Contrary to all the yowling we have heard over the last two weeks, the U.S. is perceived as being so reliable that these other governments feel no urgency to improve their own defenses.
The framework about America's supposed need to "reassure" our allies is so detached from reality that a person from Mars who follows the headlines might end up thinking that the US was a weak nation besieged by regional threats, and which has to get support from other states in order to survive.
In reality, we are a superpower with a potential peer competitor in China. We have a longstanding formal alliance with NATO members despite the raison d'etra for NATO ceasing to exist 30 years ago. We continue to allow NATO members to maintain lavish welfare states in large part because we have been footing the bill for their defense spending for 60 years, 30 of them USSR-free. I would suggest that it would be to our benefit if these countries developed their own defensive capabilities and stopped freeriding on my tax dollars.
We "allow NATO members to maintain lavish welfare states"? Good grief! Did the US give its permission? Why doesn't the US have these elaborate welfare system itself? I assure you, as one living in one of those welfare states, no one here is about to change it. And, believe it or not, healthcare costs 25% less in the lavish welfare states than in the USA racket system. And the care is no worse, maybe better. The vast majority of US voters would be quite happy to have the same. They might be a lot less obese and stressed out. You know perfectly well that no one has a say in the maniacal defense budget of the USA, other than corporate and congressional beneficiaries and their propaganda agents in the press. And what is achieved by it? Profit, not "defense". Nor do Europeans ask America to defend them. Europeans, and I assume Asians as well, simply do not see the need for such humongous expenditures in time of peace. At least, we presume we are in time of peace. What is the US doing with its defense expenditure other than making life scary as hell for the rest of the world? Against whom are these expenditures intended? What country, or even combination of countries, represent a threat which justifies spending a trillion dollars a year to defend against?? After WW II there was zero chance that USSR was going to invade Europe. But of course, there was the communist scare, which is quite different. The USSR had lost 25 million of its citizens in a horrific war. It had beaten back the Nazis essentially alone, long before any significant help for the west. There was no desire anywhere to go back to war. The exception was the USA, which had never really experienced war first hand. This is not to demean the sacrifice of Americans and nor the great debt felt towards the US for its role in liberating Europe. But let's admit it: the Red Army had ripped the guts out of the Nazis by the time any planning was started for the Normandy landing. This debt if often forgotten. What the US cannot abide is the idea that a communist or socialist system should exist. To prevent this the US has become a muscle bound monster of defense system, engorging 50% of the total defense spending of the globe. What possible way is there for Europe or Asia to "assume its own defense"? If the US really wants Europe to spend 2% of its GDP on defense there is a very easy way to accomplish this: cut its own defense to 2% of its GDP. And while they are at it, why not do what the Soviets did after the USSR disintegrated? Go home. Nothing else will do it. The world lives in fear of America and America pretends not to understand.
"Did the US give its permission to allow NATO states to maintain lavish welfare states?" No, but that is irrelevant to the point I made. The point I made is that these states are largely in a position to spend the money they need to fund lavish welfare states because they have been freeriding on American defense spending for decades. Likewise, if your daddy pays your rent, you might be able to spend a lot of money doing fun stuff instead. "Do I need my daddy's permission to spend my hard-earned pay on concerts and fancy dinners?" No, but that's not the point. The point is that in a world where daddy wasn't paying your bills, you'd have to prioritize spending money on rent instead. Subsidized rent allows is a necessary condition of spending money on the fun stuff. Daddy might be able to afford more of the fun stuff if he stopped paying your rent. In that case, there's a pretty good chance that you'd start spending money on rent to make up the gap.
"The American system is more expensive than the European system." In a way, yes. Relying on private insurance is probably the chief reason why America spends a greater percentage of its GDP on healthcare than the rest of the Western World. It is not the sole reason; Americans also have different dietary norms than the other Western nations. Diet, of course, and not who pays for healthcare services, is what drives obesity rates. I think that a federal monopsony on health insurance would drive down the price of healthcare to its marginal cost, as monopsonies tend to do (assuming no corruption and price inflation via political lobbying efforts.) I expect the US would also still spend more on healthcare than other Western nations if we implemented such a system in the US. But in that case, we'd be spending it on ourselves rather than on subsidizing Italy's defense budget. Pretty good deal if you ask me.
"No one has a say in America's defense budget." Not quite. Foreign governments who like to freeride on American defense spending lobby on the issue extensively, and the foreign policy Blob that is inexplicably concerned with not "alienating our allies" seems to think that keeping Europeans happy is an end in and of itself rather than a means to achieving another end. European governments do not want the US to withdraw its defensive umbrella because they would have to pick up the slack instead. They may not get a vote, but they sure as hell lobby about it.
