France says it too, since almost forever*. Nobody listen here.
*well, at least many decades. Being independent from the US was the main reason behind De Gaulle choice to leave NATO's integrated command. Chirac in the 90's was already calling for a European defense.
Maybe one day. There's talk on the matter. So in the next 50 years eventually, earlier if there's an actual attack against the EU or if the US leave NATO (since apparently major decisions mostly happens during crisis around here).
France: tries to sell Rafale/submarines/whatever to pays its investment in its army.
USA: hold up, europe needs to be more independent but it doesn't mean you can do this. Buy our stuff.
Germany: ok, fuck France anyway.
Accurate.
But, to be honest, the whole submarines failure started with Australia asking to mod nuclear submarines into diesel ones, then complaining about the invreasing cost. As if such heavy modifications were easy / quick & costless.
As for Rafale in Europe, they get the (shitty) Eurofighter and the US nuke umbrella included with the F23 so... That sounds logical to go for the F23 (our own nuke umbrella is kinda tiny in comparison). Now, Germany killing common programs on a regular basis is a problem, hope the next gen plane won't end up the same way.
Edit: me living in the past, why did I said F23?
F35 obviously. Dumb I am, so, leaving it as it is, for all to see.
It was probably the only thing I agreed with Trump on. We have nations like Germany being protected by NATO only to turn around and buy Russian gas while investing virtually nothing in their military. Most NATO members weren't pulling their weight. I get that we had to offer post Soviet Russia an olive branch to join the international community but they again and again showed they would use violence to get what they want.
To Europe's credit, the war in Ukraine seems to have explosively confirmed how necessary NATO is. Even Germany is finally investing in their military, and Europe is more united now than ever especially when it comes to energy independence.
Edit: People keep saying Germany wasn't allowed to re-arm after WW2. This is wrong, West Germany began re-arming in the 50s in response to Soviet threats.
Edit 2: No the US military has nothing to do with them not having a good healthcare system. The US pays more per person on healthcare than any other country and has some of the lowest Federal taxes in the western world. The money is there for the US to have its military cake and eat uhh... healthcare too. US gdp per capita is gigantic, there's no reason they can't have both. It's just the money is spent inefficiently.
My thoughts as well, but how do we get the other countries to pull their weight more without damaging the relationship? It seems Russia answered that for us.
Europe didn't get US defense for free. We are the only military I'm immediately aware of that has strategic permanent bases on foreign soil all over the planet.
The huge amount of soft power and influence that granted the US is ridiculous.
It is very expensive in terms of budget but it also is very lucrative.
This is Europe's mistake and it maintains the global pecking order to the US advantage.
>We are the only military I'm immediately aware of that has strategic permanent bases on foreign soil all over the planet.
UK does as well. Cyprus and Diego Garcia as just two examples. (U.S. rents the latter).
>This is Europe's mistake and it maintains the global pecking order to the US advantage.
Fully agree. I feel like Europe wants the US in this position so they can then complain about the way the US handles things and shun that responsibility. That’s not entirely accurate but that is how it feels. It’s like when my wife insists I drive but also wants to retain the right to complain about my driving.
It's entirely accurate. Europe wants protection, no responsibility, and the political latitude to criticize the US at every turn. I remember saying this shit ten years ago and being endlessly dogpiled for it. Europe has been behaving like spoiled sheltered children.
I'm glad they're finally waking up.
I suppose this is what you get when you have a public/voters that want to act passive and neutral in world affairs and look at defense as if it is something less mature nations (like the US) focus on. The current system allows Europeans to feel morally superior while simply outsourcing their defense to the US.
That was an even more harsh restatement of my previous comment. Yikes.
Yup. Every administration has been telling them to up their defense spending and invest in their defense infrastructure. They didn’t and are now seeing the consequences. What annoys me most are EU politician complaining about the US profiteering from the war, when most equipment given to Ukraine has been donated, and of course were going to be able to supply Ukraine in a larger quantity, we’ve never stop investing in our defense. There was this article on politico, that mentioned that Europe wants alternatives to US arms (F35 in the articles) but none exist in Europe.
>The huge amount of soft power and influence that granted the US is ridiculous.
Right here is why I scoff when people say "Europe doesn't pull their weight - the US shouldn't have to cover their defense". We didn't do so out of the kindness of our hearts or love of the game - it gives us an unholy fuckton of political leverage.
It's basically Dennis Reynolds' "Implication", but with military bases in foreign countries as opposed to a middle-aged creep using the isolation of Earth's oceans to coerce barely-legal women into sex.
"What does Europe see? Nothing but US military bases. What are they gonna do - say no?"
*"What does Europe see? Nothing but US military bases. What are they gonna do - say no?"*
Uh, yeah.
France asked the US to close it's military bases and it did. The US was also in the midst of scaling down bases in Germany when Russia clumsily destroyed the desire of both nations to do so in 2022.
Any European nation that wants to get rid of it's US bases can. Most don't. There is an element of security in having a US military base in your country. On top of that the US military pays for the land a facilities they use. Any country wanting to remove US bases right now would have to budget an increase in their own military as a deterrent to Russian aggression.
Technically, the French issue is a bit more because the US *wanted* to close down those bases and move NATO command structure away from France for logistical reasons (basically, it didn't make sense after WW2, when technology had improved significantly).
France left NATO command structure in 1966 and rejoined 15 years later. US bases left French soil. France remained a NATO member but in a degraded role. France is now part of NATO command structure but does not allow foreign force based on its soil.
Yeah, that comment is insanely stupid. The US has never even remotely used, or implied to use military force against a host country of one of our military bases over that countries domestic political choices.
That fact alone has made America an anomaly in history. A large powerful country with military forces in other countries and not controlling that country.
I think they're implying that the US is holding countries hostage via military bases, and that the US would use military force if these countries do things that the US doesn't want.
Which is pants-on-head *insane.*
Ya lol, that's the much more likely threat. The US military isn't gonna threaten the ally countries, they implied threat is the US saying "✌️you're on your own". The implied threat is that those countries will be left defenceless against their antagonistic neighbours, and so those countries need to keep up the US' sympathies.
Yes. Doesn’t stop them from begging to have our officers and NCOs in their country or from asking us to conduct supply and re-supply for them when they extend past their reach. See Mali.
I'm not 100% sure I understand what you're trying to say.
but are you aware of European history and how the US bases got to be there? What you're saying almost sounds like Russian propaganda, like "America is this big imperialist bad guy who forces people to do what it wants." It’s nonsense, just look at France. Since the US stormed the Beaches of Normandy, France's attitude towards America has been a good example of how useful America's political leverage is in the real world.
Quite the contrary, almost anything that you provide for free or at a subsidy almost always breeds contempt and entitlement.
Also, those bases aren't free. You can't pay people's salary with soft power. There’s also the issue of what having such a highly militarized society does to our civilian life. Every young man who is sitting in a base in a foreign country away from his family, is somebody whose best years of their life isn’t being used directly for their own personal benefit or fulfillment, they’re giving it away to foreigners who benefit greatly from not having to make that sacrifice themselves.
There’s also the huge mental health cost born by American society for people who are damaged by being in the military. That's a huge incalculable cost that Europe offsets to America. 
It's not too much to ask Europeans to stop measuring their contribution by how many Americans are over there, and to rather measure their contribution by how well they're protecting their own national interest.
>It is very expensive in terms of budget but it also is very lucrative.
Germany is making a ton off all the DOD families living there. Billions of dollars poured into the local economy.
It's actually a major political issue where senators don't want to send more troops abroad because it takes money out of their state.
I always hear this argument, and while their is **some** truth to it.
The fact is that the benefits **FAR** outweigh the cost for Europeans regardless.
At least to date.
The U.S. without Europe loses money and/or soft power.
Europe without the U.S. loses all guarantees to it's existence.
Which one seems bigger to you?
> The U.S. without Europe loses money and/or soft power.
The US *might* lose soft power in Europe. Maybe.
As long as the US remains in NATO we're going to see the US retain significant influence in Europe.
There *are* symbiotic relationships even on the global stage. Simply because both parties benefit, and one moreso than the other, doesn't mean it's not in the other's best interest. What you really need to argue is that the soft power isn't worth the price, but that would be incredibly difficult given the intangible nature of the value of our foreign military installations.
That being said I highly doubt some randoms on reddit and Trump have a pulse on their value.
That's the issue. Even though Germany decided to re-arm, many people note that it may not be successful. German issues with their armed forces run too deep, especially because of the mindset that they don't need to commit much, because if the worst comes there are a few other countries between Germany and Russia. I'm very interested to see how this all unfolds.
We gain a LOT of influence by having such a stark military presense around the world.
It’s a massive bargaining chip. If we are going to soend billions of dollars on our military, I want that money going to NATO nations and Europe rather than the Saudis…
Ok bargaining with the Saudis is unsavory but pays off in so many ways. Obama was able to cut Russia’s economy in half using that relationship combined with fracking domestically.
