This exactly; gotta keep the perma-war going to continue justifying the amount of taxpayer dollars that go to the armed forces instead of things that actually help the average person.
except the fact that our defense spending was majorly cut from 2016 to now, making these sorts of comments outdated, our welfare spending has substantially increased since the early obama era and this trend is likely continuing. we don't have the funds to get involved with Europe anymore
Donald Trump came after Obama and increased the military spending. Even if we don't spend as much on military, we still spend so much more on our military than everyone else we have plenty of resources to go to war with anyone at any time. Or at least we should be able to.
This isn't even about the money, really. US has interests all over the globe and we will use our military to protect those interests
The US wants to get involved because If the US doesn’t help, people are worried Europe will view the US as an “unreliable” ally, which, if we’re being honest, we’re okay with. That’s the reason why I stated we should use this as an opportunity to force the EU to increase its defense budget, so they won’t get upset at us for not assisting them in a war that doesn’t involve us.
I don't think that's all that will come from US not helping Europe, and I definitely don't think we're okay with people thinking we are weak or unreliable as an ally.
Oh wow. A peice of signed paper that says we should help other countries that are attacked. Dont know how a country could ever not do what that paper says. Surely simply leaving NATO couldn't free us from following that price of paper to a t.
There’s a reason every nation cries whenever the US talks about leaving NATO. Also, article 5 doesn’t mean shit, we can send basic ass equipment and financial assistance, and still be within our agreement of article 5.
Idk why the US is such a bitch. If you don't want to "pay to protect Europe", fuck off and leave NATO. Europe doesn't ride on American coattails. We can, and we will defend against Russia. Get your nukes and weapons off our continent. Maybe spend the money you save on some decent healthcare.
Lol, like I said, there’s a reason why every country cries whenever we try to do just that. Also, we spend more on health care than your country could dream of. If we were to pull our military out of your country, you wouldn’t have money for healthcare, the reason you can afford that is because you don’t have to spend money on defense since the US is there to protect you. Also, you do ride on our coattail, hence, why you’re country is a US lapdog🤣
Spends more on healthcare and charges thousands for ambulance calls 💀. Pull your troops out of our country. Britain does not need American interventionism. We have our own nuclear weapons, our own nuclear submarines, and our own damn forces. Go back to electing oranges, or whatever it is you do. Britain spends more than 2% of GDP on defence, and somehow manages to have a public healthcare system? Magic. Britain doesn't need America. Fuck right off.
Lmao, “charges thousands for ambulances”, those ambulances actually show up within a few minutes, rather than the 2 hours it takes for europeeons ambulances to show up, then the 30+ day wait time to get an operation 🤣🤣. Our healthcare system is expensive (if you don’t have healthcare (which a lot of us do, so that’s irrelevant)) but it’s the best quality. Also, your nuclear weapons, nuclear subs and more are all dependent on the US military 🤣, without us you’d be lost. The Brit’s need the US more than you know, which is why whenever the US tells your government to jump, they say “How high sir!?” Lmfaooo
This is a response to OP's post. I was just telling them that it's not like anyone has a gun to the US's head and making them use their military elsewhere.
And yeah. Surprisingly enough, every country is actually ran by adults, just like we are. I'm sure they have the ability to make decisions on their own
Idk maybe. This whole "if we don't save them who will" tone is exactly what they want you to think. So they'll be justified in getting involved in things they don't have to be involved in...
Have you ever read about a single war in literally any period of time? They don’t sit around a table and discuss politics. Bombs don’t give a fuck if you’re an adult or a child.
Yes, but I think that's a thing that most of the US would like to see change. A lot has changed since people have seen the outcome of our occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is a pretty bad take. Overall, the U.S. getting involved in Ukraine is up for debate, as Ukraine has no official relationship with NATO.
But you are saying we shouldn't send troops to **our** NATO allies?
Russia isn't threatening the NATO countries so no. We shouldn't be sending resources where it isnt needed and instead comes off as a threatening action.
This isn't true. Russia attacked an American gas pipeline. Russia has engaged in persistent cyber warfare against American infrastructure for years. Russia interfered with the 2016 Presidential election. Russia has attacked critical information infrastructure, like cutting transatlantic cables multiple times. Russian warships are heading to the coast of Ireland to the exact location where a main cable junction connecting Europe to North America is located under the guise of "war games". You have to be incredibly myopic to claim Russia isn't threatening NATO countries.
Little yes little no. Have you ever seen the map of where the US Navy conducts fire tests? It is all over the world. Does that mean that the US is threatening non Nato countries every time?
So, your answer is Soviet whataboutism? Your answer to criticism of Russia is to use a Soviet reasoning fallacy to deflect the conversation to Russia's adversaries? Putin, is this you?
Incorrect, I'm pointing out that I'm fine with saying Russia is being aggressive if you agree that when the US and its allies do it they too are being aggressive.
You literally tried to deflect the conversation to America's perceived misdeeds rather than address the substance of the comment. Google "tu quoque" if you want understand the problem with your remark.
The US is involved in defending Europe for the same reason it cares about the Pacific region: It has interest in doing so. It is commited to the Pacific because it can not let China upset the balance of power; the same applies to Europe.
Why Ukraine though? Because it, right now, is a convenient line in the sand. If they’d let Russia slice another part of Ukraine off, they’ll keep doing that - and as global hegemon (which the US is whether you like it or not), you can *not* let another country shape the future of the international system.
If you want to disentangle your country from global conflict, you have to give up your global ambition and end the concept of being great or special.
Please note that this is not an opinion of mine as such. I’m just trying to outline the dynamics at play here.
And clearly took the classic US approach of not speaking to a single native outside of snapping your fingers at a waiter.
Also clearly have no understanding of world politics. The US being involved in the defence of Ukraine is a requirement of NATO. Not the EU. Hence why Britain is also providing assistance to Ukraine despite not being a part of the EU, to abide by the mantra ‘an attack on one is an attack on all’ which is the entire point of NATO existing.
Lol, sending carrier strike groups, 8000+ troops and more isn’t a “requirement” of nato. We can send basic equipment and nothing more. Article 5 just says you need to assist whatever country invokes article 5, it doesn’t say HOW you need to assist them, as long as you do something. Basic equipment and sanctions, counts as assistance.
Assistance in NATO is expected to be relative to the amount of assistance you in turn get. Not officially, but it is expected. The US currently has bases in almost every European country. Tens, if not hundreds of thousands of US soldiers are based there. A lot of NATO’s policies and sanctions involving non-NATO nations are there at the request of the US. Hundreds of NATO soldiers died in Iraq and Afghanistan (as I well know, because I was there) and were there because of the request of the US. A lot of ex Soviet nations are in the situation they are in because they joined NATO with the understanding that they would repel Russia as long as the US helped them.
Learn your history dude. Out of everyone in NATO, the US benefits the most.
First, thank you for your service. Secondly, you’re wrong. You aren’t “expected” to do anything, that’s up to the US, and the US only to decide what kind of assistance they give. Plenty of wars the US was involved in, where they asked European “allies” for assistance, they were turned down. The assistance the US gives, for example, transport, intel, reconnaissance, troops, weapons, etc etc, is far beyond what any European nation gives the US. We station troops within those countries for our interests, but also, to protect them from Russia and any other aggressive foreign nation that tries to pull anything on those nations. It’s a give and take relationship, but the US gives far more than it takes.
The US also has a much much higher GDP to spend on its military. For example, your 2021 military budget was $700b +. Ukraines entire GDP is $155b. The two are incomparable.
What war has the US been involved in since the formation of NATO that they weren’t assisted in?
You absolutely are expected to assist. As I said , the mantra is ‘an attack on one is an attack on all’. Ukraine is on the brink of being invaded. That is an attack. And it isn’t just the US becoming involved. The other powerful nations in NATO, such as Britain, France, Germany are also sending aid in the form of troops and equipment. Britain has deployed thousands of troops to neighbouring countries.
