Comment by microtonal | Hacker News Reader

Comment by microtonal | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'd argue Russia has done more there by invading Ukraine.

Nope, nobody was talking about getting nukes after the invasion in 2022.

Everybody started talking about getting nukes after: (1) Trump has been threatening to leave NATO and casting doubt about upholding Article 5, so nobody is really sure if the nuclear umbrella extends to Europe anymore; and (2) Trump has threatened to invade Greenland.

Basically, nobody here trusts the US anymore, but politicians are keeping up appearances to race to scale up production capacity of arms, etc.

Trumpists will typically say "but why should the US provide the nuclear umbrella for Europe?" Which is woefully ignorant of history, the whole NATO nuclear sharing arrangement, etc. exists, because the US didn't want European countries like (West-)Germany to have their own nukes.

Isn't it embarrassing that all these idiots are the dominant force on the planet and you have to cry to them to help you against Russia and they make much more money than your citizens? If you're going to insult Americans like this you should at least have something worth insulting us over. I do think biking culture is way better than driving, but I'm not sure about much else.

Sorry, but the arrogance is perplexing. First, European countries contributed a lot more money to Ukraine than the US. Second, when the US, Ukraine, etc. signed the Budapest memorandum, they US implied that they would respond to a Russian attack.

However, when negotiating the security assurances, U.S. officials told their Ukrainian counterparts that, were Russia to violate them, the United States would take a strong interest and respond. [...] Washington did not promise unlimited support. The Budapest Memorandum contains security “assurances,” not “guarantees.” Guarantees would have implied a commitment of American military force, which NATO members have. U.S. officials made clear that was not on offer. Hence, assurances.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-care-about-ukraine-an...

And this is exactly one of the issues of the US now. It is completely reliable. Make a trade agreement and then on a whim Trump can decide to shred it again.

The funniest case was that Trump wanted to impose tariffs when Denmark wanted to send troops to Greenland... Which is an autonomous territory of Denmark.

> Nope, nobody was talking about getting nukes after the invasion in 2022.

That's not what I recall. And I also recall a lot of hand-wringing over how it was a shame that Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons (in a manner of speaking).

> Basically, nobody here trusts the US anymore, but politicians are keeping up appearances to race to scale up production capacity of arms, etc.

That's not true. Internet commentators don't trust the US, but they don't represent all peoples or governments. Even the Danes trusted us enough to sign an agreement giving us perpetual military access to Greenland even if the Greenlanders declare sovereignty.

> Trumpists will typically say "but why should the US provide the nuclear umbrella for Europe?" Which is woefully ignorant of history, the whole NATO nuclear sharing arrangement, etc. exists, because the US didn't want European countries like (West-)Germany to have their own nukes.

I think you are somewhat off the mark here. Nuclear weapons are of course important, but France and the United Kingdom have them too. I guess a question you want to ask Europe is the details and history about France and the United Kingdom's own nuclear umbrellas. If they have them, why do you need American nuclear weapons? Not that I'm personally opposed to also extending ours.

For Americans (and I have various levels of agreement and disagreement) it's less about the nuclear umbrella and more about the placement and utilization of conventional forces. As you can tell with the Iran war and the early days of the Ukraine war, the United States (thanks in part to Europe) has been brow-beaten so much about (what was it, 14 countries someone said we bombed this year?) how bad America is and how awful and racist and "colonizer" America is and all that stuff that many Americans are just fed up with utilizing our military for much of anything or dealing with the problems of other countries.

I'm not, personally, because I think it would be beneficial for us to stop Russia in Ukraine, stop Iran in the Middle East, and avoid a war with China while maintaining the status quo regarding Taiwan, but you know when someone like some posters in this thread want to spend all day talking about how your country is full of idiots eventually people say, well, maybe you guys should take care of your own problems, even if it ends up worse off for everyone.

> Sorry, but the arrogance is perplexing. First, European countries contributed a lot more money to Ukraine than the US. Second, when the US, Ukraine, etc. signed the Budapest memorandum, they US implied that they would respond to a Russian attack.

You say that like there should have been an expectation that the US contributed the same or more? This expectation you have, that you created for yourself, is of your own making.

Second, let's not forget the UK also signed that memorandum and while Europe was busy denying the US and UK's warnings of an imminent Russian invasion, the US and UK were running 24/7 airlift operations to get supplies to Ukraine, provided intelligence, and more. We did respond to the Russian attack. There's no requirement for US forces to respond.

"Even the Danes trusted us enough to sign an agreement giving us perpetual military access to Greenland"

"Trusted". Christ, I guess you subscribe to the Dennis Reynolds "implication" style of coercion. Recall that Denmark readied blood supplies and literally prepared troops for a US invasion. From an ally. "Trusted". Good god.

No one "trusts" the US. It is a worldwide danger, where a pedophile rapist kleptocracy tries to export its profound stupidity to better nations.