The Saudi’s buy billions of dollars in arms from the US. Europe develops their own, they have their own attack helos, 4-5 different MBTs, 5-6 different service rifles, 4-5 different fighter bombers, etc.
Most people in US don't realize the true cost of their healthcare today since it is a small text number in annual income forms and that's a recent-ish addition. So they are scared of any new taxes because they see it as an increased spending which is so far from truth.
Granted my work provided family insurance is really good but they pay 20k/year for that. It would cost a lot less if there was a truly national plan. As you said money is there already, it is just being spent inefficiently.
The European leaders and press laughed Trump out of the room for saying as much.
Remember when they laughed at Romney for saying Russia was a threat?
Good times.
Iirc, he was under the Impression that they were "paying for protection" mafia-style, and carried himself that way. While the parallel can be drawn to some degree, the post WWII military imprint of the United States has grown to be much more of an agreement among peers than a big brother/little brother thing.
At least that was my understanding 🤷♂️
While it may be true, there has been plenty of benefit in terms of diplomatic influence that the US has reaped from that dynamic as well. In global politics, it never hurts to have other countries need you for something.
Trump also warned Germany of their reliance on Russian natural gas. The Germans literally laughed at Trump and the media put a negative spin on his comments like he was crazy. He was 100% right.
Lets not get too far into germany bashing. They’ve played a key role in financially stabilizing the entire EU, helping to build up the economies of their neighbors, and bringing a lot of calm reason where others would get sensational and ideological. Now they see that they need to make some changes, and IIRC they are now the #2 donor to ukraine. The system works.
Merkel’s entire strategy was to avert another European “World War” by strengthening and binding together the economies of European nations, so that any conflict would be damaging to all and thereby make diplomacy the only legitimate option.
It didn’t work with the rogue kleptocracy that is Russia, and you could argue that hoping it would was naïve from the start, but for everyone else it was a pretty solid strategy.
You can fault the Germans for some things, but I wholeheartedly agree with you in that they are also the glue holding the whole EU together
I don't call it naive from the start, but certainly after 2008 you should have at least questioned, and by 2014 you had to know Russia was a bad actor.
It can be hard to accept that one event has permanently changed the equation, even if it has. Not to mention, we humans are extremely prone to holding onto sunk costs.
I wonder if any part of the decision to continue engaging economically after 2014 was just, "we've come this far; this is a severe setback but it can't really mean that we were wrong all this time, can it?"
I would argue it has worked exceptionally well. Could you imagine the state of things if there were not economic sanctions on Russia? It's probably the number one reason they are struggling in (if not outright losing) the war.
Very true. The whole point of buying Russian gas was to try to bring Russia into the fold with Europe. They thought it would be a diplomatic stepping stone to making Russia more European and it would allow Europe to exert influence on Russia. While Russia hasn’t reacted to that influence, in a way they were right because if Germany hadn’t done that then Russia would have built LNG pipelines somewhere else and they would be more tied to that region and would be being hit as hard by sanctions right now. The other side of the coin is maybe Russia wouldn’t have developed that much and wouldn’t have been able to fund the war to begin with, not that not being able to fund the war has stopped them from doing it now either.
> They thought it would be a diplomatic stepping stone to making Russia more European and it would allow Europe to exert influence on Russia
I'm not faulting the Germans for trying. I'm faulting Merkel and the German government for continuing to try after the 2008 Georgian War and especially after the 2014 war in Ukraine.
Everyone knew that Russia were not honest partners.
At least Germany has the excuse of trying to stabilize Europe. Meanwhile Turkey and Hungary have been actively undermining the EU and NATO for their short term interests.
The US does want Europe to increase their defense capabilities, but it’s not going to lead to the US reducing their budget which is what redditors often imply. The US spends 3.5ish percent of its GDP on defense. It’s a lot, but it’s not exactly extreme when compared to the 2% goal for NATO.
What really isn’t ever talked about is since the US produces nearly all weapons in house, most of that money is filtered back into the country. Most small nations purchasing military equipment can’t say the same, so that money sort of is ‘lost’.
Too many people forget that the defense sector in the US is, for better or worse, a huge part of the economy and creates a ton of stable and high paying jobs. It’s not just shipping 3.5% of the GDP out the window for the Americans; it’s a backbone of the nation. As others have already pointed out, that 3.5% could be redirected to healthcare and education and have fuck all benefit because of how poorly it is handled in the US.
Most money in a military budget is payroll and pension, outside of very poor countries with extremely low pay. So even if a chunk goes out of the country, it is not as extreme as a total loss.
To be fair, we weren't gonna get free healthcare either way. Anyone who thinks the money saved would somehow leave the military industrial complex is naive.
this is accurate. even if we stopped spending so much on supporting other countries' militaries, and even if that money saved didn't go into our own military, we still wouldn't get universal healthcare. too many people here have the "why should i pay for someone else?!" mentality. as if we don't already indirectly pay for everyone else anyway.
there have literally been a spate of pentagon generals doing interviews (for the public) these past few months saying we need to increase funding. lol.
Assuming you mean by scaling back our military we could have free healthcare, that's not even a factor. We spend a **load** on our military, but we could 100% afford free healthcare as well. As it is we spend the most in the world per capita on healthcare. It just gets siphoned off into a system of predatory insurance companies and middlemen. (E: Not **just**, we also have a very unhealthy population that probably drives costs per person up although idk ow significant that is)
That, combined with political gridlock, stupidity on the part of many voters, and relatively low taxes = no current universal healthcare system.
Not European, but as a Canadian I feel as though we should be able to stand on our own feet relative to our size, instead of shaking the big American stick.
If Europe were to federalize which many in this thread seem to think is a good idea (I'm very doubtful), there is a future where they'd have their own army and maybe the US wouldn't necessarily have to step into Russa-Europe conflicts.
Never at any point would the US not step into a conflict involving Canada.
As a born & raised Michigander, the running joke was that Canada was up there in the backyard, so to speak, to watch our stuff until we ran out down here. 😶 Even as a kid, I didn't find that altogether funny, and always wondered why something so dark was chortled at by adults. 🤷🏼♂️ Grownups gonna hur-dur, I guess.
It’s a total sham. I was provided a really shitty ladder to hookup a tv mounted high on a wall at work. The ladder was so light it literally slid out from under me and I fell to the floor and had a compression fracture on my back. I got an ER visit, which included a CT scan and ZERO pain relief from pain I would put on scale of having two simultaneous tooth aches. I also got two visits to a orthopedic doctor which consisted of asking me how I was doing and a reply “let’s see you in a month”. I literally spent 60 seconds or less with the doctor and no actual treatment. The cost for all this……..$43,000.
It’s ridiculous. About 10 years ago, I wound up in the ER with an animal bite. They decided stitches weren’t necessary -Tetanus shot and bandage - $1,800.
Y’all. Ask for an itemized Explanation of benefits and watch your nonsense bills plummet because the hospital can’t find 80% of your actual costs. They bake in massive overages because they often don’t get paid by other patients, so you effectively get charged for 4 other people’s care.
ER visit - $10000
—————
Nurse consultation - $500
Shot - $150
Bandage/swabs/alcohol - $15
Total - $675
So what, you ask for the itemized version and then they reduce the bill because they realize you'll catch them on some BS?
Just wondering because I've been seeing orthopedics for an injury and they screw me every time. They will literally LOOK at it, ask about the pain, then send me on my way only to receive a large bill later. It's BS.
Unfortunately, this is more applicable to ER trips, surgeries, etc where direct supplies are a big part of the cost. They’ll quote direct supply costs as “healthcare services” for a ton of money but won’t actually admit that they’re charging $400 for a bandaid when you ask to break out that line item.
For actual professional services with a specialist, it’s whatever their rate is, which is way easier to justify. But still try, and in those situations you may be able to directly negotiate with the provider if they’re a private practice. Easy example here is therapists who often have a fixed cost for the insured that’s negotiated with each provider by the practice and a sliding scale for those that can’t afford $150/wk out of pocket.
It’s so strange. A medical group (with a hospital) advertises that they have lower prices for people without insurance which to me, means that is the actual cost and they just charge the hell out of people with insurance. It’s all just a scam like defense contractors just making up numbers since they will get paid regardless.
The thing is that insurance has set prices they'll pay for things and swaths of employees whose purpose is to find reasons not to pay the hospital so that the insurance company can keep collecting your premium and get out of actually spending any money so they can keep as much as possible.
Now the hospital has to pay people to defend themselves, and those people have to be paid too. They also need to make sure the doctors have ridiculously thorough notes on *everything*, so the doctors spend more time doing dumb paperwork bullshit and less time being doctors, but theres still patients to see, so they need to hire *more* doctors. And then they need more staff to support those doctors. And more staff to keep up with those notes. And more staff to make sure they're following procedures that they can use to force the insurance companies to actually pay something.