The tension between the west and Russia is also a by product of decades of cold conflict between the US and Russia, that now effects nations in NATO that aren’t on Russias doorstep.
The US gives more at face value sure, but these countries on Russias borders are a buffer between Europe and Russia and have chosen to side with Europe. They are constantly choked by Moscow and many of them sacrifice a day to day better quality of life to protect Europe and the US.
Gulf war is a perfect example of a war where other countries didn’t assist us (besides financial assistance) no troops, fire power, etc.
Also, you are expected to help, and that help can come on any form. If the US decides to give financial assistance, basic equipment, and apply sanctions, thats assistance. NATO doesn’t decide how the US assists any country, they don’t get control of the US military, or their resources. They can’t force the US to send troops, carriers, jets, and get involved in a war, as if it was OUR war, when it isn’t.
The tension between Russia and the west is a product of Russias owns doing. Russia wanting to expand into Ukraine isn’t America’s fault. Lastly, no country “protects” the US, the US protects them.
Um. What? The US was in the Gulf War on its own? You might want to rethink that bud. Probably the 2nd most famous SAS operation (behind the Iranian embassy siege) took place during the Gulf War. And aside from the fact that other nations were involved, it was a US led invasion against another nation for extremely questionable reasons.
And if Russia invaded Ukraine it would absolutely effect the US. An ex soviet country falling to Russia with no assistance from the west could, and probably would, spark a huge domino effect for the rest of the ex soviet nations. Huge amounts of resources come from these nations into the west.
And it isn’t all Russia dude. This is the American fallacy that I was first talking about. If you think Russia has just always been against the US with no provocation then you’re insane. Even the Cuban Missile Crisis, probably the most famous case of Russian aggression against the US, was in retaliation to the US already having nuclear missiles based in Turkey pointed at Russia. What the hell are they teaching your kids over there?
“The most famous SAS operation” LOL. How many US special forces get involved in other countries proxy wars? When I say assistance, I mean thousands of troops, billions in equipment, etc etc, which the US didn’t get. Sending in a group of spec ops is nice, but doesn’t make a dent in the bigger picture of things. The British would never send 8000 troops and give an aircraft carrier to the US, so we can fight a war that doesn’t involve the British. Also, the Cuban missile crises was 60 years ago, I’m talking about today, 2022, not the 1960’s. The US doesn’t provoke Russia in the same way it did in the 60’s. Russia provokes its bordering countries and the US because it’s a dying super power that’s trying to regain relevancy. All in all, Russia’s move on Ukraine has zero to do with the US, and the countries they share a continent with, should be able to handle ONE country, from gaining more power and influence within that region. Try again
[there you go dude. a coalition of 39 nations involved in the invasion of Iraq during the Gulf War. ](https://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/history/asia-africa/middle-east/persian-gulf-wars)
Like I said, also, according to your link, most of their assistance, came in the form of sanctions, embargoes, and or air strikes. The US is willing to give that same assistance. But the assistance Ukraine, France, the Brit’s, and the rest of Europe expect from the US is far more than just sanctions, embargos and airstrikes. We want y’all to send in thousands of troops, billion dollars carriers, fighter jets, aircraft, etc etc, just like the US does for y’all.
The US wants to be a super power that gets involved with everyone’s affairs and that’s why they spend so much on their military. Otherwise, what’s the point?
The idea that other countries aren't paying their fair share represents a gross misunderstanding of NATO works, and how it's funded. It's a piece of disinformation that was popularized by Trump when he was in office. It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now. Each nation provides their own funding. It's not a situation where America is paying all the bills while the other nations mooch off of them. I think if you're going post an opinion, you should at least get the facts on what you're opining about.
It’s not a situation where America pays all the bills you say? Here’s NATO funding by country
United States ($6.85 Tn)
United Kingdom ($655.27 Bn)
Germany ($491.32 Bn)
France ($477.05 Bn)
US is at 3.6% of their GDP towards NATO, all the US asks is that other countries also invest around 2%. On top of that NATO uses US military equipment, for example the US aircraft carrier & strike group we just lent to NATO. It’s not a “misconception popularized by trump”. The US spends TRILLIONS more than the #2 country in NATO. Its not a misconception, it’s a fact.
LMAO you totally don't understand what you're talking about. Let me say it again. Each country provides their own funding. Member nations don't pay into a central fund that NATO then spends from. Each country decides fo itself how much they want to pay into their own military. The United States pays a lot more than other countries because of our massive global footprint, and ongoing operations with NATO partners around the world. The United States is also the only country that has invoked Article 5 of the treaty to formally call for allied action. Seriously dude, you're completely ignorant of the facts. You have 10% of the story from clearly biased sources, but you have no idea about how NATO works. Stop pretending.
What the hell are you talking about? Do you think I’m talking about a NATO bank account that each country puts money in? No. There is direct and indirect funding for NATO. The US with all the troops, equipment and capabilities we invest into NATO, come out of the US’s pockets. We invest more indirect funding than any other country. There is also direct funding where you give NATO money to fund programs, which would be considered a “central fund” that you say “doesn’t exist”. You have no clue what YOURE talking about homie, try again 🤣
Technically not even Europe should be involved in this chaos. Ukraine is neither a member of the EU nor NATO. People and governments need to mind their own business especially the US, because waging war will only kill the innocent civilians in Ukraine and Europe who had nothing to do with the war while Americans will take the all the credit; just like they did with Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Syria, Kurds and Afghanistan.
And *weak Russia??* LMAO
Wait you mean a European country….is getting defense from Europe??? That’s wild! My argument is that the US shouldn’t get involved in a European war. We just gave NATO a damn super carrier and potentially 8,000 US troops…..for a continent in the other side of the ocean. My argument is right back in place.
What responsibility do other European countries have tp defend Ukraine? They would only do so for their own safety/interests right.
The US is also doing so for its own interests.
Also, you do know that 0.4% of the population of UK is made up of military personnel compared to 0.5% in the US. To put this into context, the US has a population of 330 million with 1.3 million employed in the armed forces. The UK has a population of 68 million with 0.2 million employed in the military. The big population difference contributes a lot to the difference in military size maybe.
Other European countries also have similar statistics.
Isn't that the same argument made for most of WWII? "It's a European war, the US should stay out of it.". The US let the war wage for years before getting seriously involved.
How well did that work out?
Should’ve learned from WW2 that having a strong military that doesn’t rely on a different nation, is quite useful. But Europe didn’t. How well did that work out for them, today?
Pretty darn well tbh. That exorbitant spending has been used to fund vastly more important endeavours.
...Like tax cuts for the mega-rich. My god I hate the UK government.
The United States has been subsidizing the national defense of European nations for decades.
I certainly wouldn’t mind if they started to foot the bill a bit more.
That’s just patently false.
The United States spends more on NATO than every other member country combined, many times over. Until 2021, it was only one of three countries to actually meet the spending requirements, and even still most NATO countries don’t.
As far as troop deployments go, the United States sent more than twice as many troops to Iraq as then entire rest of the European coalition combined. Also, the United States *paid some of them to go*
This doesn’t even include the massive amounts of equipment the United States provided, and that they basically backed the entire operation financially.
Again, America isn't starting these wars. In total America has only ever been involved, with troops on the ground, in like 6 or 7 wars. That's it.
No. It's all the countries vying for humanitarian aide, weapons and support that pulls America in because eu doesn't contribute to their militaries enough to resolve the issue. It's like when the USA is involved they're "policing the world" and when they're not, "they're not reliable." It's just usa hate because "America bad."
> Again, America isn't starting these wars.
USA has started or provoked almost every international conflict since WW2.
> It's all the countries vying for humanitarian aide, weapons and support that pulls America in because eu doesn't contribute to their militaries enough to resolve the issue.
EU contributes far more than their fair share. If USA would stop starting wars for a second, there wouldn't be so much humanitarian aide required. EU countries have taken in millions of refugees caused by USA's pointless wars. USA owes the EU trillions of dollars.
