US 'to cease all future military exercises in Europe' | Hacker News Reader

US 'to cease all future military exercises in Europe'

telegraph.co.uk

54 pointsgeox29 comments

I thought a lot of the stuff we did overseas benefited us more than the places we did it.

Of course it does

The only thing worse than being the world’s police is having another country be the world’s police

Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, etc. Even if you aren't using any current events to support the argument, isolationism has a really bad track record.

I see this as a long con, a big rug pull on behalf of the US. For decades we are pressured to buy weapons and tech from them, in the promise of alliance. Countries that would buy (I remember the case of an EU county buying S-300) would get punished by the US.

So now it's like "hey you still cannot buy from the others but we won't help you (threats to leave NATO etc). Perhaps the best would be to finally move toward a EuroArmy and be done with papa-US dictating the game.

Meanwhile they have been using those morons in the UK to destabilize the EU in every occasion (such a relief that they commit suicide by leaving).

It is a big messy world. We got a new bully in the list (red, yellow, orange) and as Mearsheimer says they are playing games for global hegemony).

I like Ray Dalio' vid on empires (the 45min version) perhaps it is finally the time to US to fade away and have the next 100-150 years with China and then India running the show...

Europe now has F35s, Patriots, THAADs and the latest Pratt and Whitneys, plus the schematics and technical, metallurgical and maintenance documents. The only thing stopping Macron+Leyen from making a big delegation to join China and hand is their lack of imagination.

And cracking the remote control scheme on all of those weapons.

Did you think the US really gave anyone the keys?

Again, the simplest model of the world that explains all of Trump’s actions is: he’s a foreign asset.

It's convergence of belief, evidence and outcome. You can have all three, or only one. It's not necessarily by intent or design, although it certainly seems to be both.

Denying the outcome benefits Russia more than anyone else appears contrary to evidence. I have yet to see a reasoned justification of how this benefits the USA beyond the awfully short term trite "saves money"

About why, or how Trump has come to enact these outcomes I cannot speak, but they don't seem to be benign for longterm US political/strategic goals. It's like a retreat to an older isolationist world view combined with a "fuck the liberals" mentality.

I used to believe in the power of the military industrial complex and its beltway lobby. I begin to doubt it, because almost all of the US aide to Ukraine was spent inside the US materiel production industry. Which is also the truly bizarre thing: he's cutting almost Keynsian pump priming domestic spend. It's massively bad for jobs.

> I have yet to see a reasoned justification of how this benefits thr USA beyond the awfully short term trite "saves money

The optimistic explanation I’ve heard from the more enlightened MAGAs is that this is an attempt to “toughen Europe up”: get them to spend more on their defense and run ops without the US so that the US can focus on preparing for the war with China while Europe handles Russia.

I think this is cope since Trump has also been acting belligerent towards Japan and Taiwan, but that’s the steelman.

Then look at the other things, that weaken the US both internally and externally. Leaving the WHO, removing all soft power with USAID, spreading Russian propaganda points.

If it talks like a duck, squawks like a duck…

Were this about handing off Ukraine support to Europe, it would have involved talks with European leaders, and US support would have been withdrawn at some future date so Europe can pick up the slack beforehand, ideally slowly phasing it out. Instead, Trump stopped it immediately and without warning.

I suppose it could be a tantrum over Zelensky's failure to provide dirt on Biden for the 2020 election as much as it could be about trying to ingratiate himself to Putin, though.

Thanks. I kind of get it. It reads like post-hoc reasoning (by them I hasten to add) but it's a good outcome if you aren't a pacifist. If you are a pacifist, rearmament at scale across Europe is frightening.

I'm not a pacifist. My parents were in the blitz. I'm pretty sure this won't end well for Europe if they stand down. I also appreciate I am very old, and a long way away from the trouble spots so I have left behind immediate consequences of other people incurring risk burdens. But still: Europe needs to rearm, and cannot depend on US strategic inputs for the next 4 years and probably more.

