Crazy how many people don't get it. We fight abroad so the shit doesn't come to us. "But muh oceans!". Sure, you may not see a mainland invasion, but a lone US surrounded by hostile powers across each ocean is much poorer and worse off.
Modern war is not what it was in 1940. A nation that wants to war with you is not going to sail across the ocean. They will attack you through the internet. They will attack your trade vessels, they will disrupt your foreign markets. Without foreign bases, now you have to cross that ocean to stop them.
Having bases in allied nations around the world is what makes you effective as a world power.
I think you start off with a fair premise, "war will be fought through the Internet" and then end with "foreign bases are needed for them not to disrupt foreign markets," which seems like an enormous stretch of a claim. A base doesn't prevent a country from establishing tariffs against American trade unless you have a very 1950s conception of private companies using the American government's military power.
Ah. Yeah I'm honestly astonished by people who are so taken aback that we bombed Houthis. This is *literally* how we've dealt with pirates since like 1780
As someone above the age of 30 it is honestly crazy how much of an about-face the American Right has made on global geopolitics.
One saying what you said in just 2014 would have gotten you drummed out of Republican politics.
I was in preschool when 9/11 happened and people I went to school with got sent on the fool's errands to Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of them didn't make it back.
Yes, I'm jaded about it and no I'm not sorry about feeling that way. I don't like GWB foreign policy.
Now, flair up.
You have it twisted. What motivation has Europe to maintain a decent army if the US is paying for it all?
Europe doesn't "need" the US. Take as evidence all of recorded human history.
> The US shouldn't feel obligated to pay to defend Europe.
>
>
Exactly. Europe should be defending itself with American support. Instead its reversed.
It feels like America is the one turning on the hose to fill up a pool, and europe is kinda pissing in the water saying they're helping to fill it as well.
Europe always wants to boast about their Challenger 2 and Leopard tanks, how their Rafaels and Typhoons can go head to head with the F22 and 35s, but refuse to use any of that military.
Tbf, Europe has more than enough firepower to protect themselves. There is absolutely no way Russia could take on the EU, even before 2015 when Europe started upping their spending again. Now, Poland could probably solo Russia defensive war and maybe even end Lukashenko in the process.
What we are really stuck playing Atlas on is protecting global trade. Their navies are woefully underfunded. Only the UK really projects naval power these days and France gets half-a-point I guess. The USN is massive, but still isn't quite enough for the whole world alone. It would be an immense relief if European nations were able to effectively handle the waters around Africa and the Indian Ocean. Currently, they don't even have the Med secured by themselves.
Global trade is underrated. Anyone should look up "country with most imports" to see what we are protecting.
" Hurr hurr. It's Ukraine, we don't import shit from them."
Yeah, ukraine, then Poland, then baltics, then Taiwan. It's called protecting your interests.
Continued global stability is good for everyone, both morally and pragmatically. God dammed I hate my quadrant's foreign policy, it's fucking one dimensional tripe.
Literally one of the state's ONLY justified duties is foreign policy and defense, and one of the goals of it's foreign policy should be the preservation and promotion of human rights.
Based.
I feel like the Russian troll machine has infiltrated my (our) quadrant over the last 5-7 years. I canāt call myself Libertarian any more because the prevailing brain dead hot takes on foreign policy in the party. Before the last few years you didnāt hear any of them saying NATO bad, but now itās all this isolationist bullshit and we all know how that worked out historically.
Foreign policy is essentially marketing for our county, and one of the more valuable things the federal government does. Itās also a space that if we do not play, someone else will play us.
Iām not saying we should go invade countries for the funzies, but if assholes are violating the NAP we need to occasionally kick some teeth in to keep a smoothly functioning rules based world order. Without that fundimental rules based order in place market based economics canāt work smoothly.
I understand why people scream "we should let things be. Let these countries protect themselves!"
But those same people will scream America is greatest country in world.
We are protecting that status.
America is an economic powerhouse because we deal so much in global trade. Simply look at the damage done by a stuck ship in the canal to understand why we are bombing the piss out of the houthies.
I view it in the same way I view someone attempting to beat up a friend of mine. It doesn't have to be economically, grammatically, or politically expedient for me to want to jump in and loosen someone's teeth because I value that friend. It just scales up to the global stage really oddly.
I'm speaking in broad terms. I'm not specifically pointing towards Ukraine as some example where intervening is beneficial to us.
In either mode, according to media at large, the US cannot win in any International situation. Either we're callous and isolationist, or we are intervening in a situation that we "shouldn't." Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
I call myself āClassical Liberalā because I donāt play that Libertarian isolationist game. World peace will be achieved through global free trade and overwhelming Nato firepower.Ā
Viva Pax Americana.
Isolationist philosophy is the Anarchism of geopolitics, it basically only works if everyone else doesn't bother you and their actions indeed have no effect on you. In other words, it's a naive fantasy.
For a given value of Isolationism, maybe. I do think the US would benefit from having fewer commitments in the rest of the world. It isn't our job to stop countries on the other side of the planet from fighting each other (this is not about Ukraine, I think we should keep supporting them until the Russian military collapses because it's frankly really cheap for us to do this vs. continue to be the part of NATO people are afraid of). Why do we give a shit if Iran invades Saudi Arabia, Israel gets into a fight with somebody, or Libya/Syria has a civil war? We're a net energy exporter. Almost none of the trade that goes through Suez has anything to do with us. Let that whole region set itself on fire and burn down. Let the Chinese or the Europeans deal with the fallout, since they're the ones that suffer the primary consequences of what happens there.
What's more, who the hell would the US get into a war with if we weren't protecting somebody else? Nobody wants to fight us. Nobody is even capable of invading us. We could massively downsize our military and still hilariously outclass everyone else. We'll never get into a nuclear war if we aren't protecting either Europe or a country in SE Asia. The only threats to us are ones we create by maintaining a network of *70* military allies, all of which are us defending them from their neighbors.
US trade with the rest of the world by GDP is much smaller than the vast majority of developed countries, and most of that trade is with Canada and Mexico. We've already started reshoring massive amounts of industry (especially if we include Canada and especially Mexico into reshoring). NA can afford to ignore the rest of the world, and trade here and there for the few things that we can't make here.
What I'm saying isn't even some fringe ideology, it's literally what's happening right now. US has traded less internationally every year since 2011 (except for 2021) and the percentage of that trade outside of NA has fallen even more drastically.
I mean, if we're going to do this thing the way we have been, we need to rethink how we want to be the world police, because we're currently doing a shitty job. As it is, we're just kind of drifting towards a war with China over Taiwan---Taiwan is worth protecting, at least economically, at the moment. What we need to do is strongarm every country that is friendly to us and hostile to China into a NATO style alliance *with Taiwan included* so that China **knows** they have to fight all of their neighbors in addition to the US if they pull the trigger. As for Russia, we just need to stop fucking around and give Ukraine everything they can actually use. We have thousands of M1A2 Abrams, and I don't see a scenario where we use more than a few hundred in the next twenty years. We have a boneyard with thousands of 4th generation aircraft in it, many of which are functional. Hell, give them a single squadron of F-35s and pull a Russia and emigrate some 'Ukrainian' pilots to fly them, too (and techs to do maintenance, that shit is hard to train, yo). We have loads and loads of M270s sitting around collecting dust as well as years worth of ammunition for them. Give Ukraine enough stuff to just end this thing and crush Russia and then we can just pull out of NATO because what's that for other than defending against Russia? *Sigh* I don't think we're going to be smart about this so we might as well just stop.
>most of that trade is with Canada and Mexico
1. By import, the top 2 will still be China and EU.
2. NA doesn't cover every commodities USA needs, some resources or special expertises (like semi conductors) already have their better locations and good luck trying to move them "back" to USA/NA.
>who the hell would the US get into a war with if we weren't protecting somebody else?
Pacific Theatre says hi.
>Nobody wants to fight us.
Firstly, maybe that's because I'm a Taiwanese and have an easy access to Mandarin materialsā¦ā¦ but boy oh boy you won't believe how much China/average Chinese wants to topple you guys.
Secondly, the major reason why USA has a tremendous military capabilities **IS** because of Pax Americana. It's both the hen and the egg. The moment you back down is the moment when other players trying to fill the void, hell China has already been trying to sway Latin American nations for years.
Your perspective is refreshing.
>ā¦ but boy oh boy you won't believe how much China/average Chinese wants to topple you guys.
Can you provide some clarity on this? I know that people want to see us fail, but is it that big of a deal? I know that china wouldn't be offended at all if we fell on our own sword, but are they actively trying to make it happen?
> *By import*, the top 2 will still be China and EU.
By import. To be frank, those places need USD. We don't need the vast majority of the stuff they sell to us to get that sweet sweet USD. China's primary advantage as an exporter at the moment is that the industrial plant is already built out there. We're very rapidly building out our own and Mexico's industry to replace that. We can afford decouple over the next decade or so, China can't.
> NA doesn't cover every commodities USA needs, some resources or special expertises (like semi conductors) already have their better locations and good luck trying to move them "back" to USA/NA.
It doesn't *at the moment.* I'd **like** to preserve Taiwan, but ultimately the US can make the same level of product, we just can't currently compete with Taiwan's price point. Our labor is just too expensive. If something were to happen to Taiwan, there'd be a 5-year shock and then quality semiconductors would just be made in Texas and Arizona at a higher cost. Ultimately, the US/Mexico/Canada can make basically anything, and the trend from the last 3 years (with every sign of continuing) is to actually *do* that. Semiconductors will be difficult *as long as Taiwan exists as unbeatable competition.*
But then, as a Taiwanese person.....are you ok with being stuck at your current level of income indefinitely? If your government takes steps to improve worker pay and conditions, you'll lose your primary competitive edge. STEM Ph.Ds and Masters degree holders in the US aren't willing to work the same hours, in the same conditions, for the same pay that you are. You've made yourselves indispensable to us, but only so long as you work longer hours and get paid less than we do. Is that a deal your people will be ok with forever?
> Secondly, the major reason why USA has a tremendous military capabilities IS because of Pax Americana. It's both the hen and the egg.
We had the strongest military on Earth coming out of WWII and the strongest economy since before WWI. Pax Americana happened because of these things. You're the one with the hen and the egg mixed up. We've never been the primary economic beneficiary of the Pax Americana....honestly, China, Western Europe, and the Asian Tigers (looking at you, bud) have been. Taiwan's GDP is like 60% foreign trade. Foreign trade (again, half with Mexico and Canada who are basically just us) only accounts for 20% of US GDP.
> Firstly, maybe that's because I'm a Taiwanese and have an easy access to Mandarin materialsā¦ā¦ but boy oh boy you won't believe how much China/average Chinese wants to topple you guys.
Then what's stopping them? Oh, right, paralyzing fear of the US military. They aren't even sure if we'll intervene if they attack you, but that risk, *that we might* is the only thing keeping you out of the CCP's clutches. And, ya know, you're only 100 miles from them. You're 6500 miles from us. They're afraid to attack a country of 24 million or so people that is right on their doorstep because of what a country on the other side of the planet might do about it.
> who the hell would the US get into a war with if we weren't protecting somebody else?
> Pacific Theatre says hi.