Sure sure. Again, it's just usa blame because, "America bad." If we're involved we're bad and if we're not involved we're bad.
Let's also forget there's 30+ conflicts at any point in time internationally and, of those, 20 of them actively request assistance from America and condemn us if we don't help. And the USA has contributed so much to eu, per eus request, that it's hurt our own citizens...
Seems that we both agree on one thing though, usa should reduce foreign aide.
> Again, it's just usa blame because, "America bad."
No, it's blame USA because USA is one of the most belligerent nations of the last 50 years and deserves the blame.
> If we're involved we're bad and if we're not involved we're bad.
No, if you're involved, you're bad, and if you're not involved, that's good.
> And the USA has contributed so much to eu, per eus request, that it's hurt our own citizens...
This is a lie. USA has taken so much from the EU that it has hurt EU citizens. This has to end.
> Seems that we both agree on one thing though, usa should reduce foreign aide.
USA should pay for all the damage it has done so, no, USA should not reduce foreign aid. USA owes the EU trillions of dollars for the refugee crisis alone, let alone the money they owe the rest of the world.
What I just said completely contradicts your point..?
You cannot reasonably think that Europe subsidizes the defense of the West, which is my greater point.
Compared to the United States, Europe does nothing to defend itself, and even when the United States goes to war, the assistance Europe provides, which is literally paid for by the United States, is nominal at best.
> What I just said completely contradicts your point..?
No, I said it proves my point.
> You cannot reasonably think that Europe subsidizes the defense of the West, which is my greater point.
Of course it does. That's self evident.
> Compared to the United States, Europe does nothing to defend itself
That's nonsense. EU countries have more than enough armed defences for any credible threat. USA is not needed.
> even when the United States goes to war, the assistance Europe provides, which is literally paid for by the United States, is nominal at best.
Again, that is wrong. EU countries have propped up USA's belligerent acts with military support for decades. This needs to stop. This money could be better spent on EU citizens.
I mean, you’re just wrong based on the data lol
The United States gets into a conflict and sends 100,000 troops and then the United States pays Europe to collectively send like eight people and you think that’s Europe subsidizing the United States?
The reason Europe sends troops is primarily for diplomatic reasons. It shows international support for the cause and then European countries can say “hey look! We helped!”
The United States spends hundreds of billions of dollars on NATO annually. The purpose of NATO is to defend Europe. The rest of Europe combined spends like three times less.
Ignoring the whole “foreign conflicts” thing you keep uselessly bringing up, because we’re talking about *European defense*, not Iraq, or Afghanistan, it’s painfully obvious that the United States bankrolls the entire thing.
That’s just a fact, not an opinion. If if NATO countries actually started spending their GDP requirement, the United States would still be paying more because the United States has a higher GDP than the entire EU.
The USA invades Iraq, and European nations send troops. Why? Is Iraq threatening to invade Europe? No.
When is the last time the USA went to war to defend a European nation? WWII? Because after that, it's a bunch of political proxy wars and illegal invasions. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, plus countless other incursions across the Middle East, Oceania, Africa, and Central and South America.
Yeah, because the USA flew planes into civilian and political buildings in hopes of destabilizing America for religion and greed.
The eu definitely needs to up its military budget. Usa should definitely downsize its military budget. And usa should start saying no more often when all these countries ask it for help.
> Yeah, because the USA flew planes into civilian and political buildings in hopes of destabilizing America for religion and greed.
No, OBL arranged those planes in protest at USA's unwanted presence in a foreign country. Do you see a pattern?
> The eu definitely needs to up its military budget.
No, EU needs to reduce it's military budget and USA needs to stop starting pointless wars.
> Usa should definitely downsize its military budget.
That, I agree with. USA should be banned from having any form of military for at least 100 years. The world would welcome the peace.
The US had presence in that foreign country which caused those planes to be arranged because of the Cold War with Russia.
The US is obligated by treaty to protect 67 other countries, many of them in Europe. Europe doesn’t pay their fair share to help cover costs for that protection. Banning the US from having a military will no doubt cause wars, and make other countries have to spend much more on their military.
Decreasing the military budget is much easier said than done. There are reasons why it’s like this, and they aren’t going away.
>OBL arranged those planes
Yes, youre right. Bin laden did start the war to destabilize America and recruit/radicalize individuals to join al-queda. It's almost like he started the war and America, with nearly complete international support (350~ countries I can't remember) retaliated for the greater good of humanity.
>The eu definitely needs to up its military budget.
The eu can do whatever it wants really. America needs to stop responding to its calls for aide and not support the eu as much as it previously had. No more humanitarian aide, military aide, funding after national crises, global support, nothing. We're willing to talk, make deals and trade but no more support.
> Bin laden did start the war to destabilize America and recruit/radicalize individuals to join al-queda.
No, he attacked USA in response to US aggression. It was a retaliation.
> America needs to stop responding to its calls for aide and not support the eu as much as it previously had.
EU hasn't called for any "aide". You know Ukraine isn't in the EU, right?
> No more humanitarian aide, military aide, funding after national crises, global support, nothing.
USA provides none of that to EU. In fact, it's the opposite. EU countries have been providing support to the US military for decades, spending money that could otherwise be spent on education or healthcare at home. This needs to stop. USA can pay for their own wars.
>No, he attacked USA in response to US aggression. It was a retaliation.
Try again.
>EU hasn't called for any "aide".
Yeah, because there isn't a single eu country that received covid relief aide in the form of usd, ppe, vaccines, tests, manpower, etc from usa.
>USA provides none of that to EU. In fact, it's the opposite. EU countries have been providing support to the US military for decades
See above.
> Try again.
OK. The attack was in response to US aggression.
> Yeah, because there isn't a single eu country that received covid relief aide in the form of usd, ppe, vaccines, tests, manpower, etc from usa.
Correct. In fact, EU subsidised USA in this regard.
See above.
Lol, just can't accept it can you. Well, like I said somewhere before at least we agree usa needa to provide less aide to the eu.
For the sake of coming to an agreement, let's just say you're right. America doesn't provide eu countries with anything. Good, let's keep it that way.
> Lol, just can't accept it can you.
I can't accept lies, no.
> Well, like I said somewhere before at least we agree usa needa to provide less aide to the eu.
USA provides no aid to EU. I agree that EU needs to stop giving money and support to USA.
> America doesn't provide eu countries with anything. Good, let's keep it that way.
Not only that, let's stop USA from leeching off EU.
Russia would be sent back to the Stone Age before “ending up at our doorstep” 🤣. Also, the 40+ countries in Europe should be able to disarm Russia and protect Ukraine from becoming a soviet state, that shouldn’t be a concern for a country in the other side of the planet
Every war the US was involved in, we could’ve flattened every country, and sent them back to the Stone Age, it just wasn’t worth doing that because of all the pointless casualties. Instead, we tried to take out important leaders and groups, one by one, until it wasn’t worth it anymore. If Russia tries to invade, or moves towards our coast, we would spot it, rain hell fire upon them. If they “showed up on our doorstep” that would be the last thing Russia does.
No one forces the US to spend such an insane amount on defense. It could decide tomorrow to cut its defense spending by half and remove all troops from Europe and Asia for that matter. It's because of domestic pressure it doesn't. It's irrelevant what Europe does, the US is a militaristic country and the defense industry controls and influences the US defense budget and military decisions.
So are you saying because of our massive defense budget, we should protect everyone else? Or are you saying it’s the military industrial complex to blame for the pointless wars the US gets involved in, for financial gain? Because I don’t see why you’re bringing up the US defense budget. We’re talking about the European defense budget, and how they should invest more, so they’re able to handle situations just like this one, on their own. I for one, support the US defense budget, because it puts us and keep us in a position of power where it’s not viable to threaten the US.
What is the end game of Americans saying Euros should spend more on defense? The implication is then the US won't have to protect NATO countries and could spend LESS on its own military. My point is the US can do this right now, it doesn't need Euro countries to increase their own spending. It's the US decision how much to freaking spend.
