Hacker News Reader

Comment by jacquesm | Hacker News Reader

This is not a one sided thing. The US has been allowed to do a lot of things under the NATO umbrella that it benefited from (such as: selling a vast quantity of arms). Soft power is a thing and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization came into being to deal with exactly the kind of situation that we are viewing today. To see the US bow out, and in fact threatening allies is duplicitous at best.

View on HN

NATO members aren't particularly large customers for American weapons. Poland is the largest, but is dwarfed by Japan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Ukraine is receiving a bunch of weapons, but that math isn't so straight forward (they're getting a ton of old stock) and they don't have much choice anyway.

Europeans have spent 80B $ in 2024 and 68 in 2025 on US weapons.

That's not peanuts.

Total US goods exports were $2,083 in 2025. This number is 4% of all of our exported goods for the year, so actually a pretty big number when it comes to national economics. People keep talking like the US can throw away 4% here, 2% there, likes it's nothing. The same people said last week 'Trump is meme'ing about Greenland'. Now they are saying 'the hit to our economy won't be too bad' which is as truthful of a statement as 'meme'ing about Greenland' was and based on the same 'defend Trump' and not reality.

Apart from Patriot, Atacms and a few other modern systems, Ukraine is basically saving the US the cost of destroying old arms

NATO came into being to deal with the USSR, which was the preeminent threat to all NATO members. The US wasn't expected just to come save Europe; European states had real military power and the will to bring it to bear against the US's main adversary. In a conflict with the USSR, the US could rely on Europe to fight with them. Very valuable.

Today, US policymakers see China as the main adversary. But European states have no real military power--certainly none that can be projected in the Pacific theater--and wouldn't have the will to deploy it even if they did. Europeans now expect America to fight Russia for them, not with them. So now NATO is basically all risk and cost for the US with no benefit against their main adversary.

I think it's a shortsighted view of American national security imperatives: American security relies as it ever did on security in both Western Europe and Eastern Asia. Abandoning one theater to focus on the other just leaves a giant blind spot.

However, this has led Europe to take its own security more seriously and stop relying on America to fight the Russians for them, something multiple POTUSes have tried more diplomatically to achieve--and failed--for decades.

> Europeans now expect America to fight Russia for them, not with them.

As an European: nobody has this expectation, unless you're using some strange subreddit comment as a source of information.

Compare the strength of the militaries of Europe with the United States and you'll see how that claim is believable.

That's changing, but for many years European nations did not spend very much on their militaries. A large part of why is the protection of NATO and US bases in various countries.

No, that's the logic of a 15 years old playing call of duty.

Europe has spent less on military because after the cold war and still today, it never had any realistic threat. Russia can't even take few miles off Ukraine.

The only realistic threat is the US, which is an ally, in theory. Now a threat.

That, and as the main theater for two world wars Europe is - and likely will remain - sick of war. We'd rather avoid it, unless it comes knocking on our door, and then, reluctantly, we'll do what needs to be done.

> Russia can't even take few miles off Ukraine

And yet Europe is unable to support Ukraine enough to change the course of war.

Which is the direct cause of the current situation. If Europe was so strong and ready, war in Ukraine would be over, Russia was defeated, and US wouldn't even think of doing what it is doing.

Everything else is copium.

The course of war has already changed.

I forgot how many times it was announced before.

>> Europe is unable to support Ukraine enough to change the course of war.

It's not unable. There is little political will in Europe and USA to support Ukraine with arms to the victory. They support Ukraine just enough to not loose. It's in their interest to grind russian meat and tanks in Ukraine as long as possible.

The US lacks political will to support Ukraine (mostly) because it's a conflict ten thousand miles away. Europe should have a much more immediate interest in Ukraine not losing.

Sadly, Europe isn't one entity and the interest wanes the further the countries are. Anyone neighboring Russia is, predictably, helping a lot while also arming themselves. Central Europe somewhat less, and the Mediterranean countries seem to concern themselves mostly with other topics. Seems like the threat should become more substantial before the whole continent awakens.

> Europe isn't one entity and the interest wanes the further the countries are.

