lots coming)

so yes, Turkey and Greece are standouts. In fairness, much of theirs are pretty old, but that's OK because their primary enemy - each other - also has old ones.

Wiki

[Dan Holzrichter]

I don't think those number are accurate. (it's much worse.) The US has a lot more than 2509 if you count the thousands of original M1's that could be rebuilt. I read that Germany has about half that number (maybe some of them were the leopard1's that were donated.) The UK is rumored to have about 40 operational tanks. Most of Turkey's tanks are old surplus US M60's and even older M48's that have been re-turreted but still use the old 105mm guns. Nobody in Europe is really keeping up their security responsibility except for Poland and the Baltics. The real question is whether tanks and artillery are even worth the investment, now that drones have come to dominate the battlefield.

[Absaroka]

I'm sure there is wiggle room as far as mothballed (in various degrees of readiness) etc. Wiki footnotes its sources. The source for the UK number is Janes article from 2019 that says:

"The UK now operates three tank regiments with 56 Challenger 2s each. The remaining 59 are understood to be used for training and as a war maintenance reserve."

The UK gov's 2024 numbers seem to track that (you have to download the supplementary tables and bring up Worksheet 5).

[Dr. Ed 2]

How does the M1 do -- doesn't it have reactive armor?

[SykesFive]

No, it’s really a function of Greece’s economy sucking and it being difficult to reduce military spending rapidly. Greece is kind of the poster child for why “military spending as a percentage of GDP” is a poor metric.

[Michael P]

In what way(s) does their economy suck? https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CLVMNACSCAB1GQEL shows that they had a bad crash after 2008, but have had a respectable recovery since the mid-2010s. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=GR&start=2000 makes it look like their intended military spending has been pretty flat in percent-of-GDP terms, at least for the last 25 years.

[The Drill SGT]

and border protection. North, East and South

[Dan Schiavetta]

The U.S. figure is misleadingly high. That is the total worldwide we spend on defense. Only part of that is devoted to the defense of Europe. Whereas for the most part European nations don't spend much defending, say, Polynesia.

[Absaroka]

I think that's an interesting topic.

Post WWII America stepped up to defend Europe (and for that matter Japan and Korea) from the USSR. I think that was a very good thing to do, for the altruistic reason that defending people from tyranny is good, and the selfish reason that the USSR expanding even further would be bad for us.

At that time Europe (Japan/Korea) did not have the capability to defend themselves, and we did have that capability.

I think it is fair not only to ask Europe to contribute as much to their defense as we do, but also ask why Europe should not contribute to keeping, say, the Philippines free. The same moral and practical arguments for the US stepping up in both Europe and Asia post WWII apply to Europe defending Asia today; from each according to their ability, as the saying goes.

(and just to be clear, vis a vis Ukraine, I am sympathetic to the argument that Europe should do more. But I think Trump's allying himself with Russia and strong arming Ukraine to surrender, not even by merely restricting further spending but e.g. withdrawing more or less cost free intelligence sharing is unconscionable.)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes.

Another factor not mentioned is that "defending" Europe involves, to a great extent, creating business opportunities for American arms manufacturers. We never really got out of "guns and butter". Whereas I don't think most European economies ever got back into it.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

[AmosArch]

LOL progs defending the arms industry and war profiteering. What strange days we live in. If dumping 100s of billions into ukraine has been so fantastically profitable where are the even greater sums of 100s of billions in profit we've gotten back? Do you have a link showing these fantastic sums of money Zelensky has been sending back to our shores? Man EU must be idiots that they haven't already scrambled to tap this gold mine.

[AmosArch]

Also the air quotes on 'defending' shows just how completely unhinged you are and contradicts your apparent position. If the US's contributions to EU's defense are so insignificant as you apparently seem to think then you shouldn't be so angry that we are withdrawing this pittance.

[Sarcastr0]

You lump everyone you disagree with together and then get mad when they are inconsistent.

[Riva]

No doubt many slugs have found Ukraine to be profitable. Ask Hunter and the Big Guy. Democrats wouldn't be supporting intervention if they didn't find it to be profitable.

[Michael P]

Those represent "theft" in a rather less true sense than any government redistribution, or even tax in general.

[Krayt]

Capitalism has solved hunger. The fattest are the poorest. Shelves are stocked. Actually everybody, for an accuracy rate well over 50% and climbing, is fat. This is exporting around the world. Yay American cultural imperialism!

Economists used to measure things of nations like calories produced per person, dollar cost per calorie, and the like. They were studying hunger. Now we goalpost shift like empty calories and food insecurity (and obesity!)

Well, ok, but that is a novel and wonderful problem to have historically, vs. what came before.

[Kazinski]

That's not really true, you know what causes more starvation and hunger than defense spending?

War caused by lack of defense spending, is devastating to the poor.

Ukraine is a great example, its farm exports dropped 20% from 2021 to 2022 (which is surprising it was only that much), and the only reason it was only that much, was the defense spending that allowed Ukraine to halt the Russian advance.

Although I will concede if the Ukrainians and US had spent nothing, and the invasion was a walk over then there would have been a lot less disruption, but I'm not sure it helps your case.

[AmosArch]

The gain for the US winning the war for Zelensky is questionable if nonexistent. If there is a gain its mostly in the form of a favor to the EU. Its equivalent to the EU being in America providing the lionshare of funding for US border enforcement and war against the Mexican Cartels. Timidly just hoping the EU does their part sort of misses the point.

[Krayt]

The gain is the same as during the Cold War: stopping an expansionist tyrant empire from gaining another good little (or in this case, rather large) worker state.

And freedom. I understand a nation might not want to risk lives or cabbage to free another nation, but to argue freeing them is wrong in principle is putrid.

[Armchair]

"I think it is fair not only to ask Europe to contribute as much to their defense as we do, but also ask why Europe should not contribute to keeping, say, the Philippines free."

They largely gave up those responsibilities.

To be fair, only a couple of European powers (the UK, France, Germany, Russia), ever even had the capability to project real force to the other side of the Eurasian Continent in the 20th century.

[MarcoP]

I disagree. This article is about what % of your GDP is each country spending on defense. The defense assets, people and equipment, can be re-deployed around the world where it is needed.

Of course, the US isn’t going to deploy a higher % of those assets in Europe than European countries if the threats are low. However, the % of those assets would be quickly re-deployed to Europe when the threats increase and would be significantly higher than most European countries.

The article is focusing on European countries not contributing at least as high a percentage of their GDP to their defense budget as the US even though in the aggregate there are more Europeans than Americans.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Our defense budget is for the most part not spent on stationing troops who can be "redeployed" elsewhere. Arms that are sent to other countries can't be grabbed back.

[Armchair]

"Our defense budget is for the most part not spent on stationing troops who can be "redeployed""

For the most part...it is.

The US Military budget, ~25% is directly spent on military personnel. Another 39% is spent on operations and maintenance. Those are the items (paying for the people, training, and fuel) that allow for redeployment elsewhere.

[Michael P]

I personally wouldn't argue that giving money or equipment to other countries is exactly in that bucket, but one could argue that such spending frees up US forces to be able to be deployed, or re-deployed, elsewhere.

[AmosArch]

The US still has spent more on Ukraine than the EU from the figures I have seen. Plus the money the US spends elsewhere also directly benefits the EU. The US Navy has been the guarantor of free and open oceans which has been the factor enabling globalism and free trade and containing entities China. Which is kinda funny how the leftoids have been saying the US has been pushing EU into China's arms when they've been even more supportive of Russia.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The United States has spent more than the EU, but that’s misleading because the majority of of aid from European countries has been sent directly to Ukraine rather than being routed through the EU. Europe has provided more aid to Ukraine than the United States has.

https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/

[SRG2]

This point is almost invariably overlooked by Krasnov and his supporters.

