Yes, the US WAS the military of the treaty. WAS being the important part here as the trust that made this arragement possible is heavily eroded today due to the lunatic in charge.
You’re first paragraph is onesided and resembles the talking points of the Trump admin. The reality is more complex: The Us would have spend that money anyways as it aimed for global military domination during and after the cold war. The NATO treaty allowd to convert this alread spend money not only in hard military but also in soft power: The US gained massive multi-level influence in the member states due to the military depency and also bought their international voices (for example inside the UN) with it.
It was a win-win situation with kooperative cost advantages for both sides. Not a one sided deal to the disadvantage of the US as Americans seem to be made believe by Trump and his oligarchy.
I disagree. Simply saying that fact doesn’t imply it’s a bad thing, even though that is something we often hear from those who are anti NATO. I would expect anyone here to understand that the US benefited heavily from the arrangement, and is now losing soft power in a huge way
I got triggered since you only linked US military spending to european social security programs while leaving out other aspects, a reasoning which I only know from US conservatives including Trump.
Pointing out that the US spends massive amounts of money on military spending is just a fact. https://www.nato.int/content/dam/nato/webready/documents/finance/def-exp-2025-en.pdf is the official NATO write up of this from last year and the only countries that outspend the US (as a percentage of their GDP) tend to be the countries that are where The War will kick off Poland) or… countries with other things going on
And keep in mind that is in terms of GDP percentages and how massive the US’s economy was for most of that period.
The “conservative” talking point is not: “The US spends money on war while the EU spends money on healthcare and actually giving a shit about its population”. It is “The US spends money on war so you should do whatever we want”. Its also worth understanding that The EU did not spend that money anywhere near that altruistically but it doesn’t change the situation that the EU/NATO finds itself in.
Because when that military is increasingly likely to be the aggressor? You need to rapidly start making guns and revisiting what is required of your populace. People have exploded over Germany recently more or less codifying a standing policy but… there is a reason politicians are looking at their conscription laws.
Look. We all live in a content bubble. But if you actually want to understand the world, rather than just get angry in ways that are convenient to influencers and politicians, actually look at statistics and respond to facts. Rather than getting pissy and screaming “fake news” because you don’t’ like what you saw.
Because, to be clear, I REALLY don’t fucking like how broken the US is because of how much it spends on the military.
You’re right of course.
But two things I’d like to point out:
Yes, the US WAS the military of the treaty. WAS being the important part here as the trust that made this arragement possible is heavily eroded today due to the lunatic in charge.
You’re first paragraph is onesided and resembles the talking points of the Trump admin. The reality is more complex: The Us would have spend that money anyways as it aimed for global military domination during and after the cold war. The NATO treaty allowd to convert this alread spend money not only in hard military but also in soft power: The US gained massive multi-level influence in the member states due to the military depency and also bought their international voices (for example inside the UN) with it. It was a win-win situation with kooperative cost advantages for both sides. Not a one sided deal to the disadvantage of the US as Americans seem to be made believe by Trump and his oligarchy.
Where did I ever say this was a one sided deal?
The first sentence very much seems to imply that.
I disagree. Simply saying that fact doesn’t imply it’s a bad thing, even though that is something we often hear from those who are anti NATO. I would expect anyone here to understand that the US benefited heavily from the arrangement, and is now losing soft power in a huge way
Its one of Trumps main anti NATO talking points, its not particularly surprising people will recognize it as that.
Totally agree, I just think it’s unlikely that anyone in this forum would be parroting a Trump talking point for the sake of it.
I see your point
You didn’t say that.
I got triggered since you only linked US military spending to european social security programs while leaving out other aspects, a reasoning which I only know from US conservatives including Trump.
If I mistook you I’m sorry.
Pointing out that the US spends massive amounts of money on military spending is just a fact. https://www.nato.int/content/dam/nato/webready/documents/finance/def-exp-2025-en.pdf is the official NATO write up of this from last year and the only countries that outspend the US (as a percentage of their GDP) tend to be the countries that are where The War will kick off Poland) or… countries with other things going on
And keep in mind that is in terms of GDP percentages and how massive the US’s economy was for most of that period.
The “conservative” talking point is not: “The US spends money on war while the EU spends money on healthcare and actually giving a shit about its population”. It is “The US spends money on war so you should do whatever we want”. Its also worth understanding that The EU did not spend that money anywhere near that altruistically but it doesn’t change the situation that the EU/NATO finds itself in.
Because when that military is increasingly likely to be the aggressor? You need to rapidly start making guns and revisiting what is required of your populace. People have exploded over Germany recently more or less codifying a standing policy but… there is a reason politicians are looking at their conscription laws.
Look. We all live in a content bubble. But if you actually want to understand the world, rather than just get angry in ways that are convenient to influencers and politicians, actually look at statistics and respond to facts. Rather than getting pissy and screaming “fake news” because you don’t’ like what you saw.
Because, to be clear, I REALLY don’t fucking like how broken the US is because of how much it spends on the military.