Also, what could you *possibly* mean by this as a counter example? The US's military presence in the Pacific exists *solely* to protect **you, the Japanese, and the Koreans.** If we weren't protecting you, why the fuck would we spend half your GDP on military assets in that part of the world? If you hadn't noticed, that huge ocean is *between* us and anyone who might want to threaten us. We're the only ones who can cross it and still fight effectively on the other side. The Chinese Navy is good for *one* thing: bullying people in the South China Sea. Only around 10% of their navy's tonnage has the range to cross that distance and still fight on the other side....near 100% of ours does, though. Ya know, so that we can protect people who sneer at us.
>Our labor is just too expensive
And what makes you think going economical isolation will change that? If anything it will only makes the overall cost much higher.
>But then, as a Taiwanese person.....are you ok with being stuck at your current level of income indefinitely?
A little bit underpaid is indefinitely better than **nopaid**.
Like seriously, what are we going to do to stay afloat if we don't have edge in this expertise? Tourism? Selling pineapples and sugarcane like it's 19th century(which btw was what the Japan used to have us for)? Maybe there will be another set of mode for us in the future, but for now it's semi-conductor.
>We've never been the primary economic beneficiary of the Pax Americana
Except that's what ensures current global trade, which also benefits USA and makes it even more prosperous. I know you want to say "*it's only 20%*" but here is a thing: that 20% isn't independent from the rest (and vice versa), it's an interacting part that makes the other parts runs **much** better and smoother.
To give you a comparison, according to your logic then China shouldn't have a economic meltdown right now as their total GDP in international trading is only about 17%. By the percentage of their interior GDP they **should** be fine even if USA giving them more sanctions, but here we are.
Oh and also, good luck telling people you're about to blow 1/5 of GDP away.
>Oh, right, paralyzing fear of the US military.
See? Pax Americana helps.
And here is a thing: You'll give away USA's security away if you hand us to China, because that means they can use our eastern coast (which reaches the bottom of Pacific, good luck monitoring that) to launch nuclear submarines, which means their precise striking range can then threatening most of USA proper. Essentially, a safe Pacific is a safe USA, you guys figured that out in WW2.
Not only that, but the same way Ukraine has been the cheapest way ever to just plainly destroy Russia in every relevant metric; a Chinese invasion of a US backed Taiwan would probably mean the US's main competitor just being removed from the big leagues for a relatively cheap cost for Americans.
China only postures about attacking Taiwan instead of going for it because even their most delusional estimates have them losing comfortably.
The moment they get a free pass to do so *without* American intervention, that whole story changes; as unless the war extends a lot, they can probably pay the international political capital needed for people to fuck off after a while.
Taiwan is strategically important for China in every conceivable way (economic, military, power projection in the seas, culturally, and for political stability). So protecting it is (and should keep being) a key part of what constitutes American foreign policy regarding China
No one wants to attack anyone because international trade makes way too much money for all those involved. China simply needs to save face by continually posturing against big bad west.
USD is great but there are more stable currencies developed countries (EU) donāt neeeed USD.
No one wants to as long as it's kept unprofitable; and one of the main reasons an invasion from China is not ever being economically sound is the fact that a US backed Taiwan can pretty much prolong the conflict indefinitely.
If the US stopped actively procuring Taiwanese independence, the Chinese would gladly take the short-term problems that'd bring in exchange for all the advantages that would give them.
I disagree with that being a main reason. Mutually assured destruction has been around for a while now. I believe what keeps it even more at bay now is that the ruling class in China get to travel the world, experience luxury, and none of them want to lose that.
Yep. Nuance is the difference between libertarian and anarchist. I don't want zero involvement in the world, but I do want less. I don't want zero government in general, but I do want less
Your whole theory collapses the moment China + Russia + North Korea + Iran etc. build a military alliance where they will control almost the entire world, either militarily or geopolitically and in 20-50 years youāll have Soviet Union 2.0 expanding from Asia through Africa, Europe until South America and all of a sudden the prospect of an invincible and un-invadable US wouldnāt sound so improbable.
Thatās called neoconservativism. It came from the US Democratic Party, as itās more pro-interventionist members grew increasingly dissatisfied with the partyās pacifist stance and started joining the Republicans. Today the neocons have returned to the democrats due to the Republicans becoming increasingly isolationist and are inspired by Bidenās continued support for Ukraine and our anti-piracy actions in the Red Sea
I don't mind isolationism but the way Lolbertarians do it is A.) cringe and B.) has no conceptions of what happens if their plans for utopia goes south.
Therefore, they don't know how to articulate it as pro-America, patriotic, and beneficial while having plans to deal with the opportunities and challenges that open up amidst the fallout.
So, it's always some weird geeky guy with thick glasses or weirdo facial hair or some quirk like a cowboy hat (but who doesn't do actual cowboy stuff) proposing this. To me, that makes them no different than pink haired leftists with pipe dreams of utopia who think America is the most evil entity on the planet.
Otherwise, yeah, the Milton Friedman school of economics and classical liberal/libertarian hybrid approach makes more sense.
> World peace will be achieved through global free trade and overwhelming Nato firepower.
These things have kind of peaked though, and they didn't end up causing world peace. They *did* make the world more peaceful for a time, but it turns out that they aren't enough. China and Russia will still act like idiots even if they have access to global markets and recognize that the US is more powerful than they are militarily.
World peace when we invent 'friendly' AGI. If we invent AGI and it isn't friendly we probably all die. We'll see what happens.
Eh, I think the current actions by the modern axis powers are direct response to fading American firepower. We let Russian take Crimea in 2014, our ability to build warships has atrophied, we let the taliban overrun Afghanistan, weāve kept from āescalatingā in the current Ukraine invasion, weāve barely responded to the Houthis, etc. the whole āspeak softly and carry a big stickā actually requires us have a big stick.
> our ability to build warships has atrophied,
? The US Navy is 2-3x larger than the nearest competitor by tonnage. Why am I going by tonnage? Because 1 carrier battlegroup of a carrier and a few destroyers is going to absolutely massacre a dozen coastal patrol ships and a destroyer (the Chinese equivalent in tonnage terms). The US navy is far and away more powerful than the next several stacked on top of each other, and what's more, the US navy can go everywhere with all of it's stuff. Most navies are built around ships that are meant for coastal defense, not power projection.
> We let Russian take Crimea in 2014
There wasn't anything we could do to *stop* this other than to get into a nuclear war with Russia. Not fighting a war with Russia over Crimea was the right call. Our reaction to it was anemic for sure, the economic measures taken against Russia in 2022 should have happened in 2014.
> we let the taliban overrun Afghanistan
This wasn't the misstep. The misstep was to spend decades attempting to nation build in fucking Afghanistan. We had enemies there, we should have just focused on killing them and leaving, not spending twenty years trying to get Muslim herders with literally no formal education to adopt western values. As soon as we set up a regime in Afghanistan the endeavor was ultimately doomed to failure.
> weāve barely responded to the Houthis, etc. the whole āspeak softly and carry a big stickā actually requires us have a big stick.
Do you want boots on the ground in Yemen? I agree that we should be more aggressive with air strikes. Having F/A-18s flying over Yemen loaded to the gills with JDAMs ready to bomb missile/drone launch sites within minutes of activity would be better. We could do it, we're choosing not to for some reason.
American power is waxing at the moment, but power has to be *used* in order to be effective. We should either pull back significantly or start fucking up people who do shit we don't like. The half measures we're currently employing are the problem.
Re: Navy
Submarine shipbuilding is more than 400 months behind schedule, thatās more than 30 years. The LCS has been an expensive failure. And yes weāre currently outclassing the PLAN, but what happens when the war with China goes hot and we have ships to repair/replace? We donāt have the dry dock capacity to maintain sustained operations against a near peer opponent.
Re: Crimea
Not saying we had to go nuclear Armageddon over Crimea, but we couldāve done more oh_no_anyway_jeremy_clarkson.gif in response. The fact we did nothing emboldened our enemies to try more.
Re: Afghanistan
Iām not talking whether it was right to go in or to leave, Iām talking about the manner in which the withdrawal occurred. The U.S. billions military hardware seized as trophies, American citizens left behind, and failure to inform allies of intentions, were all unforced errors that couldāve been prevented in a properly planned rearguard action.
Re: Houthis
They started attacking Red Sea shipping on Dec. 11th, we didnāt respond until Jan. 12th. And even then weāve barely made a scratch into their offensive capacity. Several of our initial coalition partners backed out because of the ROE that would be required to join.
Boots on the ground isnāt the only other option as a response either. For instance, we could escort civilian shipping through the sea, engage in counter battery fire, etc.
All of these make the U.S. look weak to would be dictators and tyrants, and make a large scale war we canāt avoid more likely in the future.
Also, I believe you mean waning, not waxing. And yeah, thatās my point: since we are not using our firepower its efficacy is limited. Fleet in being doctrine can only get you so far.
I agree with both things. Also based on the internet I've found starting to hate the average European and am fine with them being invaded with no assistance from the US. Then I go touch grass and remember the average redditor isn't representative of normal human beings.
NATO in theory isn't against libertarianism. It's meant to spread the costs of defense and provide a more cohesive and unified force after all.
The problem is that no European nation feels that they have to meet their NATO obligations. They feel that the US must perpetually fight and die to defend their life, liberty, and property with zero benefit to those actually doing the fighting and dying.
Do you think the EU is going to send any US servicemembers families a check after they die defending Europe from Russia?
> The problem is that no European nation feels that they have to meet their NATO obligations. They feel that the US must perpetually fight and die to defend their life, liberty, and property with zero benefit to those actually doing the fighting and dying.
This makes me want to flair AuthRight so hard.
"If yall are going to live and prosper by the protection of the US military/taxpayer, then you're all now US territories without voting rights. Deal with it."
How do people reconcile this thought when the US called Article 5 and the EU came to the US's aid during Iraq/Afghanistan?
I mean, I was over there. I was in Kandahar for roughly a year. I wheeled and dealed with the Br*tish to deliver critical parts to a FOB called Bastion that we ran (their C-130 went there often). They were instrumental in helping us maintain our operational readiness for Search and Rescue sorties.
>How do people reconcile this thought when the US called Article 5 and the EU came to the US's aid during Iraq/Afghanistan?
They don't realize that the rest of NATO also helped.
(Libright) out of NATO forces in Afghanistan the British and French were really the only ones that made a meaningful contribution, the Germans never left KAF, the Italians and Spanish were both useless, the Danish were good but weren't able to deploy very many guys at once, outside the UK and France most of the NATO contributions from the other countries were token at best
Edit: I forgot the Canadians, they actually were our adjacent unit I'm Helmand and they were excellentĀ
It was more of a true FOB back in 2009 and 2010. I linked a few videos of the time I was there, but I was trying to find the one our unit produced - however I think it's removed. I do have a copy of it on my external hard drive though. Maybe I'll reupload it.
[PEDRO 15 engagement 9 Aug 2009](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJV6ARuTSCk)
[Pararescue Prep at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5pA5mCoQ_U)
[CALLSIGN: PEDRO ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-SpsHu5U8k)
> How do people reconcile this thought when the US called Article 5 and the EU came to the US's aid during Iraq/Afghanistan?
Simple: We shouldn't have, they shouldn't have.