[AmosArch]

The US has spent more on the Ukraine than the EU. The money the US spends elsewhere also benefits the EU as well as the rest of the world. Anyway you look at it the US far outstrips the EU. Or would you and Dan not mind if Trump withdrew from that spending as well?

[SRG2]

The US has spent more on the Ukraine than the EU

Unclear. Certainly, Krasnov has made that claim but it's not substantiated.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crew8y7pwd5o

[AmosArch]

Most of the sources I have read have the US outstripping the EU especially in actual military aid and not dodgey miscellaneous stuff but assuming that source is the correct one than I guess the US should be grateful an entity almost twice its size is shouldering half the bill for a 'threat' that is on their borders not ours.

[Sarcastr0]

It depends on how you count. And it’s quite close by any metric.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0kvbp3y

[AmosArch]

Logically the EU should be paying the majority if not all of the bill. Not just half.

[Sarcastr0]

You: "The US has spent more on the Ukraine than the EU."

Now you move the goalposts.

And I don't see how that's logical at all.

[Michael P]

Spoiler: If you subtract loans, it's not actually very close.

[damikesc]

The EU has also paid more to Russia than they did to Ukraine.

[Currentsitguy]

That is not entirely true. France has colonial possessions in the Caribbean and the Indian and Pacific Oceans that they defend.

[Dan Holzrichter]

With tanks? The only real places the US needs the tanks is in Korea, and Europe. They certainly aren't of much use on Martinique, Tahiti, or any other of the small islands. These all need a navy.

[GKHoff]

And part of France is in South America (Guiana).

[Clayton Cramer]

Even sick bears are dangerous. If they cannot hunt their natural prey, where do they go? City dumps and houses.

U.S. taking over defense of Europe after WW2 made perfect sense. Cities in ruins, people starving. Not now.

[Kazinski]

Of course there is always the argument that the Europeans having their own armies raises the risk of wars among themselves. But that doesn't relieve the obligation to pay their own way.

And god help them if they had an EU army, that might have made Brexit even more contentious, and I wouldn't rule it out that it might be used to enforce Net Zero targets, if they had the option. The EU as a whole is less trustworthy than any individual nation. After all Net Zero is already the "moral equivalent of war".

[Rossami]

So? The European numbers are for their worldwide commitments, too.

[Armchair]

" That is the total worldwide we spend on defense. Only part of that is devoted to the defense of Europe."

Eh....

The defense assets the US have can be moved around to where they are needed. It's not like they aren't locked in place, only available to be used in one area. To give an example, the US currently has 19 B-2 stealth bombers. They aren't location locked...only 5 available for Europe, 5 in North America, 5 in the Pacific, 4 in the Middle East. They can be moved as needed.

[Kazinski]

The Poland number is misleadingly high too, that's just this year.

In 2014 it was 1.87%, in 2022 it was 2.4%. They are to be commended for raising it and showing the other EU countries it could be done, but it hasn't been a long term commitment.

In the US it was 3.72%, 2022 it was 3.46%, we've been very consistent with our spending even if not focused enough on what we are spending it on.

And I'm not sure its a winning argument that the because we are also spending money defending Korea, Japan, Philipines, Taiwan, the Indian Ocean and fighting Jihadis in Africa too, that our commitment to Europe should be discounted. Not to mention that troops, tanks, missiles, submarines, fighters, and bombers, etc. can be moved from one theatre to another, they don't need to be in Europe to be an effective deterrent.

[Commenter_XY]

The US is also defending EU interests (economic, strategic, security), where they are aligned to America, globally. I don't see EU aircraft carriers anywhere in the world keeping sea lanes open for trade. Why should that be in gratis?

[Mr. Bumble]

Guns or butter; which do Europeans prefer?

[Frank Drackman]

Russian Oil and Natural Gas

[Bwaaah]

What a perfect nonsense question that actually aligns with reality, and some of the nonsense advanced here. The issue becomes more confusing for some people because unlike guns and butter, "security" isn't even a thing. Throw in some zero-sum logic and you get, "Those guns came came straight from the mouths of starving children."

[Dan Holzrichter]

The only threat the US faces from Russia is nuclear (I think the same is true for most of Europe, except for the small Baltic countries). Russia is too weak to take on the US or Europe directly. It would be easier to take the Europeans seriously with their talk of the existential threat from Russia if they had increased defense spending 8 years ago when warned, or if they completely cut off trade with Russia. The real threat to Europe is the crazy shift towards green energy and away from nuclear and/or fracking their own oil and gas reserves. Germany isn't going to regain it's position as an industrial giant with electricity prices double or triple what they would be otherwise.

[Armchair]

Russia is too weak to take on the US or Europe directly.

Eh... Russia could certainly take on parts of Europe easily, given how Europe has armed itself. Only US backing would really stop Russia.

[jimc5499]

If you know your history, the Soviet Union had a large role in the creation of the Green movement in both Europe and the US. Their objective was precisely what you said. They wanted the US reliant on oil from the Middle East so that in the event of war they could threaten our supply lines.

[Sarcastr0]

If you know your history, the Soviet Union had a large role in the creation of the Green movement in both Europe and the US

Got a source for this bit of redbaiting?

[Frank Drackman]

Roosha didn’t overcome the Germans in 3 years either, took them almost 4

[Mr. Bumble]

...and with an awful lot of US aid.

[AmosArch]

Russia is a sick dying beast as the media correctly points out while simultaneously claiming its such a grave threat. Even if they somehow take over the whole of Ukraine which they've shown themselves to be utterly incapable of these past few years its highly doubtful its going to poise a threat to to the US in the foreseeable future (aside from nukes which the Ukraine war isn't going to really affect and may even increase the risk). The actual threat to the US will come from China so from a US pov it makes much more sense to try to get Russia on its side as a bulwark against them. There is not much in it for the US in trying to utterly destroy Russia whatever that means and entails.

If the EU thinks Russia is such a problem then the EU should deal with it themselves regardless of what the US does or doesn't do. By themselves they should have been able to knock Putin down to size. That they supposedly are utterly incapable of handling a country a small fraction of their population and gdp says volumes. That they scream about how important it is to help Ukraine while for years refusing to pull their own weight in doing so says volumes.

[Longtobefree]

One way they could deal with Russia, if they had the determination, is to stop giving them so much money.

[Currentsitguy]

Since the days of Nixon the US has attempted to drive a wedge between Russia (well, USSR but for our purposes it's the same thing) and China. Our real mistake was after the collapse in 91 to allow Russia to collapse into chaos and organized crime and oligarchy under the drunken buffoonery of Boris Yeltsin using the excuse of the Peace Dividend. Too many people in Foggy Bottom were hailing Francis Fukuyama and his "End of History" as the new Bible of a future that would be all peace, love, and everybody getting rich. You can't really blame the Russian people to turn to an authoritarian strongman to put an end to the anarchy.

[Krayt]

Odd definition of organized crime concerns.

[Don Nico]

What's so odd? Currents had it correct, US neglect left a power vacuum for Mr Putin and cronies to fill.

[SRG2]

If the EU thinks Russia is such a problem then the EU should deal with it themselves

That is a perfectly respectable position. It doesn't however, explain or justify the position that the US should leave it to the Europeans but it's ok for the US to attempt to coerce Ukraine into surrendering.

[David Nieporent]

The actual threat to the US will come from China so from a US pov it makes much more sense to try to get Russia on its side as a bulwark against them.