I keep trying to make people here aware of that, but euro-enthusiasm is very good at hiding ugly and complex reality of European politics. And it is not even limited to Ukraine, but it shows itself with Greenland as well. If you really take a closer look, you'll see that different countries indeed made different reactions, even if they sent symbolic amounts of troops to Greenland.

And, above else, people tend to mistake words for action, and believe that a post made by some European leader on Twitter is somehow enough to bring things into reality.

> Seems like the threat should become more substantial before the whole continent awakens.

But Russia is not and won't be strong enough to pose a significant threat to German or French core territory, not to speak about Spain or Ireland. Moreover, as much as we in Europe like to equate Putin with some evil madman, for it makes the world simpler for us, Russian elite is rational, and invasion of Germany is nothing but stupid from their perspective. Of course there are broader interests that may motivate countries to act against Russia (for example French influence in Africa or Asia) but, at the same time, these interests may motivate them to throw Eastern Europe under the bus.

Therefore if anybody believes in some united European action, or a single European army that would actually be worth anything and won't be yet another initiative created mainly to come up with a nice catch-phrase (Steadfast Europe!), lives inside a fantasy.

The US needs greenland because Russia is that much of a threat but we don't need NATO even though it was created because of Russia(USSR) and we are hesitant to supply Ukraine with weapons even though they are actually fighting Russia because it's too expensive but we also are going to buy a country

> It's not unable. There is little political will in Europe

But that's the point - will is everything. No one denies that Europe has enough money. Thing is, it doesn't have much else.

> The only realistic threat is the US, which is an ally, in theory. Now a threat.

The realistic threat is Russia, which is currently winning a war in Ukraine through sheer attrition and will succeed unless Europe steps up big time.

I hate Trump and would much rather see the world keep on going the way it has been, but Europe's militaries grew around an American core after WWII. A few nations have serious armies (France, for one) but most of Europe is close enough to a US airbase for a small military to work fine.

This misses the point, which is that Europe and the US need each other. Without the US, Europe stands no chance against Chinese and Russian influence. Without Europe, the US cannot stand against China and Russia.

> Compare the strength of the militaries of Europe with the United States and you'll see how that claim is believable.

That's the wrong comparison - the comparison in this context is the size of the European military versus Russia.

Is it just me that finds it odd that the same people say that both Russian is an imminent threat to Europe - where its tanks could roll over the continent - and at the same time say just one more push to win in Ukraine?

If Russia attacked a united Europe it would lose - the slow defeat in Ukraine is purely a matter of will, not capability. ie it matters more to Russia than Europe.

Note most Europeans don't see the war in Ukraine as an attack on Europe by the Russians - despite what the hawks would like to paint - that's why the hawks can't bounce Europeans to put significant boots on the ground in Ukraine.

How is US military spending say that Europe was letting the US fight Russia?

The US spending could be the result of so many other factors.

This is essentially what happened in Libya when Cameron and Sarkozy badgered Obama into participating

I set your house on fire, so maybe now you will take fire insurance more seriously?

This, but with the US owning the penthouse suite above the apartments it set on fire...

France have tactical nukes. If Russia ever tried to really invade, a warning shot will be fired, and then no invasion.

> stop relying on America to fight the Russians for them,

That's a very uncharitable take. Europe relies on NATO to fight the Russians. Of course it does. There is no alternative, and the US would never allow other credible alliances to form. Because why would they? It's certainly not in their interest.

It's good that Europe spends more in security, and it's good that Europe seems to be serious about Ukraine. However western Europe is something else. If push really would come to shove, there is zero chance Russia could take and hold continental Europe.

The population is larger, the economy is larger by a ridicolous amount, and there are French and British nukes positioned all over. What Europe is mainly lacking military projection in the Pacific and the Middle East, and that's not likely to change.

Indeed. And every initiative in the past to create a 'European army' was strenuously opposed by previous US administrations, who wanted their alliances fragmented. US policymakers have said that any European military integration must avoid the '3 D's: Decoupling (from NATO), Duplication (of NATO command/legistic structures), and Discrimination (against US and Israeli arms vendors).

