Hacker News Reader

> Before: US: "please increase military spending" EU: "no"

What this meant between the lines for 60+ years is “please increase military spending on US overpriced weapons that we gonna sell you, weapons will be degraded versions of native counterparts and don’t think about making your own independent military industry. Oh by the way bring those weapons when we will do 20 years of failed occupation in Middle East, because we are the only country in NATO that triggered article 5 and bunch of Euros died for nothing. Because that’s the deal, we protect you, for the economic price of helping our imperial hegemony since 1940s stay at the top, but suddenly we decided this is a bad deal after all.”

It really did not mean that -- it meant to increase spending to the targets set by NATO and to meet realistic defense needs.

A lot of EU weaponry was and is produced in the EU and the US has known that all along, cooperated and fostered it. The Leopard tank, the Eurofighter, the Rafale, the Lynx, the FV432, the Gazelle -- there is a long list of domestic weapons systems. I'm not sure if they still can do it, but the English made nuclear submarines. The US has at various times partnered with Europe on the development of these systems, and Europe has been able to produce almost all major weapons systems continuously since the end of World War 2.

Europe's much weakened defense posture -- and weakened defense industry -- are their own fault and the result of their own choices. At one time, European countries had much, much larger militaries and could sustain manufacturing of their specific weapon systems -- their own tanks, APCs -- but not after the military drawdowns following the end of the Cold War. There are at least 3 major domestic European tank types -- the Leopard, the Challenger and the Leclerc -- but only the Leopard is manufactured anymore. Europe should probably have consolidated on the Leopard a long time ago.

The US weapons are not "overpriced", and certainly not compared to European weapons, beyond the sense in which basically all western weapons are overpriced. One reason we see consolidation on US weapons in Europe is that the US weapons are frequently very good, having received a lot of use, but also because the US still has some scale in its manufacturing capabilities.

> I'm not sure if they still can do it, but the English made nuclear submarines.

Not really. The Polaris and Trident SLBM systems as well as the nukes they carry are US designs that the UK is allowed to use. And while their current PWR2 reactor is a British design, it is lacking. Therefore the next PWR3 design will be based on US S9G reactors.

The Trafalgar class were nuclear attack submarines made at Barrow-in-Furness shipyard in Cumbria. The current Astute class were also made there.

A nuclear submarine is one with nuclear propulsion, not nuclear weapons (just like a diesel-electric submarine is one with a diesel engine and batteries, not diesel weapons).

Don‘t forget the kill switches

It never ceases to amaze me the contortions some people put themselves through to make this US administration seem sane or even vaguely interested in the flourishing of Europe, Canada or the wider west.

Watch Trump's meetings with NATO from 2016-2019 on Youtube. He's saying exactly the same things about Europe, but nicer.

Nice didn't work. Even Russia invading a European county didn't work. Europe's head has been firmly planted in the sand for too long.

When the US points out faults with what EU is doing, the EU just digs its heels deeper out of spite, instead of self reflecting that maybe the US might be right.

yea even the Europeans are susceptible to TDS it seems

It's not contortions, it's the truth, since these points have nothing to do with this US administration specifically.

Contortions is trying to blame EU's multi decade political faults on Trump.

  Germany: Ties its economy to Russia despite warnings from the US

  Russia: Invades Ukraine

  Germany: Destroys its manufacturing economy after energy prices spike from decoupling from Russian gas

  Germany and libs/dems: This is all Trump's fault

Something tells me when the 'something' is a major trade deal with China suddenly it'll be 'oh my god how could you'. The US wants a EU vassal, what they're going to get is an EU that realigned itself to be politically and economically equidistant from the US and China.

If the EU can find a path to a balanced deal with China, great -- but becoming a Chinese vassal would not improve the situation.

The whole point is the USA has been complaining that the EU was/is reducing itself to a vassal. No matter what the USA said or did before they didn't seem to care that they had no power anymore because the USA was there to take care of them.

The EU can't realign itself with China because that would destroy the last fragile bits of the EU economy that are left. They are already having issues with the excess supply lands on their shores even since the USA started tariffs with China. They can't deal with this long term.

No, the USA does not, in any way, and has never wanted or even accepted EU countries being independent. They wanted the EU to spend more on US weaponry, and maybe on their own - but would have vehemently opposed any attempt by any EU country to buy Russian, Chinese, Iranian or any such weaponry. They want the EU to stop regulating American companies, but they certainly don't want EU companies being too successful in the USA. They certainly wouldn't allow EU tech companies access to the US defense market, while of course insisting that the EU and other NATO members buy US built weaponry.