"Russia isn't a threat, so we need them to help us against China" is a really dumb take, even if Russia could be a reliable ally, which it can't be because it's inherently on China's side against ours in opposing the liberal international order. If Russia is a "sick dying beast," what use would it be against China? Is China going to say, "I guess we can't invade Taiwan because Russian tanks might rumble across the Siberian border while we're distracted"?

[Frank Drackman]

Can I be Frank?
Europeans are Pricks, the English are the least Prick-ish which is saying something, but even their annual Military spending is less than the US spends in a month

[AmosArch]

Before the US didn't do anything good for Europe or the world according to Europe and US progs. All the military and aid the US produced throughout the decades benefited them and only them alone was the narrative.

Now they're forcefully denigrating and minimizing at every possible turn the aid the US has given while being hopping mad that US wants to stop giving it.

[A Woman of No Importance]

This analysis might make sense if (1) Russia didn't have nuclear weapons and (2) Putin's territorial ambitions ended with the Ukraine. But I keep going back to what Churchill said to Chamberlain: You chose dishonor over war, and now you shall have both.

Given Trump's affinity for authoritarians, though, I do have to worry that if there were to be a repeat of World War II - a straight up and down war between fascism and democracy -- it's far from clear at this point that Trump would enter the war on the side of democracy.

[Dan Schiavetta]

"This analysis might make sense if (1) Russia didn't have nuclear weapons and (2) Putin's territorial ambitions ended with the Ukraine."

yes

[Mr. Bumble]

Do you ever have an original thought?

[Bwaaah]

If a thought is original, how can you tell if it's right? You need to throw in some "guardrails" there, I think they're calling it these days.

[Magister]

There is nothing new under the sun (a completely original observation that nobody has ever, ever made before now). But this criticism is hilarious coming from Bumble, who specializes in vapid observations with occasional forays into errors when he tries and fails to parrot flawed arguments from unreliable sources.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I muted him some time ago. Suggest you do the same.

[Mr. Bumble]

Guess your sister got all the balls in your family.

[Don Nico]

" it's far from clear"
only is your vision is poor and your mind is foggy.

[Krayt]

Occam's Razor. Which is the simpler and thus more likely explanation, fealty to tyrants, or actions that just seem like it, combined with long-winded talking head apologia?

I said it before: As Europe steps up to defend Ukraine, will he say, "Finally!" Or will he rush to break Ukraine even faster? That will be telling.

[Don Nico]

What is more likely is the lack of appreciation that the time to talk is during conflict not when the world is copacetic.
That approach has led to the impending collapse of the entire global nuclear weapons control framework. Is was the approach of the previous administration which had no ministerial level discussion (on any topic) between the US and Russia and between the NATO countries and Russia.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I think you would be right if it were just talk. But this administration is also leaning hard on Ukraine to accept serious concessions, and seemingly giving up Ukrainian bargaining chips right at the outset.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Trump has been punishing Ukraine, and throwing bouquets at Putin. How do you think this will end ?

[Don Nico]

AWD,
Bargaining chips are seldom crucial issues in any negotiation and certainly are not central interests.
Bargaining chips are items that a side is prepared to give away in exchange for concessions from the other side.
Not knowing details of both public and private discussions, I am not prepared to judge how much concessions are premature.

[David Nieporent]

You don't seem to have any compunctions about judging other things about the situation without any evidence of any sort beyond Putin's talking points.

[A Woman of No Importance]

Don, I hope you're right, but can you name one single thing Trump has ever said or done to indicate he has warm feelings for democracy? This is, after all, the guy who pulled out every stop he could to try to overturn the 2020 election here.

The Ukraine is a free country trying to remain free. Russia is a fascist country trying to export fascism. Our natural sympathies should be with the Ukraine. Yet Trump is empowering the fascist. That should tell you everything you need to know.

[damikesc]

Ukraine is not a democracy and is a corrupt shithole.

And Trump has done nothing to help Putin. Of all Presidents of the last 20 years, he did more to harm Russia than anybody else.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Ukraine absolutely is a democracy, and as has been well established, you only care about corruption when someone you already dislike engages in it.

[Magister]

The first paragraph is not true.

The second might be slightly true in that Trump is a Russian asset but so incompetent that it ends up harming Russia. But not in any other way.

[damikesc]

We overthrew their first election. They now have NO elections for the foreseeable future. They also forbid opposition parties and heavily censor the press. Not exactly free.

Trump does not support Putin. He is just competent at not helping him. Not making negotiation possible with a nuclear power is an asinine idea. He opened up energy exploration in the US which was, EASILY, the single most harmful thing one can do to Russia (Biden, on the other hand, helped Putin quite a lot. Ditto Obama).

Biden talked about how bad he was yet did everything possible to enrich him. Trump won't comment on him and absolutely slams the crap out of him with policy. Sorry if you do not recognize the difference.

[Magister]

Zelensky was elected as president of Ukraine, and Trump's efforts notwithstanding, we have not overthrown him. He resisted Trump's requested favor to engage in corruption, for which Trump was impeached. The US under Biden (with Congressional appropriations, mostly while Democrats controlled Congress) sent a large amount of aid to Ukraine; Donald Trump has paused that aid all on his own. Wikipedia says there are 349 political parties in Ukraine; it's probably true that none of them is pro-Putin/Russia like damikesc, but that's also how all the Nazi sympathizers in the US vanished into the woodwork once Germany declared war on the US.

Seriously, is damikesc a Russian troll? He goes way beyond the usual Trump cultists.

[damikesc]

Poroshenko was elected in 2014. We did the lion's share of the work in overthrowing him.

You can ignore reality if one so wishes.

And it is nice to see any view you disagree with as being pro-Putin. I've not praised Putin once. I just point out that we overthrew the Ukrainian President, which we did, and that Trump has done more than any other President to harm Putin's interest, which he has done.

Also odd that the only known Nazis involved in the conflict are not fighting for Russia. Probably a coincidence.

Stay out of the deep end, son.

[Magister]

All your points failed, so you resort to pathetic attacks and desperate distractions. Zelensky was elected, defeating Poroshenko, in 2019; if the US overthrew Poroshenko, it was when Donald Trump was president, and Trump is doing his best for Putin against Zelensky. By contrast, Biden sent more aid to Ukraine precisely to thwart Putin. 2024 elections were postponed in accordance with Ukrainian law, because the country is under martial law, because Russia invaded. Trump has supported Putin steadily, first and second term. Azov Brigade? Russian disinformation on its Nazi associations, it appears.

I'll grant that maybe you are just a very very stupid MAGA cultist, whose arguments coincidentally make more sense if read with a Russian accent.

[David Nieporent]

Poroshenko was elected in 2014. We did the lion's share of the work in overthrowing him.

We did no work in overthrowing Poroshenko, if for no other reason than that he was never overthrown. He lost an election to Zelensky in 2019.

Yanukovych, not Poroshenko, was driven out of office — you can use the term "overthrown" if you want — in 2014. But we did not have anything to do with it, and the sole piece of evidence Putin's bitches have for that is that Victoria Nuland was recorded discussing which Ukrainian politicians she thought would be good or bad for the U.S. Nothing in the call even hinted that the U.S. was taking any action to install those people.

[Please, Daivd, Seek Help]

The tankie/putin logic re: the last 20 years of Ukrainian politics is incredibly stupid.

Maidan happened because Yanukovych woke up and 180ed on a major campaign promise and an article of the constitution, provided _zero_ reason for why, and then in response to relatively ordinary protesting, directed that the military shoot all the protestors, which consequently led to a revolution. The argument that the US engineered Maidan is so strange because at best the facts would indicate the US exploited Yanukovych's own-goal. You can't blame someone else for causing something when you yourself take multiple completely bonkers actions in a row that no one asked you or wanted you to take.