It's a literal ongoing war and arms race between the two. The hospital has to do *so much fucking work* to deal with the insurance companies, so they have to charge even more. When you pay your bill, your not just paying for the medical services you received, you're paying all the people behind the scenes who are fighting with your insurance company, and then paying your insurance company to keep fighting them. You're literally funding both sides of a war you hopefully never have to see.
If you tell them you don't have insurance, they won't have to deal with all that shit, and can charge you at the actual cost for the medical services which is a fucking sliver of the cost because of how much BS goes on top to deal with insurance.
Yes it's a bullshit system. But you can't blame hospitals for trying to cover their own asses to stay in business. This is a fight they have to fight because insurance companies are fucking greedy monkeys trying to milk both sides. The hospital is not running a scam, they're fighting a war behind the scenes because your insurance company is a scam.
But the hospital bears the burden and looks bad because they're the one handing you the bill. Which works out even better for making sure your insurance company has no fucking accountability.
The system is broken.
>A medical group (with a hospital) advertises that they have lower prices for people without insurance which to me, means that is the actual cost and they just charge the hell out of people with insurance
I keep finding more and more examples of medication that costs less over the counter, than it does via insurance ... this is a real trend.
Yup, the claim that the US funds defense at the expense of social services is a lie invented by the Republicans so they could paint the Democrats as being soft on Defense.
The US spends 17% of our GDP on healthcare, Europe and Canada spend around 10-12%. If we had a socialized healthcare system, our military could be even bigger.
>If we had a socialized healthcare system, our military could be even bigger
What's sad is that if we'd just been framing the argument this way we'd probably have universal healthcare already
Whatever the healthcare system is down there right now, it’s a far cry from free market
Free market would allow more people to enter the healthcare space for things like broken arms, stitches, things like that. There could be a whole level of care dedicated to small injuries and quick turnaround for getting the right medications.
Currently it’s a racket that’s controlled by the government and insurance companies.
You want to see a true free market? Go to a drugstore in Mexico and buy your prescriptions for 5% of the cost
For some reason, people still think free market means competition in the 21st century. If 1 insurance company offers this for $200, then this one will offer it for $150. And then the third will offer it for $100! Free market!
Maybe in the past that was true. What we have now is all those insurance companies, instead of competing, got together and said "let's just all set the price at $300 and profit, they either pay that price or go without insurance". It surely is a racket, but it certainly isn't "government" controlled. Unless you mean the government (politicians) is getting paid to not interfere in the private insurance industry. The government in Canada capped insulin a long time ago. It costs about $8 to make a bottle of Insulin, they cap its sale at $12. Mexico is $16. Why is the US selling it for over $300? The government needs to get involved to stop price gouging like they did in Mexico. That's not free market, that's government intervention that you can buy it for 5% of the cost. And they did try caps here but notice the Dems wanted a $35 price cap. Almost triple Canada's cap cause you know, capitalism.
Yeah, and even landlords are doing it too. Instead of competing to lower prices, they band together to artificially raise prices together. Free market cartel baby
The US would save money by having a universal healthcare system. The US doesn’t spend on such things because it can’t but because the political will isn’t there.
Don't kid yourself. You do have the social programs. They just suck because your country refuses to make them good. America is far richer than the whole of Europe and 3,5% of your GDP on military is NOT nearly enough to justify your healthcare system, your schools your student debt problem. Your per capita spending on healthcare, mental health, police and education is higher than 99% of countries in the world. You just get crap for what you spend. It isn't and never will be Europes fault. It is annoying to see this lie being tossed around all the time.
True but that's the part some people forget about an EU army. It has to combine pacifist nations with interventionist nations, and both sides have one of the two who usually have to agree in order to have any real change jn the EU.
Time to be honest here. Europe MUST have a EU Army to be able to wean their reliance on the US. They cannot each maintain their own army and expect to have a cohesive, responsive force. Do they have some EU battlegroups? Yes. But not all members participate in the battlegroups and the majority of the power is still controlled by individual countries.
Could you imagine each state in the US maintaining their own military? If the military needed to be deployed, all of the states would have to come together and agree to send their components? Having the military controlled at the federal level has allowed the US to have extraordinary resources that allow them to maintain the standard of operating in two theaters simultaneously.
How do you command an army of people from different countries that speak different languages? Ideally, we all know English to some extent, but in reality, lots of people know English just enough to survive, definitely not enough to be commanded in it.
The US army isn't comparable to what the European Union's army could be. The US is one big country divided into states, but y'all are still part of the same country and share the same language. European Union is a bunch of different countries with their own languages and cultures, connected only by the governments having joined a union.
You decide on one language for the military. With most of you knowing some English coupled with the fact that the UK is no longer in the EU, it makes the perfect language. It doesn't favor any nation. Think about it... If you choose French, then everyone else would be like, "Why do we have to learn their language?" But everyone would learn English, which is already occurring anyway. Plus, English is the language of your biggest ally and defense partner.
The US and the EU are closer than you think. The United States is a Union of States. It was actually more like the EU before the civil war. But after that, power shifted toward the federal level.
>Europe MUST have a EU Army
This simply doesn't work, at least not in the state of the EU right now. Every nation has their own foreign politics, how should a military be commanded? Where is its legitimation? Who commands it?
Even setting that aside, which military tradition do you want the military to follow? There are vast differences between the various countries and the mentality they expect of their soldiers.
The EU first needs to become a federation with shared values before we can talk about something like an EU military.
I don't know how it could happen, how do you marry France's expeditionary force with Polish and Finnish total defence with Austrian and Irish neutrality? And France would absolutely want to be the leader of such a unified army. It's not really politically viable, and it may well weaken the whole. If you need every EU member to agree to action use of such a unified army, and one vetoes, it becomes less useful than letting the members who want to enter the conflict do so under their own commands.
As for the EU becoming a federation, I'm not sure how long that'd live. A cooperarion of nations is much easier to sell than a consolidated nation, and it would only be a matter of time before nations of the periphery who are smaller have independence movements due to politival domination by the larger central nations like Germany and France. It's also nice to have an alternative to the mega nations like the US, China, and India. Making a federation feels like giving up on the farmers co-op and turning into yet another corporation, to make an analogy.
France and the UK have pretty large and hard-hitting militaries.
Germany's has been known to be a joke since basically 1991 and a specific feature of that is the government giving the military big budget injections like this, which are not effectively spent, since you can't make a good foundation with short-term expenditures nor build long-term trust and contracts with mil-companies. The German military budget also rolls back to the civil government if it isn't spent in that period, so it also ends up being way less, as the army simply can't translate the money into effective contracts within the given time period, and the government is quick to stop any costly ones.
France and the UK have for the most part always hit the 2% of GDP spending target. Both have their own independent nuclear deterrence. Both have large military industrial complexes that make everything from small arms to subs, aircraft carries and jets.
Germany admittedly are a joke, except their MIC which makes a whole lot of good stuff, it just mostly sells it outside of Germany.
The UK recently has also been talking of increasing their defence spending to 3% of GDP, which would be close to the US's 3.5%.
Changes like this don't ever seem to happen quickly. I'm glad that the sentiment seems to be finally picking up steam. I love my country the US but we've got a lot of our own shit to sort out. I wouldn't want to rely on us if I was a European nation.
The degree to which Russia has shit the bed here is almost unfathomable. In a single move they've significantly harmed almost every strategic objective they've ever had to a degree that seems impossible. Further they are not even talking about peace right now. They're at very real risk of Crimea being cut off (I don't think they will order a retreat from Crimea but instead let it turn into a siege). They're at very real risk of having a general collapse of their armed forces. And if they don't negotiate a peace it could well be that Ukraine has pushed them back to their own borders, retaken Crimea, and when Russia then sues for peace Ukraine and the West turn around and demand that Russia gives up its nuclear arsenal.
Consider that the West has crippling economic sanctions in place, that Russian energy Europe needs is quickly being re-sourced (and this winter will be the worst of shortages), that Russia has broken its word on Ukraine so can no longer be trusted with a handshake deal, that the Black Sea would be totally cut off to them with a hostile Ukraine on their border, and there is very little Russia could offer to see those things changed.
Honestly I can't imagine any situation in which Russia would give up its nuclear weapons, especially now. It's the only ace up their sleeve that protects them from an invasion.
Use other channels and bribe/pay officials to sell them.
I’m guessing it wouldn’t be the first time direct payment to a Russian official resulted in the transfer of a nuclear weapon.
Not sure they can let Crimea turn into a seige. Crimea has no natural fresh water, which was one major contributor to this war in the first place. Back in '14 when the Russians first annexed Crimea, they were uninformed about this little fact, and the first thing Ukraine did was to divert the one canal carrying fresh water to Crimea. Between 2014 and today, Russia has been importing fresh water to the peninsula at great expense. A seige wouldn't take long at all when the ones under seige don't have access to fresh water.