This has been policy from at least the Clinton administration, and it has worked great to ensure that the US remains the biggest fish in the NATO pond, even if it is not bigger than all the others put together. Now that the current administration is tearing NATO in real time and the President is saying that his 'personal morality' trumps international law and treaties (never mind that ratified treaties stand on the same level as the Constitution, per the Constitution itself), I would imagine that the other members are working around the clock to implement their contingency plans and ramp up domestic military production and other avenues of procurement.

Until recently, most NATO members were not meeting their commitment to spending 2% minimum GDP on defense. They were demonstrably externalizing their defense costs onto the US.

Well yes, since the commitment was to spend 2% by 2025.

The only country that ever actually asked for help as NATO member was USA. And they helped. And now, the biggest threat is USA, who is trying to cast itself as a victim.

This is not the case of Europe externalizing the cost. It is the case of USA using other countries for own benefit, then starting aggression against them while trying to cast itself as victim.

> Today, US policymakers see China as the main adversary.

That is not evident at all in how any US policymaker acts these days. China is stronger than ever, precisely due to US actions. Every day, the US gives up power and throws it away, and China picks it up off the ground for free.

The supposed "China Hawks" are all chicken hawks without anything to back them up.

There is not one single person here. A number see China as the biggest problem and act that way. A number don't, and act that way. The combined looks like a 'chicken hawk' policy though

There is a US policy though, and none of the supposed China Hawks have even voiced a "kee-ahh" in response to US policy empowering and elevating Chinese power.

Way back in September last year, which feels like forever ago, there was this good summary from Politico:

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/05/pentagon-national-d...

> Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon’s policy chief, is leading the strategy. He played a key role in writing the 2018 version during Trump’s first term and has been a staunch supporter of a more isolationist American policy. Despite his long track record as a China hawk, Colby aligns with Vice President JD Vance on the desire to disentangle the U.S. from foreign commitments.

A supposed "China Hawk" is the one writing the policy that hands power to China! Calling them "frauds" is fully appropriate, and even though the author admits he dashed this off in a single day, I find it quite convincing:

https://secretaryrofdefenserock.substack.com/p/the-final-evo...

The ODNI Threat Assesment is the only official stance and is apolitical. China has been top of the list for nation-state threats for more than a decade.

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/...

The intelligence community are not US policy makers, and that threat assessment is not policy.

The US intelligence community is correct in its assessment, but US policy is not acting in any way consistent with both the US being the dominant world power and taking that ODNI assessment seriously.

Current US policy makers are instead trying to hide in their shell like a turtle, and greatly restrict US power so that it must not confront or deal with the threat from China.

I'm coming back to this a few days later because the official new Pentagon policy deprioritizes China:

> The National Defense Strategy — a dramatic shift from even the first Trump administration — no longer focuses primarily on countering China. Instead, it blames past administrations for ignoring American interests and jeopardizing the U.S. military’s access to the Panama Canal and Greenland.

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/23/pentagon-national-d...

Edit: big news day for China Hawks proving to be frauds, this is from the WSJ

Trump Administration Pushes Out Key Officials Focused on China Tech Threat Departing staffers worked for a Commerce Department office charged with protecting the U.S. from Chinese technological advances

https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/trump-adminis...

We've moved from defensive posture to active "grey zone" warfare...

https://www.aei.org/op-eds/economic-defense-unit-how-the-u-s...

>Europeans now expect America to fight Russia for them, not with them

I note in the current Europe/Ukraine vs Russia fighting there are no US troops, although they did send weapons for which we are grateful

>China as the main adversary

neither China nor Russia are about to bomb the US but in terms of threats to US interests and hybrid warfare we have the full scale war in Ukraine vs only some threats over Taiwan and on the hybrid front I hear rumors the the Russians cultivated a US property developer code name Krasnov and he went on to cause some havoc back in the US.

Except for the Europeans that are literally fighting Russia.

Unfortunately Ukraine is not a NATO member, despite the US's attempts to bring them into the alliance. You can thank France and Germany for that: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/nato-allies-reject-u-s-push-fo...