But if the US really wanted to overthrow Yanukovych, why would it allow him to be elected to begin with? Like, you have to imagine in this narrative that the US caused Yushchenko to be elected (which may well not have happened if not for Yushchenko being poisoned by the Russians to begin with; hell, Yanukovych might have actually won even without cheating the first go around), then caused Yushchenko to flame out over conflict with Tymoshenko, then caused Tymoshenko to fumble the ball, creating a situation that made it possible to elect Yanukovych (the same guy they cheated not to allow to win?), just to overthrow him a few years later?

Even then, Russia claiming Crimea and the breakaway regions in the east took away an enormous population base of (relatively) pro-Russian voters, thus making it harder to elect pro-Russian politicians, guaranteeing that there'd never be a pro-Russian president again. Despite that, Poroshenko, who was rabidly anti-Russian, ends his term losing to a moderate Russian native speaker from the East, a development that benefits Russia... except Russia decides to invade claiming this new leader, despite being significantly less anti-Russian than the previous leader, is unprecedentedly anti-Russian.

And this entire theory is considered viable by Putin fans and/or tankies because *checks notes* there's a phone call where Nuland says "democracy good" and John McCain once flew to Kyiv to say "democracy good". Like, what?

[David Nieporent]

We overthrew their first election.

We did no such thing.

He opened up energy exploration in the US which was, EASILY, the single most harmful thing one can do to Russia (Biden, on the other hand, helped Putin quite a lot.

U.S. energy production reached record levels under Biden.

[GKHoff]

Russia is definitely authoritarian, but is not fascist, in the historical sense.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ukraine free? WTF.....

[Don Nico]

The only thing I am sure of is that Mr Trump's calculus put his own interests first.

[Rossami]

How does Russia having nuclear weapons and Putin having territorial ambitions excuse europeans from stepping up to their own defense? Your comment makes no sense.

[Krayt]

I'm fine with certain nations now part of free Europe not having a strong military, given they, themselves, were tyrants rampaging across Europe in still-living memory.

Yeah. It's a burden for the US but war is worse. I'm with Captain Kirk, when Scotty observed the Klingon Empire core was dying.

"Sir, they're dying!"

"Then let them die!"

Hollywood was trying to learn ya that that wasn't cool, yo! How big your pile of bodies?

[Don Nico]

Do I understand you correctly?
You are opposed to Germany starting a nuclear weapons program but not opposed to Poland. Both are talking about it now.

[Krayt]

I am opposed to proliferation. The more countries, the more chance of accidents or black market sales.

Smaller nations under Nato don't need nukes because they are protected. If they no longer feel so, wonder, loudly, why.

[Michael Ejercito]

So you are reviving the Domino Theory?

[Kazinski]

It does make sense in terms of European peacekeepers for Ukraine to enforce a ceasefire.

And it makes sense in terms of Europe defending itself against Russian aggression.

But I don't think there is any appetite at all for Europe entering the war on Ukraine's behalf, so there's not much of a reason to worry about that.

US troops in Ukraine as Zelensky wants, doesn't make anyone more secure.

[David Nieporent]

US troops in Ukraine as Zelensky wants, doesn't make anyone more secure.

Unless you think that Putin is going to start WWIII, it would make Ukraine more secure. Now, there is a chance of the former, and that must be factored in, so it's not without risks and costs. I am not saying, "We should do it." But to categorically say that it wouldn't make anyone more secure is obviously incorrect.

[Don Nico]

One can appreciate Tusk's perspective with the exception of his intentions/advocacy of starting a Polish nuclear weapons program.
See his Tweet:
https://x.com/PremierRP_en/status/1898002064380227905

[Michael P]

Luxembourg is next to go
And, who knows, maybe Monaco.
We'll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb!

[bernard11]

Amazing.

A comment by Michael P. that I love.

[Don Nico]

I am glad that Michael thinks that the collapse of the NPT regime is a joke.

[Sarcastr0]

If you think Tom Lehrer isn't funny, you might want to keep it quiet on this blog.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

The best and the brightest of the 'peans left, starting in the 16th century - the best that remained died in the first half of the 20th century.

The ones there now? The multi-generational results of the inbred cowards and fools.

[Frank Drackman]

Never understood why people with an English accent are automatically considered intelligent, it’s just an older version of the American Southern Accent(which I don’t have, thanks to being a Military “Brat”)

[ReaderY]

We are not dealing with someone proposing to shift more of the alliance’s common defense burden from the US to Europe now that Europe has gotten back on its feet. We are dealing with someone who is completely shifting sides, abandoning the previous alliance and openly siding with Russia, seeking to be another autocratic king-emperor in a new alliance of autocratic king-emperors against those radical Democrats and their so-called “freedom.” He has made it clear that he is willing to maintain a nominally independent rump Ukraine as a protectorate in a sphere-of-influence system where the US and Russia each split Ukraine’s resources for their own benefit, somewhat like Germany and the USSR split Poland in 1939, or the US and the USSR solit Germany in 1945.

All this talk about splitting burdens among so-called friends as if the alliance still existed on anything but a piece of paper, as if there were still a commonalify of goals, as if the US wasn’t quickly becoming another autocratic belligerent nation Europeans (and Canada) will have to worry about defending themselves from every bit as much as Russia, completely misses what is going on.

[damikesc]

In what way is allying with Russia?

NATO not paying its fair share has been a common complaint for over a decade now. Trump is just the one who is trying to make them honor the commitments.

Your comment that Trump is more authoritarian than European countries is a laughable assertion and has, literally, zero relation to reality.

[ReaderY]

Of course!

Everyone Stalin had tried was guilty, the holocaust never happened, Trump’s inaugural crowd was the largest in history, Jan 6 2020 was a completely peaceful demonstration, and that Zelensky, very disrespectful man, is a dictator who started the war and whose government is completely illegitimate just as Trump said he was. And the fact that Trump’s view of Ukraine completely agrees with Putin’s point of view and doesn’t agree with that of any of the NATO “allies” is because Russia’s point of view is reality and those other countries are out of touch with it. And of course Denmark really wants to give us Greenland, and Canada is eager to become the 51st state. Any claim otherwise is out of touch with reality. Of course.

By the way, how much are they paying you?

[damikesc]

"Completely agrees with Putin". I was not taking you seriously BEFORE this but I am DOUBLY not taking you seriously after this.

[SRG2]

That seems agreeably reciprocal

[CountmontyC]

Trump in his first term tried to get fellow NATO members to increase their defense spending. And for doing so he was attacked by those on the left.

[David Nieporent]

In what way is allying with Russia?

Sealioning yet again.

[Publius_2020]

Seems like a simple statement: the Europeans should be looking in the mirror and not whining that the Americans won't give them enough. Europe (in particular the large NATO countries) has more than enough military and economic strength to defend its borders.

The real question is whether it should ALSO defend Ukraine's borders, and even then should it defend Ukraine's OLD border, or the land that Ukraine currently controls? Implicit in Tusk's statement is the notion that Russia is by no means a grave threat to NATO countries if those NATO countries choose to be serious about it. But that doesn't mean that NATO should care about who controls the Donbas for the next 20 years.

[Absaroka]

Just a general comment: suppose an administration takes the temperature of the American public and decides to spend less on NATO. The sane way to do that is to have some private chats and explain the new reality, and what the timetable will be. We have explicitly had a policy of very integrated operations for decades now. We have cooperatively worked out arrangements of 'we do this, you do that'. In many cases we have said 'you shouldn't duplicate the development we have put into AWACs or Patriot or F-35, just buy from us'. We in turn buy Carl Gustavs or whatever from them.