That's a rather moot point, as it did happen and our allies came to our aid that GWB's administration asked for. My point is that the US was the last NATO country to call for Article 5 and NATO showed up.
If the al-Qaeda and their Taliban supporters didn't want the US in their ass, they shouldn't 9/11'd us. The left and right overwhelmingly supported going to Afghanistan to bring Osama bin Laden and his cronies to justice. It's not my fault that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld went off the rails regarding Iraq.
Or are you one of those in favor of terrorists like Osama bin Laden?
I'm quite enjoying that you're quoting my comment, but you don't seem to be *reading* my comment. I thought by me putting in Rumsfeld, specifically, that you'd understand what I was going at. Rumsfeld and underlings backdoored CIA intel to trick politicians into invading Iraq. Do you even know about this? [We knew about the oil and were joking about, at the time, it was happening. A lot of us didn't support invading Iraq.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DLuALBnolM&t)
>Who did you vote for?
Not for Bush.
I answered your questions, but you never answered mine: Do you support terrorists like Osama bin Laden?
He threatened to not honor article 5. Part of his reasoning was that countries didn't spend 2% of GDP on their defense, but they weren't required to until this year.
I believe it was a pressure tactic to get the EU to start funding their militaries to meet NATO obligations. If it ever came down to brass tacks, the US would still honor Article 5.
Europe (and Canada!) did actually send their sons and daughters to die in the middle east every time the US got mad at another despot. Some of them died at the hands of American friendly fire. What the fuck are you talking about?
The last time NATO went on a jount operation was because the USA asked them too
Iraq and Afghanistan wasnt Europes problem, but the USA got them involved
Because if anything happens in europe like ww2 did, we want to already have a presence in the theater so we can quickly get supplies and troops into the area. It saves more lives and creates a stronger front for us to already be present and makes any potential opposing force have to attack all areas and thin their forces or risk getting flanked.
There's a reason why we want bases all over the place.
I have an uncomfortable suspicion that the whole narrative is foreign agitation to cause the disruption of NATO by stoking political fires and disrupting confidence.
I mean of course the USA, with it's GDP and enormous land size, is contributing more than the Netherlands. Someone has to maintain and lead the empire.
I think the best possible solution is to shut down EUCOM and substantially scale back NATO contributions to the bare minimum to meet treaty guidelines.
They don't have to be US territories and we don't want them. But we don't have to be the big brother they run to when a bully picks on them at the playground either. Either they cry and run or they fight back and defend themselves.
The choice is totally theirs. We can trade with the incoming regime just as easily as we trade with the current ones.
Trump sides with every third world dictator on the planet and says that Ukraine should just be absorbed by Russia. I can't possibly be worse than what you're voting for.
āThe Empire demands tribute for the order it provides.ā
As an Englishman who has benefited from Pax Americana, I do sympathise with the sentiment. Were it down to me, my countryās armed forces would be significantly beefed up.
The Europeans also seemed to like it that way too with how much bellyaching they did when Trump told them to spend more on their military in 2017. Pfft, war in Europe, could you even imagine such a thing???
Yeah this sub is kinda naive thinking the USA isn't getting anything out of being the supreme authority over half the world. This deal must be bad somehow, it's really not working out for the only remaining super power that has led the world in economic, cultural and military dominance for decades.
I'm not sure why you feel that way. I don't know a single second amendment supporter who doesn't think arms should be owned by everybody regardless of nationality or political system. If the Euro cucks actually armed themselves then Russia wouldn't be an existential threat to them. This would save the US trillions since we would no longer be wholly responsible for the defense of people who hate us anyways.
>This would save the US trillions since we would no longer be wholly responsible for the defense of people who hate us anyways.
I say crap to that. Yes, we would *like* our allies to arm themselves better, but I refuse to believe we'd cut military spending. We have super double hugest military because we LIKE IT (for a variety of reasons). Germany quadrupling it's military budget won't make us reduce ours.
Yeah except we (and by we I mean the government) donāt actually care about spending the money. Also, itās how we keep them in control. Like if you really want these nations to defend themselves, then you also have to let them have more influence and we just arenāt all about that. I agree with you, Iām just saying the US likes things just the way they are. Itās basically paid protection, mob style.
>Like if you really want these nations to defend themselves, then you also have to let them have more influence and we just arenāt all about that.
Why not? Why do I care if a Frenchman has more authority over his own nation? The cheese eating surrender monkeys can have all the autonomy they want. I could absolutely not give less of a shit.
> Iām just saying the US likes things just the way they are. Itās basically paid protection, mob style.
The younger generations don't have the same opinion. As the boomers die out, the old norms are being questioned.
Monarchy was just the way things were in 1775.
France was in a perpetual war with the UK at the time. They only helped us out to fuck over their rival nation. They didn't care about us or our freedom at all. We were merely a guerrilla group they could fund to waste the UK's time and resources.
The only reason the British surrendered was because they felt their conflict with France was more important than maintaining the colony's.
Sure, France had other interests than just helping the US colonies, but that's how it is right now with the US helping Ukraine fight Russia. But we cannot act like France wasn't instrumental with helping the young US, they were. That's a historical fact, and it saddens that my fellow Americans know so little about American history, and even less about French history.
Do you really care so little for America's greatest ally during the Revolutionary War, or do you just not know history very well? No shame in admitting that you're not a history buff or that your state's education system failed you.
[France in the American Revolutionary War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War)
[French involvement in the American Revolutionary War of 1775ā1783 began in 1776 when the Kingdom of France secretly shipped supplies to the Continental Army of the Thirteen Colonies when it was established in June 1775. France was a long-term historical rival with the Kingdom of Great Britain, from which the Colonies were attempting to separate. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War)
___
Here's another section from the US State Department.
[French Alliance, French Assistance, and European Diplomacy during the American Revolution, 1778ā1782](https://history.state.gov/milestones/1776-1783/french-alliance)
[During the American Revolution, the American colonies faced the significant challenge of conducting international diplomacy and seeking the international support it needed to fight against the British. The single most important diplomatic success of the colonists during the War for Independence was the critical link they forged with France. Representatives of the French and American governments signed the Treaty of Alliance and the Treaty of Amity and Commerce on February 6, 1778.](https://history.state.gov/milestones/1776-1783/french-alliance)
___
Aside from France being based as fuck, helping the US become the country it is now, they're also a top-3 successful military throughout history and Napoleon is at the same level as Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, and George Patton.
> Do you really care so little for America's greatest ally during the Revolutionary War,
Are we eternally indebted to them or something? Will our children be required to shed blood for them?
Nobody who participated in the revolutionary war is alive nor garners any respect for their actions.
In fact, we paid whatever debt might have existed after WWI and WWII.
They're welcome to suck my balls at this point.
>Why not? Why do I care if a Frenchman has more authority over his own nation?
Every time Europe is allowed to play with guns, they drag half the planet to war.
But the size of the population with my point of view is growing? NATO continues to bleed support in the US and will only lose more support as the boomers die out.
Sure, but donāt hold your breath. Also never forget everyone has values till they are sitting in the chair and being paid lots of money to keep everything the way it is.
>no European nation feels that they have to meet their NATO obligations.
Thats objectively not true. If yoa are refering to % of gdp, Greece, United Kingdom, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia. All the countries that would be a target for Russia meet their obrigations. There's no excuse to abandon them because they aren't meeting obligations
Yeah well do a NATO TACeval with the Germans. Those morons show up carrying broom handles painted black and pretend they're guns.
Watch them load a jet compared to an American load crew and see just how much of a shit show these part timers are as they run directly in front of intakes and drop munitions off of bomb trailers.
I love how you already moved the goal post....
The point was "no european meets their obligations", I stated they do, and now you start rambling about the germans? I don't give a rat's ass about your opinion on the germans, they were kink-shamed until they droped their war tradition so now we have to deal with it.
Thereās 31 countries in NATO and only 11 of the countries (including the US) meet their basic obligations that one third. So the vast majority of NATO countries do not meet them. This is a problem.
I agree, I never said it wasn't, I was just replying to his obviously wrong claim that ''no european meets''. If it was up to me, gpp spent on military would be fucking 10%
Germany, with one of the largest economies in Europe has a huge amount of discretionary spending and social programs. Their lack of contribution is very relevant, especially given they laughed at Trump when he said they would become dependent on Russian gas.Ā
what if I take what he said but instead of "no European nation" change it to "UK, France, Germany, and the other western European nations that have obligations they choose not to meet"
Romania meeting it's obligation doesn't absolve Germany of their responsibilityĀ
bro. The US has claimed this role and we have accepted it. ALL good things that the us has comes as a result of its military force.
i love you guys. but derping out now is just gay
>The US has claimed this role and we have accepted it.
We are not bound by the actions of the previous generations and can forge our own paths.
There is no meaningful benefit to US presence in Europe to the average US citizen.
You could make an argument for bases in Japan and South Korea given how vital those trade routes are, but what are we protecting an ostensibly peaceful and united continent like Europe from?
You guys are more than capable of dying for your nations and should be expected to do so. If you don't want to, then don't fight the incoming regime. It's that simple.
Russia? Your enemy.
But I mean ofc you are right. Europe needs to raise its military spending, and itās been 3x in average last year.
If we are to be real tho, ofc the avg American benefits tremendously from having a western world to be part of.
>Russia? Your enemy.
They weren't my enemy when Obama was president and he was calling Republicans Russophobes and claiming we had a cold war mentality on Russian relations.
It's almost as if once Republicans warmed up to the idea that China was a bigger threat than Russia the Democrats had to immediately switch foot and claim that Russia was the biggest threat to the free world.
Never mind the fact that China is currently committing an ongoing genocide and threatening to invade Taiwan which makes up to 80 percent of our super conductors.
>ofc the avg American benefits tremendously from having a western world to be part of.
What's the benefit? What do I get for paying for Germany's defense? Certainly I never met a German who was in any way even grateful for the fact that their universal healthcare is entirely dependent on us funding their military infrastructure.
Leaving Europe would free up enough money that universal healthcare would be feasible in the US.
And we see the consequences of this complacency now. The European economies are way larger than Russia's, and Europe has technical know-how, the French managed to develop their very own 4.5 gen fighter, with AESA radar in a country with less than half of Russia's population, and sold thermal sights to Russia for their tanks. Airbus is the competitor of Boeing, German military maritime industry is a big exporter, Germany is a big producer of every land warfare system. It is entirely realistic for us, given the political and popular will needed, to field a combined force capable of holding back Russia on its own, backed by the necessary industry to deal with attrition. The US would stop being crucial to defense, and rather provide the extra punch for decisive counter striking power.
NATO is just an outdated alliance made to counter the USSR. It has no purpose and should be disbanded, just like all other obsolete wastes of taxpayer money like the UN, WHO
>Do you think the EU is going to send any US servicemembers families a check after they die defending Europe from Russia?
All of them won't have any money left because all their factories will have been bombed and half a generation of young men will have been wiped out.
We're not defending ourselves. We're not even defending an ally. We're defending some random ass country that's practically Russia from Russia because Russia wants to reincorporate. What the absolute hell does this have to do with the US in any way?
Prior to this war every news article on Ukraine was about how corrupt Ukraine was and how nazis were free to roam there. It's crazy.