Looking at it in terms of the direct near-term military benefit of NATO in a conflict with China is focusing on the wrong thing. The real question isn't how strongly NATO membership would directly benefit the US military in a conflict with China; it's how strongly the act of blowing up the NATO relationship would negatively impact the US ability to deal with China in a future conflict. And those are two extremely different questions.

Are the French going to be parking the Charles de Gaulle alongside American aircraft carriers in the Taiwan Strait if push comes to shove in the Pacific? I wouldn't entirely discount it. But maybe more importantly, even if they're not, does making an enemy of the EU negatively impact the ability of the US to park American aircraft carriers there? Certainly damage to the Atlantic trade relationship is unlikely to do the US any favors economically, which is important if the US wants to keep funding the Navy. And a potential loss of European controlled military bases has the potential to negative effect the US military's logistics, which is where the real superpower status comes from. Maybe most significantly, how would such a shift in alliances impact the willingness of Pacific allies to support the US, which obviously does have a direct impact on any conflict with China.

Don't be ridiculous. The US alone cannot stand up to China. We can't even build ships anymore. Parity is only possible with an alliance comprising the full economic and manufacturing might of the "free" developed world, which includes Europe and the rest of Asia. Losing Europe as a close military and trading ally is suicidal all by itself, but it has knock-on effects: once you've abandoned Europe, do you think the rest of your allies are going to believe you're there for them? Why should South Korea risk its security building ships for a US military alliance, once we've signaled that the US values its military alliances at zero?

> Soft power is a thing

This is the usual claptrap Euros and Eurosimps come up with when Americans gripe about subsidizing Europe's defense.

"Soft power" isn't putting money back in Americans' pockets, and the primary beneficiaries of NATO clearly didn't like us very much even before Trump's return, when Biden was still president and the aid flowed freely to Kyiv: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/06/11/views-of-the-u...

> Sweden: 47% had a favorable opinion of the US.; Germany: 49%; France: 46%; The Netherlands: 48%

This is the "soft power" that Americans should rue having lost under Trump? A continent of entitled ingrates, who constantly crow about their generous welfare states ("six months paid vacation!") they enjoy partially through neglect of defense, and condescendingly lecture us ("As a European...") about how everything we do is wrong, who apparently don't like us very much even when we do come to their defense?

Are the constantly crowing, entitled ingrates with their condescending lectures in the room right now?

Yeah, they're the ones trying to gaslight Americans into believing that NATO hasn't been a completely lopsided relationship since the end of the Cold War, and that it makes complete sense that Americans be treaty-bound to defend nations like Sweden (which lifted not one finger when Finland was invaded by the Soviet Union and its territory annexed, and also later when Norway was invaded and occupied by Nazi Germany), a country where less than half of the population had a favorable view of us as a nation, before Trump.

Obviously I don't agree with his threats over Greenland, but acting like the end of NATO would be a huge loss for the US is ridiculous. Look at how obsequious European heads of government are towards Trump, even in the face of these threats; that tells you all you need to know about whom NATO truly benefits. They know if the US withdraws from Europe completely, they'll have to up their military spending considerably to plug the gaps, which will strain the welfare state.

>Yeah, they're the ones trying to gaslight Americans into believing that NATO hasn't been a completely lopsided relationship since the end of the Cold War, and that it makes complete sense that Americans be treaty-bound to defend nations like Sweden

Sweden just joined NATO in 2024, so what does the cold war have to do with it?

> a country where less than half of the population had a favorable view of us as a nation, before Trump.

Ok? Yes, it was looking like Sweden thought Russia was the bigger threat, so they joined NATO in 2024, but I guess Trump is making them regret this.

Apart from it just being morally and ethically righteous for rich countries to share their wealth globally, American "soft power" serves as a gesture of good will to the world so they will tolerate a strong dollar (so we get to play global economics on easy mode) and American hegemony generally. When we stop exercising "soft power" everyone will just resent our relative comfort and suddenly decide they aren't okay with us being on the throne anymore. And we'll find ourselves playing on hard mode because we'll be iced out from global trade.