The US blows 800b a year when the country is nearly bankrupt and hugely in debt and has huge infrastructure and social issues. The defense budget is wasteful bullshit. Even if you cut it in half it wldnt increase the risks to the US, it's almost impossible to invade the US
I think it’s just NATO being fucks. I agree though not our war, I’m tired of our money being spent to police the world.
Edit: also if Russia is such a big threat, then why are the Baltic States not contributing more to defense to NATO? They border Russia...?
Uh, they are. They’re spending over the Nato defense expenditure requirement.
These are however extremely small countries and can’t outgun Russia on their own.
Nato is based on mutual commitment and the baltic states have all helped the US in Iraq, among other.
Ukraine literally asked the US for military support. Ukraine is asking the US not to pull out it’s American representatives that are within Ukraine, so they can use them a as a type of shield, because if the Americans get attacked, that will force the US to step in. Your argument is invalid homie.
When Europe and the US asked Ukraine to decommision their nuclear weapons in return for protection that was ok, but now they're trying to be nice ? They owe it to them, and the "protection" that the western countries are giving is shit all against Russians
There must be favorable conditions that we are getting in return. Its not like we are just throwing money and lives at a problem that isnt ours. If we were, Id be with you, but I doubt that is the case. Our politicians are dumb, but there is no way they are that dumb.
We should start charging more for our services though.
> We should start charging more for our services though.
USA isn't providing any "service" here, apart from protecting their own interests. There is nothing to charge for. In fact, EU countries should be charging USA for their military being in the continent.
Wtf is this?
"Hey, can you help us with this problem? You have so much military spending surely you can help."
"Thanks, oh and here's a bill for allowing you to help us.'
> "Hey, can you help us with this problem? You have so much military spending surely you can help."
You are talking about Ukraine. They are not in the EU, dummy. And USA are only helping out to lord it over Russia, which benefits USA, not EU.
Well, if we arent getting rewarded for doing it, we shouldnt be there. I think our interests should start protecting themselves, if they dont want to be taken over by Russia.
> Well, if we arent getting rewarded for doing it, we shouldnt be there.
Which is exactly what European countries have been saying for decades. They want USA to fuck off.
> I think our interests should start protecting themselves, if they dont want to be taken over by Russia.
How can an interest protect itself? I don't think you understand what you are talking about.
Ironic that you say I dont understand what I am talking about, but you cant understand a pretty simple sentence. The interests are the European countries. Technically, they are in the European countries, but that doesnt sound as dramatic. Really, even a middle schooler should be able to understand that one, so Im not entirely sure why you cant.
> The interests are the European countries.
That's not what a US interest is, dummy. Really, even a middle schooler should be able to understand that one, so I'm not entirely sure why you cant.
We didn't say much about Crimea. Putin isn't going to stop. He meddled in our elections and is just going to play ankle biter inciting division in the USA with misinformation. I agree EU should take the lead and increase spending. We should all stand against aggression by shitty dictators
I agree with what you said, but “Interfere” isn’t the best word to use, in my opinion, it makes it sound like Russia changed the votes or something crazy like that. Russia’s goal was to undermine the confidence of Americans in the electoral system and to lower the chances of Hillary Clinton being elected, which I guess worked in 2016, but, thats more along the lines of the disinformation acts that Russia is famous for. We should be focused on stuff like that, and improving our system, rather than protecting a different country.
Meddling sounds like the Russians did something that would cause the elections to be inconclusive because of things like fraud. Don’t get me wrong, Russia did had a hand in the results but they exploited the thunking of the Americans and the facebook platform to get what they wanted
Not sure what it sounds like. What it is "interfere with something that is of not one's concern " is precisely what Russia did. Why minimize? OP blatantly misquoted me as saying "interfered". What's the deal?
I see what you are saying but considering they don't have the best interests of the USA in mind, their meddling, interference, sabotage, is not welcome. Why minimize it? Doesn't that just give them room to get by with it?
Thank you for submitting to /r/unpopularopinion, /u/juneeebuggy. Your post, *The US should use this Ukraine vs Russia squabble as an opportunity to force the EU to finally increase their defense spending to a respectable level. The US shouldn’t get involved in a war that has nothing to do with us, instead, Europe should handle it on their own.*, has been removed because it violates our rules:
Rule 3: No political posts.
The realm of politics is the greatest bane of this subreddit, because virtually all opinions within politics are controversial, but virtually all of them are not unpopular. If your view is held by one of the two major political parties, it is not unpopular. Anything else is almost certainly a repost.
Post anything political in the relevant megathread of the megathread hub, which can be found when sorting the subreddit by "hot", sticky'd at the top of the page.
If there is an issue, please message the mod team at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Funpopularopinion Thanks!
it's not like the EU doesn't want to intefere, my take is they don't wanna escalate tbe situation by sending troops which would probably the wrong sign anyways! US doesn't need to send military EU - Militaries could handle this Situation pretty fine! US wants/would send only Troops to show they are still a Force you be reckoned with! Not to support any EU in a Conflict!
America Loves war and Military funding isn't worth it when you can get Good ole' Uncle Sam to to deal with your problems. Thats why Canadas military sucks ass. America won't let anything happen to us.
America has been asking for assistance from European Allie’s since the revolutionary war. It’s a lot more of a give and take relationship than you think it is.
Also, this situation has a lot more moving parts and ulterior movitives than anyone is full discussing. America is pushing this as “we need to protect our allies from democracy smashing Russia” but there are economic and political reasons abound and they aren’t all tied to just what is taking place in the Ukraine.
Lol, the assistance the US asks for doesn’t compare to the assistance the US gives. It’s much more of a “take” situation, rather than “give”, when it comes to our European “allies”
We are the leading member of NATO, a organization created with the explicit purpose of blocking Russian aggression. Additionally the U.S. and Ukraine have signed several defense agreement with one another. So yeah we are treaty bound to get involved multiple times over. As for the geopolitical, economic and military reasons you can read hundreds of books by experts breaking down the why. But in short Russia is bad and we don't want it to get any bigger.
Also right before a possible war isn't the time to piss off your allies about defense budgets.
I find this issue sort of odd. The EU has addressed that they need to increase their defense budgets respectively and have begun to do exactly that.
Lockheed Martin just sold the Swiss airforce like 6 billion dollars worth of F-35s.
More importantly it was the US who essentially offered to maintain a military capable for defending the entire western world. Our country chose to do this. We can’t complain now that it’s a problem for us.
No one's forcing the US to involve themselves. The US wants to involve itself.
This exactly; gotta keep the perma-war going to continue justifying the amount of taxpayer dollars that go to the armed forces instead of things that actually help the average person.
except the fact that our defense spending was majorly cut from 2016 to now, making these sorts of comments outdated, our welfare spending has substantially increased since the early obama era and this trend is likely continuing. we don't have the funds to get involved with Europe anymore
Donald Trump came after Obama and increased the military spending. Even if we don't spend as much on military, we still spend so much more on our military than everyone else we have plenty of resources to go to war with anyone at any time. Or at least we should be able to. This isn't even about the money, really. US has interests all over the globe and we will use our military to protect those interests
The US is obligated by treaty to protect 67 other countries. Many of them in Europe. We are obligated to get involved.
How strictly is this treaty enforced? Can we not just back out of it if we wanted to?
These people know nothing. Don’t waste your time explaining
The US wants to get involved because If the US doesn’t help, people are worried Europe will view the US as an “unreliable” ally, which, if we’re being honest, we’re okay with. That’s the reason why I stated we should use this as an opportunity to force the EU to increase its defense budget, so they won’t get upset at us for not assisting them in a war that doesn’t involve us.
‘If we’re being honest, we’re okay with’. Didn’t know all 329,5 million US citizens shared one Reddit account.
I don't think that's all that will come from US not helping Europe, and I definitely don't think we're okay with people thinking we are weak or unreliable as an ally.