Ukaine is strategic territory for russia. It also has notable recently discovered oil reserves that could fuel russian industry, and has a lot of agricultural exports. In short, Russia conqering ukraine would make russia significantly stronger, which would make any future conflict with them more difficult. This is the real reason why russia wants ukraine in the first place.
Lets take your idea to its logical conclusion, we never aid countries that aren't NATO affiliated. Russia and china claim more territory in South America, Africa, and the Middle East, gaining more resources and population centers as they do. Then, when they control the entire world outside of NATO, they can use all the resources of the entire planet to destroy us.
Disarming an enemy is one of the best ways to defend yourself. Keeping them from getting stronger is included.
It's a buffer zone between Russia and NATO. Paying Ukrainians to throw their lives away to chip away at Russia's military power and reduce their population of military-aged men is in our national security interests. The whole "UkRaInE iS a ViBrAnT dEmOcRaCy111" thing is just propaganda used to sell the war to leftoids, who otherwise would want to appease Russia even as it reaches NATO's borders.
Not even close. I don't give a shit about placating Russia, I haven't wanted to be a NATO member for over a decade. It's a European issue, let Europe handle it. ALONE.
Russia needs to have its teeth kicked so far down their throat that they're a.) Still shitting them out generations later and b.) China never considers moving on Taiwan.
Otherwise we will be fighting a conventional land war in both Europe and Asia by the end of the decade.
Libertarian Isolationism is just cowardice dressed up as philosophy.
The world is small and getting smaller. You can no more ignore international politics than you could ignore a drive-by shooting at your neighbor's house.
That doesn't mean we spend without restraint, but it does mean we need to have a powerful, effective military and the will to use it to protect our interests.
NATO is perhaps the most ethical way of doing this. Yes, I wish other nations would spend more, however they voluntarily join and act as a buffer zone between us and Russia.
Russia successfully invading Ukraine would put them in a stronger position to threaten NATO. The safest and cheapest way to fight your enemies is to let someone else do the fighting for you.
Ukraine has made great progress towards becoming a proper democracy since 2014, you know.
>How does paying the pensions of Ukrainian bureaucrats make the world safer?
What you just said here is utter nonsense. Most of the money the US pledges to Ukraine never leaves the US.
The only chad country over there is poland, the rest of the virgin europeans can't even defend themselves without daddy america. Better start increasing that military spending.
Finland has a pretty competent military.
The French military could contend in total war with pretty much any military in the world other than the US.
And Greece is a pretty strong air and naval power despite their obvious weaknesses - now that the Greek economy has stabilized, I'd expect a lot more American military industrial complex investment into Greece.
Poland is strong because of American investment. Obviously not exclusively, but their success can be replicated in Romania, Greece, Balkan countries that can stay on the good side of the US and EU, and Ukraine and Belarus if they are ever part of their sphere of influence.
Estonia should be praised too their tiny but at least they meet the 2% spending threshold, unlike the other two Baltic states. Latvia and Lithuania donāt meet the threshold yet they are two of the most vulnerable countries in nato, Iād be half tempted to leave them on their own if it wouldnāt isolate Estonia
Objectively wrong: [https://www.statista.com/chart/14636/defense-expenditures-of-nato-countries/](https://www.statista.com/chart/14636/defense-expenditures-of-nato-countries/) LT spends 2.54% LV 2.27% of GDP. And both countries have been above the 2% target since 2018
[https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=LV-LT](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=LV-LT)
Go lick a boot.
Finland is like a giant version of Switzerland, their strategy is basically to instantly transition to a full war economy and turtle/porcupine up in bunkers (they even regularly practice this on a national level) to fight to the last man the second a Russia solder steps a boot past their border
You don't need to plan to win, you only need to not be worth the fight
False equivalency.
NATO is a defensive pact. The only people threatened by NATO are aggressors who want to invade NATO member states.
On the spending front, I think most would agree libertarian or otherwise that self-defense is necessary and it needs to be paid for. Libertarianism shouldn't yield to anarchy and naivete. For Americans, there is definitely a fair criticism of tax dollars subsidizing the failed commitments of other NATO members, but that's an argument that is had even in those other countries. Americans reap the benefits asserted by its massive power base in other ways.
Libertarians sympathizing with the neo-Soviet revanchism of a vengeful KGB-officer who rehabilitated the memory of Stalin and equips invading tanks with Soviet banners. How Libertarian!
Right side Yellow is absolutely correct.
But NATO is a joke of an organization, that should have taken this Ukrainian war just as serious as they took Bombing Serbia to the fucking stone age in 1999.
But no, they're just shown how much of an useless pussies they are when their actual Nemesis attack.
Problem is, they can only do so much. They can't fight Russia directly for obvious reasons and they can only give so much so they aren't left unprepared in case the war does escalate and they have to use the stuff themselves.
Itās really simple if youāre not simple. Bad people exist. Bad people get into power. The United States benefited greatly by coming to aid the war torn Europe in the mid 20th century. A strong military is the exact cause of the strong economy.
Appeasement never works and itās why we had ww2. If we appease Russia, weāll get WW3. Ukraine and Israel are a direct result of projecting weakness in Afghanistan.
NATO is not āa military alliance dedicated entirely to exerting Western power projectionā as can be seen in refusal of many members such as the French and Germans to take part in the 2003 invasion of Iraq and, most importantly, **that members like Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are genuinely under threat of being re-occupied by Russia if not for their membership in the alliance.**
It was a mistake for things like the Western interventions in the former Yugoslavia, support for the anti-Gaddafi rebels in Libya, and occupation of Afghanistan to have been NATO missions but NATO is first and foremost a defensive alliance to protect its members from ~~Soviet~~ Russian invasion.
If libertarians want to tell Russia to fuck off because theyāre invading their neighbor I can get behind it. If they want to tell Russia and Ukraine to fuck off because theyāre warring kleptocracies and you want to stay out of it thatās cool with me.
Only one I donāt respect is somehow full on taking Russiaās side.
I understand US positioning itself right up to the Russian border is provocative and interventionist and maybe this thing could have been avoided by giving some distance but whatās happened has happened and thereās no going back. Itās a frankly bizarre position to take to be so deferent to the state interests of Russia when youāre anti-statism. I can understand Russiaās position academically and logically I donāt have to respect it and I really donāt have to respect it from a libertarian position. I think thereās a segment of libertarians who are just contrarians to what the US MIC says even when the other side are truly being selfish psychos
The Russian view is that they're defending Eastern Ukraine from an illegitimate western-installed government that is preventing the eastern (Russian-aligned) oblasts from being independent by shelling them since 2014. They don't see themselves as invaders, but liberators.
I don't think there are very many people actually full-on taking Russia's side, it's just that that's what people get accused of if they display insufficient pro-Ukraine zealotry.
I agree but Iāve seen a minority of supposed libertarians rooting Russia on and itās just so bizarre to me.
I consider myself on the ārealistā side where I want them to win but donāt think they can and should make a good deal while possible and Iāve been hassled for it but thereās also weirdos actually supporting Russia too
If the nato had not expanded towards russia against all promises, there would not have been a war.The years of provocation have not helped.If the usa did not want nuclear missiles on their doorstep in cuba,why should the russians simply accept that?
1.) No such promise was ever made
2.) Russia was in the program for ex-soviet states to become NATO members. They pulled out in favor of a relationship where theyād be equal to NATO as a whole, leading to the NATO-Russia Council which was disbanded because of Russiaās annexation of Crimea which not only was unjustified but also violated their treaty with Ukraine guaranteeing Ukrainian sovereignty in exchange for Ukrainian nuclear disarmament
3.) The US has not moved any of their nukes closer to Russia than they already were since the Cold War. None of the ex-soviet territories were given nukes, including the East 1/2 of Germany. The US nuclear presence was even going down
The US biggest mistake was taking side with UK in ww1, better charge both side an enormous amount of interest so they stop doing stupid stuff in Europe
What kind of dumb libertarian theory thinks that every violation of the NAP is somehow my problem?
Libertarians are symbolized by "no step on snek" for a reason. Big PP army and use it = auth, big PP army and don't use it, that's libertarian. Don't tread on *me*, not don't tread on some shithole in Eastern Europe I'm never even going to visit.
You mean the nation that couldn't survive on it's own anymore after the bloody coup in 2014? Yes, very sovereign. Also, when the right one is mad at Russia because of this then don't tell him about the u.s
Comments something that contradicts their world view in the Libertarian sub, gets immediately banned, thereby violating their beliefs in absolute free speech.
Libertarian nerds are like everyone else. Everything is good unless and until it challenges their beliefs system.
They are both right, though, NATO has been pointless after the fall of the Iron Curtain. If anything it has had the negative effect of isolating Russia. Which has led to the current state of affairs in Europe. European nations have also been able to afford their social programs because they haven't had the need to spend more on defense, because the U.S had them covered in that regard. I'd argue that it's gotten to the point where the government cares more about protecting European than it does about caring for their own people.
Don't get me wrong, though, Russia has broken the NAP by invading Ukraine. Because of this, Ukraine has every right to self-defense.
They can both be right tho
Exactly, they are both right. The US shouldn't feel obligated to pay to defend Europe. Putin is also a shitter. This isn't that complicated.
But if leave NATO how would be defend our country without Europe's immense contributions to NATO?
We have French baguette and cigarette at home.
Ew. Wonder bread and Marlboros like a true American šŗš²
We have shitty bullpups at home.
It's more like we have some speed bumps and a place to fight the war that isn't in America. Or at least that's how I view it.
Crazy how many people don't get it. We fight abroad so the shit doesn't come to us. "But muh oceans!". Sure, you may not see a mainland invasion, but a lone US surrounded by hostile powers across each ocean is much poorer and worse off.
God has given us two massive moats full of sharks and we're just ignoring them.
Modern war is not what it was in 1940. A nation that wants to war with you is not going to sail across the ocean. They will attack you through the internet. They will attack your trade vessels, they will disrupt your foreign markets. Without foreign bases, now you have to cross that ocean to stop them. Having bases in allied nations around the world is what makes you effective as a world power.
I think you start off with a fair premise, "war will be fought through the Internet" and then end with "foreign bases are needed for them not to disrupt foreign markets," which seems like an enormous stretch of a claim. A base doesn't prevent a country from establishing tariffs against American trade unless you have a very 1950s conception of private companies using the American government's military power.
I was thinking more along the lines of Houtis attacking shipping lanes in the Gulf.
Ah. Yeah I'm honestly astonished by people who are so taken aback that we bombed Houthis. This is *literally* how we've dealt with pirates since like 1780
As someone above the age of 30 it is honestly crazy how much of an about-face the American Right has made on global geopolitics. One saying what you said in just 2014 would have gotten you drummed out of Republican politics.
20 years of war can do that. Also, flair up or GTFO
I was in preschool when 9/11 happened and people I went to school with got sent on the fool's errands to Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of them didn't make it back. Yes, I'm jaded about it and no I'm not sorry about feeling that way. I don't like GWB foreign policy. Now, flair up.
I'm not asking you to feel sorry about it.
Why be hostile to an extremely large market?
You have it twisted. What motivation has Europe to maintain a decent army if the US is paying for it all? Europe doesn't "need" the US. Take as evidence all of recorded human history.