Now we are suddenly cutting that off, leaving our erstwhile allies to scramble to develop things like AWACs or F-35s that are a multi-year effort. That's not a nice way to end a relationship. It's hardly fair to say 'you should have been developing your own all along' when we explicitly discouraged that.

Moreover, just putting on our self-interest hat, a lot of those programs have huge development costs, and a non trivial part of the per-unit cost is amortizing those development costs. If you think the price of F-35s is high, check out the price when we amortize that cost over half as many airframes because we are the only ones buying them. Not to mention the good jobs Ft Worth will lose from not building the ones Europe and other allies would have bought. We have made a lot of money from arms sales over the years ... something like 30 countries operate the F-16. But who wants to buy from a fickle supplier?

Still with our self interest hat on, think about containing China with bases and allies in the Philippines, Korea, Japan, Australia, etc, and doing the same without those allies. People in those countries are suddenly doing some pretty intense thinking about whether we can be trusted as an ally. If, say, the Philippines decide to become non-aligned and that they just have to put up with being somewhat of a Chinese vassal, go rerun your war games then.

[Armchair]

"Now we are suddenly cutting that off, leaving our erstwhile allies to scramble to develop things like AWACs or F-35s that are a multi-year effort."

Our allies can always PURCHASE those items from the US, like other countries do. Plenty of countries have purchased F-16s for example from the US (Like Chile or Indonesia).

[Absaroka]

And they have PURCHASED F-35s. Whose usefulness depends on a continued supply of spare parts, updated Mission Data Files, etc. And right now they are wondering whether an erratic US is a reliable supplier of those things. E.g. apparently someone leaned on Maxar to stop selling imagery to Ukraine. If next week Trump decides the Norwegians are giving too much aid to Ukraine, will he lean on LockMart to stop selling them spares? We won't let the UK share shared intelligence data with Ukraine, even though doing so would cost us nothing. When you are embarking on a decades long relationship, you value reliability in your partners. Right now 'predictable' and 'reliable' aren't words that come to mind for US foreign policy.

[Armchair]

"If next week Trump decides the Norwegians are giving too much aid to Ukraine, will he lean on LockMart to stop selling them spares?"

1. That's kinda silly. Selling spares makes money for the US. But regardless, lets take the hypothetical at face value.

2. The most realistic answer to this hypothetical of the US "cutting off supply" is a case study. That being the case of the F-14's and Iran. The United States sold a number of F-14s to Iran before the Islamic revolution. They were, at the time, one of the most advanced aircraft in the world. But, after the Iranian revolution, the US cut off the supply of spare parts.

Iran kept the F-14s flying. Through the Iran-Iraq war. Up until even today. More than 40 years later.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/iran-flies-f-14-tomcat-fighter-top-gun-maverick-207546

[Absaroka]

So, you'd buy a car from Ford even if Ford wouldn't sell you parts or dealer support, because you can probably send straw buyers to junkyards?

"Selling spares makes money for the US"

So does Maxar selling imagery.

[Armchair]

"So, you'd buy a car from Ford even if Ford wouldn't sell you parts or dealer support"

If my other choice was trying to invent my own car and part supplies? Yes.

[Absaroka]

But you can buy from China, or Europe, or Korea, or Japan.

[Armchair]

"But you can buy from China"

I mean, at this point, you're at absurd levels. You "don't" buy arms from the US, a country that has a historical level of support for you, which has sold arms to you through two world wars, and never actually cut off any arms shipments. Because of the entirely hypothetical concept that they "might" cut off service in the future.

Instead, you're going to buy arms from ...China... which are technologically inferior? Also, China has a history of cutting off exports to country of not just arms by also of cutting off rare mineral earths. Not to mention, China is geopolitically aligned with Russia.

Why don't you just choose to buy arms from Russia instead? It's nearly the same. This is just at absudity levels.

[Absaroka]

"a country that has a historical level of support for you"

'has' or 'had'? Whether that historical level of support is ongoing is precisely the question. A few weeks ago it seemed like a safe bet; now it doesn't.

Times change. We were allies with Japan in WWI, for example, rather famously weren't in WWII, and then were again. Going forward, who knows? I mean, we may profess undying love at the moment, but will that be true in the future? The Budapest Memorandum sounded pretty good in 1994 ... no reason for Ukraine to worry about US support if Russia came knocking after that!

[Sarcastr0]

Are you arguing there isn't any disruption here?

NATO F-35s assume US as a partner.
They have interoperability functionality and data sharing requirements that would absolutely mean scrambling if the US pulled out.

But if NATO countries can no longer trust the US as a security partner, the smart thing to do is develop organic arms infrastructure.
Which is itself a disruption.

[hobie]

I don't see the point of making billion dollar F-35s or aircraft carriers when a synchronized swarm of 10,000 drones can blanket the skies and destroy everything in its path. All these countries can just make drone fleets and won't need American weapons.

But the point is not helping Ukraine or any of our allies (even though we should). The point is us allying with our sworn enemy that is actively attacking our own power grids and hospitals

[Dr. Ed 2]

A synchronized swarm is incredibly vulnerable to jamming.

And it's CHINA that is attacking our computer networks.

[ReaderY]

Trump doesn’t want to be nice. From his point of view, these so called “allies” have been pretending to be our friends while they’ve really been taking advantage of us stealing from us right and left. Time to pull the rug out of this so called “friendship” and recognize them for the enemies they are. Why would we want to continue to help our enemies steal our military secrets?

We have no common interests with them. Our interests lie with the great nations, the ones led by great leaders, not these libtard countries.

[damikesc]

You act as if Trump was the first to notice that NATO is not honoring its commitment. He is not the first by any stretch.

Again, he is just the only one holding them to their obligation.

I would ask where is the "friendship" with countries who both thoroughly ignore the basic concept of free speech and free elections AND do not honor their treaties? Why is the US the only one expected to abide by a commitment?

[bernard11]

You act as if Trump was the first to notice that NATO is not honoring its commitment.

What commitment is it that they are not honoring.

[Purple Martin]

August 2024:
How USAF Helped Ukraine Upgrade the Electronic Warfare Systems on Its New F-16s (Air&Space Forces Magazine)

December 2024:
State Department Approves Ukraine’s $266M Purchase of F-16 Sustainment Support (GOVCONWire)

Can Ukraine sustain its F-16 fleet if Trump halts US aid? (Kyiv independent)

March 2025:
US Ends Support for Ukrainian F-16s (Ukraine Today)
The Donald Trump administration has cut off vital support for F-16 jamming capabilities.

France To The Rescue! French-Made Mirage 2000 Jets Could Become Ukraine’s Most Important Aerial Radar Jammers (Forbes)
The French planes could take over as American-designed planes lose U.S. support under President Donald Trump.

[Shamie Ervin iv]

Thanks for the sobering, disturbing information. I was hoping Trump and Zelinskiy would get back together again and at least make an effort to negotiate with monster Putin. I voted for Trump but disapprove of that public display of spleen like we all saw on the teevy a few days ago. That tongue-lashing should have been administered in private. And btw, does Zelinskiy's wife really drive up and down the roads of Ukraine in a Bugatti?

[Absaroka]

Bugatti says no:

"The car manufacturer debunked the claim and said it is filing a criminal complaint for forgery and defamation and other alleged crimes."

[Kazinski]

The US and Ukraine are meeting for more talks in Saudi Arabia this week to hammer out a common negotiation strategy before talks with Russia, which of course is the best strategy. One the US and Ukraine agree on a common position it will be much harder for Russia to split them.