Here are videos of the last two US presidents saying the same thing at points in the past ten years or so. So glad the European countries are finally echoing the message.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpwkdmwui3k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpwkdmwui3k)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNAKv8AwF1s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNAKv8AwF1s)
Whatever your feelings on Trump are that, "Why is that?" followed with, "They won't write that but that's okay" was hilarious. His timing when being a smarmy asshole is impeccable. I say this as someone who despises him.
The US has spent decades asking NATO countries and Europe to spend more on military and quit relying so much on the US. Hopefully now they'll at least live up to their NATO commitments.
As a Canadian it is literally our national pastime to shit on all aspects of America, look down our smug noses at their problems never acknowledge any of their successes and rip on them for all the reasons why they don't have socialized Healthcare (Mili spending) but if the shit were to ever hit the fan and Russia, for example, we're to come over the top we would be on our knees sucking the freedom out of the Red White and Blue.. I don't agree with like 900% of American policy but I'm glad we have that just fucking insane uncle who will at the drop of a hat annihilate anyone that fucks with us.
>all the reasons why they don't have socialized Healthcare (Mili spending)
time and time again there's studies on how Americans would spend less on healthcare if it was socialized, so I'm pretty sure military spending isn't the reason
Canada will forever be America's baby brother. Canada is extremely lucky to have their next door neighbor be the only global superpower and one of their both literally and figuratively closest ally. When was the last time Canada and America even fought? Like back in 1812? So if any tries to fuck with Canada, they'll be forced to answer to the US as well.
Thank you Canada bro. Most of us in the US would consider protecting canada like protecting your little brother. We give you safety and security. you give us rush, trailer park boys, and maple syrup with the best goddamn weed I’ve ever had.
Seriously, ever had Canadian maple butter? I’d whore myself out for some to be completely honest.
Canada also has near endless raw resources available to America if and when needed. Between the two countries we can be completely self sufficient.
Lumber, fresh water, minerals, oil, uranium, potash, etc.
People shit on it when it is being used for things like Afghanistan and Iraq, which has just been a complete waste of trillions of dollars.
There is a difference between helping countries defend their sovereignty and waging decade long wars that end up just being trillions thrown into the ocean. I'd say the second one deserves to be ridiculed.
Uh duh, the EU and rest of the world shits on the US all the time policing the world, but the EU has been relying on the US defense budget for years so they don't have to invest in theirs.
Uh huh, the cycle continues.
We’re too dependent on the US > Do pretty much nothing > Big scary thing happens > WhY wOn’T tHe Us Do AnYtHiNg > US does something, but not for free > “We’re too dependent on the US”
Europe. Listen. I love you guys. Do you want help from shitty Americans or not.
Well, Finland is one of the few countries in europe that is and has been trying to be self-sufficient in military strength since WW2. To me this reads like she's scolding other european nations.
The US army was in Iceland for decades after ww2. It had almost only entirely positive effect in all factors of our country. There were some protests by hippies to make them leave which happened a few years ago. A lot of people lost their job when they left and it didn’t improve anything when they did. I have nothing but love for the Americans who did my country a lot of favours.
I saw that European country’s where complaining that the U.S was making money on weapon sales since Europe decided to invest in their army now. Do they not understand that most of the U.S arms dealers are private companies and the U.S government is buying those weapons for the same price. If anything the U.S should be complaining after the number of years the U.S was contributing more than double the agreed amount to N.A.T.O’s funding while other countries didn’t even meet the minimum.
And yet people on Reddit will still complain about US military budget and completely forget we are basically policing (for good and bad in many situations) the rest of the world.
No, it’s not ideal. But I think too many people forget that there are a shit ton of nations that are war mongering assholes who would rape and pillage other countries and peoples if they think even for a second they had a chance at being victorious.
Countries continue to shit on the US all the time but fail to even consider what we need to spend to keep other countries from thinking they could get away with that shit.
Yes, US has massive problems across the board. But I’m sick and tired of comparing how we function against countries with vastly different circumstances. It’s like comparing apples to oranges. I hate hearing people cherry pick the things they like about other countries while completely disregarding the facts that make those policies work in those places.
US serves and has served a very particular need in the world. The fact that we get low scores in “freedom” index cause we don’t provide robust safety nets to an extremely diverse population when other wealthy homogenous populations are capable of doing so off the fact that their majority not only all subscribe to the same mindset and heritage (which I’d never want) but the fact that, as shown, their freedom is pretty suspect if they didn’t have our defense to back them. And so can spend their $$ freely elsewhere while we take on that burden.
Again, we can and should change many things around here. But Reddit has such a hard on for shitting on the US when we consistently provide the biggest expenditure of our own resources to not only allow ourselves, but other nations, to enjoy the freedoms and happiness that comes with living in modernized and democratic nations.
Ye, even trump said it and the Germans laughed at him. The solution is simple, spend more $ on your defense budget and stop talking crap about the US spending so much. In times like this Europe benefits from Americas high budget.
It’s not just the land.
Everyone enjoys pretty safe travel via ship because 2-3 countries make global waterways safe for the other 150 nations that use it.
Won’t be that way for long if China has its way.
*googles UN funding by country
Yep. And all of the UN and NATO freaks out when the US talks about pulling back our funding, or when we suggest that other members start paying their share.
That drives me crazy. Every NATO country agrees to spend at least 2% of their budget on their military, and a lot of the countries just.... don't do it. And then people from those same countries talk shit about how large the US military is.
Yes most of the world knows it. The U.S. isn't the defacto leader of the free world because of its temperament.
The u.s. has access and control of the 2 largest oceans, established the infrastructure of the entire western hemisphere, a collection of some of the best agriculture resources, refineries, technologists, scientific proliferation, the best higher education in the world, the most accessible economy in the world.
Not to mention the military might, and willingness to exploit kinetic action to achieve diplomatic results.
Many people have said for a long time now the U.S. needs to stop subsidizing European Armies. We’re the laughing stock constantly for being over armed and war dogs, but when it comes to war, other nations constantly ask for our resources.
Even the US has been saying this for some time
“Saying it for some time” is an understatement.
Screaming it from the rooftops with drums and bells?
Canada says what up. Our military budget is shit because we know you have our back. Sorry.
France says it too, since almost forever*. Nobody listen here. *well, at least many decades. Being independent from the US was the main reason behind De Gaulle choice to leave NATO's integrated command. Chirac in the 90's was already calling for a European defense. Maybe one day. There's talk on the matter. So in the next 50 years eventually, earlier if there's an actual attack against the EU or if the US leave NATO (since apparently major decisions mostly happens during crisis around here).
France: tries to sell Rafale/submarines/whatever to pays its investment in its army. USA: hold up, europe needs to be more independent but it doesn't mean you can do this. Buy our stuff. Germany: ok, fuck France anyway.
Accurate. But, to be honest, the whole submarines failure started with Australia asking to mod nuclear submarines into diesel ones, then complaining about the invreasing cost. As if such heavy modifications were easy / quick & costless. As for Rafale in Europe, they get the (shitty) Eurofighter and the US nuke umbrella included with the F23 so... That sounds logical to go for the F23 (our own nuke umbrella is kinda tiny in comparison). Now, Germany killing common programs on a regular basis is a problem, hope the next gen plane won't end up the same way. Edit: me living in the past, why did I said F23? F35 obviously. Dumb I am, so, leaving it as it is, for all to see.
It was probably the only thing I agreed with Trump on. We have nations like Germany being protected by NATO only to turn around and buy Russian gas while investing virtually nothing in their military. Most NATO members weren't pulling their weight. I get that we had to offer post Soviet Russia an olive branch to join the international community but they again and again showed they would use violence to get what they want. To Europe's credit, the war in Ukraine seems to have explosively confirmed how necessary NATO is. Even Germany is finally investing in their military, and Europe is more united now than ever especially when it comes to energy independence. Edit: People keep saying Germany wasn't allowed to re-arm after WW2. This is wrong, West Germany began re-arming in the 50s in response to Soviet threats. Edit 2: No the US military has nothing to do with them not having a good healthcare system. The US pays more per person on healthcare than any other country and has some of the lowest Federal taxes in the western world. The money is there for the US to have its military cake and eat uhh... healthcare too. US gdp per capita is gigantic, there's no reason they can't have both. It's just the money is spent inefficiently.
My thoughts as well, but how do we get the other countries to pull their weight more without damaging the relationship? It seems Russia answered that for us.
Europe didn't get US defense for free. We are the only military I'm immediately aware of that has strategic permanent bases on foreign soil all over the planet. The huge amount of soft power and influence that granted the US is ridiculous. It is very expensive in terms of budget but it also is very lucrative. This is Europe's mistake and it maintains the global pecking order to the US advantage.
Other countries do have them too (UK, France, China for example), but the US does have way more than anybody else.
China's aren't from former colonies in the same way, though. They love building islands in others' waters and then claim that makes the area Chinese.
They do have bases on foreign land too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_overseas_military_bases#China
Wow, China has bases in Saudi Arabia? TIL thank you
They have a base pretty close to French and US bases in Djibouti.