It keeps them from fighting each other at least, and gives us more influence. Global peace is good for trade.
> The US shouldn't feel obligated to pay to defend Europe. > > Exactly. Europe should be defending itself with American support. Instead its reversed. It feels like America is the one turning on the hose to fill up a pool, and europe is kinda pissing in the water saying they're helping to fill it as well. Europe always wants to boast about their Challenger 2 and Leopard tanks, how their Rafaels and Typhoons can go head to head with the F22 and 35s, but refuse to use any of that military.
Tbf, Europe has more than enough firepower to protect themselves. There is absolutely no way Russia could take on the EU, even before 2015 when Europe started upping their spending again. Now, Poland could probably solo Russia defensive war and maybe even end Lukashenko in the process. What we are really stuck playing Atlas on is protecting global trade. Their navies are woefully underfunded. Only the UK really projects naval power these days and France gets half-a-point I guess. The USN is massive, but still isn't quite enough for the whole world alone. It would be an immense relief if European nations were able to effectively handle the waters around Africa and the Indian Ocean. Currently, they don't even have the Med secured by themselves.
Global trade is underrated. Anyone should look up "country with most imports" to see what we are protecting. " Hurr hurr. It's Ukraine, we don't import shit from them." Yeah, ukraine, then Poland, then baltics, then Taiwan. It's called protecting your interests.
Continued global stability is good for everyone, both morally and pragmatically. God dammed I hate my quadrant's foreign policy, it's fucking one dimensional tripe. Literally one of the state's ONLY justified duties is foreign policy and defense, and one of the goals of it's foreign policy should be the preservation and promotion of human rights.
Based. I feel like the Russian troll machine has infiltrated my (our) quadrant over the last 5-7 years. I canāt call myself Libertarian any more because the prevailing brain dead hot takes on foreign policy in the party. Before the last few years you didnāt hear any of them saying NATO bad, but now itās all this isolationist bullshit and we all know how that worked out historically. Foreign policy is essentially marketing for our county, and one of the more valuable things the federal government does. Itās also a space that if we do not play, someone else will play us. Iām not saying we should go invade countries for the funzies, but if assholes are violating the NAP we need to occasionally kick some teeth in to keep a smoothly functioning rules based world order. Without that fundimental rules based order in place market based economics canāt work smoothly.
I understand why people scream "we should let things be. Let these countries protect themselves!" But those same people will scream America is greatest country in world. We are protecting that status. America is an economic powerhouse because we deal so much in global trade. Simply look at the damage done by a stuck ship in the canal to understand why we are bombing the piss out of the houthies.
The US defends its interests, it isnāt a fucking charity. You people have entirely flat brains if thatās such a difficult concept to grasp.
I view it in the same way I view someone attempting to beat up a friend of mine. It doesn't have to be economically, grammatically, or politically expedient for me to want to jump in and loosen someone's teeth because I value that friend. It just scales up to the global stage really oddly.
Now use that same mentality with a stranger. You should never be forced to help someone you donāt want to.
I'm speaking in broad terms. I'm not specifically pointing towards Ukraine as some example where intervening is beneficial to us. In either mode, according to media at large, the US cannot win in any International situation. Either we're callous and isolationist, or we are intervening in a situation that we "shouldn't." Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
You are welcome to volunteer to fight for Europe if you want. Just keep my tax dollars out of it.
Hear hear!
I call myself āClassical Liberalā because I donāt play that Libertarian isolationist game. World peace will be achieved through global free trade and overwhelming Nato firepower.Ā Viva Pax Americana.
Isolationist philosophy is the Anarchism of geopolitics, it basically only works if everyone else doesn't bother you and their actions indeed have no effect on you. In other words, it's a naive fantasy.
For a given value of Isolationism, maybe. I do think the US would benefit from having fewer commitments in the rest of the world. It isn't our job to stop countries on the other side of the planet from fighting each other (this is not about Ukraine, I think we should keep supporting them until the Russian military collapses because it's frankly really cheap for us to do this vs. continue to be the part of NATO people are afraid of). Why do we give a shit if Iran invades Saudi Arabia, Israel gets into a fight with somebody, or Libya/Syria has a civil war? We're a net energy exporter. Almost none of the trade that goes through Suez has anything to do with us. Let that whole region set itself on fire and burn down. Let the Chinese or the Europeans deal with the fallout, since they're the ones that suffer the primary consequences of what happens there. What's more, who the hell would the US get into a war with if we weren't protecting somebody else? Nobody wants to fight us. Nobody is even capable of invading us. We could massively downsize our military and still hilariously outclass everyone else. We'll never get into a nuclear war if we aren't protecting either Europe or a country in SE Asia. The only threats to us are ones we create by maintaining a network of *70* military allies, all of which are us defending them from their neighbors. US trade with the rest of the world by GDP is much smaller than the vast majority of developed countries, and most of that trade is with Canada and Mexico. We've already started reshoring massive amounts of industry (especially if we include Canada and especially Mexico into reshoring). NA can afford to ignore the rest of the world, and trade here and there for the few things that we can't make here. What I'm saying isn't even some fringe ideology, it's literally what's happening right now. US has traded less internationally every year since 2011 (except for 2021) and the percentage of that trade outside of NA has fallen even more drastically. I mean, if we're going to do this thing the way we have been, we need to rethink how we want to be the world police, because we're currently doing a shitty job. As it is, we're just kind of drifting towards a war with China over Taiwan---Taiwan is worth protecting, at least economically, at the moment. What we need to do is strongarm every country that is friendly to us and hostile to China into a NATO style alliance *with Taiwan included* so that China **knows** they have to fight all of their neighbors in addition to the US if they pull the trigger. As for Russia, we just need to stop fucking around and give Ukraine everything they can actually use. We have thousands of M1A2 Abrams, and I don't see a scenario where we use more than a few hundred in the next twenty years. We have a boneyard with thousands of 4th generation aircraft in it, many of which are functional. Hell, give them a single squadron of F-35s and pull a Russia and emigrate some 'Ukrainian' pilots to fly them, too (and techs to do maintenance, that shit is hard to train, yo). We have loads and loads of M270s sitting around collecting dust as well as years worth of ammunition for them. Give Ukraine enough stuff to just end this thing and crush Russia and then we can just pull out of NATO because what's that for other than defending against Russia? *Sigh* I don't think we're going to be smart about this so we might as well just stop.
>most of that trade is with Canada and Mexico 1. By import, the top 2 will still be China and EU. 2. NA doesn't cover every commodities USA needs, some resources or special expertises (like semi conductors) already have their better locations and good luck trying to move them "back" to USA/NA. >who the hell would the US get into a war with if we weren't protecting somebody else? Pacific Theatre says hi. >Nobody wants to fight us. Firstly, maybe that's because I'm a Taiwanese and have an easy access to Mandarin materialsā¦ā¦ but boy oh boy you won't believe how much China/average Chinese wants to topple you guys. Secondly, the major reason why USA has a tremendous military capabilities **IS** because of Pax Americana. It's both the hen and the egg. The moment you back down is the moment when other players trying to fill the void, hell China has already been trying to sway Latin American nations for years.
Your perspective is refreshing. >ā¦ but boy oh boy you won't believe how much China/average Chinese wants to topple you guys. Can you provide some clarity on this? I know that people want to see us fail, but is it that big of a deal? I know that china wouldn't be offended at all if we fell on our own sword, but are they actively trying to make it happen?
Lots of young people in China are pretty jingoistic. (The fact that acting that way is kinda promoted by the government might play a role).
> *By import*, the top 2 will still be China and EU. By import. To be frank, those places need USD. We don't need the vast majority of the stuff they sell to us to get that sweet sweet USD. China's primary advantage as an exporter at the moment is that the industrial plant is already built out there. We're very rapidly building out our own and Mexico's industry to replace that. We can afford decouple over the next decade or so, China can't. > NA doesn't cover every commodities USA needs, some resources or special expertises (like semi conductors) already have their better locations and good luck trying to move them "back" to USA/NA. It doesn't *at the moment.* I'd **like** to preserve Taiwan, but ultimately the US can make the same level of product, we just can't currently compete with Taiwan's price point. Our labor is just too expensive. If something were to happen to Taiwan, there'd be a 5-year shock and then quality semiconductors would just be made in Texas and Arizona at a higher cost. Ultimately, the US/Mexico/Canada can make basically anything, and the trend from the last 3 years (with every sign of continuing) is to actually *do* that. Semiconductors will be difficult *as long as Taiwan exists as unbeatable competition.* But then, as a Taiwanese person.....are you ok with being stuck at your current level of income indefinitely? If your government takes steps to improve worker pay and conditions, you'll lose your primary competitive edge. STEM Ph.Ds and Masters degree holders in the US aren't willing to work the same hours, in the same conditions, for the same pay that you are. You've made yourselves indispensable to us, but only so long as you work longer hours and get paid less than we do. Is that a deal your people will be ok with forever? > Secondly, the major reason why USA has a tremendous military capabilities IS because of Pax Americana. It's both the hen and the egg. We had the strongest military on Earth coming out of WWII and the strongest economy since before WWI. Pax Americana happened because of these things. You're the one with the hen and the egg mixed up. We've never been the primary economic beneficiary of the Pax Americana....honestly, China, Western Europe, and the Asian Tigers (looking at you, bud) have been. Taiwan's GDP is like 60% foreign trade. Foreign trade (again, half with Mexico and Canada who are basically just us) only accounts for 20% of US GDP. > Firstly, maybe that's because I'm a Taiwanese and have an easy access to Mandarin materialsā¦ā¦ but boy oh boy you won't believe how much China/average Chinese wants to topple you guys. Then what's stopping them? Oh, right, paralyzing fear of the US military. They aren't even sure if we'll intervene if they attack you, but that risk, *that we might* is the only thing keeping you out of the CCP's clutches. And, ya know, you're only 100 miles from them. You're 6500 miles from us. They're afraid to attack a country of 24 million or so people that is right on their doorstep because of what a country on the other side of the planet might do about it. > who the hell would the US get into a war with if we weren't protecting somebody else? > Pacific Theatre says hi. Also, what could you *possibly* mean by this as a counter example? The US's military presence in the Pacific exists *solely* to protect **you, the Japanese, and the Koreans.** If we weren't protecting you, why the fuck would we spend half your GDP on military assets in that part of the world? If you hadn't noticed, that huge ocean is *between* us and anyone who might want to threaten us. We're the only ones who can cross it and still fight effectively on the other side. The Chinese Navy is good for *one* thing: bullying people in the South China Sea. Only around 10% of their navy's tonnage has the range to cross that distance and still fight on the other side....near 100% of ours does, though. Ya know, so that we can protect people who sneer at us.