Here's an rather obtuse article from the Guardian about it.

Suggesting that the talks should be held in Europe rather than SA is dumb, I think Saudi Arabia is a perfectly good neutral site, I can't think of any where in Europe that the Russians would think is neutral.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/07/saudi-arabia-ukraine-us-talks-analysis

And it seems the US and Ukraine are both comfortable holding their own talks there, so it hardly seems like talking to Russia there too would be problematic.

[Sarcastr0]

Collective security isn’t zero sum.

Wild how many here are treating it like it is.

[Armchair]

When your "allies" are training/fighting with painted broomsticks instead of actual guns...it's worse than zero sum.

Your "allies" actually become a net negative.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, that's the kind of idiocy I was talking about.

Tell that to the NATO troops who have joined us in Afghanistan and Iraq, some of whom were killed alongside us.

Or the Ukrainian troops who deployed to Iraq.

What an ignorant and awful thing to say.

Apart from fighting and contributing their own blood (and kit they bought from us) alongside our troops, the legitimacy NATO allowed us after 9-11 was huge.

No matter how much of a nationalist dickhole you are, it is a fact that an isolated US going it alone means a less secure world, a less secure Europe, and a less secure US.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Encouraging or allowing European powers to massively rearm has never had any negative consequences. We'll be fine!

[Don Nico]

Agreed. If EU actually built a unified armed forces of its collective own, that would be a positive for the EU and for the US.

[Sarcastr0]

Not for the US. Or the world.

Unless you trust Europe to be as good a steward of world stability, sovereignty, and liberty as the US.

Which, in the long term, I do not.

In the long term, it might be better for Europe.

In the short term, it's bad for everyone except Putin.

[Armchair]

Sarcastr0 believes that troops with just broomsticks "add" to your forces.

[Sarcastr0]

Did any forces armed with broomsticks deploy alongside our forces, or are you making things up so you can shit on our allies?

So nationalist, you want an isolated America.

[hobie]

Then why take away all of Ukraine's bargaining chips and ally with Putin?

[Don Nico]

hobie,
The problem is that Ukraine actually has almost no bargaining chips in the commonly understood meaning of that phrase. Even most of is issues will cut deep to the bone.

[Sarcastr0]

We are planning to end our sanctions on Russia.

[Armchair]

I mean, the simple answer is this. Europe has been free-riding on the US for decades. Stripping defense spending for social spending was easy, because the US would always cover any shortfall.

I still remember stories about German troops "training" with painted broomsticks, because they apparently didn't have actual guns.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/german-soldiers-used-broomsticks-instead-of-guns-during-nato-exercise/

[Sarcastr0]

Collective security isn't zero sum.

[damikesc]

Yeah, it is. If a European state has problems, the US will bail them out. We will drive out invaders, etc.

Situation reversed and there is not a European state who can do a damned thing to help us.

How does this BENEFIT us?

Hell, Trump told Germany to stop giving Russia money for energy deals if they are such an existential threat. They laughed at him.

[JasonT20]

Situation reversed and there is not a European state who can do a damned thing to help us.

Are you really that ignorant about NATO's involvement in post 9-11 actions? Or that the only time Article 5 has been invoked was in defense of the U.S. after that attack on our soil?

[damikesc]

There is not a damned thing ALL of Europe could do to help us if the shit hit the fan.

"They helped after 9/11". They did not do dick after 9/11. Literally nothing.

[CountmontyC]

Oh they sent a few troops here and there but almost none entered combat. Most were glorified security guards in rear echelon areas or provided transport in heavily secured areas.

[Sarcastr0]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan

Given the different deployment sizes, it doesn't seem like they stayed out of the danger zone to me.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I believe half the US casulties in Iraq were accidents, lots of MVAs.

[Absaroka]

"In the first 6.5 years of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), U.S. military casualties exceeded 3,400 hostile deaths. 800 nonhostile deaths (due to disease, nonbattle injury, and other causes),..."

source

[CountmontyC]

So over a 15 year period 850 ( take note that 10% of those were not combat deaths)dead? Or about 60 a year? Yes there were some who went into dangerous areas but most NATO support was support roles.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, we're at about 240 a year so that metric makes things look pretty low-key all around.

You keep saying stuff abut the role of European allies, but I'm not sure you have sources for it.

[Armchair]

Troops that only have broomsticks add nothing. In fact, they subtract, requiring more resources to feed, move and defend.

[Sarcastr0]

Believe it or not, the troops that have fought alongside is didn't have broomsticks, you ignorant ass.

Do you think we take the responsibility to feed everyone that's deployed alongside us?

[Armchair]

"Believe it or not, the troops that have fought alongside is didn't have broomsticks, you ignorant ass."

Hard to tell. They weren't allowed to fire them in Afganistan. What's the difference between a broomstick and a rifle that you're not allowed to fire?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/german-soldiers-in-afghanistan-cant-shoot/

[Sarcastr0]

No new goalposts.

And it's telling you're focusing on Germany. They have some particular restrictions on their armed forces that you might mistake for weakness, if you didn't study any history at all.

Googling to find reasons to have contempt for Europe's fighting ability is weird and dumb.

[damikesc]

They are all weak and borderline useless. They're just fortunate that Russia isn't exactly a world-beater.

With just our troops stationed there right now, we could conquer Europe.

[David Nieporent]

With just our troops stationed there right now, we could conquer Europe.

Why do you think we'd be allowed to have troops stationed there if NATO dissolved?

[JasonT20]

With just our troops stationed there right now, we could conquer Europe.

This is straight up delusional. Or, more likely, it is just something you pulled out of your ass to be argumentative. We couldn't "conquer" Iraq with more troops than we have in Europe. We were able to defeat Saddam's forces, but we were not able to keep it pacified so that a stable government could replace us. What makes you think ~100k troops could conquer a population of 500 million?

[damikesc]

A population so whipped that they allow their government to walk all over them incessantly?

Polls show less than 30% of citizens would fight for their country.

Not only would we conquer Europe if we wished to --- it would not be overly difficult to do so.

[JasonT20]

You should keep your delusional fantasies of world conquest to yourself.

[Armchair]

And....what you got? "Allies" who aren't allow to even fire their rifles?

That's not "collective security". That's an ally who is basically a baby in diapers, who requires Daddy Uncle Sam to do anything.

"Googling to find reasons to have contempt"

I already have contempt. You just need proof. I've provided multiple links once again. You once again, provide nothing.

[Sarcastr0]

Military support and logistics are things that exist.

Important things.

[tylertusta]

Agreed: "Support" and logistics exist.

However, our NATO allies largely are nearly uniformly reliant on the United States to provide "support" and to provide them with logistics outside of their own borders. Although in the case of Germany it's probably more accurate to say that Germany would rely on the United States to provide them with logistics inside of their own borders.

[Bob from Ohio]

"They have some particular restrictions on their armed forces that you might mistake for weakness, if you didn't study any history at all. "

Why don't you google the German Army's strength during the Cold War? They had a significant force, many times larger than now,

Where do you think all those Leopard tanks they gave to Ukraine came from? Cold War stores.

Their current weakness is a choice to save money, not because of the Nazis. You might pick up a post war history book sometime.

[rswallen]

Why only train the men?

[Eugene Volokh]

Tusk "add[ed] that women would also be able to volunteer, but that 'war is still, to a greater extent, the domain of men.'" That sounds like they're focusing on encouraging men to participate, and that seems about right to me, though again I'm not an expert on the subject. Among other things, I expect that Tusk may know more about what would make sense politically in Poland than I do.