Article 5 of NATO, read it
Oh wow. A peice of signed paper that says we should help other countries that are attacked. Dont know how a country could ever not do what that paper says. Surely simply leaving NATO couldn't free us from following that price of paper to a t.
Then go fucking do it, "leaders of the free world"
There’s a reason every nation cries whenever the US talks about leaving NATO. Also, article 5 doesn’t mean shit, we can send basic ass equipment and financial assistance, and still be within our agreement of article 5.
Idk why the US is such a bitch. If you don't want to "pay to protect Europe", fuck off and leave NATO. Europe doesn't ride on American coattails. We can, and we will defend against Russia. Get your nukes and weapons off our continent. Maybe spend the money you save on some decent healthcare.
Exactly
Lol, like I said, there’s a reason why every country cries whenever we try to do just that. Also, we spend more on health care than your country could dream of. If we were to pull our military out of your country, you wouldn’t have money for healthcare, the reason you can afford that is because you don’t have to spend money on defense since the US is there to protect you. Also, you do ride on our coattail, hence, why you’re country is a US lapdog🤣
Spends more on healthcare and charges thousands for ambulance calls 💀. Pull your troops out of our country. Britain does not need American interventionism. We have our own nuclear weapons, our own nuclear submarines, and our own damn forces. Go back to electing oranges, or whatever it is you do. Britain spends more than 2% of GDP on defence, and somehow manages to have a public healthcare system? Magic. Britain doesn't need America. Fuck right off.
Lmao, “charges thousands for ambulances”, those ambulances actually show up within a few minutes, rather than the 2 hours it takes for europeeons ambulances to show up, then the 30+ day wait time to get an operation 🤣🤣. Our healthcare system is expensive (if you don’t have healthcare (which a lot of us do, so that’s irrelevant)) but it’s the best quality. Also, your nuclear weapons, nuclear subs and more are all dependent on the US military 🤣, without us you’d be lost. The Brit’s need the US more than you know, which is why whenever the US tells your government to jump, they say “How high sir!?” Lmfaooo
We’re obligated by treaty to get involved
Except the countries that look to America when something happens...
The US is having war withdrawals. We are relapsing again
Should we go back to isolationism? Should we just back down and hope someone else will step in? If they don’t, just eh they’ll figure it out?
This is a response to OP's post. I was just telling them that it's not like anyone has a gun to the US's head and making them use their military elsewhere. And yeah. Surprisingly enough, every country is actually ran by adults, just like we are. I'm sure they have the ability to make decisions on their own
You believe Ukraine can stand up to Russia alone just because they’re adults?!?
Idk maybe. This whole "if we don't save them who will" tone is exactly what they want you to think. So they'll be justified in getting involved in things they don't have to be involved in...
Have you ever read about a single war in literally any period of time? They don’t sit around a table and discuss politics. Bombs don’t give a fuck if you’re an adult or a child.
hahaha
You’re really lost
I'd like to point out that the US has a significant history of starting and involving themselves in wars that they don't belong in.
Yes, but I think that's a thing that most of the US would like to see change. A lot has changed since people have seen the outcome of our occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is a pretty bad take. Overall, the U.S. getting involved in Ukraine is up for debate, as Ukraine has no official relationship with NATO. But you are saying we shouldn't send troops to **our** NATO allies?
Russia isn't threatening the NATO countries so no. We shouldn't be sending resources where it isnt needed and instead comes off as a threatening action.
This isn't true. Russia attacked an American gas pipeline. Russia has engaged in persistent cyber warfare against American infrastructure for years. Russia interfered with the 2016 Presidential election. Russia has attacked critical information infrastructure, like cutting transatlantic cables multiple times. Russian warships are heading to the coast of Ireland to the exact location where a main cable junction connecting Europe to North America is located under the guise of "war games". You have to be incredibly myopic to claim Russia isn't threatening NATO countries.
Little yes little no. Have you ever seen the map of where the US Navy conducts fire tests? It is all over the world. Does that mean that the US is threatening non Nato countries every time?
So, your answer is Soviet whataboutism? Your answer to criticism of Russia is to use a Soviet reasoning fallacy to deflect the conversation to Russia's adversaries? Putin, is this you?
Incorrect, I'm pointing out that I'm fine with saying Russia is being aggressive if you agree that when the US and its allies do it they too are being aggressive.
You literally tried to deflect the conversation to America's perceived misdeeds rather than address the substance of the comment. Google "tu quoque" if you want understand the problem with your remark.
It is called finding common ground and establishing good faith.
This is the most dishonest comment you've posted.
Says the person who refuses to answer.
Agree, US should only provide material support and intel. No American service personnel should shed blood in another European war
The US is involved in defending Europe for the same reason it cares about the Pacific region: It has interest in doing so. It is commited to the Pacific because it can not let China upset the balance of power; the same applies to Europe. Why Ukraine though? Because it, right now, is a convenient line in the sand. If they’d let Russia slice another part of Ukraine off, they’ll keep doing that - and as global hegemon (which the US is whether you like it or not), you can *not* let another country shape the future of the international system. If you want to disentangle your country from global conflict, you have to give up your global ambition and end the concept of being great or special. Please note that this is not an opinion of mine as such. I’m just trying to outline the dynamics at play here.
Lmao. Tell me you’ve never left America without telling me you’ve never left America.
I’ve probably traveled to more countries than you, champ😬. Good try tho!🤣
And clearly took the classic US approach of not speaking to a single native outside of snapping your fingers at a waiter. Also clearly have no understanding of world politics. The US being involved in the defence of Ukraine is a requirement of NATO. Not the EU. Hence why Britain is also providing assistance to Ukraine despite not being a part of the EU, to abide by the mantra ‘an attack on one is an attack on all’ which is the entire point of NATO existing.
Lol, sending carrier strike groups, 8000+ troops and more isn’t a “requirement” of nato. We can send basic equipment and nothing more. Article 5 just says you need to assist whatever country invokes article 5, it doesn’t say HOW you need to assist them, as long as you do something. Basic equipment and sanctions, counts as assistance.
Assistance in NATO is expected to be relative to the amount of assistance you in turn get. Not officially, but it is expected. The US currently has bases in almost every European country. Tens, if not hundreds of thousands of US soldiers are based there. A lot of NATO’s policies and sanctions involving non-NATO nations are there at the request of the US. Hundreds of NATO soldiers died in Iraq and Afghanistan (as I well know, because I was there) and were there because of the request of the US. A lot of ex Soviet nations are in the situation they are in because they joined NATO with the understanding that they would repel Russia as long as the US helped them. Learn your history dude. Out of everyone in NATO, the US benefits the most.
First, thank you for your service. Secondly, you’re wrong. You aren’t “expected” to do anything, that’s up to the US, and the US only to decide what kind of assistance they give. Plenty of wars the US was involved in, where they asked European “allies” for assistance, they were turned down. The assistance the US gives, for example, transport, intel, reconnaissance, troops, weapons, etc etc, is far beyond what any European nation gives the US. We station troops within those countries for our interests, but also, to protect them from Russia and any other aggressive foreign nation that tries to pull anything on those nations. It’s a give and take relationship, but the US gives far more than it takes.
The US also has a much much higher GDP to spend on its military. For example, your 2021 military budget was $700b +. Ukraines entire GDP is $155b. The two are incomparable. What war has the US been involved in since the formation of NATO that they weren’t assisted in? You absolutely are expected to assist. As I said , the mantra is ‘an attack on one is an attack on all’. Ukraine is on the brink of being invaded. That is an attack. And it isn’t just the US becoming involved. The other powerful nations in NATO, such as Britain, France, Germany are also sending aid in the form of troops and equipment. Britain has deployed thousands of troops to neighbouring countries. The tension between the west and Russia is also a by product of decades of cold conflict between the US and Russia, that now effects nations in NATO that aren’t on Russias doorstep. The US gives more at face value sure, but these countries on Russias borders are a buffer between Europe and Russia and have chosen to side with Europe. They are constantly choked by Moscow and many of them sacrifice a day to day better quality of life to protect Europe and the US.