They certainly wouldn't allow EU tech companies access to the US defense market, while of course insisting that the EU and other NATO members buy US built weaponry.

This is really ridiculous. There are many successful EU vendors of defense technology to the US military. Safran, Schmidt & Bender, Heckler & Koch, Saab, Glock, Fabrique National -- there is a long list. The USA has built real partnerships in these areas.

One amusing example is the C7 and C8. These are AR-15 (M16) variants made by Colt Canada and adopted by the militaries of the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway; and used by special forces in the UK.

Where are you getting your information from, that the US wouldn't allow wouldn't allow EU tech companies access to the US defense market?

The EU would also have opposed it if the US bought Russian, Chinese or Iranian weaponry.

The EU does seem to willing to reduce itself to a Chinese vassal. That would not improve the situation.

The right play is to maintain relationships (including arms trading) with multiple major powers - as Canada's PM very deftly pointed out at Davos. Getting closer to China doesn't mean exchanging one master for another - it can and should be a way to increase the alternatives available, without going all the way in the other direction.

> The EU would also have opposed it if the US bought Russian, Chinese or Iranian weaponry.

This is such an implausible counter-factual that I can't even begin to imagine what would have actually happened. Still, I doubt any more than some "public letters" would have been issued, whereas I'm sure that the opposite would have resulted in actual economic pressure from the USA against the EU/NATO country that would have dared, under any administration.

I mean, you offered a basically similar, implausible counterfactual. I think we can agree that it is at least parties that the EU would have opposed purchases of Chinese, Russian or Iranian weapons by the USA and vice versa -- but Russia and Iran have been sanctioned for long periods of time (Iran, basically continuously) by both the EU and the USA, and Russia is the main territorial threat to the EU, so maybe only China is really an interesting possibility here.

Arms trading with China is probably not a good idea at all.

I don't see much sign of the EU becoming a Chinese vassal as in relying on it for defence in return for being told what to do. Trading with China is not the same thing.

I'm not sure that's how it is. Sure NATO countries aren't keen on any of the members being reliant on weapons from potential NATO enemies, for example Turkey buying Russian S-400s but it doesn't mean the countries aren't mostly independent.

Likewise NATO countries aren't keen if one of their members gets a leader who rolls out the red carpet to the Russians and threatens to invade other NATO states. It's not like all the members have to do what the US likes.

Here's a Danish vassal MEP saying "Mr Trump, fuck off" https://youtu.be/hASG-hQgk-4

I see the Turks have now changed their mind on the S-400s and I hope the red carpet for Putin folk change at some point too.

No. The US wants the EU to be a vassal, this should be obvious. Why would they want an EU that is more capable of acting against US interests?

The US wants EU to be a vassal, but got tired of paying the protection money for that. Now they are trying, and failing, to keep the EU under their control despite bringing less to the table every day.

Or more obviously the US views China as an existential threat that is about to pop.

US has numerous public docs stating China is prepping for war and has WW2 levels of production. US knows it will be out manufactured in this conflict.

So the US needs:

1. Fully focus on China without distractions. 2. Allies able to handle their own security or help in the fight. 3. Weaken the smaller axis forces as much as possible now before the big event occurs.

Through this lens it alls lines up pretty nicely. Every single world event including US poking europe all work towards these goals.

As of now:

1. EU is finally spending on spending 2. Nato has expanded (sweden) 3. Russia is weakened 4. Iran is weakened 5. Oil production is secure (venuzuela, US internal, middle east) 6. East asia is also spending more on military and heavily aligning with the west (more bases in phillipines)

To me this is going about as smoothly as anyone would expect the buildup to WW3 would go. And it's all going pretty well for western forces. The west is now stronger than it has ever been and getting stronger and the axis forces are all weaker and getting weaker.

Words matter much less than action.

It does not make sense that the US would pay the "protection money" for a vassal. The vassals pay the protection money!

One clue that this discussion of vassals is not right at all.

EU aligning heavily with China is a fantasy.

You really think EU is going to ally with China over japan, south korea, philipines, and Australia?

You really think Russia's current number 1 ally is all of a sudden going to be best friends with EU?

China and North korea are ACTIVELY supporting a war in Europe! China has openly threatened Australia. There are literal north korean troops shooting Europeans right now. Who is north korea's number 1 supporter?