Note that even Israel, which as I understand it has done the most to integrate women into the military (including by conscripting them), appears to impose somewhat lesser obligations than on the men.

[hobie]

Women can't be air traffic controllers or pilots, so why train them with guns?

[Armchair]

Also important...

Simple "spending" isn't enough. It needs to be spent effectively on weapons and training, not just empty bodies

"Taking the US Army III Corps as a reference point, credible European deterrence – for instance, to prevent a rapid Russian breakthrough in the Baltics – would require a minimum of 1,400 tanks, 2,000 infantry fighting vehicles and 700 artillery pieces (155mm howitzers and multiple rocket launchers). This is more combat power than currently exists in the French, German, Italian and British land forces combined. "

https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/defending-europe-without-us-first-estimates-what-needed

[Sarcastr0]

Collective security isn't zero sum.

Are you rooting for a Russian invasion to show Europe what for?

[damikesc]

It is zero sum. It is, at this point, a pure welfare scheme for Europe at our expense.

We've tried to warn Europe about what they are doing and they will not stop. So be it. The harm to us if France gets overrun is theoretical at best. We do not NEED NATO. Europe needs it desperately.

[Doug Heffernan]

If weakening America's power and presence in the world is the goal, then sure. The dominance of the dollar probably goes with that weakening. Owning the world's reserve currency has financed the American way of life. Less dependence on US military and economic power outside of the US will have an effect on life inside the US.

[damikesc]

Hate to break it to you, but BRICS and our government spending are doing more to harm the dollar than anything else. And neither seem ready to subside anytime soon.

[JasonT20]

Hate to break it to you, but BRICS and our government spending are doing more to harm the dollar than anything else.

You mean BRICS countries like Spain?

[damikesc]

BRICS countries like Brazil, China, India. They are seeking to undermine the petro-dollar which, if successful, fucks us over eight ways from Sunday.

But, yeah, nothing to worry about.

[JasonT20]

BRICS countries like Brazil, China, India.

Yeah, I know. Our President was the one that thought it included Spain, in case you didn't follow the link.

They are seeking to undermine the petro-dollar which, if successful, fucks us over eight ways from Sunday.

And I wouldn't say anything different. I do dispute your assertions that the weakening of NATO and siding with Putin over Ukraine that Trump is doing is less worrisome than that.

[JasonT20]

Defense spending as a % of GDP is not really a good measure to use to compare different countries commitment to mutual defense. For one thing, the U.S. spends so much on defense because we project military power around the whole world, whereas most NATO members are just not large enough to do that. And that is not NATO's mission, either.

Now, having European NATO members shoulder more of the burden for defending their own neck of the woods is arguably important, for the U.S., so that we can direct more of our defense efforts toward the Pacific*. (Some other nations might see that as benefiting them as well. Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea are not in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, naturally, and yet they are important economic and political allies of the U.S. in the area.)

*Even better would be if we could reduce our military spending in total to reduce the federal budget deficit.

[Commenter_XY]

US spend is ~875B out of a 30T GDP.
EU spend is ~300B out of a 20T GDP.

Sorry, the time is well past for europe to step up. UKR is a european problem, not an American problem (or a NATO problem). If UKR just disappeared from the map tomorrow, would the US be affected? Nope.

I really hope that Zelenskyy can come to his senses, get to the table, and cut a deal for an armistice that ends the killing. The oligarchs controlling him (and the generals) need to take a back seat.

[JasonT20]

I really hope that Zelenskyy can come to his senses, get to the table, and cut a deal for an armistice that ends the killing.

You mean, like the Minsk agreements of 2014 and 2015? The ones that Russia never admitted to even being bound by, since it was their proxy "separatist" groups that actually signed it? Russia has no credibility and no one with any sense would trust that Putin would abide by any cease fire unless doing so would have real and severe consequences. The only way Putin agrees to any cease fire is with Ukraine and the West giving him most of what he wants. And if that happened, he would simply take it as a sign that he could get even more a few years down the road as a price for not breaking the earlier agreement.

[Don Nico]

"The only way Putin agrees to any cease fire is with Ukraine and the West giving him most of what he wants."
In that case the war in Ukraine will go on for a few more years, and the EU leaders who think that there will be regime change in Russia are likely to be disappoint for the duration.

[Kazinski]

"Defense spending as a % of GDP is not really a good measure to use to compare different countries commitment to mutual defense. For one thing, the U.S. spends so much on defense because we project military power around the whole world,"

First of all defending our allies in the far east is also mutual defense.

Second our troops worldwide are available for use against threats to Europe.

Our troops in South Korea are actually closer to Russia than our troops in Germany, and while they aren't as close to population centers they certainly can be deployed by air almost as quickly, and certainly can be used to disrupt Russian supply lines in from the east that would be critical for a Russian advance.

[tylertusta]

% of GDP is a good measure in this context because it's the slice of an economy that is dedicated towards military spending and how much the economy can bear.

2% isn't even a significant amount of a modern economy for peacetime spending and is arguably too little for the new era of great power competitions that we find ourselves in. Wartime expenditures would be much higher. During WW2 80% of the US GDP was tied up in military or related government spending.

[JasonT20]

If it such a good measure of effort and how much the economy can take, then surely foreign aid (~$60B/year prior to the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine and additional support for Israel after the Hamas terror attack on Oct 7, 2023.) shouldn't be a big deal at ~0.2% of our GDP. I mean, if we spend over 3% of our GDP protecting the world our interests with our military, then less than a tenth of that in non-military assistance isn't a problem, right?

[tylertusta]

Having military industry that your economy can support is a different matter than whether or not to gift aid to other countries.

The first is mostly economic and based on statistics.

The latter is a subjective values judgement based on what the people think is a good way of using their military hardware.

[Frank Drackman]

How about every able-bodied You-Cranian who came to the US after the invasion goes back to fight the Roosh-in Invaders?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Exactly.

[John F. Carr]

Bears. Very dangerous. You go first.

[Kazinski]

I'm glad to see a European leader endorse Trump's vision of a Europe that pulls its own weight defending themselves.

And I am sure its also the last thing Putin wants.

[damikesc]

It very likely is.

But the UK and France are, subtly, trying to kill peace negotiations. Offering to place troops in Ukraine as "peacekeepers" is the whole "putting NATO troops on his doorstep" that Putin has vehemently opposed for a long time now. It will not be beneficial at all.

[JasonT20]

And what else is going to stop Putin from breaking any cease fire or even a final treaty without that? In diplomatic language, a "security guarantee" means more than just a few sanctions imposed on the country that violates peace agreements. Ukraine trading its sovereign territory that Russia occupies and annexed illegally for a peace that doesn't have a guarantee that would actually stop Putin from coming right back in a few years is not a good deal for anyone but Russia.

[damikesc]

Again, his top priority is not having NATO on his borders. He does not trust NATO, as he probably should not.

Why would he agree to end a war he is effectively winning and will win if the main thing he does not want is tied to it?

If the US pulls funding, the war will end regardless. Just with Putin a lot more powerful.

[Sarcastr0]

A weaker NATO is absolutely what Putin wants.

1. When it comes to an interoperable force the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.

2. We're going to be more badass than the EU militarily, for all sorts historical and structural reasons.

For both the above reasons, a collective security agreement that includes the US > a team that does not include the US.

[Kazinski]

So how is NATO weaker if Poland is spending 4% of its GDP on Defense?

[Sarcastr0]

"Hegseth said that NATO will not come to the rescue of any European nation involved in that force if it is attacked by Russia. "
https://apnews.com/article/nato-us-europeans-ukraine-security-russia-hegseth-d2cd05b5a7bc3d98acbf123179e6b391

That's part of what set off this latest flurry.