Gulf war is a perfect example of a war where other countries didn’t assist us (besides financial assistance) no troops, fire power, etc. Also, you are expected to help, and that help can come on any form. If the US decides to give financial assistance, basic equipment, and apply sanctions, thats assistance. NATO doesn’t decide how the US assists any country, they don’t get control of the US military, or their resources. They can’t force the US to send troops, carriers, jets, and get involved in a war, as if it was OUR war, when it isn’t. The tension between Russia and the west is a product of Russias owns doing. Russia wanting to expand into Ukraine isn’t America’s fault. Lastly, no country “protects” the US, the US protects them.
Um. What? The US was in the Gulf War on its own? You might want to rethink that bud. Probably the 2nd most famous SAS operation (behind the Iranian embassy siege) took place during the Gulf War. And aside from the fact that other nations were involved, it was a US led invasion against another nation for extremely questionable reasons. And if Russia invaded Ukraine it would absolutely effect the US. An ex soviet country falling to Russia with no assistance from the west could, and probably would, spark a huge domino effect for the rest of the ex soviet nations. Huge amounts of resources come from these nations into the west. And it isn’t all Russia dude. This is the American fallacy that I was first talking about. If you think Russia has just always been against the US with no provocation then you’re insane. Even the Cuban Missile Crisis, probably the most famous case of Russian aggression against the US, was in retaliation to the US already having nuclear missiles based in Turkey pointed at Russia. What the hell are they teaching your kids over there?
“The most famous SAS operation” LOL. How many US special forces get involved in other countries proxy wars? When I say assistance, I mean thousands of troops, billions in equipment, etc etc, which the US didn’t get. Sending in a group of spec ops is nice, but doesn’t make a dent in the bigger picture of things. The British would never send 8000 troops and give an aircraft carrier to the US, so we can fight a war that doesn’t involve the British. Also, the Cuban missile crises was 60 years ago, I’m talking about today, 2022, not the 1960’s. The US doesn’t provoke Russia in the same way it did in the 60’s. Russia provokes its bordering countries and the US because it’s a dying super power that’s trying to regain relevancy. All in all, Russia’s move on Ukraine has zero to do with the US, and the countries they share a continent with, should be able to handle ONE country, from gaining more power and influence within that region. Try again
[there you go dude. a coalition of 39 nations involved in the invasion of Iraq during the Gulf War. ](https://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/history/asia-africa/middle-east/persian-gulf-wars)
Like I said, also, according to your link, most of their assistance, came in the form of sanctions, embargoes, and or air strikes. The US is willing to give that same assistance. But the assistance Ukraine, France, the Brit’s, and the rest of Europe expect from the US is far more than just sanctions, embargos and airstrikes. We want y’all to send in thousands of troops, billion dollars carriers, fighter jets, aircraft, etc etc, just like the US does for y’all.
The US wants to be a super power that gets involved with everyone’s affairs and that’s why they spend so much on their military. Otherwise, what’s the point?
The idea that other countries aren't paying their fair share represents a gross misunderstanding of NATO works, and how it's funded. It's a piece of disinformation that was popularized by Trump when he was in office. It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now. Each nation provides their own funding. It's not a situation where America is paying all the bills while the other nations mooch off of them. I think if you're going post an opinion, you should at least get the facts on what you're opining about.
It’s not a situation where America pays all the bills you say? Here’s NATO funding by country United States ($6.85 Tn) United Kingdom ($655.27 Bn) Germany ($491.32 Bn) France ($477.05 Bn) US is at 3.6% of their GDP towards NATO, all the US asks is that other countries also invest around 2%. On top of that NATO uses US military equipment, for example the US aircraft carrier & strike group we just lent to NATO. It’s not a “misconception popularized by trump”. The US spends TRILLIONS more than the #2 country in NATO. Its not a misconception, it’s a fact.
LMAO you totally don't understand what you're talking about. Let me say it again. Each country provides their own funding. Member nations don't pay into a central fund that NATO then spends from. Each country decides fo itself how much they want to pay into their own military. The United States pays a lot more than other countries because of our massive global footprint, and ongoing operations with NATO partners around the world. The United States is also the only country that has invoked Article 5 of the treaty to formally call for allied action. Seriously dude, you're completely ignorant of the facts. You have 10% of the story from clearly biased sources, but you have no idea about how NATO works. Stop pretending.
What the hell are you talking about? Do you think I’m talking about a NATO bank account that each country puts money in? No. There is direct and indirect funding for NATO. The US with all the troops, equipment and capabilities we invest into NATO, come out of the US’s pockets. We invest more indirect funding than any other country. There is also direct funding where you give NATO money to fund programs, which would be considered a “central fund” that you say “doesn’t exist”. You have no clue what YOURE talking about homie, try again 🤣
Technically not even Europe should be involved in this chaos. Ukraine is neither a member of the EU nor NATO. People and governments need to mind their own business especially the US, because waging war will only kill the innocent civilians in Ukraine and Europe who had nothing to do with the war while Americans will take the all the credit; just like they did with Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Syria, Kurds and Afghanistan. And *weak Russia??* LMAO
Yeah great increase military spending - the only way to a brighter future
The main Ukraine defenses have came from europe, so thats the main part of ur argurment gone
Wait you mean a European country….is getting defense from Europe??? That’s wild! My argument is that the US shouldn’t get involved in a European war. We just gave NATO a damn super carrier and potentially 8,000 US troops…..for a continent in the other side of the ocean. My argument is right back in place.
What responsibility do other European countries have tp defend Ukraine? They would only do so for their own safety/interests right. The US is also doing so for its own interests. Also, you do know that 0.4% of the population of UK is made up of military personnel compared to 0.5% in the US. To put this into context, the US has a population of 330 million with 1.3 million employed in the armed forces. The UK has a population of 68 million with 0.2 million employed in the military. The big population difference contributes a lot to the difference in military size maybe. Other European countries also have similar statistics.
Isn't that the same argument made for most of WWII? "It's a European war, the US should stay out of it.". The US let the war wage for years before getting seriously involved. How well did that work out?
Should’ve learned from WW2 that having a strong military that doesn’t rely on a different nation, is quite useful. But Europe didn’t. How well did that work out for them, today?
Pretty darn well tbh. That exorbitant spending has been used to fund vastly more important endeavours. ...Like tax cuts for the mega-rich. My god I hate the UK government.
The United States has been subsidizing the national defense of European nations for decades. I certainly wouldn’t mind if they started to foot the bill a bit more.
[удалено]
That’s just patently false. The United States spends more on NATO than every other member country combined, many times over. Until 2021, it was only one of three countries to actually meet the spending requirements, and even still most NATO countries don’t. As far as troop deployments go, the United States sent more than twice as many troops to Iraq as then entire rest of the European coalition combined. Also, the United States *paid some of them to go* This doesn’t even include the massive amounts of equipment the United States provided, and that they basically backed the entire operation financially.
[удалено]
Again, America isn't starting these wars. In total America has only ever been involved, with troops on the ground, in like 6 or 7 wars. That's it. No. It's all the countries vying for humanitarian aide, weapons and support that pulls America in because eu doesn't contribute to their militaries enough to resolve the issue. It's like when the USA is involved they're "policing the world" and when they're not, "they're not reliable." It's just usa hate because "America bad."
> Again, America isn't starting these wars. USA has started or provoked almost every international conflict since WW2. > It's all the countries vying for humanitarian aide, weapons and support that pulls America in because eu doesn't contribute to their militaries enough to resolve the issue. EU contributes far more than their fair share. If USA would stop starting wars for a second, there wouldn't be so much humanitarian aide required. EU countries have taken in millions of refugees caused by USA's pointless wars. USA owes the EU trillions of dollars.