They said "to be politically and economically equidistant from the US and China".

I don't see any mention of being "best friends" with China. It's not like if the US was exactly a "friend" at all these days.

Again words vs reality.

Reality is that China is openly suporting a war against europe. But words give leverage against US in negotiations.

EU just signed huge deal with India.

Words vs reality.

That helps US geopolitical goals.

> US: "We will invade greenland" EU: "omg we need to invest in greenland and increase its military support, we will send more troops immediately!"

> US: "we will pull out of nato" EU: "omg we hate US we need to massively increase military spending and industry"

It's in both the EU and the US's interest to ensure NATO is the strongest partnership possible and the US's actions over the last few weeks have undermined it almost perfectly.

If you look at actions and results the western alliance is the strongest it has ever been and going to be significantly stronger over the next decade.

Again my point is a theory that either EU and US found a way to make EU citizens get behind military spending or the US found a way to manipulate EU to do it.

You'll know if US and EU are actually not aligned if EU sides with China over USA (which would be suprising to say the least)

The EU's actions over the last 30 years have undermined it almost perfectly.

Tell me which NATO country came crying, triggered NATO Article 5 and as a consequence a good number of EU NATO (and even non-NATO) soldiers have died for the sole interests of said country?

Why are you moving the goalposts from your parent's point?

Yes, the middle eastern wars were a huge issue form the US, but that doesn't explain EU own goaling itself for 20+ years with terrible policies and choices, with or without helping the US in the middle east.

I am saying that for last 30 years actions of European NATO counterparts was not "undermining the relationship".

Also since 2014 there was a 10 year plan devised to get everyone to strictly follow 2% budget commitment. Which happened before you and I even heard about trump starting a presidential campaign (or even if it was there was nothing about NATO, etc). This happened (better later than never) due to ruzzian attack on eastern Ukraine and with a nudge from Obama administration.

Due to 2022 total war from ruzzia against Ukraine - I believe right now there are talks to commit up to 5% in long run, with at least up to 3.5% in next decade.

I know that Europe doesn't have great PR team, but USA is getting better and better at gaslighting (ruzzia has decades of experience in divide and conquer tactics) that Europeans are allegedly freeloading. Europe has it's problems, but it's solving them democratically, whereas USA needs to see herself in a mirror, before it's too late.

Links:

- https://www.statista.com/statistics/584088/defense-expenditu...

- https://www.nato.int/content/dam/nato/webready/documents/fin...

- https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/defe...

My understanding is that the 2% budget commitment was met or exceeded by all NATO countries only as late as 2025. The Obama administration ended in 2017.

Europeans not taking care of themselves has been "undermining the relationship".

Plan started in 2014.

Also look yourself in a mirror as a country, because by how things are going - you need to prepare yourself for concentration camp.

I see -- when you wrote "Which happened before you and I even heard about trump starting a presidential campaign..." you were referring to coming up with the plan, not meeting the target.

If this is some kind of move, fair play, but its ham fisted because rank and file westerners across the world have lost respect and faith in America, that wont be rebuilt by some other president. Nobody will want fighter jets etc controlled by America. Perhaps USA is fine with it but to me it feels severely damaging.

Twitter can think what it wants.

The western alliance as of today is about as strong as its ever been. They are actively dismantling and destroying their enemies together one by one.

Words matter little when US's alternative is actively supporting a war in europe.

> The western alliance as of today is about as strong as its ever been.

It's at its lowest point since the Suez crisis, to the point even historical US hawks (notably Poland) are starting to give it a side-eyed look.

I don't think you realize how far and how fast the discourse in Europe has shifted.

Russia and Iran are in shambles. Nato has expanded. Military spending amoungst members is increasing.

Words vs actions.

The western alliance as of today is about as strong as its ever been.

No it is not. Very few people in Europe believe that the US would uphold NATO Article 5. The US did arguably not uphold the Budapest memorandum. Allies have stopped sharing intelligence with the US in many areas because they don't trust the US anymore (Trump would burn allied assets in a Truth Social post). Trump has done a lot of bidding for Putin in the Ukraine-Russian war because he does not care about a good outcome for the rest of the Western alliance, he only cares about some peace prize or whatever.

The Western alliance is almost shattered, NATO is on its lasts legs (well, technically, NATO with the US, I think a new NATO with Canada and Europe would rise from its ashes).

