[RD] Surrender Summit

[Berzerker]

Are you pushing this Trumpian narrative about how European countries are "taking advantage" of US security guarantees?

Trump didn't invent the narrative and its just not Europe, but when the US assumes more of the burden other countries can spend less and devote more to domestic spending.

I don't understand why France or Germany would either need to rely on US for security or increase their own military spending. There are no threats to justify maintaining a million-strong military for them. Regardless if they spend 1% or 5% of their GDP on defense, US leverage on them will stay roughly the same and threat from Russia will remain non-existent.

The threat to them is less than it was in the past, but NATO will need their help if other members who are closer to the threats get attacked.

Hypothetical threats can be used to justify anything. I mean, Russia currently has better relations with Germany and France than with Poland and Turkey, so suggesting it can form a block with Poland is somewhat like suggesting that Japan will team up with China and Australia to attack US. Risk and threats must be assessed so that response to them is adequate. There's no need to keep huge army just in case.

Thats because Poland and Turkey are closer to Russia. Why does Russia hate it when countries join NATO?

I said nothing about fighting wars, and the money argument is stupid because we could afford to do those things even with our current military spending levels. The lack of spending on health care and infrastructure has nothing to do with military spending.

What do you think happens when allies reliant on the US for security get attacked? Wars. And of course domestic spending has something to do with military budgets, the latter goes up and there's less for the former. Cutting $100 bn from the military would go a long way to funding health care.

Which current allies are "giving us military might" and making us stronger in your view?

Most of them spend on their military but the more they spend the stronger we are. Do you think the US is better off if they spend less? Israel and SA spend more of their gdp but since we subsidize Israel's military even thats skewed

 

[red_elk]

Assad started rebellion by killing protesters.

Again that playground argument "he did it first!"
The question is not who started rebellion, but what made it fail and what conclusions can be drawn from it.

Thats because Poland and Turkey are closer to Russia. Why does Russia hate it when countries join NATO?

Because NATO is anti-Russian military block and neighbors joining it bring NATO infrastructure close to our borders.
Russia doesn't want to see US troops in Ukraine for similar reasons why US doesn't want to see Russian missiles on Cuba.

 

[Berzerker]

I can understand that... Did Putin back an assassination plot on the dude in Montenegro for joining NATO? Seems to me NATO is a defensive alliance, the only valid reason I can see for Russia being mad about it is future plans involving neighbors.

 

[red_elk]

I can understand that... Did Putin back an assassination plot on the dude in Montenegro for joining NATO?

You can safely assume that any assassination in the world is done by Putin, until proven otherwise. Including dude in Montenegro, whoever that may be.

Seems to me NATO is a defensive alliance

Certainly. It constantly conducts defensive operations in places like Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. We only need enough deterrence so that NATO won't come to our territory, to defend itself.

 

[Berzerker]

touche... But I heard it was a pro-Russian group that tried to kill the guy in Montenegro while the country was lobbying to join NATO.

 

[Hehehe]

Trump didn't invent the narrative and its just not Europe, but when the US assumes more of the burden other countries can spend less and devote more to domestic spending.

It's not at all clear that those countries would be spending much more on their militaries without US security guarantees. For example, Finland is not a part of NATO, and our military spending is still less than 2% of GDP (1,2%-1,7%, depending on how one calculates this figure)

Why does Russia hate it when countries join NATO?

The Russian narrative is that throughout it's history, Russia has been invaded by various brutal occupiers ranging from Mongols to Napoleon to Hitler. NATO may or may not be planning to invade Russia, but from the Russians' point of view, they have to wonder why NATO is so aggressive in expanding closer and closer to Russian core territories. If someone did want to invade Russia, Ukraine would make a great starting point for such an invasion, which is why Ukraine getting closer to the West was such a big deal for them. Paranoid or not, they see the encroachment by NATO as a hostile act.

That, as far as I understand it, is the Russian view. I'm not saying I agree with it, or that it justifies invading countries or annexing territories (I don't think it does). All I'm saying is, that is how they see it.

 

[Berzerker]

Trump's such a charlatan... He's taking credit as being tough on Russia citing sanctions while claiming he gets along better with Russia than other US presidents. According to recent reports I saw on Maddow his people were trying to dump sanctions within days of entering office.

 

[metalhead]

The US doesn't need to maintain its current military posture to defend the US. The reason the US has the military it has with bases around the world is to maintain its empire.

If you're actually arguing that the US should maintain its empire, that's one thing, but you shouldn't conflate defensive readiness with the kind of readiness required to maintain an empire and maintain the capability to strike anywhere in the world.

I'm merely arguing the strategic aspect of it. I agree that the U.S. wastes hundreds of billions of dollars a year on things which are totally unnecessary for either self-defense or readiness, but in terms of geopolitical posturing, being responsible for the security of other nations gives us strategic leverage over them in other areas.