"There was zero chance that the USSR was going to invade Europe." This is mere speculation. Obviously the USSR maintained the Warsaw Pact throughout the entire Cold War. The reach of the Warsaw Pact just happened, by coincidence I suppose, to end in Berlin, where American troops met Russian troops in 1945? It would have been within the USSR's interests to control all of Europe because that way, it could have kept a hostile counter-alliance like NATO off of its border and thereby achieved greater regional security. The NATO nations didn't want the USSR to become a regional hegemon and therefore entered into a mutual defense pact in order to pool their collective resources towards a common defense; in post-war Europe, the United States picked up most of the slack. After Western Europe's national economies recovered, this dynamic did not change. Hence every American President since Eisenhower has complained about Europe freeriding on American defense spending and Europe failing to meet its defense spending targets. I complain about this too because I have to pay taxes to maintain this state of affairs.
Frankly, I think Western European nations can pay for their own damned defense instead of relying on Big Daddy America to subsidize it. Yes, the squabbling tribes of Europe will probably be back to blowing each other up again in no time. It's what they always did before Big Daddy America started keeping the peace. But that's their problem, not ours.
OK I agree i skip around a lot, which is bad. Just to answer on the Warsaw Pact, it was created in response to NATO. The division of Europe was decided at Yalta. Eisenhower and Stalin lived up to the agreement to the letter. Yes there were many regrets about giving away too much. That is another discussion. I think FDR actually admired what Russia had done. He also knew that Russia was not about to pick up and attack Europe with the relatively fresh and strong American partner. Unfortunately Truman was a bit a smaller minded person and under him came the Cold War, which of course was great for the defense industries.
"because they have been freeriding on American defense spending" is complete and utter rubbish. The social state that exists in Europe was established at a time when Europe was down and out and very conscious of costs. The NHS in the UK was established immediately after WWII. The universal healthcare is cheaper than private and solves the problem better for society as a whole. Same goes with pensions, which are much higher in Europe and go back many decades before the war. You make a very common mistake which is to say that the amount spent on defense is equivalent to the contribution to what is needed as defense. Europe always spent it's fair share on defense. True, in the years after WW II there was a lot of rebuilding and during this time Europe was glad to have America as a partner. But it was not free. It was a partnership. For Europe, NATO itself was the defense. What the US spent on its defense budget had zero to do with what the Europe might have considered appropriate nor with the contributions of individual countries to NATO itself. In fact, if you look at NATO's budget, you will find that Europe spends more proportionately than the US. The reason is that for Europe, NATO is the defense. Europe has often asked to have an independent defense, but this was always blocked by the US. Europe did not have, and still does not have, any input into the American defense budget. It was NSC 68 which was the reason for the growth in the US defense budget, not "defense of Europe". The US was afraid of a recession after the war which would be caused by the deflation in defense industry spending and that is why the US has kept up its spending. Eisenhower was already aware of this and tried to warn Americans that its "Military Industrial Complex" was getting out of control. It had NOTHING, repeat NOTHING to do with defense of Europe. The Europeans realize this and are embarrassed that the US insists on the inane accusation of freeloading. But they are unable to do anything about it. It would be madness for Europe to try to compete with the US in defense spending. Can you imagine what an armed camp Europe would be if it had its own Lockheed Martin and its own Raytheon etc etc? Do you think anyone i Europe has such a vision? The Brits have a pretty large defense contractor, BEA, but no other EU country comes close, though there are several smaller players. Yet Europe together spends twice as much on defense as Russia, the only half-way "credible" threat. What is the US spending all about? Please let me know. And don't say it's about defense of Europe. It's more like the US plans to attack the rest of the world by itself. American defense spending is way out of control and it's in effect a racket on the American taxpayer. This heavy weight explains the societal problems in the US related to homelessness, lack of health insurance, lack of decent education, crumbling infrastructure and many other ills. But the one area where there is always enough money: defense. The only thing that is defended are the profits of people like Dick Cheney. And by the way, did you ever consider why America has such a budget deficit? Is it also for the defense of Europe? I often wonder where this idea of "freeloading" comes from. Is it so annoying to come to Europe and finding functioning governments offering decent services to its citizens? Is "freeloading" some explanation, rather than admitting that something is wrong at home?
Taiwan needs to do this on their own with China, similarly to what South Korea needs to do with respect to North Korea. American interference in both relationships retards realpolitik, diplomacy, and negotiations.
I think some of our allies, at least the European ones + Japan and Korea, are still awaiting our assurances after the 2018 JCPOA pullout and subsequent economic coercion to accept new unilateral US sanctions. Hawks did not seem so concerned about the fretting of our treaty-allies and strategic Asian partners then.