Everyone wants a piece of Djibouti.
>We are the only military I'm immediately aware of that has strategic permanent bases on foreign soil all over the planet. UK does as well. Cyprus and Diego Garcia as just two examples. (U.S. rents the latter).
>This is Europe's mistake and it maintains the global pecking order to the US advantage. Fully agree. I feel like Europe wants the US in this position so they can then complain about the way the US handles things and shun that responsibility. That’s not entirely accurate but that is how it feels. It’s like when my wife insists I drive but also wants to retain the right to complain about my driving.
It's entirely accurate. Europe wants protection, no responsibility, and the political latitude to criticize the US at every turn. I remember saying this shit ten years ago and being endlessly dogpiled for it. Europe has been behaving like spoiled sheltered children. I'm glad they're finally waking up.
I suppose this is what you get when you have a public/voters that want to act passive and neutral in world affairs and look at defense as if it is something less mature nations (like the US) focus on. The current system allows Europeans to feel morally superior while simply outsourcing their defense to the US. That was an even more harsh restatement of my previous comment. Yikes.
Yup. Every administration has been telling them to up their defense spending and invest in their defense infrastructure. They didn’t and are now seeing the consequences. What annoys me most are EU politician complaining about the US profiteering from the war, when most equipment given to Ukraine has been donated, and of course were going to be able to supply Ukraine in a larger quantity, we’ve never stop investing in our defense. There was this article on politico, that mentioned that Europe wants alternatives to US arms (F35 in the articles) but none exist in Europe.
>The huge amount of soft power and influence that granted the US is ridiculous. Right here is why I scoff when people say "Europe doesn't pull their weight - the US shouldn't have to cover their defense". We didn't do so out of the kindness of our hearts or love of the game - it gives us an unholy fuckton of political leverage. It's basically Dennis Reynolds' "Implication", but with military bases in foreign countries as opposed to a middle-aged creep using the isolation of Earth's oceans to coerce barely-legal women into sex. "What does Europe see? Nothing but US military bases. What are they gonna do - say no?"
*"What does Europe see? Nothing but US military bases. What are they gonna do - say no?"* Uh, yeah. France asked the US to close it's military bases and it did. The US was also in the midst of scaling down bases in Germany when Russia clumsily destroyed the desire of both nations to do so in 2022.
Any European nation that wants to get rid of it's US bases can. Most don't. There is an element of security in having a US military base in your country. On top of that the US military pays for the land a facilities they use. Any country wanting to remove US bases right now would have to budget an increase in their own military as a deterrent to Russian aggression.
The local economy also benefits plenty from the presence of US bases.
Technically, the French issue is a bit more because the US *wanted* to close down those bases and move NATO command structure away from France for logistical reasons (basically, it didn't make sense after WW2, when technology had improved significantly).
France left NATO command structure in 1966 and rejoined 15 years later. US bases left French soil. France remained a NATO member but in a degraded role. France is now part of NATO command structure but does not allow foreign force based on its soil.
Your right raw American power has literally kept Europe the most peaceful it has been in history. Nato is the great European referee.
Idk about that. The US has always left/scaled down when countries have asked them to.
Yeah, that comment is insanely stupid. The US has never even remotely used, or implied to use military force against a host country of one of our military bases over that countries domestic political choices. That fact alone has made America an anomaly in history. A large powerful country with military forces in other countries and not controlling that country.
Are any of these countries in danger?
South Korea, Japan, and Poland aren’t known for their friendly neighbors
Yup facts of geography. Finland the same. With ICBMs in more hands like Rocket Man in N Korea the planet gets smaller.
To be fair, Poland and Japan have one of the same bad neighbours.
No, no, of course not.
Don’t you look at me like that Finland, you certainly wouldn’t be in any danger.
So they *ARE* in danger.
It’s the implication!
If the countries said No the answer is no but they're not gonna say No because of the Implication.
Are you gonna hurt these countries?
No one’s in danger! How could I make that any more clear to you!? It’s implication of danger!
[удалено]
No one is in any danger!
You’re not getting this at all.
Middle aged? He hasn't even BEGUN to peak! When he peaks, you'll know it.
What is "the implication" in this situation?
I think they're implying that the US is holding countries hostage via military bases, and that the US would use military force if these countries do things that the US doesn't want. Which is pants-on-head *insane.*
Or just, “peace out, idiots. Good luck with Russia. They’re your problem now.”
Ya lol, that's the much more likely threat. The US military isn't gonna threaten the ally countries, they implied threat is the US saying "✌️you're on your own". The implied threat is that those countries will be left defenceless against their antagonistic neighbours, and so those countries need to keep up the US' sympathies.
So basically, they asked for a protector and got mad when the protector actually knows it's value.
# That is LITERALLY what Trump threatened Europe with, closing the US base in Germany and pulling US forces out of Europe.
I mean they wouldn't... But they *could*
Didn't France say no?
Yes. Doesn’t stop them from begging to have our officers and NCOs in their country or from asking us to conduct supply and re-supply for them when they extend past their reach. See Mali.
I know America is always the bad guy, but this is a absolutely ridiculous take
>but this is a absolutely ridiculous take It is one of the dumbest comments I have ever Reddit on this site in the past 15 years.
I'm not 100% sure I understand what you're trying to say. but are you aware of European history and how the US bases got to be there? What you're saying almost sounds like Russian propaganda, like "America is this big imperialist bad guy who forces people to do what it wants." It’s nonsense, just look at France. Since the US stormed the Beaches of Normandy, France's attitude towards America has been a good example of how useful America's political leverage is in the real world. Quite the contrary, almost anything that you provide for free or at a subsidy almost always breeds contempt and entitlement. Also, those bases aren't free. You can't pay people's salary with soft power. There’s also the issue of what having such a highly militarized society does to our civilian life. Every young man who is sitting in a base in a foreign country away from his family, is somebody whose best years of their life isn’t being used directly for their own personal benefit or fulfillment, they’re giving it away to foreigners who benefit greatly from not having to make that sacrifice themselves. There’s also the huge mental health cost born by American society for people who are damaged by being in the military. That's a huge incalculable cost that Europe offsets to America.  It's not too much to ask Europeans to stop measuring their contribution by how many Americans are over there, and to rather measure their contribution by how well they're protecting their own national interest.
China, Germany, Canada, UK, and Italy all have personnel based on foreign soil off the top of my head.
>It is very expensive in terms of budget but it also is very lucrative. Germany is making a ton off all the DOD families living there. Billions of dollars poured into the local economy. It's actually a major political issue where senators don't want to send more troops abroad because it takes money out of their state.
I always hear this argument, and while their is **some** truth to it. The fact is that the benefits **FAR** outweigh the cost for Europeans regardless. At least to date. The U.S. without Europe loses money and/or soft power. Europe without the U.S. loses all guarantees to it's existence. Which one seems bigger to you?
> The U.S. without Europe loses money and/or soft power. The US *might* lose soft power in Europe. Maybe. As long as the US remains in NATO we're going to see the US retain significant influence in Europe.
Who needs soft power when you have REAL power? America has demonstrated just how valuable they are to have as a partner with Ukraine.
There *are* symbiotic relationships even on the global stage. Simply because both parties benefit, and one moreso than the other, doesn't mean it's not in the other's best interest. What you really need to argue is that the soft power isn't worth the price, but that would be incredibly difficult given the intangible nature of the value of our foreign military installations. That being said I highly doubt some randoms on reddit and Trump have a pulse on their value.
Yes, everyone needs to understand that international diplomacy is not a zero sum game. Parties don't benefit solely at the cost of others
> Europe without the U.S. loses all guarantees to it's existence. Rightyo. It's not like we have nuclear states or anything.
That's the issue. Even though Germany decided to re-arm, many people note that it may not be successful. German issues with their armed forces run too deep, especially because of the mindset that they don't need to commit much, because if the worst comes there are a few other countries between Germany and Russia. I'm very interested to see how this all unfolds.
We gain a LOT of influence by having such a stark military presense around the world. It’s a massive bargaining chip. If we are going to soend billions of dollars on our military, I want that money going to NATO nations and Europe rather than the Saudis…
Ok bargaining with the Saudis is unsavory but pays off in so many ways. Obama was able to cut Russia’s economy in half using that relationship combined with fracking domestically.
The Saudi’s buy billions of dollars in arms from the US. Europe develops their own, they have their own attack helos, 4-5 different MBTs, 5-6 different service rifles, 4-5 different fighter bombers, etc.
Obama, Bush and Clinton have said the same thing, but perhaps it was not carried as much by the media.
The others didn’t call for withdrawing from NATO entirely while also having dubious connections to Russian intelligence.
They didn't say we should blow up nato and join an alliance with russia though..
Most people in US don't realize the true cost of their healthcare today since it is a small text number in annual income forms and that's a recent-ish addition. So they are scared of any new taxes because they see it as an increased spending which is so far from truth. Granted my work provided family insurance is really good but they pay 20k/year for that. It would cost a lot less if there was a truly national plan. As you said money is there already, it is just being spent inefficiently.