I am unsure repudiating information sharing or NATO is a good idea but I could understand European and British and Canadian and ANZAC and ASEAN partners reassessing information sharing right now.

US complaints about lack of commitment to funding NATO go back decades. It's not a solely Trumpist position.

Then why sabotage the help European nations give to Ukraine?

One example: https://news.online.ua/en/the-us-is-ending-support-for-ukrai...

The US did not give a single fighter aircraft to Ukraine, not even under Biden. These come from inventories of EU states.

> I think this is cope since Trump has also been acting belligerent towards Japan and Taiwan, but that’s the steelman.

It's 100% cope.

I can understand being upset that NATO spending has not been fair in comparison, and I don't particularly see anything wrong with calling that out, but the manner in which they have been doing it along with all the other whirlwind of activity lately, does not seem to be in the best interests of the people in my opinion.

What I can't get over is the only NATO member to ever invoke article 5 complains about the share of cost... Specially when all the NATO action on the Middle East was nonsense since everyone knew it was Saudi Arabia that did 9/11

What I find interesting is that he makes decisive decisions when it comes to Ukraine e.g. halting military aid, removing access to intelligence etc.

But then when it comes to sanctions on Russia or continuing military training with European countries who do pay it's always a consideration.

I really don't think Trump is entirely lucid policy to policy sometimes.

In his first term he would make offhand remarks about military action at times and the next day deny he said it. They established a rule at the pentagon that nothing he said counted unless they got a written and signed order from the white house.

Maskirovka correctly applied:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_deception

If I had to guess it's probably because there's no money in it.

> But then when it comes to sanctions on Russia

What's there to still gain here? It's clear he's trying to "profit" from situations. Is Russia going to give anything in return? Not likely.

There is still some economic pressure that could be applied on Russia but the Trump admin is rejecting that. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-03-08/us-vetoes...

There is a clear pattern at this point. Every move Trump has made since taking power has harmed Ukraine, favored Russia, or both.

Well some of the Ukrainian mineral deposits are currently occupied by Russia.

I think it would not be unreasonable to suggest this is the beginning of the end for the USA's participation in NATO.

Europe was not included in negotiations with USA/Russia concerning NATO or Ukraine. Trump is willing to sell out the entire continent and Ukraine for whatever Putin is offering. This is the state of America under this Administration and their version of "Making America Great Again".

> Trump is willing to sell out the entire continent and Ukraine for whatever Putin is offering.

Let's be clear: Putin is offering nothing.

It may be possible that Russia has influence through social media and propaganda inside the US to such a degree, that US administration knows their dependence on the Russia's goodwill.

Most Americans consume content alone through their screens and with the exception of social media owners like Musk and Zuckerberg, we don't actually have understanding what people are watching.

We do know however, that after buying Twitter, Musk fully embraced Russia's influence network instead of fighting it.

Administration may be under the impression that they are buying power and goodwill from russia and paying with Europe and NATO.

Here's a non-paywalled link to the same article...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-cease-future-military-exercise...

The U.S. would participate in military exercises in Europe, according to the article, for the rest of 2025. And (contrary to the headline) the article suggests the U.S. still plans military exercises with some countries.

"It has also been reported that the Trump administration is redrawing Nato engagement in a way that favours member countries with higher defence spending. The president is said to be considering prioritising military exercises with member countries that are spending the set percentage of GDP on their defence, officials told NBC."

The article also says the U.S. plans to deploy 35,000 troops in Eastern Europe (possibly Hungary).

Thanks for the open link.

Interwsting quote:

> “And I did. And I brought that up, and I said, ‘If you don’t pay your bills, we’re not going to participate. We’re not going to protect you.’

That sounds a lot like a protection racket.

Now, if we can only get the rest of the world to cease military exercises 8-/

I'm not a cheato fan, but I am a HUGE anti-war fan.

It seems like the primate will just never grow up. Dismembering each other as a form of negotiation is so boomer! Get over it!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com