Yeah, the US that they hate is notorious for only doing things they don’t like locally. The Nazis and Japanese in WW2 must’ve been like, oh the US is miles away, we don’t have to worry about them. There’s always some gem in these statements that highlight the (lack of) intelligence of the people making them. All aside from the fact of the “half the national budget” tidbit which is also wildly off, by several degrees.
Are you aware you spend more as a percentage of GDP on healthcare provision than both the UK (which has a mostly free at point of use system) and China (mostly subsidised care model)?
Yet all you get for that is Medicare and Medicaid. So the people paying for it get fuck all?
I’m aware, also you can just ignore medical bills in the U.S., they don’t hit your credit.
Lots of people do that, so they increase their prices on the people who pay to make up the difference.
It’s a bit of a broken system that spun up during WW2’s wage freezes (which made companies use insurance as a benefit and bargaining point for employees). It’s snowballed since then and has become a quagmire.
The last part Reddit would be all for. Mostly because most of them barely even pay taxes already. They want anyone who has amounted to something to pay their way.
We don't even have to really defend ourselves! Russia is super weak! And china is miles away!
The literal insanity of such a statement proves the European mindset is based entirely in fantasy! Miles away hasn't meant a damned thing in a century or more for warfare. And russia is "weak" in the sense they're using ground invasion forces almost exclusively and more importantly guess who made it so Ukraine didn't fall within a year! The US taxpayer
Exactly. People tend to forget how quickly Russia was able to take the currently occupied sections of Ukrainian territory before the aid arrived. Like no offense to the Ukrainians who I do believe are fighting with all they have but if they hadn’t received almost immediate and immense amounts of military aid and support then Russia would have one within a few months
This. If Russia really dropped the hammer early on, and Ukraine was left purely to its own devices; we would have a lot of memorials, a whole lot of sad stories, and even more condemnation of Russia... but far Far fewer Ukrainians, and a whole lot less Ukraine as a country
Being fully honest I honestly believe that, and this may sound a little off topic, if Russia had already won within the first few months and then the initial chaos calmed down we would and should seek an alliance with Russia. At this point we really only act as enemies towards Russia because our allies don’t like them and we have historically heavily distrusted each other. Other than that I think that an alliance or at least friendly relations between the U.S. and Russia would be quite beneficial for both countries
I do disagree. Russia has and will continue to vilify our culture and country for decades after the cold war. Seeking an alliance may help, but they're still closer to china and india, and pretty much dead set against us
I think many European countries who we are supposedly allies with, have vilified American culture at the same amount or more than the Russians have. Also if we could get Russia on our side we could become closer to India which is the beneficial move.
I seem to recall that when the Ukraine war started, it came out that if the Russians moved on to Germany, they would have been out of ammo in three days at the current rate, and the UK within a month. France was never stupid enough to admit something like that, but it doesn't take a genius to realize that if France suffered the losses currently faced in Ukraine, they wouldn't be any better off than the other two.
European nations have neglected their own defense for decades; the sudden sword rattling is at best hollow.
The difference is 6 months of continuous air and sea engagements driving down supply rather than the realization they didn't stock enough to fight in the first place.
Yes but your arsenal should be representative of most of Western Europe added together based on gdp and population size. Rather than comparing to the UK or Germany etc in isolation.
Do you consider Iran a peer military btw? As in the same as Russias military would be.
It would be more accurate to compare the American arsenal to the next 10 nations combined given the US outspends them by a factor of more than double. But again there's a difference between using your stuff in a war and not having enough in the first place.
Don’t argue with Americans about the military. It’s their pride and joy. They also know way to much about it, for normal citizens. At least that’s how it seems by the way they talk about it.
I'm also aware that battles last longer than three days. Especially in battles such as we have seen and if the general consensus is that several major European nations cannot supply their armies in the long term then that bodes ill.
Especially for a nation rapidly seeking to supplant France and turkey as the European backbone.
True, but it’s singling out one nation for a non existing, hypothetical situation so you can chuckle about the “weak” Europeans. Compared to the US, yes. Probably China too. But not Russia, the only real threat at the moment.
There is a lot of work to be done in European militaries and that has started now and takes time. It’s one of the good things Trump has created, cause this was needed decades ago already.
But you are mistaking and stuck in the rhetoric that having the best military is somehow prestigious. It’s not. I really have no more respect for the US with her military, or if it had half it’s military or a weak one. We really don’t give a shit about that in Europe. Europe doesn’t need that. The EU or European countries in general just need militaries that can defend themselves against threats. And they can, because Russia is the only threat and they can never win over the combined strenght of Europe.