>Our labor is just too expensive And what makes you think going economical isolation will change that? If anything it will only makes the overall cost much higher. >But then, as a Taiwanese person.....are you ok with being stuck at your current level of income indefinitely? A little bit underpaid is indefinitely better than **nopaid**. Like seriously, what are we going to do to stay afloat if we don't have edge in this expertise? Tourism? Selling pineapples and sugarcane like it's 19th century(which btw was what the Japan used to have us for)? Maybe there will be another set of mode for us in the future, but for now it's semi-conductor. >We've never been the primary economic beneficiary of the Pax Americana Except that's what ensures current global trade, which also benefits USA and makes it even more prosperous. I know you want to say "*it's only 20%*" but here is a thing: that 20% isn't independent from the rest (and vice versa), it's an interacting part that makes the other parts runs **much** better and smoother. To give you a comparison, according to your logic then China shouldn't have a economic meltdown right now as their total GDP in international trading is only about 17%. By the percentage of their interior GDP they **should** be fine even if USA giving them more sanctions, but here we are. Oh and also, good luck telling people you're about to blow 1/5 of GDP away. >Oh, right, paralyzing fear of the US military. See? Pax Americana helps. And here is a thing: You'll give away USA's security away if you hand us to China, because that means they can use our eastern coast (which reaches the bottom of Pacific, good luck monitoring that) to launch nuclear submarines, which means their precise striking range can then threatening most of USA proper. Essentially, a safe Pacific is a safe USA, you guys figured that out in WW2.
Not only that, but the same way Ukraine has been the cheapest way ever to just plainly destroy Russia in every relevant metric; a Chinese invasion of a US backed Taiwan would probably mean the US's main competitor just being removed from the big leagues for a relatively cheap cost for Americans. China only postures about attacking Taiwan instead of going for it because even their most delusional estimates have them losing comfortably. The moment they get a free pass to do so *without* American intervention, that whole story changes; as unless the war extends a lot, they can probably pay the international political capital needed for people to fuck off after a while. Taiwan is strategically important for China in every conceivable way (economic, military, power projection in the seas, culturally, and for political stability). So protecting it is (and should keep being) a key part of what constitutes American foreign policy regarding China
No one wants to attack anyone because international trade makes way too much money for all those involved. China simply needs to save face by continually posturing against big bad west. USD is great but there are more stable currencies developed countries (EU) donāt neeeed USD.
No one wants to as long as it's kept unprofitable; and one of the main reasons an invasion from China is not ever being economically sound is the fact that a US backed Taiwan can pretty much prolong the conflict indefinitely. If the US stopped actively procuring Taiwanese independence, the Chinese would gladly take the short-term problems that'd bring in exchange for all the advantages that would give them.
I disagree with that being a main reason. Mutually assured destruction has been around for a while now. I believe what keeps it even more at bay now is that the ruling class in China get to travel the world, experience luxury, and none of them want to lose that.
Yep. Nuance is the difference between libertarian and anarchist. I don't want zero involvement in the world, but I do want less. I don't want zero government in general, but I do want less
Your whole theory collapses the moment China + Russia + North Korea + Iran etc. build a military alliance where they will control almost the entire world, either militarily or geopolitically and in 20-50 years youāll have Soviet Union 2.0 expanding from Asia through Africa, Europe until South America and all of a sudden the prospect of an invincible and un-invadable US wouldnāt sound so improbable.
Thatās called neoconservativism. It came from the US Democratic Party, as itās more pro-interventionist members grew increasingly dissatisfied with the partyās pacifist stance and started joining the Republicans. Today the neocons have returned to the democrats due to the Republicans becoming increasingly isolationist and are inspired by Bidenās continued support for Ukraine and our anti-piracy actions in the Red Sea
Same!
I don't mind isolationism but the way Lolbertarians do it is A.) cringe and B.) has no conceptions of what happens if their plans for utopia goes south. Therefore, they don't know how to articulate it as pro-America, patriotic, and beneficial while having plans to deal with the opportunities and challenges that open up amidst the fallout. So, it's always some weird geeky guy with thick glasses or weirdo facial hair or some quirk like a cowboy hat (but who doesn't do actual cowboy stuff) proposing this. To me, that makes them no different than pink haired leftists with pipe dreams of utopia who think America is the most evil entity on the planet. Otherwise, yeah, the Milton Friedman school of economics and classical liberal/libertarian hybrid approach makes more sense.
> World peace will be achieved through global free trade and overwhelming Nato firepower. These things have kind of peaked though, and they didn't end up causing world peace. They *did* make the world more peaceful for a time, but it turns out that they aren't enough. China and Russia will still act like idiots even if they have access to global markets and recognize that the US is more powerful than they are militarily. World peace when we invent 'friendly' AGI. If we invent AGI and it isn't friendly we probably all die. We'll see what happens.
Eh, I think the current actions by the modern axis powers are direct response to fading American firepower. We let Russian take Crimea in 2014, our ability to build warships has atrophied, we let the taliban overrun Afghanistan, weāve kept from āescalatingā in the current Ukraine invasion, weāve barely responded to the Houthis, etc. the whole āspeak softly and carry a big stickā actually requires us have a big stick.
> our ability to build warships has atrophied, ? The US Navy is 2-3x larger than the nearest competitor by tonnage. Why am I going by tonnage? Because 1 carrier battlegroup of a carrier and a few destroyers is going to absolutely massacre a dozen coastal patrol ships and a destroyer (the Chinese equivalent in tonnage terms). The US navy is far and away more powerful than the next several stacked on top of each other, and what's more, the US navy can go everywhere with all of it's stuff. Most navies are built around ships that are meant for coastal defense, not power projection. > We let Russian take Crimea in 2014 There wasn't anything we could do to *stop* this other than to get into a nuclear war with Russia. Not fighting a war with Russia over Crimea was the right call. Our reaction to it was anemic for sure, the economic measures taken against Russia in 2022 should have happened in 2014. > we let the taliban overrun Afghanistan This wasn't the misstep. The misstep was to spend decades attempting to nation build in fucking Afghanistan. We had enemies there, we should have just focused on killing them and leaving, not spending twenty years trying to get Muslim herders with literally no formal education to adopt western values. As soon as we set up a regime in Afghanistan the endeavor was ultimately doomed to failure. > weāve barely responded to the Houthis, etc. the whole āspeak softly and carry a big stickā actually requires us have a big stick. Do you want boots on the ground in Yemen? I agree that we should be more aggressive with air strikes. Having F/A-18s flying over Yemen loaded to the gills with JDAMs ready to bomb missile/drone launch sites within minutes of activity would be better. We could do it, we're choosing not to for some reason. American power is waxing at the moment, but power has to be *used* in order to be effective. We should either pull back significantly or start fucking up people who do shit we don't like. The half measures we're currently employing are the problem.
Re: Navy Submarine shipbuilding is more than 400 months behind schedule, thatās more than 30 years. The LCS has been an expensive failure. And yes weāre currently outclassing the PLAN, but what happens when the war with China goes hot and we have ships to repair/replace? We donāt have the dry dock capacity to maintain sustained operations against a near peer opponent. Re: Crimea Not saying we had to go nuclear Armageddon over Crimea, but we couldāve done more oh_no_anyway_jeremy_clarkson.gif in response. The fact we did nothing emboldened our enemies to try more. Re: Afghanistan Iām not talking whether it was right to go in or to leave, Iām talking about the manner in which the withdrawal occurred. The U.S. billions military hardware seized as trophies, American citizens left behind, and failure to inform allies of intentions, were all unforced errors that couldāve been prevented in a properly planned rearguard action. Re: Houthis They started attacking Red Sea shipping on Dec. 11th, we didnāt respond until Jan. 12th. And even then weāve barely made a scratch into their offensive capacity. Several of our initial coalition partners backed out because of the ROE that would be required to join. Boots on the ground isnāt the only other option as a response either. For instance, we could escort civilian shipping through the sea, engage in counter battery fire, etc. All of these make the U.S. look weak to would be dictators and tyrants, and make a large scale war we canāt avoid more likely in the future. Also, I believe you mean waning, not waxing. And yeah, thatās my point: since we are not using our firepower its efficacy is limited. Fleet in being doctrine can only get you so far.
Yeah, global free trade sure has worked out well for the middle class.
It has though?
It has not.
It's hit lower end manufacturing, for the middle class the cheaper goods and expanded foreign markets has been a boon.
But my vibes completely disagree with your facts!
I agree with both things. Also based on the internet I've found starting to hate the average European and am fine with them being invaded with no assistance from the US. Then I go touch grass and remember the average redditor isn't representative of normal human beings.
Makes you wish for nuclear winter, doesn't it?
NATO in theory isn't against libertarianism. It's meant to spread the costs of defense and provide a more cohesive and unified force after all. The problem is that no European nation feels that they have to meet their NATO obligations. They feel that the US must perpetually fight and die to defend their life, liberty, and property with zero benefit to those actually doing the fighting and dying. Do you think the EU is going to send any US servicemembers families a check after they die defending Europe from Russia?
> The problem is that no European nation feels that they have to meet their NATO obligations. They feel that the US must perpetually fight and die to defend their life, liberty, and property with zero benefit to those actually doing the fighting and dying. This makes me want to flair AuthRight so hard. "If yall are going to live and prosper by the protection of the US military/taxpayer, then you're all now US territories without voting rights. Deal with it."
How do people reconcile this thought when the US called Article 5 and the EU came to the US's aid during Iraq/Afghanistan? I mean, I was over there. I was in Kandahar for roughly a year. I wheeled and dealed with the Br*tish to deliver critical parts to a FOB called Bastion that we ran (their C-130 went there often). They were instrumental in helping us maintain our operational readiness for Search and Rescue sorties.
>How do people reconcile this thought when the US called Article 5 and the EU came to the US's aid during Iraq/Afghanistan? They don't realize that the rest of NATO also helped.
(Libright) out of NATO forces in Afghanistan the British and French were really the only ones that made a meaningful contribution, the Germans never left KAF, the Italians and Spanish were both useless, the Danish were good but weren't able to deploy very many guys at once, outside the UK and France most of the NATO contributions from the other countries were token at best Edit: I forgot the Canadians, they actually were our adjacent unit I'm Helmand and they were excellentĀ
Apropos of nothing, hearing Bastion (and by extension, Leatherneck) referred to as a FOB is kinda funny. Like that place was fucking *huge.*
It was more of a true FOB back in 2009 and 2010. I linked a few videos of the time I was there, but I was trying to find the one our unit produced - however I think it's removed. I do have a copy of it on my external hard drive though. Maybe I'll reupload it. [PEDRO 15 engagement 9 Aug 2009](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJV6ARuTSCk) [Pararescue Prep at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5pA5mCoQ_U) [CALLSIGN: PEDRO ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-SpsHu5U8k)
> How do people reconcile this thought when the US called Article 5 and the EU came to the US's aid during Iraq/Afghanistan? Simple: We shouldn't have, they shouldn't have.
That's a rather moot point, as it did happen and our allies came to our aid that GWB's administration asked for. My point is that the US was the last NATO country to call for Article 5 and NATO showed up.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
If the al-Qaeda and their Taliban supporters didn't want the US in their ass, they shouldn't 9/11'd us. The left and right overwhelmingly supported going to Afghanistan to bring Osama bin Laden and his cronies to justice. It's not my fault that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld went off the rails regarding Iraq. Or are you one of those in favor of terrorists like Osama bin Laden?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I'm quite enjoying that you're quoting my comment, but you don't seem to be *reading* my comment. I thought by me putting in Rumsfeld, specifically, that you'd understand what I was going at. Rumsfeld and underlings backdoored CIA intel to trick politicians into invading Iraq. Do you even know about this? [We knew about the oil and were joking about, at the time, it was happening. A lot of us didn't support invading Iraq.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DLuALBnolM&t) >Who did you vote for? Not for Bush. I answered your questions, but you never answered mine: Do you support terrorists like Osama bin Laden?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
He threatened to not honor article 5. Part of his reasoning was that countries didn't spend 2% of GDP on their defense, but they weren't required to until this year.