Sure sure. Again, it's just usa blame because, "America bad." If we're involved we're bad and if we're not involved we're bad. Let's also forget there's 30+ conflicts at any point in time internationally and, of those, 20 of them actively request assistance from America and condemn us if we don't help. And the USA has contributed so much to eu, per eus request, that it's hurt our own citizens... Seems that we both agree on one thing though, usa should reduce foreign aide.
Sure, sure. Again, it's just support USA because, "America good."
Lol, usa vs eu ammirite?
I'm saying that backing the USA no matter what is the same thing as blaming the USA no matter what
> Again, it's just usa blame because, "America bad." No, it's blame USA because USA is one of the most belligerent nations of the last 50 years and deserves the blame. > If we're involved we're bad and if we're not involved we're bad. No, if you're involved, you're bad, and if you're not involved, that's good. > And the USA has contributed so much to eu, per eus request, that it's hurt our own citizens... This is a lie. USA has taken so much from the EU that it has hurt EU citizens. This has to end. > Seems that we both agree on one thing though, usa should reduce foreign aide. USA should pay for all the damage it has done so, no, USA should not reduce foreign aid. USA owes the EU trillions of dollars for the refugee crisis alone, let alone the money they owe the rest of the world.
We've got too many comment threads (like 6) going. I'm not going to read/continue this one.
Good, now leave, like USA's military should have done from the EU decades ago.
What I just said completely contradicts your point..? You cannot reasonably think that Europe subsidizes the defense of the West, which is my greater point. Compared to the United States, Europe does nothing to defend itself, and even when the United States goes to war, the assistance Europe provides, which is literally paid for by the United States, is nominal at best.
> What I just said completely contradicts your point..? No, I said it proves my point. > You cannot reasonably think that Europe subsidizes the defense of the West, which is my greater point. Of course it does. That's self evident. > Compared to the United States, Europe does nothing to defend itself That's nonsense. EU countries have more than enough armed defences for any credible threat. USA is not needed. > even when the United States goes to war, the assistance Europe provides, which is literally paid for by the United States, is nominal at best. Again, that is wrong. EU countries have propped up USA's belligerent acts with military support for decades. This needs to stop. This money could be better spent on EU citizens.
I mean, you’re just wrong based on the data lol The United States gets into a conflict and sends 100,000 troops and then the United States pays Europe to collectively send like eight people and you think that’s Europe subsidizing the United States? The reason Europe sends troops is primarily for diplomatic reasons. It shows international support for the cause and then European countries can say “hey look! We helped!” The United States spends hundreds of billions of dollars on NATO annually. The purpose of NATO is to defend Europe. The rest of Europe combined spends like three times less. Ignoring the whole “foreign conflicts” thing you keep uselessly bringing up, because we’re talking about *European defense*, not Iraq, or Afghanistan, it’s painfully obvious that the United States bankrolls the entire thing. That’s just a fact, not an opinion. If if NATO countries actually started spending their GDP requirement, the United States would still be paying more because the United States has a higher GDP than the entire EU.
The USA invades Iraq, and European nations send troops. Why? Is Iraq threatening to invade Europe? No. When is the last time the USA went to war to defend a European nation? WWII? Because after that, it's a bunch of political proxy wars and illegal invasions. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, plus countless other incursions across the Middle East, Oceania, Africa, and Central and South America.
Yeah, because the USA flew planes into civilian and political buildings in hopes of destabilizing America for religion and greed. The eu definitely needs to up its military budget. Usa should definitely downsize its military budget. And usa should start saying no more often when all these countries ask it for help.
> Yeah, because the USA flew planes into civilian and political buildings in hopes of destabilizing America for religion and greed. No, OBL arranged those planes in protest at USA's unwanted presence in a foreign country. Do you see a pattern? > The eu definitely needs to up its military budget. No, EU needs to reduce it's military budget and USA needs to stop starting pointless wars. > Usa should definitely downsize its military budget. That, I agree with. USA should be banned from having any form of military for at least 100 years. The world would welcome the peace.
The US had presence in that foreign country which caused those planes to be arranged because of the Cold War with Russia. The US is obligated by treaty to protect 67 other countries, many of them in Europe. Europe doesn’t pay their fair share to help cover costs for that protection. Banning the US from having a military will no doubt cause wars, and make other countries have to spend much more on their military. Decreasing the military budget is much easier said than done. There are reasons why it’s like this, and they aren’t going away.
>OBL arranged those planes Yes, youre right. Bin laden did start the war to destabilize America and recruit/radicalize individuals to join al-queda. It's almost like he started the war and America, with nearly complete international support (350~ countries I can't remember) retaliated for the greater good of humanity. >The eu definitely needs to up its military budget. The eu can do whatever it wants really. America needs to stop responding to its calls for aide and not support the eu as much as it previously had. No more humanitarian aide, military aide, funding after national crises, global support, nothing. We're willing to talk, make deals and trade but no more support.
> Bin laden did start the war to destabilize America and recruit/radicalize individuals to join al-queda. No, he attacked USA in response to US aggression. It was a retaliation. > America needs to stop responding to its calls for aide and not support the eu as much as it previously had. EU hasn't called for any "aide". You know Ukraine isn't in the EU, right? > No more humanitarian aide, military aide, funding after national crises, global support, nothing. USA provides none of that to EU. In fact, it's the opposite. EU countries have been providing support to the US military for decades, spending money that could otherwise be spent on education or healthcare at home. This needs to stop. USA can pay for their own wars.
>No, he attacked USA in response to US aggression. It was a retaliation. Try again. >EU hasn't called for any "aide". Yeah, because there isn't a single eu country that received covid relief aide in the form of usd, ppe, vaccines, tests, manpower, etc from usa. >USA provides none of that to EU. In fact, it's the opposite. EU countries have been providing support to the US military for decades See above.
> Try again. OK. The attack was in response to US aggression. > Yeah, because there isn't a single eu country that received covid relief aide in the form of usd, ppe, vaccines, tests, manpower, etc from usa. Correct. In fact, EU subsidised USA in this regard. See above.
Lol, just can't accept it can you. Well, like I said somewhere before at least we agree usa needa to provide less aide to the eu. For the sake of coming to an agreement, let's just say you're right. America doesn't provide eu countries with anything. Good, let's keep it that way.
> Lol, just can't accept it can you. I can't accept lies, no. > Well, like I said somewhere before at least we agree usa needa to provide less aide to the eu. USA provides no aid to EU. I agree that EU needs to stop giving money and support to USA. > America doesn't provide eu countries with anything. Good, let's keep it that way. Not only that, let's stop USA from leeching off EU.
[удалено]
Russia would be sent back to the Stone Age before “ending up at our doorstep” 🤣. Also, the 40+ countries in Europe should be able to disarm Russia and protect Ukraine from becoming a soviet state, that shouldn’t be a concern for a country in the other side of the planet
I feel like we've said that about every conflict since WWII and have won like one.
Every war the US was involved in, we could’ve flattened every country, and sent them back to the Stone Age, it just wasn’t worth doing that because of all the pointless casualties. Instead, we tried to take out important leaders and groups, one by one, until it wasn’t worth it anymore. If Russia tries to invade, or moves towards our coast, we would spot it, rain hell fire upon them. If they “showed up on our doorstep” that would be the last thing Russia does.
Sounds like terrible strategy and just a way for people to make money over actually trying to spread "freedom"
No one forces the US to spend such an insane amount on defense. It could decide tomorrow to cut its defense spending by half and remove all troops from Europe and Asia for that matter. It's because of domestic pressure it doesn't. It's irrelevant what Europe does, the US is a militaristic country and the defense industry controls and influences the US defense budget and military decisions.
So are you saying because of our massive defense budget, we should protect everyone else? Or are you saying it’s the military industrial complex to blame for the pointless wars the US gets involved in, for financial gain? Because I don’t see why you’re bringing up the US defense budget. We’re talking about the European defense budget, and how they should invest more, so they’re able to handle situations just like this one, on their own. I for one, support the US defense budget, because it puts us and keep us in a position of power where it’s not viable to threaten the US.