In the end, Denmark reaffirmed an existing agreement from 1951. The one that already saw the US having military bases on Greenland per the alliance. They not only broadened it from just the US, they explicitly restricted it such that the US can only maintain such bases if they remain in NATO.

They took an existing agreement and reaffirmed it with new conditions. So Trump, Mr. We're Pulling out of NATO, basically redoubled on NATO just to have a win, where the win is just the status quo. Hilarious stuff. And this actually sells to some Americans?

When they played "Send in the clowns" for Marco Rubio to sign this new "agreement" was just poetic.

Where do you get your news from? Twitter? Because wow, every one of your take is straight from America exceptional land, and it's bizarre (I didn't respond to your other comments out of mercy, but good god you simply have no idea). The fact that Trump celebrated this agreement is because the midterms are coming up and this pathetic loser, having literally nothing to show but failure from his reign of idiocy, needed a "win".

> If they have them, why do you need American nuclear weapons?

You seem to have missed their point. There was a detente and a worldwide "order". Russia stepped out of line and almost the entire world punished them for it. The order mattered. Might does not make right, and in the rule of international law you can't just steal land or resources.

Suddenly Trump not only heralds Putin and wants to cement his battlefield wins, through his incompetent family reps Kushner (jesus christ) and Witkoff, he continually praises Putin and justifies his aggression, constantly repeating Russia's absurd justifications for this foolish war. Then Trump engages in the same behaviour on behalf of the US, stealing the resources of Venezuela, and openly threatening Cuba. And I guarantee that Trump has repeatedly talked to his drunken halfwit SecWar about invading Canada. They openly threatened invading Greenland, just because they want it.

Right now, every capable country should be getting nuclear weapons. Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Brazil, Spain, and on and on. Putin tested the waters and Trump redoubled them and affirmed that there is no international rules, and everyone should be willing to murder billions of people. Any Americans -- having lived a life of peace, security, comfort and affluence -- who think this improves their lot is impossibly fucking stupid. All of history says uncountable Americans are going to die because of this foolish imbecile.

> "Trusted". Christ, I guess you subscribe to the Dennis Reynolds "implication" style of coercion. Recall that Denmark readied blood supplies and literally prepared troops for a US invasion. From an ally. "Trusted". Good god.

Yea interesting how they're so much more ready to go fight the US than fight Russia. But if you want to argue there's no trust there then you certainly can't trust our military being in Europe or backstopping NATO so if your goal is to dissolve NATO because of some arguing over, frankly, a lack of European defense investment in an area that is critical to American security (you own it you need to secure it) then well that's up to Europeans to decide.

I'm ignoring all the other stuff because it's boring and uninteresting. No I don't get my news from Twitter. I don't use social media.

> You seem to have missed their point.

No I'm debating their point. There's a difference.

> Suddenly Trump not only heralds Putin and wants to cement his battlefield wins, through his incompetent family reps Kushner (jesus christ) and Witkoff, he continually praises Putin and justifies his aggression, constantly repeating Russia's absurd justifications for this foolish war.

There are two large problems with this.

First, Europe has no ability to engage with Putin, and if Kushner and Witkoff are the people he will see then we should try for some manner of diplomacy even if the people that are sent aren't the ones you would prefer.

Second, while I fully support Ukraine regaining all of the territory it has lost, if Ukraine is unable to re-take the territory and Russia is unable to progress, it's stupid for all these soldiers to just go and die for no reason. If we can stop the war completely, for example, with Ukraine ceding this land, that's up to them but we should at least explore options and try to bring an end to the war.

> Then Trump engages in the same behaviour on behalf of the US, stealing the resources of Venezuela, and openly threatening Cuba. And I guarantee that Trump has repeatedly talked to his drunken halfwit SecWar about invading Canada.

I don't agree with how we've approached Canada.

Venezuela and Cuba are entirely separate things. Happy to discuss why if you want.

> They openly threatened invading Greenland, just because they want it.

It was a dumb negotiating tactic but it's important to us that it is defended to our satisfaction.

> Right now, every capable country should be getting nuclear weapons. Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Brazil, Spain, and on and on.

If you're in favor of nuclear proliferation then sure. But it doesn't include just the "good" countries. It also means Israel gets to ramp up its nuclear forces, Saudi Arabia gets nuclear weapons, Argentina can get nuclear weapons, and anyone else on your naughty list. So we will further double down on a more dangerous world and you're advocating for further breakdowns of international law.

Yea interesting how they're so much more ready to go fight the US than fight Russia.

Ehm, Russia didn't invade Danish territory. The US was threatening to invade Danish territory.

First, Europe has no ability to engage with Putin, and if Kushner and Witkoff are the people he will see then we should try for some manner of diplomacy even if the people that are sent aren't the ones you would prefer.

Putin only wants them because they are weak and can be played.