So the argument that military spending disparities is somehow hurting the U.S. is nonsense. It's to our strategic advantage to be the ones providing the bulk of the hardware and manpower to NATO. Whether we use that advantage responsibly, or whether it is worth it is another discussion.

 

[Lexicus]

So the argument that military spending disparities is somehow hurting the U.S. is nonsense. It's to our strategic advantage to be the ones providing the bulk of the hardware and manpower to NATO. Whether we use that advantage responsibly, or whether it is worth it is another discussion.

I agree entirely with this, it's Berzerker who doesn't understand the dynamics of the US empire here. The other issue is that there are domestic political reasons we supply other countries' militaries. It's a massive free handout to the defense industry, on which lots of jobs rely.

 

[Berzerker]

Do you think the US is better off when allies spend less on their military?

 

[Hygro]

It's a good question and often I think yes.

 

[rah]

It really doesn't matter since it's all just a talking point for Trump.
Oh the poor US is being cheated by our allies not paying enough.
And the trumpettes suck it up.
Reality is not very important in Trumpland.

 

[Berzerker]

I'm merely arguing the strategic aspect of it. I agree that the U.S. wastes hundreds of billions of dollars a year on things which are totally unnecessary for either self-defense or readiness, but in terms of geopolitical posturing, being responsible for the security of other nations gives us strategic leverage over them in other areas.

So the argument that military spending disparities is somehow hurting the U.S. is nonsense. It's to our strategic advantage to be the ones providing the bulk of the hardware and manpower to NATO. Whether we use that advantage responsibly, or whether it is worth it is another discussion.

Do those disparities hurt us when we have to fight someone else's war? I'd rather lose 'leverage' than blood and treasure. We got dragged into Vietnam because France was too weak to deal with the mess they created.

It's a good question and often I think yes.

Why?

 

[Lexicus]

Do you think the US is better off when allies spend less on their military?

As I've already explained to you, I think that US allies are US allies in large part because being a US ally means not having to spend so much on your military.

 

[Berzerker]

As I've already explained to you, I think that US allies are US allies in large part because being a US ally means not having to spend so much on your military.

You didn't answer the question

But lets run with that... If they dont have to spend as much, is that because the US is spending more? If so, wouldn't the US be better off if they spent more allowing the US to spend less on bombs and bullets and more on health care and infrastructure?

Is it better for our allies if they dont have to spend more on their military? That seems to be your argument... So why doesn't that apply to the US if we spend less and our allies make up the difference?

 

[metalhead]

Do those disparities hurt us when we have to fight someone else's war? I'd rather lose 'leverage' than blood and treasure. We got dragged into Vietnam because France was too weak to deal with the mess they created.

In both cases we fought those wars because we believed that fighting them was in our own best interests. We weren't "dragged into" Vietnam or Korea, we entered both of our own accord. Neither were "someone else's war." They were fully ours.

Sure, you could argue we should have left Vietnam alone and let the insurgents take over South Vietnam. But having the option to intervene is strictly better strategically than not having that option. Korea was a UN engagement, but we got them to go along because we had the bulk of the fighting force and equipment ready to go. Again - we got to dictate the terms of engagement because we supplied the military might.

But lets run with that... If they dont have to spend as much, is that because the US is spending more? If so, wouldn't the US be better off if they spent more allowing the US to spend less on bombs and bullets and more on health care and infrastructure?

There is no connection whatsoever between military spending and health care and infrastructure spending. None. It's a false choice you're offering.

 

[Hygro]

I would spend more on military, more on infrastructure, lower, raise, and shift taxes, encourage Germany to modernize and repair but keep small its military, invite France to keep its large military and Britain to maintain its as well.

By and large it’s better if we’re the ones with the guns and the ones deciding the wars even if our track record was pretty poor in recent years.

American hegemony has coincided with a peaceful age.

(And an age so prosperous we give the whitehouse to the kleptocrat party every second go around and still do ok).

 

[Lexicus]

You didn't answer the question

Yes I did. I think that making US allies spend more on their armed forces is likely to weaken the US by giving us less leverage over allies and making countries less likely to want to be allies in the first place.

Is it better for our allies if they dont have to spend more on their military? That seems to be your argument... So why doesn't that apply to the US if we spend less and our allies make up the difference?

None of those allies uses its military might to maintain an empire which allows its citizens consume five times their fair share of global production.

 

[red_elk]

There is no connection whatsoever between military spending and health care and infrastructure spending. None.

I think their sum might have an upper limit.

 

[Hygro]

I think their sum might have an upper limit.

True, though far from our current position, particularly over the longer term.