If i was king of US, i would roll back US spending abroad drastically regardless of others commitments. 6 trillion spent on 3 wars in the last 20 years and the American taxpayer is stuck with the bill.

Instead We could have spent 1 trillion on needed infrastructure and not fuck our future generations with insurmountable amounts of debt. People don't understand debt, but that's exactly what happens. Current needs and wants are paid at the expense of future generations.

I've long held the belief that US hegemony should be rolled back. I want my kids to grow up in a country that's similar to Canada or Norway, who give little fucks about establishing world bases and instead focus on domestic needs.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Nov 7 2019 04:43pm

You guys know me by now. You know I'm anti socialism. Countries that enjoy some semblance of seemingly working socialism, can do that because the don't consider the need to defend their countries from others, on their OWN dime, an important expenditure.


In every country that paid for their own self defense, socialism has pretty much failed.


/e I'm not blaming other older countries for using the US. We are a young country... and didn't really see the implications of running around offering to protect everyone.


/ee It's almost like the US has started to say to the older countries... "ok boomers". <--- Just a joke. But the US is starting to grow up, as any country that exists for a few centuries, has to, sooner or later.



/eee I feel quite sure the US would still help out if one of the other super powers got too rowdy, but to keep it a constant debt on our country's budget, just can't work out in the long run.

This post was edited by Ghot on Nov 7 2019 04:53pm

*US builds and maintains military bases in europe from which they wage unjustified wars to secure natural resources and expand their empire. europe has to deal with the refugee waves, economic, and humanitarian disasters directly resulting from that*

american propaganda victim: 'we are paying for your security, that's why we can't have healthcare' (ignoring that european style socialised healthcare would cost them LESS than their current system)

There's nothing stopping the EU from emulating Trump and just cracking down on immigration/refugees.


/e There is no 3rd world country on the planet that will NOT flock to a cushy life in a 1st world country, if those 1st world countries let them. Why should they work/fight/pay to improve their own countries, if all the 1st world countries keep saying... "c'mon down, come live here".

This post was edited by Ghot on Nov 7 2019 05:00pm

Well, it seems he's (Macron) learning.

This post was edited by Ghot on Nov 7 2019 11:39pm

Hard to believe, but I actually mostly agree with Macron and Fender here.

• the US currently would most likely stand by its article V commitment, but the writing is kind of on the wall that this guarantee will become increasingly shaky in the coming years. anyone thinking that we'll be back to the good old days of complacency once Trump is gone is horribly mistaken.
  
• the EU has geopolitical interests which are mostly aligned, and are increasingly going into a different direction than those of the United States or Turkey.
  
• the US would be quite happy if its European allies were able to share a larger part of the burden of their own defense. doesnt mean that the US would abandon its bases in Europe, but it would free up resources which they need for their pivot to the pacific region. a pivot that indirectly also is in the interest of the Europeans.
  
• fixed percentage quotas of military spending are indeed foolish. in general, the problem with European military spending is not so much insufficient spending, it is inefficient spending. Germany, for example, is spending almost $50b per year on its military, and the Bundeswehr is in shambles nonetheless. We're spending $50 fucking billion per year and have ZERO returns.
  
• Macron is very right when he says that the EU needs to start thinking geopolitically and acting as a strategic power. he is also very right when he refuses opening up EU membership negotiations with countries like Albania which clearly dont meed the standards yet and while the EU itself is in turmoil.

However, none of this means that establishing a joint European army and defense policy would be easy. Just one easily imaginable scenario: there is a coup in the Central African Republic, which threatens the French uran supply that they need for their nuclear-power based economy. They want the EU army to send troops there, but the German and Polish and Italian public really dont want to send their sons and daughters into such a conflict which doesnt affect their own interests.

So at the end of the day, I only see a European army working for purely defensive purposes, and less so for projecting power or pursuing geostrategical goals abroad. Which I'd be totally fine with. Power projection should be used very sparingly. The world would be a better place if the big powers would fight less proxy wars and interfere less in their neighbors' business.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Nov 8 2019 03:09am

We're in agreement here.

The road to European military cooperation will be one of gradual change. I'm personally pretty happy that there are currently shared units between The Netherlands and Germany, and the other BeNeLux nations. With smaller more unified structures we'll slowly get there. I could see Iberian cooperation, V4, Scandi, etc. And it doesn't mean that there will necessarily be offensive pacts.

This post was edited by balrog66 on Nov 8 2019 03:21am

Securing resources for its allies. We're practically buying US made wartools, whom organise interventions in areas rich of resources close to our borders. It's the old fashioned method of generating energy stability.

Now with the US isolating itself, the 2% dgp expenditure to subsidize the US warfactory is becoming a bad investment. We're also moving toward energy independancy, reducing the need for Nato to function as it is..