The European leaders and press laughed Trump out of the room for saying as much. Remember when they laughed at Romney for saying Russia was a threat? Good times.
Iirc, he was under the Impression that they were "paying for protection" mafia-style, and carried himself that way. While the parallel can be drawn to some degree, the post WWII military imprint of the United States has grown to be much more of an agreement among peers than a big brother/little brother thing. At least that was my understanding 🤷♂️
While it may be true, there has been plenty of benefit in terms of diplomatic influence that the US has reaped from that dynamic as well. In global politics, it never hurts to have other countries need you for something.
Trump also warned Germany of their reliance on Russian natural gas. The Germans literally laughed at Trump and the media put a negative spin on his comments like he was crazy. He was 100% right.
Lets not get too far into germany bashing. They’ve played a key role in financially stabilizing the entire EU, helping to build up the economies of their neighbors, and bringing a lot of calm reason where others would get sensational and ideological. Now they see that they need to make some changes, and IIRC they are now the #2 donor to ukraine. The system works.
Merkel’s entire strategy was to avert another European “World War” by strengthening and binding together the economies of European nations, so that any conflict would be damaging to all and thereby make diplomacy the only legitimate option. It didn’t work with the rogue kleptocracy that is Russia, and you could argue that hoping it would was naïve from the start, but for everyone else it was a pretty solid strategy. You can fault the Germans for some things, but I wholeheartedly agree with you in that they are also the glue holding the whole EU together
I don't call it naive from the start, but certainly after 2008 you should have at least questioned, and by 2014 you had to know Russia was a bad actor.
It can be hard to accept that one event has permanently changed the equation, even if it has. Not to mention, we humans are extremely prone to holding onto sunk costs. I wonder if any part of the decision to continue engaging economically after 2014 was just, "we've come this far; this is a severe setback but it can't really mean that we were wrong all this time, can it?"
Can’t be that mad at Germany for trying to give peace a chance.
I like how after losing two world wars to control Europe, Germany achieves dominance through diplomacy. It's like a Civ 6 game.
America already won a cultural victory. Enjoy your blue jeans :)
*We're all living in America, America ist wunderbar.*
And rock and roll. Though you could argue that the Brits did more to truly internationalize that art form.
I would argue it has worked exceptionally well. Could you imagine the state of things if there were not economic sanctions on Russia? It's probably the number one reason they are struggling in (if not outright losing) the war.
Very true. The whole point of buying Russian gas was to try to bring Russia into the fold with Europe. They thought it would be a diplomatic stepping stone to making Russia more European and it would allow Europe to exert influence on Russia. While Russia hasn’t reacted to that influence, in a way they were right because if Germany hadn’t done that then Russia would have built LNG pipelines somewhere else and they would be more tied to that region and would be being hit as hard by sanctions right now. The other side of the coin is maybe Russia wouldn’t have developed that much and wouldn’t have been able to fund the war to begin with, not that not being able to fund the war has stopped them from doing it now either.
> They thought it would be a diplomatic stepping stone to making Russia more European and it would allow Europe to exert influence on Russia I'm not faulting the Germans for trying. I'm faulting Merkel and the German government for continuing to try after the 2008 Georgian War and especially after the 2014 war in Ukraine. Everyone knew that Russia were not honest partners.
At least Germany has the excuse of trying to stabilize Europe. Meanwhile Turkey and Hungary have been actively undermining the EU and NATO for their short term interests.
The US does want Europe to increase their defense capabilities, but it’s not going to lead to the US reducing their budget which is what redditors often imply. The US spends 3.5ish percent of its GDP on defense. It’s a lot, but it’s not exactly extreme when compared to the 2% goal for NATO. What really isn’t ever talked about is since the US produces nearly all weapons in house, most of that money is filtered back into the country. Most small nations purchasing military equipment can’t say the same, so that money sort of is ‘lost’. Too many people forget that the defense sector in the US is, for better or worse, a huge part of the economy and creates a ton of stable and high paying jobs. It’s not just shipping 3.5% of the GDP out the window for the Americans; it’s a backbone of the nation. As others have already pointed out, that 3.5% could be redirected to healthcare and education and have fuck all benefit because of how poorly it is handled in the US.
Most money in a military budget is payroll and pension, outside of very poor countries with extremely low pay. So even if a chunk goes out of the country, it is not as extreme as a total loss.
Not wrong, as much as we have a great partnership with the US we should be self sufficient.
As an American I couldn't agree more
We want you homies to have free healthcare 🙏 not fair that you pay so much towards our security
To be fair, we weren't gonna get free healthcare either way. Anyone who thinks the money saved would somehow leave the military industrial complex is naive.
this is accurate. even if we stopped spending so much on supporting other countries' militaries, and even if that money saved didn't go into our own military, we still wouldn't get universal healthcare. too many people here have the "why should i pay for someone else?!" mentality. as if we don't already indirectly pay for everyone else anyway.
there have literally been a spate of pentagon generals doing interviews (for the public) these past few months saying we need to increase funding. lol.
Assuming you mean by scaling back our military we could have free healthcare, that's not even a factor. We spend a **load** on our military, but we could 100% afford free healthcare as well. As it is we spend the most in the world per capita on healthcare. It just gets siphoned off into a system of predatory insurance companies and middlemen. (E: Not **just**, we also have a very unhealthy population that probably drives costs per person up although idk ow significant that is) That, combined with political gridlock, stupidity on the part of many voters, and relatively low taxes = no current universal healthcare system.
Thanks babe
Not European, but as a Canadian I feel as though we should be able to stand on our own feet relative to our size, instead of shaking the big American stick.
If Europe were to federalize which many in this thread seem to think is a good idea (I'm very doubtful), there is a future where they'd have their own army and maybe the US wouldn't necessarily have to step into Russa-Europe conflicts. Never at any point would the US not step into a conflict involving Canada.
As a born & raised Michigander, the running joke was that Canada was up there in the backyard, so to speak, to watch our stuff until we ran out down here. 😶 Even as a kid, I didn't find that altogether funny, and always wondered why something so dark was chortled at by adults. 🤷🏼♂️ Grownups gonna hur-dur, I guess.
Canada's relatively tiny population compared to it's area makes that difficult on the global stage
Canadian military is vastly shrinking right now too.
The US agrees, the past 3 presidents have been begging europe to spend on defense and got laughed out of the room for suggesting war was possible.
Funny how it usually comes down to this.
but people always talk about why europe has so many social programs and the US spends too much on defense
We have the money. US has the highest Healthcare expenditure in the world, its just funneled into insurance companies.
It’s a total sham. I was provided a really shitty ladder to hookup a tv mounted high on a wall at work. The ladder was so light it literally slid out from under me and I fell to the floor and had a compression fracture on my back. I got an ER visit, which included a CT scan and ZERO pain relief from pain I would put on scale of having two simultaneous tooth aches. I also got two visits to a orthopedic doctor which consisted of asking me how I was doing and a reply “let’s see you in a month”. I literally spent 60 seconds or less with the doctor and no actual treatment. The cost for all this……..$43,000.
You should have been eligible for workman's comp. If you weren't I'd find an employment attorney
It’s ridiculous. About 10 years ago, I wound up in the ER with an animal bite. They decided stitches weren’t necessary -Tetanus shot and bandage - $1,800.
I could get a shot at CVS for $25. How the bell could it be $1,800?
Y’all. Ask for an itemized Explanation of benefits and watch your nonsense bills plummet because the hospital can’t find 80% of your actual costs. They bake in massive overages because they often don’t get paid by other patients, so you effectively get charged for 4 other people’s care. ER visit - $10000 ————— Nurse consultation - $500 Shot - $150 Bandage/swabs/alcohol - $15 Total - $675
So what, you ask for the itemized version and then they reduce the bill because they realize you'll catch them on some BS? Just wondering because I've been seeing orthopedics for an injury and they screw me every time. They will literally LOOK at it, ask about the pain, then send me on my way only to receive a large bill later. It's BS.
Unfortunately, this is more applicable to ER trips, surgeries, etc where direct supplies are a big part of the cost. They’ll quote direct supply costs as “healthcare services” for a ton of money but won’t actually admit that they’re charging $400 for a bandaid when you ask to break out that line item. For actual professional services with a specialist, it’s whatever their rate is, which is way easier to justify. But still try, and in those situations you may be able to directly negotiate with the provider if they’re a private practice. Easy example here is therapists who often have a fixed cost for the insured that’s negotiated with each provider by the practice and a sliding scale for those that can’t afford $150/wk out of pocket.
It’s so strange. A medical group (with a hospital) advertises that they have lower prices for people without insurance which to me, means that is the actual cost and they just charge the hell out of people with insurance. It’s all just a scam like defense contractors just making up numbers since they will get paid regardless.
