Hacker News Reader

Comment by awongh | Hacker News Reader

It's pretty crazy if you look at how much the US is/was spending on NATO in pure dollar amounts.

Since that's going to be cut back Germany and to a lesser degree France are the only countries left to take up the slack.

I don't have a really strong opinion either way in terms of what's happening in the US or in Europe, but the argument claiming that there's no real reason to spend money on the military seem pretty disingenuous re. Russia.

What's the real chances that Russia would do something like a land invasion of Europe? Really, really small.... But military spending is the thing helping keep those chances very small.

View on HN

Most strategic thinkers in both Western and Eastern circles saw the chances of a full invasion of Ukraine as "Really, really small..." on Feb. 23, 2022.

Imperialist Russia is in its final throws prior to becoming "a normal country," like the rest of Europe. From the European point of view, keeping those insane throws to a minimum is worth every penny, both in human and economic costs.

> Imperialist Russia is in its final throws prior to becoming "a normal country," like the rest of Europe. From the European point of view, keeping those insane throws to a minimum is worth every penny, both in human and economic costs.

That is about as likely as "they're not going to invade" -- the guys picking up the piece after Putin look to be as, maybe even more, hardline and aggressive.

There is a reason someone tried to assassinate Dugin.

Reality dictates that Putin is not immortal. He will be replaced some time. Is now worse than later?

History shows that some of the worst actors in geopolitical history, Germany, Belgium, etc... can all become "normal countries" really quickly after they lose their final imperial war. Losing that last war was when the imperialist lunatics in their respective countries finally lost influence. It's very counterintuitive, but losing that last war is the key to long term success for most countries.

The point of deterrence is that you spend the money so the chance of Russia doing something like a land invasion of Europe is decreased.

The much more likely scenario that Europeans are wanting to prevent is a limited invasion in the Baltics or Balkans in order to politically divide and damage western democracies.

How much do you think the US is spending on NATO?

Remember, part of being in NATO is the requirement to spend a % of your GDP on your own military, which the US will do regardless.

Not a single NATO partner has consistently met the 2% GDP spend mandate historically outside the US. The US spends aorund 50-60B a year for our 40+ bases in europe. But this is offset by nato expenditures. For example, Germany gives us a $1B a year for our bases.

Googling "Ukraine" the first words on the results page are "Ukraine, Country in Europe".

I guess you are thinking of the more western bits of Europe or the bits that are in NATO but there isn't really a fundamental boundary.

That seems to be a bit of a flaw in the current 'peace negotiations' - Putin just wants a deal to carve up Ukraine agreed with the US and not involving Europe or the Ukranians but I'm not sure they are ok with that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com