[CountmontyC]

So European nations place troops in a non-NATO nation right next to a hostile power and expect the USA to come to their rescue if attacked? Why would the USA be obligated to do so?

[TwelveInchPianist]

1. Why would NATO come to the rescue of a party attacked outside its territory?

2. What do Hegseth's comments have to do with Poland?

[Sarcastr0]

The point is "So how is NATO weaker if Poland is spending 4% of its GDP on Defense" is rather missing the Trump admin part of the equation.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Compared to what? Do you have information on any other administration's policy on an attack on a hypothetical European peacekeeping force in Ukraine?

It's not like Biden was itching to mix it up with Russia.

A primary goal of both Biden and Trump in Ukraine was staying out of war with Russia, and as long as that's case, Russia wins.

[CountmontyC]

Biden was even setting limits on where Ukraine was allowed to use weapons that the USA sent.

[Don Nico]

He may know something that we don't or he is whistling in the dark.

[Sarcastr0]

You're way too generous positing that Trump has secret knowledge or plans.

Come on, that's not how he works.

[Kazinski]

Of course he says that and he should. It would blow the whole deal if the US said it would intervene if the peacekeepers were involved in hostilities. And I notice that's a characterisation not a quote, what he likely said is he won't come to the aid of the peacekeepers if they were attacked in Ukraine not the nations sending the peacekeepers if their territory is attacked.

And it was after he made those remarks that Macron and Starmer came to the Whitehouse to discuss, very positively, sending troops to Ukraine.

And that didn't set off any "latest" flurry, he said that almost a month ago.

You ever read dates on articles?

Imagine US and NATO guarantee we will go into Ukraine if the peacekeepers are fired upon, first of all Putin wouldn't allow peacekeepers in in the first place its too high of a risk for him.

Second, imagine a false flag attack on the peacekeepers by Ukrainian forces to get the US troops they want, or just an Ukrainian attack on the Russians inviting retaliation.

[damikesc]

NATO where everybody spends at least 2% of GDP on military is a bad thing...how?

[CountmontyC]

Another issue is that those who advocate the USA be willing to spend twice that to defend Europe are often the same people that demand we cut defense spending as part of any budget deal to reduce the deficit.

[Sarcastr0]

There are plenty on the left thrilled to end the era of NATO imperialism.

But for me, it's that waste fraud and abuse the right is usually so excited to talk about.
I like the US having a big military. I also think our spending is not done at all efficiently.

[Don Nico]

"I also think our spending is not done at all efficiently."
Another point of agreement.

[tylertusta]

Agreed; the position is unsympathetic.

People who look at the defense budget as their social spending piggy bank yet complain that we're hanging Ukraine out to dry are unserious people.

[CountmontyC]

So how is US security aided by a deal where most of the other members refuse to live up to the obligations to be prepared and have failed to do so for decades?

[Sarcastr0]

1. There are no obligations set. There are goals; that's it.
2. The legitimacy and soft power we get from leading NATO are a pretty big deal.
3. Collective security is not a zero sum game. We are safer with Europe helping us out with intel, logistics, diplomacy and troops.

"I support our troops but not our allied troops" is a pretty ugly sentiment.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Our costs are quantifiable.

"Soft power" and "legitimacy" are meaningless emotions. Getting railroaded for decades by a bunch of thin belt wearing Euros is like being the power bottom at the bookstore.

Think about the last time you were at the bookstore. How much soft power and legitimacy do you think you had?

[SRG2]

So as I understand the cultist argument, Krasnov is doing everything that Putin wants him to do but that's OK, because the Europeans aren't spending as much on defence as they'd agreed.

[Kazinski]

Check. Works for me.

I shouldn't mention that I took Russian in High school either, they probably have a code name for me too, but I haven't to Russia, although I suppose Serbia is close enough.

[rloquitur]

Putting nuclear weapons to one side, if Poland joined the fight, the Russians would be defeated outright in less than a year. Air power is the missing ingredient. The Crimean bridge would come down, and Russia's forces in western Ukraine would wither on the vine.

[tylertusta]

Presumably you mean that if Poland joined the fight in Ukraine and not elsewhere.

No, not much would change except that the slow, plodding, torturous Russian advances would cease. The Polish Air Force lacks the stealth capability and mass in numbers needed to break through Russian air defenses in any meaningful way.

Things would be different if Poland had their full order of 32 F-35s, but they do not have them.

[Jay Dee]

I blame the bureaucrats. Some amount of bureaucracy is required in any form of society. The problem is that once the administrative state reaches some undefined percentage of the GDP, it takes over. Here in the U.S., government unions are selecting and electing politicians to serve the purposes of the bureaucracy. These unions elected Obama & Biden.

The problem is that once established, government agencies and programs never go away. I have little doubt that if Abraham Lincoln had established an agency to oversee the quality and manufacture of buggy whips, we would be required to install buggy whips on today’s automobiles.

So what does this have to do with the Ukraine? It has a lot to do with the current mess.

NATO should have been what I call a situational organization. It was formed to oppose the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact nations. It was necessary while Europe recovered from World War II. By the 1970s, it really wasn’t needed. The European nations were well capable of defending themselves.

When the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact dissolved, starting in 1988, the United States dissolved a number of Cold War programs and agencies. By rights, NATO should have been one of these agencies. Hold a big party, invite everyone for a parade, including the Russians and put up a for-sale sign in front of NATO headquarters. Something similar could be organized later without the laser-like bureaucratic focus on the now nonexistent Soviet Union and more importantly, without Uncle Sam to payroll the operation.

The new Russian state really wanted to be part of the European community. It would have been a path forward to a better Russia. Instead, Russia was denied entry into the European Union.
The European bureaucrats (Eurocrats) kept NATO going despite the fact that the Soviet Union was gone. When NATO started recruiting former Warsaw Pact nations, Russia was denied entry. No offense but the European elites often act like a high school clique rather than serious, well-educated adults. This cliquish behavior effectively elected Putin.

So, how to get out of this mess? The problem is that the Ukraine is a struggle between two strongly bureaucratic, dare I say autocratic societies. Neither side is very quick on the uptake.
Putin is pretty characteristic of past Russian rulers; stupid, petty and autocratic. He doesn’t want to stop because he knows he’s over when the war is over. Zelensky is in much the same circumstances. Left to their own devices, these two would continue the war until both sides were reduced to throwing rocks at each other.

The first order of business is to get peace reestablished. Even a comparatively bad peace is better than the current situation. Once the shooting stops, time will take care of the rest.
Once the shooting stops, all parties have a lot more on their plate.
Russia and the Ukraine have to recover from the war.

NATO was the agent provocateur of this conflict. It needs to be lead back behind the barn and clubbed to death. The Eurocrats can replace it with something else but Uncle Sap will no longer be paying for this. I presume that the European clique will continue and that they will continue to provoke Russia. The United States should stay out of this stupidity.

Likewise, the European Union is unsustainable. It will collapse when it can no longer continue to absorb neighboring states.
The world’s nations need to generally oppose the growth of the Chinese hegemony enough to keep them from starting a shooting war in the Pacific in general and Taiwan in specific. Left to their own devices this is another regime that will collapse due to its inefficiencies.

The United States should continue to clean house and quit subsidizing scammers, grifters and people who generally despise us. We are not going to buy their affection or loyalty. I suppose that it is hopeless optimism but I think that it would be better for the world if the revolution that started in Argentina and spread to the U.S., would continue to spread to the rest of the world.