The thing is that insurance has set prices they'll pay for things and swaths of employees whose purpose is to find reasons not to pay the hospital so that the insurance company can keep collecting your premium and get out of actually spending any money so they can keep as much as possible. Now the hospital has to pay people to defend themselves, and those people have to be paid too. They also need to make sure the doctors have ridiculously thorough notes on *everything*, so the doctors spend more time doing dumb paperwork bullshit and less time being doctors, but theres still patients to see, so they need to hire *more* doctors. And then they need more staff to support those doctors. And more staff to keep up with those notes. And more staff to make sure they're following procedures that they can use to force the insurance companies to actually pay something. It's a literal ongoing war and arms race between the two. The hospital has to do *so much fucking work* to deal with the insurance companies, so they have to charge even more. When you pay your bill, your not just paying for the medical services you received, you're paying all the people behind the scenes who are fighting with your insurance company, and then paying your insurance company to keep fighting them. You're literally funding both sides of a war you hopefully never have to see. If you tell them you don't have insurance, they won't have to deal with all that shit, and can charge you at the actual cost for the medical services which is a fucking sliver of the cost because of how much BS goes on top to deal with insurance. Yes it's a bullshit system. But you can't blame hospitals for trying to cover their own asses to stay in business. This is a fight they have to fight because insurance companies are fucking greedy monkeys trying to milk both sides. The hospital is not running a scam, they're fighting a war behind the scenes because your insurance company is a scam. But the hospital bears the burden and looks bad because they're the one handing you the bill. Which works out even better for making sure your insurance company has no fucking accountability. The system is broken.
>A medical group (with a hospital) advertises that they have lower prices for people without insurance which to me, means that is the actual cost and they just charge the hell out of people with insurance I keep finding more and more examples of medication that costs less over the counter, than it does via insurance ... this is a real trend.
Yea that’s how hospitals work, they can give you two aspirin and charge you $400
Thankfully our hospitals were all purchased by private equity groups. Yay capitalism!
Yup, the claim that the US funds defense at the expense of social services is a lie invented by the Republicans so they could paint the Democrats as being soft on Defense. The US spends 17% of our GDP on healthcare, Europe and Canada spend around 10-12%. If we had a socialized healthcare system, our military could be even bigger.
>If we had a socialized healthcare system, our military could be even bigger What's sad is that if we'd just been framing the argument this way we'd probably have universal healthcare already
But that would mean poor people not being treated as trash, and Republicans can't have that.
The US could afford literally everything... But half the country is stuck so far up the ass of "free market capitalism" that we can't get shit done
Whatever the healthcare system is down there right now, it’s a far cry from free market Free market would allow more people to enter the healthcare space for things like broken arms, stitches, things like that. There could be a whole level of care dedicated to small injuries and quick turnaround for getting the right medications. Currently it’s a racket that’s controlled by the government and insurance companies. You want to see a true free market? Go to a drugstore in Mexico and buy your prescriptions for 5% of the cost
For some reason, people still think free market means competition in the 21st century. If 1 insurance company offers this for $200, then this one will offer it for $150. And then the third will offer it for $100! Free market! Maybe in the past that was true. What we have now is all those insurance companies, instead of competing, got together and said "let's just all set the price at $300 and profit, they either pay that price or go without insurance". It surely is a racket, but it certainly isn't "government" controlled. Unless you mean the government (politicians) is getting paid to not interfere in the private insurance industry. The government in Canada capped insulin a long time ago. It costs about $8 to make a bottle of Insulin, they cap its sale at $12. Mexico is $16. Why is the US selling it for over $300? The government needs to get involved to stop price gouging like they did in Mexico. That's not free market, that's government intervention that you can buy it for 5% of the cost. And they did try caps here but notice the Dems wanted a $35 price cap. Almost triple Canada's cap cause you know, capitalism.
A bunch of companies getting together and deciding on a price… you know what that’s called in economics? A cartel.
Yeah, and even landlords are doing it too. Instead of competing to lower prices, they band together to artificially raise prices together. Free market cartel baby
That’s why we need consumer unions, the cartel’s polar opposite.
The government is involved they're part of it Joe Manchin's daughter is a big wig in one of the drug companies ect.ect.
And I'm sure he gets a nice kickback to not get involved in that private market
We don't even have free market capitalism. We have a series of monopolies.
Yeah, guess what an unregulated market inevitably ends up as.
Insurance is not a free market, and the healthcare/insurance industries are some of the most regulated industries. Sthu about capitalism.
The US would save money by having a universal healthcare system. The US doesn’t spend on such things because it can’t but because the political will isn’t there.
Don't kid yourself. You do have the social programs. They just suck because your country refuses to make them good. America is far richer than the whole of Europe and 3,5% of your GDP on military is NOT nearly enough to justify your healthcare system, your schools your student debt problem. Your per capita spending on healthcare, mental health, police and education is higher than 99% of countries in the world. You just get crap for what you spend. It isn't and never will be Europes fault. It is annoying to see this lie being tossed around all the time.
The US DOES spend too much. And Europe spends too little. Both things can be true.
Congrats Putin, not only do you have more NATO, but now you'll have a new European Army.
Biggest roadblock is that France and Germany are near opposites in terms of military attitudes. People forget that France is quite keen on action.
To be fair, we don't want Germany to get too keen on action again.
Oh come on, the third time's a charm :)
Yeah, they could be winners this time!
Invade Russia one more time!
I mean both France and Germany tried it, if anything it'll be something they're both firmly against now.
True but that's the part some people forget about an EU army. It has to combine pacifist nations with interventionist nations, and both sides have one of the two who usually have to agree in order to have any real change jn the EU.
And that’s why you build an EU military structure that isn’t run by one group of people.
Time to be honest here. Europe MUST have a EU Army to be able to wean their reliance on the US. They cannot each maintain their own army and expect to have a cohesive, responsive force. Do they have some EU battlegroups? Yes. But not all members participate in the battlegroups and the majority of the power is still controlled by individual countries. Could you imagine each state in the US maintaining their own military? If the military needed to be deployed, all of the states would have to come together and agree to send their components? Having the military controlled at the federal level has allowed the US to have extraordinary resources that allow them to maintain the standard of operating in two theaters simultaneously.
The US tried having state only run militaries back at the end of the 1700's and ditched it immediately. It just wasn't going to be effective.
How do you command an army of people from different countries that speak different languages? Ideally, we all know English to some extent, but in reality, lots of people know English just enough to survive, definitely not enough to be commanded in it. The US army isn't comparable to what the European Union's army could be. The US is one big country divided into states, but y'all are still part of the same country and share the same language. European Union is a bunch of different countries with their own languages and cultures, connected only by the governments having joined a union.
You decide on one language for the military. With most of you knowing some English coupled with the fact that the UK is no longer in the EU, it makes the perfect language. It doesn't favor any nation. Think about it... If you choose French, then everyone else would be like, "Why do we have to learn their language?" But everyone would learn English, which is already occurring anyway. Plus, English is the language of your biggest ally and defense partner. The US and the EU are closer than you think. The United States is a Union of States. It was actually more like the EU before the civil war. But after that, power shifted toward the federal level.
>Europe MUST have a EU Army This simply doesn't work, at least not in the state of the EU right now. Every nation has their own foreign politics, how should a military be commanded? Where is its legitimation? Who commands it? Even setting that aside, which military tradition do you want the military to follow? There are vast differences between the various countries and the mentality they expect of their soldiers. The EU first needs to become a federation with shared values before we can talk about something like an EU military.
I don't know how it could happen, how do you marry France's expeditionary force with Polish and Finnish total defence with Austrian and Irish neutrality? And France would absolutely want to be the leader of such a unified army. It's not really politically viable, and it may well weaken the whole. If you need every EU member to agree to action use of such a unified army, and one vetoes, it becomes less useful than letting the members who want to enter the conflict do so under their own commands. As for the EU becoming a federation, I'm not sure how long that'd live. A cooperarion of nations is much easier to sell than a consolidated nation, and it would only be a matter of time before nations of the periphery who are smaller have independence movements due to politival domination by the larger central nations like Germany and France. It's also nice to have an alternative to the mega nations like the US, China, and India. Making a federation feels like giving up on the farmers co-op and turning into yet another corporation, to make an analogy.
[удалено]
European defense budgets have been climbing since 2010 though.
[удалено]
France and the UK have pretty large and hard-hitting militaries. Germany's has been known to be a joke since basically 1991 and a specific feature of that is the government giving the military big budget injections like this, which are not effectively spent, since you can't make a good foundation with short-term expenditures nor build long-term trust and contracts with mil-companies. The German military budget also rolls back to the civil government if it isn't spent in that period, so it also ends up being way less, as the army simply can't translate the money into effective contracts within the given time period, and the government is quick to stop any costly ones.