"Shattered" as they have together massively increased military spending and weakened their enemies at every step through heavy cooperation. And added sweden to nato.

If you ignored words actions show a big difference.

No. The US does not want an independent EU. It wants an EU that lets any US company do here whatever it wants. It wants the EU to split up so it can force bad trade deals on our countries. We don't want a trade deal that lets you sell chlorinated chicken or other stuff that is currently banned here.

The US wants us to spend more on military but not on our own weapons but to spend all our money buying US made stuff. Now what the president of the US achieved is that we want to spend more to develop our own local alternatives and improve them, not buy more from the US. Why would we buy from you if your president threatens to invade Greenland?

Also - military spending was increased not because Trump bullied us into it doing it. It was seen as necessary because of russian attack on Ukraine. Trump was not some genius diplomacy mastermind. He is a man child that is pissed of for not getting the Nobel peace price. How childish is that? This is not some person who can be taken seriously in any way.

Regulation is good, Micro-USB and USB-C for phones and computer chargers is better than the dozens of different chargers that was before. Only Apple was unhappy and didn't want it. We don't want big US tech companies to steal our personal data and do whatever they want wit it.

Also - now trump is pissed off at Canada for trying to get a trade deal with China, when it was he himself who first said Canada should become a part of the US, started with random bs tariffs on canadian goods, etc. What else can you expect from Canada, why should they not try to find a more reliable trade partner? How can it be rational, what Trump is doing?

The US wants us to spend more on military but not on our own weapons but to spend all our money buying US made stuff.

To underline this point:

https://www.newsweek.com/europes-plan-ditch-us-weapons-spook...

> I don't know if this was planned internally but it seems the way they figured out how to get EU to actually do something is to make it seem like big bad trump is going to hurt them.

This is an interesting take. You appear to be suggesting that the US has the EU's best interests at heart.

It ignores the fact that, on the rare occasion the Trump administration was not actively trying to undermine the EU, their "helpful advice" has always boiled down to "you should be more like us, and not being like us means you're failing."

My opinion, which I believe is common among Europeans, is that the opposite is true.

I would like to think US has EU interest at heart, a kind of tough love you would hope. But even if they don't all of their reactions have actively helped the US geopolitical goals.

> You appear to be suggesting that the US has the EU's best interests at heart.

The US might or might not have Europe's best interest at heart or the European peoples' best interest at heart. But certainly not the European Union's best interest.

> US: "stop killing innovation" EU: " more regulation"

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe a large number of Europeans look at the lack of US regulation with disgust?

Honestly so often I take my EU consumer and worker rights for granted, only to hear that they simply don't exist for 90+% of Americans. Amd then I wonder how they even live over there.

In large houses with lots of land, multiple cars and lots of money.

Median savings in America: $8,000

Median savings in Belgium: €14,000

A lot of Americans just try to outspend the Jones' and are crippled in debt.

I looked up to the US as a kid. Then I went to the US about 8-10 times in my teenage years (lost the count) due to my dad's work. We travelled through ~20 states. Only during those trips I realized in what poor life standards most Americans live. My wife lived in the US for a year and had the same experience. She also found that average Americans have real weird believes about the rest of the world (this was in the nineties), like they would ask her whether Hitler is still alive, whether Europe only has US radio stations, and some believed that Europeans don't have fridges.

Another thing that surprised me was the segregation. One time we went out to eat something while crossing some states. Apparently we drove into a black neighborhood, and we walked into a large place with a buffet. And suddenly almost everyone was looking at us completely stunned. Then the other shoe dropped, we were the only white people, and they were probably surprised that white people showed up. They were extremely nice to us, but for me it also uncovered how weird the US is.

Yes. A few do, a lot don't.

Unfortunately they made the mistake to ban slavery /s

Slavery was a major economic drain, it wasnt a boon to the us economy. There is a reason the south remained agricultural and under developed, it was slavery.

And a few innovative Europeans look on EU regulation with disgust and leave, taking their companies with them.

They're going to the US for the VC funds and the capital markets, which is America's great competitive advantage globally. In the few industries I went through (PaaS, Health, Finance) what I got was that the regulatory environment in Europe was welcome for being stable and clear, or existing at all in a few cases. There's been one case where I've seen regulation being an issue and preventing business from being fully conducted in Europe, and that was related to banking (in that instance that company had to be set up in Dubai).

It's not ideal, but the EU has 450 million people. It can probably survive.