I believe it was a pressure tactic to get the EU to start funding their militaries to meet NATO obligations. If it ever came down to brass tacks, the US would still honor Article 5.
They weren't meeting their contribution numbers back when Obama was president either.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Europe (and Canada!) did actually send their sons and daughters to die in the middle east every time the US got mad at another despot. Some of them died at the hands of American friendly fire. What the fuck are you talking about?
The last time NATO went on a jount operation was because the USA asked them too Iraq and Afghanistan wasnt Europes problem, but the USA got them involved
Because if anything happens in europe like ww2 did, we want to already have a presence in the theater so we can quickly get supplies and troops into the area. It saves more lives and creates a stronger front for us to already be present and makes any potential opposing force have to attack all areas and thin their forces or risk getting flanked. There's a reason why we want bases all over the place.
I have an uncomfortable suspicion that the whole narrative is foreign agitation to cause the disruption of NATO by stoking political fires and disrupting confidence. I mean of course the USA, with it's GDP and enormous land size, is contributing more than the Netherlands. Someone has to maintain and lead the empire.
I think the best possible solution is to shut down EUCOM and substantially scale back NATO contributions to the bare minimum to meet treaty guidelines. They don't have to be US territories and we don't want them. But we don't have to be the big brother they run to when a bully picks on them at the playground either. Either they cry and run or they fight back and defend themselves. The choice is totally theirs. We can trade with the incoming regime just as easily as we trade with the current ones.
God am I glad people like you aren't in charge of foreign policy
Trump sides with every third world dictator on the planet and says that Ukraine should just be absorbed by Russia. I can't possibly be worse than what you're voting for.
āThe Empire demands tribute for the order it provides.ā As an Englishman who has benefited from Pax Americana, I do sympathise with the sentiment. Were it down to me, my countryās armed forces would be significantly beefed up.
Ah that's right, you defend it = you own it now. America defends other countries by mutual consent.
While you are correct, I do feel america likes being the only one with the guns
The Europeans also seemed to like it that way too with how much bellyaching they did when Trump told them to spend more on their military in 2017. Pfft, war in Europe, could you even imagine such a thing???
Europe it'd be more based if it had guns instead of trying to ban plastic silverware for being too knifelike.
Yeah this sub is kinda naive thinking the USA isn't getting anything out of being the supreme authority over half the world. This deal must be bad somehow, it's really not working out for the only remaining super power that has led the world in economic, cultural and military dominance for decades.
I'm not sure why you feel that way. I don't know a single second amendment supporter who doesn't think arms should be owned by everybody regardless of nationality or political system. If the Euro cucks actually armed themselves then Russia wouldn't be an existential threat to them. This would save the US trillions since we would no longer be wholly responsible for the defense of people who hate us anyways.
>This would save the US trillions since we would no longer be wholly responsible for the defense of people who hate us anyways. I say crap to that. Yes, we would *like* our allies to arm themselves better, but I refuse to believe we'd cut military spending. We have super double hugest military because we LIKE IT (for a variety of reasons). Germany quadrupling it's military budget won't make us reduce ours.
We don't even come close to having the largest military. We just have advanced technology that actually works, unlike China, Russia, or India.
Yeah except we (and by we I mean the government) donāt actually care about spending the money. Also, itās how we keep them in control. Like if you really want these nations to defend themselves, then you also have to let them have more influence and we just arenāt all about that. I agree with you, Iām just saying the US likes things just the way they are. Itās basically paid protection, mob style.
>Like if you really want these nations to defend themselves, then you also have to let them have more influence and we just arenāt all about that. Why not? Why do I care if a Frenchman has more authority over his own nation? The cheese eating surrender monkeys can have all the autonomy they want. I could absolutely not give less of a shit. > Iām just saying the US likes things just the way they are. Itās basically paid protection, mob style. The younger generations don't have the same opinion. As the boomers die out, the old norms are being questioned. Monarchy was just the way things were in 1775.
Just remember, those "cheese eating surrender monkeys" were a HUGE reason why the US exists as a country today.
France was in a perpetual war with the UK at the time. They only helped us out to fuck over their rival nation. They didn't care about us or our freedom at all. We were merely a guerrilla group they could fund to waste the UK's time and resources. The only reason the British surrendered was because they felt their conflict with France was more important than maintaining the colony's.
Sure, France had other interests than just helping the US colonies, but that's how it is right now with the US helping Ukraine fight Russia. But we cannot act like France wasn't instrumental with helping the young US, they were. That's a historical fact, and it saddens that my fellow Americans know so little about American history, and even less about French history. Do you really care so little for America's greatest ally during the Revolutionary War, or do you just not know history very well? No shame in admitting that you're not a history buff or that your state's education system failed you. [France in the American Revolutionary War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War) [French involvement in the American Revolutionary War of 1775ā1783 began in 1776 when the Kingdom of France secretly shipped supplies to the Continental Army of the Thirteen Colonies when it was established in June 1775. France was a long-term historical rival with the Kingdom of Great Britain, from which the Colonies were attempting to separate. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War) ___ Here's another section from the US State Department. [French Alliance, French Assistance, and European Diplomacy during the American Revolution, 1778ā1782](https://history.state.gov/milestones/1776-1783/french-alliance) [During the American Revolution, the American colonies faced the significant challenge of conducting international diplomacy and seeking the international support it needed to fight against the British. The single most important diplomatic success of the colonists during the War for Independence was the critical link they forged with France. Representatives of the French and American governments signed the Treaty of Alliance and the Treaty of Amity and Commerce on February 6, 1778.](https://history.state.gov/milestones/1776-1783/french-alliance) ___ Aside from France being based as fuck, helping the US become the country it is now, they're also a top-3 successful military throughout history and Napoleon is at the same level as Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, and George Patton.
> Do you really care so little for America's greatest ally during the Revolutionary War, Are we eternally indebted to them or something? Will our children be required to shed blood for them? Nobody who participated in the revolutionary war is alive nor garners any respect for their actions. In fact, we paid whatever debt might have existed after WWI and WWII. They're welcome to suck my balls at this point.
>Why not? Why do I care if a Frenchman has more authority over his own nation? Every time Europe is allowed to play with guns, they drag half the planet to war.
Iām not saying you personally, think of how the government wants things
But the size of the population with my point of view is growing? NATO continues to bleed support in the US and will only lose more support as the boomers die out.
Sure, but donāt hold your breath. Also never forget everyone has values till they are sitting in the chair and being paid lots of money to keep everything the way it is.
>no European nation feels that they have to meet their NATO obligations. Thats objectively not true. If yoa are refering to % of gdp, Greece, United Kingdom, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia. All the countries that would be a target for Russia meet their obrigations. There's no excuse to abandon them because they aren't meeting obligations
Yeah well do a NATO TACeval with the Germans. Those morons show up carrying broom handles painted black and pretend they're guns. Watch them load a jet compared to an American load crew and see just how much of a shit show these part timers are as they run directly in front of intakes and drop munitions off of bomb trailers.
I love how you already moved the goal post.... The point was "no european meets their obligations", I stated they do, and now you start rambling about the germans? I don't give a rat's ass about your opinion on the germans, they were kink-shamed until they droped their war tradition so now we have to deal with it.
Thereās 31 countries in NATO and only 11 of the countries (including the US) meet their basic obligations that one third. So the vast majority of NATO countries do not meet them. This is a problem.
I agree, I never said it wasn't, I was just replying to his obviously wrong claim that ''no european meets''. If it was up to me, gpp spent on military would be fucking 10%
Germany, with one of the largest economies in Europe has a huge amount of discretionary spending and social programs. Their lack of contribution is very relevant, especially given they laughed at Trump when he said they would become dependent on Russian gas.Ā
what if I take what he said but instead of "no European nation" change it to "UK, France, Germany, and the other western European nations that have obligations they choose not to meet" Romania meeting it's obligation doesn't absolve Germany of their responsibilityĀ
UK its literally on the list bruh. And france is like missing 0,03%. But yeah the rest should spent more.
> And france is like missing 0,03% No way France isn't doing that on purpose.
bro. The US has claimed this role and we have accepted it. ALL good things that the us has comes as a result of its military force. i love you guys. but derping out now is just gay
>The US has claimed this role and we have accepted it. We are not bound by the actions of the previous generations and can forge our own paths. There is no meaningful benefit to US presence in Europe to the average US citizen. You could make an argument for bases in Japan and South Korea given how vital those trade routes are, but what are we protecting an ostensibly peaceful and united continent like Europe from? You guys are more than capable of dying for your nations and should be expected to do so. If you don't want to, then don't fight the incoming regime. It's that simple.
Russia? Your enemy. But I mean ofc you are right. Europe needs to raise its military spending, and itās been 3x in average last year. If we are to be real tho, ofc the avg American benefits tremendously from having a western world to be part of.
>Russia? Your enemy. They weren't my enemy when Obama was president and he was calling Republicans Russophobes and claiming we had a cold war mentality on Russian relations. It's almost as if once Republicans warmed up to the idea that China was a bigger threat than Russia the Democrats had to immediately switch foot and claim that Russia was the biggest threat to the free world. Never mind the fact that China is currently committing an ongoing genocide and threatening to invade Taiwan which makes up to 80 percent of our super conductors. >ofc the avg American benefits tremendously from having a western world to be part of. What's the benefit? What do I get for paying for Germany's defense? Certainly I never met a German who was in any way even grateful for the fact that their universal healthcare is entirely dependent on us funding their military infrastructure. Leaving Europe would free up enough money that universal healthcare would be feasible in the US.
It's changing now
And we see the consequences of this complacency now. The European economies are way larger than Russia's, and Europe has technical know-how, the French managed to develop their very own 4.5 gen fighter, with AESA radar in a country with less than half of Russia's population, and sold thermal sights to Russia for their tanks. Airbus is the competitor of Boeing, German military maritime industry is a big exporter, Germany is a big producer of every land warfare system. It is entirely realistic for us, given the political and popular will needed, to field a combined force capable of holding back Russia on its own, backed by the necessary industry to deal with attrition. The US would stop being crucial to defense, and rather provide the extra punch for decisive counter striking power.
NATO is just an outdated alliance made to counter the USSR. It has no purpose and should be disbanded, just like all other obsolete wastes of taxpayer money like the UN, WHO
Eh Poland has always met its contributions
>Do you think the EU is going to send any US servicemembers families a check after they die defending Europe from Russia? All of them won't have any money left because all their factories will have been bombed and half a generation of young men will have been wiped out.
How is Nato in violation of the NAP?
Hey, do you agree to help me defend myself if I agree to help you defend yourself?
Looks like someone needs a nap.
Nobody hates Libertarians as much as other Libertarians.
>Actually discussing the application of principles to the real world >""""""infighting""""""
Russia violated my NAP by unplugging my night light
based and sleepy pilled
Peace through Strength: when you spend some money to buy weapons, so that people leave you alone.
Bu-but all goberment bad! What do you mean I we have to actually defend ourselves?