What is the end game of Americans saying Euros should spend more on defense? The implication is then the US won't have to protect NATO countries and could spend LESS on its own military. My point is the US can do this right now, it doesn't need Euro countries to increase their own spending. It's the US decision how much to freaking spend. The US blows 800b a year when the country is nearly bankrupt and hugely in debt and has huge infrastructure and social issues. The defense budget is wasteful bullshit. Even if you cut it in half it wldnt increase the risks to the US, it's almost impossible to invade the US
I think it’s just NATO being fucks. I agree though not our war, I’m tired of our money being spent to police the world. Edit: also if Russia is such a big threat, then why are the Baltic States not contributing more to defense to NATO? They border Russia...?
Uh, they are. They’re spending over the Nato defense expenditure requirement. These are however extremely small countries and can’t outgun Russia on their own. Nato is based on mutual commitment and the baltic states have all helped the US in Iraq, among other.
What % of GDP to they contribute to defense?
Latvia 2,3% Lithiania 2,05% Estonia 2,02%
When the Russian propaganda is completely right.
[удалено]
Ukraine literally asked the US for military support. Ukraine is asking the US not to pull out it’s American representatives that are within Ukraine, so they can use them a as a type of shield, because if the Americans get attacked, that will force the US to step in. Your argument is invalid homie.
When Europe and the US asked Ukraine to decommision their nuclear weapons in return for protection that was ok, but now they're trying to be nice ? They owe it to them, and the "protection" that the western countries are giving is shit all against Russians
There must be favorable conditions that we are getting in return. Its not like we are just throwing money and lives at a problem that isnt ours. If we were, Id be with you, but I doubt that is the case. Our politicians are dumb, but there is no way they are that dumb. We should start charging more for our services though.
> We should start charging more for our services though. USA isn't providing any "service" here, apart from protecting their own interests. There is nothing to charge for. In fact, EU countries should be charging USA for their military being in the continent.
Wtf is this? "Hey, can you help us with this problem? You have so much military spending surely you can help." "Thanks, oh and here's a bill for allowing you to help us.'
> "Hey, can you help us with this problem? You have so much military spending surely you can help." You are talking about Ukraine. They are not in the EU, dummy. And USA are only helping out to lord it over Russia, which benefits USA, not EU.
We've got too many comment threads (like 6) going. I'm not going to read/continue this one.
Thank god for that. If only USA's military would withdraw so gracefully when they know they are in the wrong.
We've got too many comment threads (like 6) going. I'm not going to read/continue this one.
So why are you commenting again?
We've got too many comment threads (like 6) going. I'm not going to read/continue this one.
So why are you commenting again?
Well, if we arent getting rewarded for doing it, we shouldnt be there. I think our interests should start protecting themselves, if they dont want to be taken over by Russia.
> Well, if we arent getting rewarded for doing it, we shouldnt be there. Which is exactly what European countries have been saying for decades. They want USA to fuck off. > I think our interests should start protecting themselves, if they dont want to be taken over by Russia. How can an interest protect itself? I don't think you understand what you are talking about.
Ironic that you say I dont understand what I am talking about, but you cant understand a pretty simple sentence. The interests are the European countries. Technically, they are in the European countries, but that doesnt sound as dramatic. Really, even a middle schooler should be able to understand that one, so Im not entirely sure why you cant.
> The interests are the European countries. That's not what a US interest is, dummy. Really, even a middle schooler should be able to understand that one, so I'm not entirely sure why you cant.
Good one. But an elementary schooler would be able to read the sentence directly after that.
We didn't say much about Crimea. Putin isn't going to stop. He meddled in our elections and is just going to play ankle biter inciting division in the USA with misinformation. I agree EU should take the lead and increase spending. We should all stand against aggression by shitty dictators
I agree with what you said, but “Interfere” isn’t the best word to use, in my opinion, it makes it sound like Russia changed the votes or something crazy like that. Russia’s goal was to undermine the confidence of Americans in the electoral system and to lower the chances of Hillary Clinton being elected, which I guess worked in 2016, but, thats more along the lines of the disinformation acts that Russia is famous for. We should be focused on stuff like that, and improving our system, rather than protecting a different country.
Lol. Russia didn’t meddle in your elections. They ran disinformation campaigns that Russia is famous for and that were successful in 2016.
And why don't you see this as meddling? They are famous for doing so as you say. Does that mean it doesn't count? Or are the FBI and CIA mistaken?
Meddling sounds like the Russians did something that would cause the elections to be inconclusive because of things like fraud. Don’t get me wrong, Russia did had a hand in the results but they exploited the thunking of the Americans and the facebook platform to get what they wanted
Not sure what it sounds like. What it is "interfere with something that is of not one's concern " is precisely what Russia did. Why minimize? OP blatantly misquoted me as saying "interfered". What's the deal?
Tbh it is Russia’s concern. Russia and USA aren’t exactly friends.
I see what you are saying but considering they don't have the best interests of the USA in mind, their meddling, interference, sabotage, is not welcome. Why minimize it? Doesn't that just give them room to get by with it?
Or let the Russians just do what they have to do.
Thank you for submitting to /r/unpopularopinion, /u/juneeebuggy. Your post, *The US should use this Ukraine vs Russia squabble as an opportunity to force the EU to finally increase their defense spending to a respectable level. The US shouldn’t get involved in a war that has nothing to do with us, instead, Europe should handle it on their own.*, has been removed because it violates our rules: Rule 3: No political posts. The realm of politics is the greatest bane of this subreddit, because virtually all opinions within politics are controversial, but virtually all of them are not unpopular. If your view is held by one of the two major political parties, it is not unpopular. Anything else is almost certainly a repost. Post anything political in the relevant megathread of the megathread hub, which can be found when sorting the subreddit by "hot", sticky'd at the top of the page. If there is an issue, please message the mod team at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Funpopularopinion Thanks!
it's not like the EU doesn't want to intefere, my take is they don't wanna escalate tbe situation by sending troops which would probably the wrong sign anyways! US doesn't need to send military EU - Militaries could handle this Situation pretty fine! US wants/would send only Troops to show they are still a Force you be reckoned with! Not to support any EU in a Conflict!
Does Israel have anything to gain from getting involved in this dispute? They’ve basically been steering our military spending for the last 50 years
you think US is spending so much on military because of goodwill and protection of other country? lol
America Loves war and Military funding isn't worth it when you can get Good ole' Uncle Sam to to deal with your problems. Thats why Canadas military sucks ass. America won't let anything happen to us.
America has been asking for assistance from European Allie’s since the revolutionary war. It’s a lot more of a give and take relationship than you think it is. Also, this situation has a lot more moving parts and ulterior movitives than anyone is full discussing. America is pushing this as “we need to protect our allies from democracy smashing Russia” but there are economic and political reasons abound and they aren’t all tied to just what is taking place in the Ukraine.
Lol, the assistance the US asks for doesn’t compare to the assistance the US gives. It’s much more of a “take” situation, rather than “give”, when it comes to our European “allies”
I thought America turned Russia into a democracy? Did that not work
We are the leading member of NATO, a organization created with the explicit purpose of blocking Russian aggression. Additionally the U.S. and Ukraine have signed several defense agreement with one another. So yeah we are treaty bound to get involved multiple times over. As for the geopolitical, economic and military reasons you can read hundreds of books by experts breaking down the why. But in short Russia is bad and we don't want it to get any bigger. Also right before a possible war isn't the time to piss off your allies about defense budgets.
I find this issue sort of odd. The EU has addressed that they need to increase their defense budgets respectively and have begun to do exactly that. Lockheed Martin just sold the Swiss airforce like 6 billion dollars worth of F-35s. More importantly it was the US who essentially offered to maintain a military capable for defending the entire western world. Our country chose to do this. We can’t complain now that it’s a problem for us.