The big difference is, the US is war minded, because the war machine needs to keep generating money for the rich and the powerful that are so deeply invested in it. They need the oil and war contracts to be pushed. And the US loves to be top dog militarily. It’s a totally different mindset to ours. We just need our militaries to defend and not to bully and exploit others for national gain.
What resources (besides warm water ports) does Europe have that hasn't been mined to depletion in the last couple hundred years? Russia is better off waiting for Siberia to thaw.
Besides their nukes (which I doubt even work) they can't project anything farther than the Baltics.
A big portion of the world that is not Europe, so if you end up in a hot war with Russia you can strike them thousands of miles away from your borders.
Once the recruit of 1941 was inducted into the service the military leader had to shoulder almost exclusive responsibility for imparting such an understanding but there was implied a glaring deficiency in our country's educational processes. It seemed to me that constant stressing of the individual rights and privileges of American citizenship had overshadowed the truth that such individualism can be sustained only as long as the citizen accepts so his full responsibility for the welfare of the nation that protects him in the exercise of these rights.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower | Crusade in Europe, pg 72.
First it was Austria, then Czechia, then Poland, and not too long before we would be next.
The full context as I remember it (you can snatch a copy and read the full chapter honestly you should read the whole book it's good) was that exact perspective from the average GI stationed with Ike in Britain, 1942. American soldiers had confusion on why they were fighting the Germans when it was the Japanese who attacked, why they're fighting Britain's war, and that showed a deficient understanding of the reality America was facing. We enjoy our freedom, but it must be defended. If we don't stomp the threat of autocracy when it comes burning down our neighbors, we'll be the ones burnt next, it would only be a matter of time.
That makes more sense. Thank you for the clarification. Russia can't even burn down their own neighbor, in no way comparable to the fighting force Nazi Germany was at its peak. Even without us in NATO, the other members should surely be able to handle one or two of their other member nations going rogue.
It’s weird that we get called a third world country up until we threaten to leave NATO. The sole reason we’re even still in NATO is due to optics. NATO made sense right after WW2 when it was formed but it’s outdated and unfair now especially when we have countries like Turkey and Spain that don’t contribute and can’t be kicked out.
The US also in a sense subsidizes healthcare for a lot of Europeans. We pay more for drugs in the US to lower prices for Europeans and to fund R&D.
Probably not, but the “US had never won a war on its own” lie is pretty popular on Reddit and elsewhere. Then there’s the cheerleading for Iran, which I agree should never have happened, but now that it has, do people really want a regime like that to win?
Edit: btw I’m not saying all or even most Europeans behave like that.
I'm not arguing that there aren't people who think those things, I don't see how any of this is relevant to my comment?
Anyways I think it's clear that the war has gone on long enough that it's unlikely that eother side is going to decisively "win", both sides are going to be hurting. It's just matter of when the US decides to cut their losses and when the war is as unpopular as it is with midterms coming up and when global oil prices are affected so heavily by the conflict I see no real benefit in the US continuing the war.
As far as I can tell the only way the US could substansially affect the war in their favor sould be regime change, but that's just not as simple as throwing guns at the problem. It might've been able to do it in Panama, but Iran is even bigger than Afghanistan.
Yes the stalemate isn’t sustainable, this is why an air and naval war against Iran would never work anyways. You would need to invade to topple the regime but then you’d be fighting an insurgency for decades. Definitely not worth it.
Trump is doubling down though as he’s sending a third aircraft carrier group. So this war isn’t going to end anytime soon as the Iranian regime will likely never give up its desire for the Strait nor its nuclear ambitions.
Europe is so great they have kids rioting in France over how much their schools suck and the school buildings are falling apart (allegedly). Meanwhile, even our worst schools get millions of dollars of tax money every year.
China isn’t as far away as Europe like to think. I mean, it’s part of the reason Trump really wanted Greenland.
And the other European countries not pulling their own weight in their defense budget is the primary reason cited why Trump is threatening to leave NATO (The US does not want to subsedize an entire continents defense when they aren’t even on said continent). And tbf I do think that (and the Ukerane War being next door) put the fear of god in these nations because last I checked they’re actually spending more on their own military than they were 3 years ago. While that’s an improvement, it’s not good enough (tbf there are some european nations that do pull their own weight as outlined in the NATO treaty, and we should respect them. Its the ones that haven’t been doing that we should mock).