The framework about America's supposed need to "reassure" our allies is so detached from reality that a person from Mars who follows the headlines might end up thinking that the US was a weak nation besieged by regional threats, and which has to get support from other states in order to survive.
In reality, we are a superpower with a potential peer competitor in China. We have a longstanding formal alliance with NATO members despite the raison d'etra for NATO ceasing to exist 30 years ago. We continue to allow NATO members to maintain lavish welfare states in large part because we have been footing the bill for their defense spending for 60 years, 30 of them USSR-free. I would suggest that it would be to our benefit if these countries developed their own defensive capabilities and stopped freeriding on my tax dollars.
We "allow NATO members to maintain lavish welfare states"? Good grief! Did the US give its permission? Why doesn't the US have these elaborate welfare system itself? I assure you, as one living in one of those welfare states, no one here is about to change it. And, believe it or not, healthcare costs 25% less in the lavish welfare states than in the USA racket system. And the care is no worse, maybe better. The vast majority of US voters would be quite happy to have the same. They might be a lot less obese and stressed out. You know perfectly well that no one has a say in the maniacal defense budget of the USA, other than corporate and congressional beneficiaries and their propaganda agents in the press. And what is achieved by it? Profit, not "defense". Nor do Europeans ask America to defend them. Europeans, and I assume Asians as well, simply do not see the need for such humongous expenditures in time of peace. At least, we presume we are in time of peace. What is the US doing with its defense expenditure other than making life scary as hell for the rest of the world? Against whom are these expenditures intended? What country, or even combination of countries, represent a threat which justifies spending a trillion dollars a year to defend against?? After WW II there was zero chance that USSR was going to invade Europe. But of course, there was the communist scare, which is quite different. The USSR had lost 25 million of its citizens in a horrific war. It had beaten back the Nazis essentially alone, long before any significant help for the west. There was no desire anywhere to go back to war. The exception was the USA, which had never really experienced war first hand. This is not to demean the sacrifice of Americans and nor the great debt felt towards the US for its role in liberating Europe. But let's admit it: the Red Army had ripped the guts out of the Nazis by the time any planning was started for the Normandy landing. This debt if often forgotten. What the US cannot abide is the idea that a communist or socialist system should exist. To prevent this the US has become a muscle bound monster of defense system, engorging 50% of the total defense spending of the globe. What possible way is there for Europe or Asia to "assume its own defense"? If the US really wants Europe to spend 2% of its GDP on defense there is a very easy way to accomplish this: cut its own defense to 2% of its GDP. And while they are at it, why not do what the Soviets did after the USSR disintegrated? Go home. Nothing else will do it. The world lives in fear of America and America pretends not to understand.
This reply was not cogently organized.
"Did the US give its permission to allow NATO states to maintain lavish welfare states?" No, but that is irrelevant to the point I made. The point I made is that these states are largely in a position to spend the money they need to fund lavish welfare states because they have been freeriding on American defense spending for decades. Likewise, if your daddy pays your rent, you might be able to spend a lot of money doing fun stuff instead. "Do I need my daddy's permission to spend my hard-earned pay on concerts and fancy dinners?" No, but that's not the point. The point is that in a world where daddy wasn't paying your bills, you'd have to prioritize spending money on rent instead. Subsidized rent allows is a necessary condition of spending money on the fun stuff. Daddy might be able to afford more of the fun stuff if he stopped paying your rent. In that case, there's a pretty good chance that you'd start spending money on rent to make up the gap.
"The American system is more expensive than the European system." In a way, yes. Relying on private insurance is probably the chief reason why America spends a greater percentage of its GDP on healthcare than the rest of the Western World. It is not the sole reason; Americans also have different dietary norms than the other Western nations. Diet, of course, and not who pays for healthcare services, is what drives obesity rates. I think that a federal monopsony on health insurance would drive down the price of healthcare to its marginal cost, as monopsonies tend to do (assuming no corruption and price inflation via political lobbying efforts.) I expect the US would also still spend more on healthcare than other Western nations if we implemented such a system in the US. But in that case, we'd be spending it on ourselves rather than on subsidizing Italy's defense budget. Pretty good deal if you ask me.
"No one has a say in America's defense budget." Not quite. Foreign governments who like to freeride on American defense spending lobby on the issue extensively, and the foreign policy Blob that is inexplicably concerned with not "alienating our allies" seems to think that keeping Europeans happy is an end in and of itself rather than a means to achieving another end. European governments do not want the US to withdraw its defensive umbrella because they would have to pick up the slack instead. They may not get a vote, but they sure as hell lobby about it.