Is it morally and ethically righteous toward the people of the rich countries? A country owes everything to its citizens and nothing to anyone else, and pretending otherwise led to resentment toward foreign aid including some realpolitik justified programs like USAID. When programs are sold to the people as being selfless while people are less fortunate than the social media influencers they watch every day, it’s only natural that they resent the government for seemingly giving resources away.

I find it interesting how people say "The US" to refer to groups under the US government that are often completely at odds with the interests of the actual US public. There are virtually no Americans who want our government to be acting in the interests of arms manufacturers except the arms manufacturers themselves and the politicians they pay.

How many groups do you know in other countries that you refer to by name rather than the name of the country and the general idea that the government of that country must represent at least at some significant level the will of it's people?

It is supposed to be a "liberal democracy". "You" have killed millions to promote this idea and now trying to disown it.

C'mon, what a lame excuse. Well then, show us that democracy works and vote for a goverment which doesn't? If I follow your reasoning, you've just demonstrated that democracy is a failure, because the US government acts in the interests of arms manufacturers since a very long time, no matter if Dems or Reps are in power.

Our democracy is clearly disfunctional. I believe corporate money has played a big role to make it worse.

We own the consequences of our actions, our votes. Yes, we as a country, for whatever reasons, voted for someone who very clearly telegraphed he would be doing exactly what he's been doing. FAFO, and we're not even close to the full spectrum of what the FO part implies.

We the people are responsible for the government we get.

Don't like the consequences? Make better voting choices next time.

It gets annoying how americans try and wash their hands of everything their government does. You live in a democracy. Freedom comes with responsibility. The average american voter is at least partially to blame.

If elections were held today, regardless of who the candidates were, the GOP candidates would receive roughly half the votes. Just like they always do. It's not like there's a regime in place totally at odds with the broader will of the people. It's only at odds with about half of the people.

Why wouldn't Americans want government to act in the interest of their companies (e.g. arms manufacturers)? That's more into GDP, more jobs etc. Unless it takes a business away from other companies, of course. But any American should be glad that, say, Raytheon won a big contract over some company in another country.

The Euros also underfunded their defense obligations and received huge amounts of US investment in facilities, enabling them to upfund social programs, socialized healthcare and most egregiously 8 - 12 week vacations which are completely unheard of in the US.

You are spending too much time in an echo chamber if you think that those things that are unheard of in the US could not have been done in the US. They could have been, but it would have required a different kind of path than you chose.

The EU has chosen to try to cooperate rather than to be at war all the time and it looks like that may have been a wrong bet but that is mostly because first one (Russia) and now another (USA) party have reneged on the deals that were in place.

They could have been done is my contention.

But not while carrying Euros’ defense obligations

Sorry, but that's just dumb. You could have done all that and more. You're being used to defend massive wealth inequality and wealth concentration over the backs of the poorest 95% or so of the country. The two have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. The USA is not 'unable to have a more decent balance of life because they are carrying Europe's defense obligation'.

> The Euros also underfunded their defense obligations and received huge amounts of US investment in facilities, enabling them to upfund social programs, socialized healthcare and most egregiously 8 - 12 week vacations which are completely unheard of in the US.

It's hard to detect sarcasm through the screen but in case you're being serious and just repeat what Trump says, he does this because Americans are not stupid and are asking, why Europeans can enjoy free healthcare, education and 4-week holidays and we cant? The answer "because we sponsored them" makes no sense but finds fertile ground in the hearts of some people.

Who has 8 week vacations, let alone 12? No European country I’m aware of, but I didn’t check all…

Austria has 30 days leave after 25 years service (other wise 25 days) - so that is 6 weeks, plus 13 public holidays. So some people get around 8 weeks there.

Here in the UK, I get 29 days leave, I buy 5 more, plus get 8 bank holidays - so 42 days leave - or 8 weeks. Plus volunteering days and training days... but that isn't that common.

Australia has 6 weeks of leave at similar service levels, plus 11 public holidays. Turns out many countries have figured out how to not work themselves to death.