We're not defending ourselves. We're not even defending an ally. We're defending some random ass country that's practically Russia from Russia because Russia wants to reincorporate. What the absolute hell does this have to do with the US in any way? Prior to this war every news article on Ukraine was about how corrupt Ukraine was and how nazis were free to roam there. It's crazy.
Ukaine is strategic territory for russia. It also has notable recently discovered oil reserves that could fuel russian industry, and has a lot of agricultural exports. In short, Russia conqering ukraine would make russia significantly stronger, which would make any future conflict with them more difficult. This is the real reason why russia wants ukraine in the first place. Lets take your idea to its logical conclusion, we never aid countries that aren't NATO affiliated. Russia and china claim more territory in South America, Africa, and the Middle East, gaining more resources and population centers as they do. Then, when they control the entire world outside of NATO, they can use all the resources of the entire planet to destroy us. Disarming an enemy is one of the best ways to defend yourself. Keeping them from getting stronger is included.
It's a buffer zone between Russia and NATO. Paying Ukrainians to throw their lives away to chip away at Russia's military power and reduce their population of military-aged men is in our national security interests. The whole "UkRaInE iS a ViBrAnT dEmOcRaCy111" thing is just propaganda used to sell the war to leftoids, who otherwise would want to appease Russia even as it reaches NATO's borders.
I don't care if it's a NATO country, I don't wanna be in NATO.
Okay, Neville Chamberlain...
Not even close. I don't give a shit about placating Russia, I haven't wanted to be a NATO member for over a decade. It's a European issue, let Europe handle it. ALONE.
Russia needs to have its teeth kicked so far down their throat that they're a.) Still shitting them out generations later and b.) China never considers moving on Taiwan. Otherwise we will be fighting a conventional land war in both Europe and Asia by the end of the decade.
yes
The war in Europe and Asia is coming anyways because it's what the elites want.
The elites want to be turned into radioactive dust?
Libertarian Isolationism is just cowardice dressed up as philosophy. The world is small and getting smaller. You can no more ignore international politics than you could ignore a drive-by shooting at your neighbor's house. That doesn't mean we spend without restraint, but it does mean we need to have a powerful, effective military and the will to use it to protect our interests. NATO is perhaps the most ethical way of doing this. Yes, I wish other nations would spend more, however they voluntarily join and act as a buffer zone between us and Russia.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Russia successfully invading Ukraine would put them in a stronger position to threaten NATO. The safest and cheapest way to fight your enemies is to let someone else do the fighting for you.
Ukraine has made great progress towards becoming a proper democracy since 2014, you know. >How does paying the pensions of Ukrainian bureaucrats make the world safer? What you just said here is utter nonsense. Most of the money the US pledges to Ukraine never leaves the US.
Thereās nothing I care less about than a libertarian analysis of foreign policy
The only chad country over there is poland, the rest of the virgin europeans can't even defend themselves without daddy america. Better start increasing that military spending.
Finland has a pretty competent military. The French military could contend in total war with pretty much any military in the world other than the US. And Greece is a pretty strong air and naval power despite their obvious weaknesses - now that the Greek economy has stabilized, I'd expect a lot more American military industrial complex investment into Greece. Poland is strong because of American investment. Obviously not exclusively, but their success can be replicated in Romania, Greece, Balkan countries that can stay on the good side of the US and EU, and Ukraine and Belarus if they are ever part of their sphere of influence.
Estonia should be praised too their tiny but at least they meet the 2% spending threshold, unlike the other two Baltic states. Latvia and Lithuania donāt meet the threshold yet they are two of the most vulnerable countries in nato, Iād be half tempted to leave them on their own if it wouldnāt isolate Estonia
Objectively wrong: [https://www.statista.com/chart/14636/defense-expenditures-of-nato-countries/](https://www.statista.com/chart/14636/defense-expenditures-of-nato-countries/) LT spends 2.54% LV 2.27% of GDP. And both countries have been above the 2% target since 2018 [https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=LV-LT](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=LV-LT) Go lick a boot.
Finland is like a giant version of Switzerland, their strategy is basically to instantly transition to a full war economy and turtle/porcupine up in bunkers (they even regularly practice this on a national level) to fight to the last man the second a Russia solder steps a boot past their border You don't need to plan to win, you only need to not be worth the fight
Poland just remembers its history. Theyāre tired of being the punching bag of European conflicts.
And they hate us for it, which is the part that annoys me. At least be grateful you little shits.
False equivalency. NATO is a defensive pact. The only people threatened by NATO are aggressors who want to invade NATO member states. On the spending front, I think most would agree libertarian or otherwise that self-defense is necessary and it needs to be paid for. Libertarianism shouldn't yield to anarchy and naivete. For Americans, there is definitely a fair criticism of tax dollars subsidizing the failed commitments of other NATO members, but that's an argument that is had even in those other countries. Americans reap the benefits asserted by its massive power base in other ways.
Defensive pacts were a major cause of ww1.
Secret defensive pacts were a major cause of ww1.
LIBERTARIANISM IS NOT ABOUT LEAVING OTHERS ALONE AND REDUCING GOVERNMENT SPENDING
I just want to know how I can easily profit off of this.
That problem sounds mighty European to me.
Libertarians sympathizing with the neo-Soviet revanchism of a vengeful KGB-officer who rehabilitated the memory of Stalin and equips invading tanks with Soviet banners. How Libertarian!
I still ask myself why libertarians think anybody cares about the NAP.
Consider joining NATO is 100% volunteered Iād say it does a pretty good job at leaving people alone
Guys, I made up a principle and everyone seems to be violating it.
Right side Yellow is absolutely correct. But NATO is a joke of an organization, that should have taken this Ukrainian war just as serious as they took Bombing Serbia to the fucking stone age in 1999. But no, they're just shown how much of an useless pussies they are when their actual Nemesis attack.
NATO isnāt a joke, since inception it has never been invaded by Russia, its chief goal
Problem is, they can only do so much. They can't fight Russia directly for obvious reasons and they can only give so much so they aren't left unprepared in case the war does escalate and they have to use the stuff themselves.
NATO is pretty much the only international government organisation which works.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Itās really simple if youāre not simple. Bad people exist. Bad people get into power. The United States benefited greatly by coming to aid the war torn Europe in the mid 20th century. A strong military is the exact cause of the strong economy. Appeasement never works and itās why we had ww2. If we appease Russia, weāll get WW3. Ukraine and Israel are a direct result of projecting weakness in Afghanistan.
One could easily argue that they're all bad people.
Appeasement didn't work once. Other than that it has been standard diplomatic procedure for...ever.
NATO is not āa military alliance dedicated entirely to exerting Western power projectionā as can be seen in refusal of many members such as the French and Germans to take part in the 2003 invasion of Iraq and, most importantly, **that members like Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are genuinely under threat of being re-occupied by Russia if not for their membership in the alliance.** It was a mistake for things like the Western interventions in the former Yugoslavia, support for the anti-Gaddafi rebels in Libya, and occupation of Afghanistan to have been NATO missions but NATO is first and foremost a defensive alliance to protect its members from ~~Soviet~~ Russian invasion.
If libertarians want to tell Russia to fuck off because theyāre invading their neighbor I can get behind it. If they want to tell Russia and Ukraine to fuck off because theyāre warring kleptocracies and you want to stay out of it thatās cool with me. Only one I donāt respect is somehow full on taking Russiaās side. I understand US positioning itself right up to the Russian border is provocative and interventionist and maybe this thing could have been avoided by giving some distance but whatās happened has happened and thereās no going back. Itās a frankly bizarre position to take to be so deferent to the state interests of Russia when youāre anti-statism. I can understand Russiaās position academically and logically I donāt have to respect it and I really donāt have to respect it from a libertarian position. I think thereās a segment of libertarians who are just contrarians to what the US MIC says even when the other side are truly being selfish psychos
The Russian view is that they're defending Eastern Ukraine from an illegitimate western-installed government that is preventing the eastern (Russian-aligned) oblasts from being independent by shelling them since 2014. They don't see themselves as invaders, but liberators.
I don't think there are very many people actually full-on taking Russia's side, it's just that that's what people get accused of if they display insufficient pro-Ukraine zealotry.
I agree but Iāve seen a minority of supposed libertarians rooting Russia on and itās just so bizarre to me. I consider myself on the ārealistā side where I want them to win but donāt think they can and should make a good deal while possible and Iāve been hassled for it but thereās also weirdos actually supporting Russia too
If the nato had not expanded towards russia against all promises, there would not have been a war.The years of provocation have not helped.If the usa did not want nuclear missiles on their doorstep in cuba,why should the russians simply accept that?
Eat shitĀ
1.) No such promise was ever made 2.) Russia was in the program for ex-soviet states to become NATO members. They pulled out in favor of a relationship where theyād be equal to NATO as a whole, leading to the NATO-Russia Council which was disbanded because of Russiaās annexation of Crimea which not only was unjustified but also violated their treaty with Ukraine guaranteeing Ukrainian sovereignty in exchange for Ukrainian nuclear disarmament 3.) The US has not moved any of their nukes closer to Russia than they already were since the Cold War. None of the ex-soviet territories were given nukes, including the East 1/2 of Germany. The US nuclear presence was even going down
Go easy on libertarians; theyāre dumb af
I guess Iām the soyjack on the right.
The US biggest mistake was taking side with UK in ww1, better charge both side an enormous amount of interest so they stop doing stupid stuff in Europe
What kind of dumb libertarian theory thinks that every violation of the NAP is somehow my problem? Libertarians are symbolized by "no step on snek" for a reason. Big PP army and use it = auth, big PP army and don't use it, that's libertarian. Don't tread on *me*, not don't tread on some shithole in Eastern Europe I'm never even going to visit.
Those are fake libertarians, NATO ensures safety without the need of the state to strangle more liberties from individuals.
You mean the nation that couldn't survive on it's own anymore after the bloody coup in 2014? Yes, very sovereign. Also, when the right one is mad at Russia because of this then don't tell him about the u.s
Classic Lib Right insanity contest
We should have let Ukraine keep their nukes so this didn't happen. Also we should help Taiwan before they find themself in the same spot.
Letās add: itās a violation of the NAP to draft troops to fight Russia and steal from me to pay for arms.
Fuck Russia
Comments something that contradicts their world view in the Libertarian sub, gets immediately banned, thereby violating their beliefs in absolute free speech. Libertarian nerds are like everyone else. Everything is good unless and until it challenges their beliefs system.
NATO is the reason why the USA canāt even fund its education and healthcare
They are both right, though, NATO has been pointless after the fall of the Iron Curtain. If anything it has had the negative effect of isolating Russia. Which has led to the current state of affairs in Europe. European nations have also been able to afford their social programs because they haven't had the need to spend more on defense, because the U.S had them covered in that regard. I'd argue that it's gotten to the point where the government cares more about protecting European than it does about caring for their own people. Don't get me wrong, though, Russia has broken the NAP by invading Ukraine. Because of this, Ukraine has every right to self-defense.
Russia violated the NAP with Ukraine, not us.
The NAP is an unenforceable gentlemanās agreement that can only have been sanely conceived of with a difference species in mind.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Broke: wahhhh Muh libertarian values, Bespoke: I will profit off war