It was a dumb negotiating tactic but it's important to us that it is defended to our satisfaction.

It was not a negotiation tactic. They already had an agreement for over half a century that they could scale up US military presence as they would like. The US has reduced presence over the years.

Trump wanted to add land like every pathetic little (wannabe) dictator. But the EU showed some teeth suggesting that the trade bazooka could be employed, country moved troops to Greenland (so it wouldn't be a clean invasion without blood). So Trump TACOed out.

If it was a negotiation tactic it is bloody stupid ("art of the deal" I guess). Aside from getting a worse deal then before, as a side-effect many European countries that were planning to buy US arms are now switching to European options.

If you're in favor of nuclear proliferation then sure. But it doesn't include just the "good" countries. It also means Israel gets to ramp up its nuclear forces, Saudi Arabia gets nuclear weapons, Argentina can get nuclear weapons, and anyone else on your naughty list. So we will further double down on a more dangerous world and you're advocating for further breakdowns of international law.

Yes, and that was exactly my point earlier, the Trump and the US opened pandora's box. He disturbed the equilibrium by threatening to leave the NATO/not respecting article 5, by threatening to attack its own allies, by yelling Zelensky out of the White House. This sends ripples all over the world and Europe, Canada, and East Asian countries get the message "we cannot trust the US as an ally anymore", which leads to proliferation and probably more wars. It's very likely that Putin will try some sort of attack on NATO countries soon, just to test how firm Trump's commitments are. This would never have happened if he didn't weaken NATO. It's understandable that Poland gets nervous and wants to be able to MAD Russia.

> Ehm, Russia didn't invade Danish territory. The US was threatening to invade Danish territory.

Can you invade a territory in which you already have a dominant military presence? I appreciate Denmark’s bark loud approach but the country is militarily irrelevant. I think it was more of an awful negotiation tactic. We weren’t in the room. Maybe the Danes simply needed a reminder to take US concerns seriously and this was the crappy way of doing that.

> Putin only wants them because they are weak and can be played.

Either way they’re in the room at least trying something. Why aren’t European leaders in Moscow trying to get the war to end? Because they’re strong? Sorry that doesn’t pass the smell test.

> It was not a negotiation tactic. They already had an agreement for over half a century that they could scale up US military presence as they would like. The US has reduced presence over the years.

I disagree. Guess we can agree to disagree here. The new agreement protects American bases even if Greenland declares independence and also establishes formal, legal rights for America to prohibit hostile nations from mining or establishing military infrastructure on the island.

> Aside from getting a worse deal then before, as a side-effect many European countries that were planning to buy US arms are now switching to European options.

Well the deal is better. That’s an objective fact. Nobody in the US is threatened by or cares if Europeans are buying local. We led the way on that and we are happy that Europe is investing more in its defense and defense industrial base.

> This sends ripples all over the world and Europe, Canada, and East Asian countries get the message "we cannot trust the US as an ally anymore", which leads to proliferation and probably more wars.

That doesn’t reflect reality though. Japan and Korea for example haven’t lost trust. Putin by attacking Ukraine sort of forced the issue and to get countries thinking about whether the US would use nuclear weapons I guess in these wars? But the same is true for the EU. Even the language you are using doesn’t make sense to me. If Putin attacks a NATO country why is he all of a sudden testing how firm Trump’s commitments are? He would be testing how firm the EU’s commitments are instead. How fast do you think Spain or Italy will tap out when their kids are off dying in the cold to defend Estonia? What will to fight does France have when its economy is so heavily indebted? Poland and the United Kingdom will fight, the baltics would too since their lives are at stake. You can read for yourself survey results out of Germany where some large majority of German citizens said they wouldn’t fight to defend Germany. You’re going to read this as an attack on Europe. Nothing is further from the truth. I love Europe, but folks need to have a sober assessment of themselves here instead of hiding every possible problem behind Donald Trump.

Poland specifically said they did not want to host nuclear weapons by the way. https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/poland-do...

So Trump, Mr. We're Pulling out of NATO, basically redoubled on NATO just to have a win, where the win is just the status quo. Hilarious stuff. And this actually sells to some Americans?

"Art of the deal"

You seem to have missed their point. There was a detente and a worldwide "order". Russia stepped out of line and almost the entire world punished them for it. The order mattered.

Exactly this. It seems that the US has forgotten what soft power, alliances, rules-based world order means. You have the power because you have allies, because you can hold others to rules (and mostly keep up the appearance that you obey the rules yourself), etc. Initially, you can benefit from abusing that position, but it is short-term only. Your allies will form new alliances (e.g. Canada getting closer to the EU), stop buying your weapons, wean themselves of your products (this very news item), etc. The problem with incompetent people like Trump and his administration is that they only see the benefits of the short-term abuse, but not the terrible harm they do to themselves and the rest of the world long-term.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com