"There was zero chance that the USSR was going to invade Europe." This is mere speculation. Obviously the USSR maintained the Warsaw Pact throughout the entire Cold War. The reach of the Warsaw Pact just happened, by coincidence I suppose, to end in Berlin, where American troops met Russian troops in 1945? It would have been within the USSR's interests to control all of Europe because that way, it could have kept a hostile counter-alliance like NATO off of its border and thereby achieved greater regional security. The NATO nations didn't want the USSR to become a regional hegemon and therefore entered into a mutual defense pact in order to pool their collective resources towards a common defense; in post-war Europe, the United States picked up most of the slack. After Western Europe's national economies recovered, this dynamic did not change. Hence every American President since Eisenhower has complained about Europe freeriding on American defense spending and Europe failing to meet its defense spending targets. I complain about this too because I have to pay taxes to maintain this state of affairs.
Frankly, I think Western European nations can pay for their own damned defense instead of relying on Big Daddy America to subsidize it. Yes, the squabbling tribes of Europe will probably be back to blowing each other up again in no time. It's what they always did before Big Daddy America started keeping the peace. But that's their problem, not ours.
OK I agree i skip around a lot, which is bad. Just to answer on the Warsaw Pact, it was created in response to NATO. The division of Europe was decided at Yalta. Eisenhower and Stalin lived up to the agreement to the letter. Yes there were many regrets about giving away too much. That is another discussion. I think FDR actually admired what Russia had done. He also knew that Russia was not about to pick up and attack Europe with the relatively fresh and strong American partner. Unfortunately Truman was a bit a smaller minded person and under him came the Cold War, which of course was great for the defense industries.
"because they have been freeriding on American defense spending" is complete and utter rubbish. The social state that exists in Europe was established at a time when Europe was down and out and very conscious of costs. The NHS in the UK was established immediately after WWII. The universal healthcare is cheaper than private and solves the problem better for society as a whole. Same goes with pensions, which are much higher in Europe and go back many decades before the war. You make a very common mistake which is to say that the amount spent on defense is equivalent to the contribution to what is needed as defense. Europe always spent it's fair share on defense. True, in the years after WW II there was a lot of rebuilding and during this time Europe was glad to have America as a partner. But it was not free. It was a partnership. For Europe, NATO itself was the defense. What the US spent on its defense budget had zero to do with what the Europe might have considered appropriate nor with the contributions of individual countries to NATO itself. In fact, if you look at NATO's budget, you will find that Europe spends more proportionately than the US. The reason is that for Europe, NATO is the defense. Europe has often asked to have an independent defense, but this was always blocked by the US. Europe did not have, and still does not have, any input into the American defense budget. It was NSC 68 which was the reason for the growth in the US defense budget, not "defense of Europe". The US was afraid of a recession after the war which would be caused by the deflation in defense industry spending and that is why the US has kept up its spending. Eisenhower was already aware of this and tried to warn Americans that its "Military Industrial Complex" was getting out of control. It had NOTHING, repeat NOTHING to do with defense of Europe. The Europeans realize this and are embarrassed that the US insists on the inane accusation of freeloading. But they are unable to do anything about it. It would be madness for Europe to try to compete with the US in defense spending. Can you imagine what an armed camp Europe would be if it had its own Lockheed Martin and its own Raytheon etc etc? Do you think anyone i Europe has such a vision? The Brits have a pretty large defense contractor, BEA, but no other EU country comes close, though there are several smaller players. Yet Europe together spends twice as much on defense as Russia, the only half-way "credible" threat. What is the US spending all about? Please let me know. And don't say it's about defense of Europe. It's more like the US plans to attack the rest of the world by itself. American defense spending is way out of control and it's in effect a racket on the American taxpayer. This heavy weight explains the societal problems in the US related to homelessness, lack of health insurance, lack of decent education, crumbling infrastructure and many other ills. But the one area where there is always enough money: defense. The only thing that is defended are the profits of people like Dick Cheney. And by the way, did you ever consider why America has such a budget deficit? Is it also for the defense of Europe? I often wonder where this idea of "freeloading" comes from. Is it so annoying to come to Europe and finding functioning governments offering decent services to its citizens? Is "freeloading" some explanation, rather than admitting that something is wrong at home?
Taiwan needs to do this on their own with China, similarly to what South Korea needs to do with respect to North Korea. American interference in both relationships retards realpolitik, diplomacy, and negotiations.
I think some of our allies, at least the European ones + Japan and Korea, are still awaiting our assurances after the 2018 JCPOA pullout and subsequent economic coercion to accept new unilateral US sanctions. Hawks did not seem so concerned about the fretting of our treaty-allies and strategic Asian partners then.