Hacker News Reader

Even before Trump, and the invasion of Ukraine, it was transparently obvious that the idea of minimum spending commitment to NATO was intended to prop up the US arms industry rather than actually achieve anything military.

To a certain extent the US occupation of Germany was intended to prevent Germany rearming on its own.

View on HN

> it was transparently obvious that the idea of minimum spending commitment to NATO was intended to prop up the US arms industry

...to Trump. European leaders took it literally: since the USA stopped being a reliable partner, Europe needs to depend on itself for protection. It makes zero sense to buy American weapons if you can produce/purchase them on the continent.

> It makes zero sense to buy American weapons if you can produce/purchase them on the continent.

And if you can't, the better option still remains to try to keep it "local" and not rely on very far away "partners".

They knew what Trump meant, but this way they could agree at a surface level to keep him happy, while actively distancing themselves in reality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com