> Who has 8 week vacations, let alone 12? No European country I’m aware of, but I didn’t check all…

All teachers and most politicians. Teachers do enjoy the same vacation as students: schools aren't open during vacation. Two months of vacation + 6 additional weeks of vacation during the year + a few special one-day holidays.

As for politicians: my stepfather was working at a national parliament but only when there would be official questions and only when these would be in his native tongue (country had two official languages). And when the country would be without a government, he'd have as much as 500 days (500 days: you read correctly, and it didn't happen once but twice) of vacations. It's only if there was a super urgent matter where the parliament would be opened that he'd have to work: so he'd quickly hop on a plane and go back to his native country.

So "who": some public servants. Not all but some public servants definitely do enjoy 8 to 12 weeks of vacation and even much more than that.

At the expense of working, taxpaying, citizens.

EDIT: for the 500 days... He would not know beforehand it'd be 500 days. He'd just know there was no government anymore. So he was fully paid but basically had to do jack shit until there'd be a government again. Which nobody could tell when it'd happen. But you read correctly: half a thousand days+. You all read that correctly. His vacation on the sunny french riviera paid by the taxes of the people.

You're not familiar with the german holiday & vacation system are you?

I lived in Europe and can explain it for you.

In Germany, particularly in Bavaria with its 13 gesetzliche Feiertage (holidays including regional ones like Heilige Drei Könige, Fronleichnam, and Allerheiligen), Urlaubstage can be maximized through smart planning. The rule is that weekends (Samstag and Sonntag) and Feiertage do not count against your Urlaubskonto; they don't deduct from your vacation days. With over 30 Urlaubstage (the legal minimum is 24 Werktage, but many collective agreements grant 30 or more), you achieve over 60 free days (calendar days of absence) by using Brückentage (Bridging days) and longer blocks.

If you have more than 30 Urlaubstage (e.g., 32), it rises to ~70 free days. It is possible—plan early, as Brückentage are popular!

We would fund nationwide health care and more robust social programs if it weren't for all the money we are spending on defense is simply not something the US right-wing and centrists ever put out there. When they fought those things it was with the ideological argument that they were intrinsically wrong. OMG Socialism!

They’re unheard of in Europe too, you’ve read too many internet comments and lost touch with reality.

Please refer to my comment above on how to use bridging days (Brückentage) to get to over 60 days of absense.

In the case of 32 days of vacation with bridging & holidays it is very possible to get over 70 days of calendar absence

And in the overwhelming majority of Europe they are unheard of.

If this were true, and if you want to give credit to Trump for EU defense spending increases, then (1) why is Trump asking for a dramatic increase in US military funding and (2) when will the US savings on defending the EU be spent on US workers?

1. Obviously the Trump admin is requesting an increased military budget because of looming global conflict. We don't want to get caught with our pants down.

Russia obviously bears the moral blame for starting this war, but Putin clearly was tempted by Western weakness. Had European states kept large and effective militaries and credibly threatened to employ them in Ukraine's defense, we probably wouldn't be where we are right now. So in some not insignificant measure, historical European underspending has contributed to the need right now for dramatically increased spending across the entire alliance.

2. I disagree with GP and agree with your cynicism there. US domestic policy failures are in no way caused by foreign intransigence of any kind. IIRC we spend more on health care per capita than (almost?) any other nation yet rank nowhere near the top in health outcomes. That's on us.

And I think it's important to correctly identify the root cause of our broken domestic policies, because I suspect fixing that issue will fix more governance failures than just healthcare.

Agreed that Putin was tempted by Western weakness, but you didn't go far enough West.

Oh, right. I forgot that European states have no agency or responsibility and are innocent victims of big bad America. Mea culpa.

I wrote "Western" rather than "European" specifically because I believe American weakness has played a role, too. But would it really make it better if Russia invaded Europe solely because of American weakness? That European states are so weak and helpless that they hardly even factor into Putin's calculus?

> socialized healthcare

So why does the US spend more per capita on healthcare than the EU?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com