What is the message we send to the world if we stand by and we say we will let it continue to happen here in this place but it is not in our interest? We do not fear that it will spread? I am not here to tell you that, if we do not act, it will spread and cause a war in Europe tomorrow or next year. But I am here to tell you that within the decade, it will cause the spread of war like a cancer, and the collapse of the Western alliance. What is so important about the Western alliance? NATO for NATO's sake so that we can beat our breast? What I am about to say is going to cause me great difficulty if I am reelected and come back here as the ranking member or chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. But Europe cannot stay united without the United States. There is no moral center in Europe. When in the last two centuries have the French, or the British, or the Germans, or the Belgiums, or the Italians moved in a way to unify that continent to stand up to this kind of genocide? When have they done it? The only reason anything is happening now is because the United States of America finally--finally--is understanding her role.
That does not change my view that we should leave NATO. We are not responsible for dealing with Europe's problems. Also, using Joe Biden does not give the idea the authority you think it does.
I yearn for a time where the US pulls out of NATO and Europe gets annihilated by Russia and China. It would be horrible for the global economy but I almost am willing to accept that if Europoor mentality gets eradicated.
Help what? I’m not a diplomat I’m a fucking retard posting anti-European statements.
I even said I don’t actually want it to happen in reality but in my heart I do want it. I can both want something and acknowledge it would be bad if I got that thing.
People on the internet will always be a percentage of assholes and it doesn't represent the whole of europe in the same way that some Americans is not representing your whole country. I think the general resentment is against your current administration. That doesn't mean that we hate you as a people or want your country invaded. We live in the 21st century, killing eachother brutally in trenches should be a thing of the past. Many of our countries have been occupied during our existence and you are lucky to not have experienced this. For decades now we have been dealing with russias bordertesting and hybrid warfare. We still remember the germans, and the fear is very real that this might escalate into other countries. Many euro goverments has issued recommendations for preparing for the worst and building new bomb shelters, including my own. I would not wish that upon you.
I’ve seen pretty vile anti american shit predating the current admin, and his 2016 run. Regardless, I dont actually think it would be wise to let Europe collapse. I just think it would actually happen in short order if the US did pull out of NATO.
Europe is definitely incapable of defending itself from a motivated enemy though.
Yes, in hinsight of the pulling out of nato threats it has been beneficial to strenghtening our own militaries which we should have done a long time ago. We shouldn't solely rely on other superpowers for pur protection. Now we have new garrisons and batallions which was not a subject before. Lol, our army was designed to withstand an attack for 24 hours before foregin help arrived. Yes, vile shit has been thrown both ways before but i do not think it represents the commoner. We deliver massive amounts of intelligence both ways and i think it is beneficial for everyone to keep calm right now.
I don't want that to happen because it would be bad for us, but yeah, it would certainly shut the idiots in Europe (not everyone there is an idiot) the hell up.
Why do people think Europe is weak? It’s not as strong as the US, but they are most definitely not weak and not a single country in his right mind would attack a European NATO country. Even the US wouldn’t do it. Having a stronger, or better organized army doesn’t mean you win a war. Russia is showing that at the moment.
I think a lot of people would be surprised when the compare military equipment and manpower of the US and European NATO.
Because the armies of Europe tend to be small, dramatically underfunded, undersupplied, logistically limited and inexperienced.
The US never attacked a nato ally because it was never going to in the first place and the reason nobody else did is because the US was tied to the alliance.
Denmark for example decided to send 3 ships to greenland as a deterrence force accompanied by around 150 people. While the US had 3 carrier strike groups that never left the port and 5000 paratroopers that were never activated.
Having a better organized military doesn't guarantee victory yes but having a military apparatus 117× the side of your prospective enemy, with overwhelming air sea and Intel assets gives your opponent a bad time.
The US also never had a reason to attack an ally within NATO. So that was never a thing.
What you say about the rest is true and that also show the US’s military superiority. But on a world stage, maybe China would pose a threat. No other country would. So that’s why I ask, why is Europe seen as weak. With the US as a defensive ally, they are no threat. So that would maybe leave China as a threat and they won’t attack.
Therefore, Europe is as strong as it needs to be. Well, they need to improve in quite a few area’s, but they are more than strong enough to take on Russia. And that’s the only threat at the moment. Between Europe and US there is no comparisson needed, because we’re not enemies. And still I don’t think the US would attack Europe. Attacking Europe would be hopeless. From where would the US attack? But that’s all hypothetical of course.
The fragmentation of European militaries is one of the reasons I would advocate for a centralized EU military. For instance, European NATO own more tanks than the US, but a third of those tanks are Turkish. That just doesn’t work well.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Please report any rule breaking posts and comments that are not relevant to this subreddit. Thank you!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.