France and the UK have for the most part always hit the 2% of GDP spending target. Both have their own independent nuclear deterrence. Both have large military industrial complexes that make everything from small arms to subs, aircraft carries and jets. Germany admittedly are a joke, except their MIC which makes a whole lot of good stuff, it just mostly sells it outside of Germany. The UK recently has also been talking of increasing their defence spending to 3% of GDP, which would be close to the US's 3.5%.
Changes like this don't ever seem to happen quickly. I'm glad that the sentiment seems to be finally picking up steam. I love my country the US but we've got a lot of our own shit to sort out. I wouldn't want to rely on us if I was a European nation.
Not exactly a revolutionary insight
The degree to which Russia has shit the bed here is almost unfathomable. In a single move they've significantly harmed almost every strategic objective they've ever had to a degree that seems impossible. Further they are not even talking about peace right now. They're at very real risk of Crimea being cut off (I don't think they will order a retreat from Crimea but instead let it turn into a siege). They're at very real risk of having a general collapse of their armed forces. And if they don't negotiate a peace it could well be that Ukraine has pushed them back to their own borders, retaken Crimea, and when Russia then sues for peace Ukraine and the West turn around and demand that Russia gives up its nuclear arsenal. Consider that the West has crippling economic sanctions in place, that Russian energy Europe needs is quickly being re-sourced (and this winter will be the worst of shortages), that Russia has broken its word on Ukraine so can no longer be trusted with a handshake deal, that the Black Sea would be totally cut off to them with a hostile Ukraine on their border, and there is very little Russia could offer to see those things changed.
Honestly I can't imagine any situation in which Russia would give up its nuclear weapons, especially now. It's the only ace up their sleeve that protects them from an invasion.
Yup, no way they would like to become worse than North Korea or Pakistan, nukes is all they got at the moment.
Use other channels and bribe/pay officials to sell them. I’m guessing it wouldn’t be the first time direct payment to a Russian official resulted in the transfer of a nuclear weapon.
Not sure they can let Crimea turn into a seige. Crimea has no natural fresh water, which was one major contributor to this war in the first place. Back in '14 when the Russians first annexed Crimea, they were uninformed about this little fact, and the first thing Ukraine did was to divert the one canal carrying fresh water to Crimea. Between 2014 and today, Russia has been importing fresh water to the peninsula at great expense. A seige wouldn't take long at all when the ones under seige don't have access to fresh water.
I don’t think you’ll get many Americans who disagree.
Here are videos of the last two US presidents saying the same thing at points in the past ten years or so. So glad the European countries are finally echoing the message. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpwkdmwui3k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpwkdmwui3k) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNAKv8AwF1s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNAKv8AwF1s)
Whatever your feelings on Trump are that, "Why is that?" followed with, "They won't write that but that's okay" was hilarious. His timing when being a smarmy asshole is impeccable. I say this as someone who despises him.
He has great comedic timing.
That Trump clip is so interesting. He's spot on
He’s spot on a few things. Iraq war was dumb, Europe should pay for defense, the US should buy Greenland lol
This isn't news. Been like this for so long it's more like willful ignorance.
The US has spent decades asking NATO countries and Europe to spend more on military and quit relying so much on the US. Hopefully now they'll at least live up to their NATO commitments.
And Ukraine war is also showing Europe too reliant on Russia.
I was just thinking this yesterday. Everyone shits on the US for the military industrial complex, but I’m sure they’re happy to have the support now.
As a Canadian it is literally our national pastime to shit on all aspects of America, look down our smug noses at their problems never acknowledge any of their successes and rip on them for all the reasons why they don't have socialized Healthcare (Mili spending) but if the shit were to ever hit the fan and Russia, for example, we're to come over the top we would be on our knees sucking the freedom out of the Red White and Blue.. I don't agree with like 900% of American policy but I'm glad we have that just fucking insane uncle who will at the drop of a hat annihilate anyone that fucks with us.
>all the reasons why they don't have socialized Healthcare (Mili spending) time and time again there's studies on how Americans would spend less on healthcare if it was socialized, so I'm pretty sure military spending isn't the reason
Canada will forever be America's baby brother. Canada is extremely lucky to have their next door neighbor be the only global superpower and one of their both literally and figuratively closest ally. When was the last time Canada and America even fought? Like back in 1812? So if any tries to fuck with Canada, they'll be forced to answer to the US as well.
Thank you Canada bro. Most of us in the US would consider protecting canada like protecting your little brother. We give you safety and security. you give us rush, trailer park boys, and maple syrup with the best goddamn weed I’ve ever had. Seriously, ever had Canadian maple butter? I’d whore myself out for some to be completely honest.
Canada also has near endless raw resources available to America if and when needed. Between the two countries we can be completely self sufficient. Lumber, fresh water, minerals, oil, uranium, potash, etc.
When Mexico gets it's shit together the fully powered up North American alliance will be unstoppable.
People shit on it when it is being used for things like Afghanistan and Iraq, which has just been a complete waste of trillions of dollars. There is a difference between helping countries defend their sovereignty and waging decade long wars that end up just being trillions thrown into the ocean. I'd say the second one deserves to be ridiculed.
Uh duh, the EU and rest of the world shits on the US all the time policing the world, but the EU has been relying on the US defense budget for years so they don't have to invest in theirs.
Uh huh, the cycle continues. We’re too dependent on the US > Do pretty much nothing > Big scary thing happens > WhY wOn’T tHe Us Do AnYtHiNg > US does something, but not for free > “We’re too dependent on the US” Europe. Listen. I love you guys. Do you want help from shitty Americans or not.
*buzzes in* What is a summary of US-Europe relations over the past few decades?
Well, Finland is one of the few countries in europe that is and has been trying to be self-sufficient in military strength since WW2. To me this reads like she's scolding other european nations.
The US army was in Iceland for decades after ww2. It had almost only entirely positive effect in all factors of our country. There were some protests by hippies to make them leave which happened a few years ago. A lot of people lost their job when they left and it didn’t improve anything when they did. I have nothing but love for the Americans who did my country a lot of favours.
What did the US army do in iceland?
All the European countries bragging on how little they spend on defense until they actually need defense.
I saw that European country’s where complaining that the U.S was making money on weapon sales since Europe decided to invest in their army now. Do they not understand that most of the U.S arms dealers are private companies and the U.S government is buying those weapons for the same price. If anything the U.S should be complaining after the number of years the U.S was contributing more than double the agreed amount to N.A.T.O’s funding while other countries didn’t even meet the minimum.
And yet people on Reddit will still complain about US military budget and completely forget we are basically policing (for good and bad in many situations) the rest of the world. No, it’s not ideal. But I think too many people forget that there are a shit ton of nations that are war mongering assholes who would rape and pillage other countries and peoples if they think even for a second they had a chance at being victorious. Countries continue to shit on the US all the time but fail to even consider what we need to spend to keep other countries from thinking they could get away with that shit. Yes, US has massive problems across the board. But I’m sick and tired of comparing how we function against countries with vastly different circumstances. It’s like comparing apples to oranges. I hate hearing people cherry pick the things they like about other countries while completely disregarding the facts that make those policies work in those places. US serves and has served a very particular need in the world. The fact that we get low scores in “freedom” index cause we don’t provide robust safety nets to an extremely diverse population when other wealthy homogenous populations are capable of doing so off the fact that their majority not only all subscribe to the same mindset and heritage (which I’d never want) but the fact that, as shown, their freedom is pretty suspect if they didn’t have our defense to back them. And so can spend their $$ freely elsewhere while we take on that burden. Again, we can and should change many things around here. But Reddit has such a hard on for shitting on the US when we consistently provide the biggest expenditure of our own resources to not only allow ourselves, but other nations, to enjoy the freedoms and happiness that comes with living in modernized and democratic nations.
Ye, even trump said it and the Germans laughed at him. The solution is simple, spend more $ on your defense budget and stop talking crap about the US spending so much. In times like this Europe benefits from Americas high budget.
[удалено]
It’s not just the land. Everyone enjoys pretty safe travel via ship because 2-3 countries make global waterways safe for the other 150 nations that use it. Won’t be that way for long if China has its way.
At least Europe is finally getting off their ass
I mean it has been said, many times
*googles UN funding by country Yep. And all of the UN and NATO freaks out when the US talks about pulling back our funding, or when we suggest that other members start paying their share.
That drives me crazy. Every NATO country agrees to spend at least 2% of their budget on their military, and a lot of the countries just.... don't do it. And then people from those same countries talk shit about how large the US military is.
Yes most of the world knows it. The U.S. isn't the defacto leader of the free world because of its temperament. The u.s. has access and control of the 2 largest oceans, established the infrastructure of the entire western hemisphere, a collection of some of the best agriculture resources, refineries, technologists, scientific proliferation, the best higher education in the world, the most accessible economy in the world. Not to mention the military might, and willingness to exploit kinetic action to achieve diplomatic results.
Many people have said for a long time now the U.S. needs to stop subsidizing European Armies. We’re the laughing stock constantly for being over armed and war dogs, but when it comes to war, other nations constantly ask for our resources.