282
submitted 4 weeks ago by schizoidman@lemmy.zip to c/world@lemmy.world

cross-posted from : https://lemmy.zip/post/62014061

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] GardenGeek@europe.pub 124 points 4 weeks ago

What exactly is the point of hoping for the US to stay when their contribution currently seems to boil down to blackmailing and threats of abandonment should shit really hit the fan? This sounds more like an abusive relationship than a defence treaty...

[-] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 16 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Because, for decades prior, the US was the military of NATO. The US pumped massive percentages of its GDP into maintaining a standing military while most of NATO focused more on social programs with comparatively minimal military spending.

And threats like russia wouldn't attack out of fear of having to fight said militarized nation. Whereas now there is a very clear window where the nations that might stand up against them are rebuilding. "Fortunately" russia is stretched pretty far by a failed invasion of Ukraine but... go read the wikipedia article on how their previous invasions of Ukraine went.


Welp. The Internet as a whole is real broken. But Lemmy is very rapidly taking the cake for THE place where you can never discuss anything and the only responses are people who are incapable of having a conversation and are just angry that you didn't say what they wanted to hear.

Dead Internet Theory looking increasingly not that bad. Or, better yet, prioritizing different social media where people respond to each other rather than the voices in their own heads. Somehow... we managed to actually leap frog reddit on the way down?

[-] GardenGeek@europe.pub 32 points 4 weeks ago

You're right of course.

But two things I'd like to point out:

  1. Yes, the US WAS the military of the treaty. WAS being the important part here as the trust that made this arragement possible is heavily eroded today due to the lunatic in charge.

  2. You're first paragraph is onesided and resembles the talking points of the Trump admin. The reality is more complex: The Us would have spend that money anyways as it aimed for global military domination during and after the cold war. The NATO treaty allowd to convert this alread spend money not only in hard military but also in soft power: The US gained massive multi-level influence in the member states due to the military depency and also bought their international voices (for example inside the UN) with it. It was a win-win situation with kooperative cost advantages for both sides. Not a one sided deal to the disadvantage of the US as Americans seem to be made believe by Trump and his oligarchy.

[-] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 0 points 4 weeks ago

Not a one sided deal to the disadvantage of the US as Americans seem to be made believe by Trump and his oligarchy.

Where did I ever say this was a one sided deal?

[-] Nacktmull@lemmy.world 11 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

The first sentence very much seems to imply that.

[-] silver@das-eck.haus 2 points 4 weeks ago

I disagree. Simply saying that fact doesn't imply it's a bad thing, even though that is something we often hear from those who are anti NATO. I would expect anyone here to understand that the US benefited heavily from the arrangement, and is now losing soft power in a huge way

[-] Nacktmull@lemmy.world 5 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Its one of Trumps main anti NATO talking points, its not particularly surprising people will recognize it as that.

[-] silver@das-eck.haus 5 points 4 weeks ago

Totally agree, I just think it's unlikely that anyone in this forum would be parroting a Trump talking point for the sake of it.

[-] Nacktmull@lemmy.world 4 points 4 weeks ago

I see your point

[-] GardenGeek@europe.pub 7 points 4 weeks ago

You didn't say that.

I got triggered since you only linked US military spending to european social security programs while leaving out other aspects, a reasoning which I only know from US conservatives including Trump.

If I mistook you I'm sorry.

[-] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 weeks ago

Pointing out that the US spends massive amounts of money on military spending is just a fact. https://www.nato.int/content/dam/nato/webready/documents/finance/def-exp-2025-en.pdf is the official NATO write up of this from last year and the only countries that outspend the US (as a percentage of their GDP) tend to be the countries that are where The War will kick off Poland) or... countries with other things going on

And keep in mind that is in terms of GDP percentages and how massive the US's economy was for most of that period.

The "conservative" talking point is not: "The US spends money on war while the EU spends money on healthcare and actually giving a shit about its population". It is "The US spends money on war so you should do whatever we want". Its also worth understanding that The EU did not spend that money anywhere near that altruistically but it doesn't change the situation that the EU/NATO finds itself in.

Because when that military is increasingly likely to be the aggressor? You need to rapidly start making guns and revisiting what is required of your populace. People have exploded over Germany recently more or less codifying a standing policy but... there is a reason politicians are looking at their conscription laws.

Look. We all live in a content bubble. But if you actually want to understand the world, rather than just get angry in ways that are convenient to influencers and politicians, actually look at statistics and respond to facts. Rather than getting pissy and screaming "fake news" because you don't' like what you saw.

Because, to be clear, I REALLY don't fucking like how broken the US is because of how much it spends on the military.

load more comments (19 replies)
load more comments (27 replies)
this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2026
282 points (97.6% liked)

World News

55875 readers
1896 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS