"Trump is following a playbook written for him by Christian White Nationalists."

[BeBMan]

Truman made it painfully clear in the establishment of NATO that it would only be viable if the burden were shared, Ike was more concerned with trying to draw down US contribution but he noted that NATO would be destabilized if the US assumed a disproportionate share of the defence expenditures, JFK returned to pressing everyone else to pony up more including the Germans whom he made quite clear would need to field a serious capable military much larger than had been the case, LBJ was especially insistent on increased NATO partner spending following France's withdrawal from the command structure, in 1973 Nixon laid out 5% of GDP as a minimal acceptable commitment from NATO partners, Ford doubled down on that request and Carter might have been the outlier in that instead of requesting relatively more from NATO partners he loudly advocated a 3% annual increase from all members including the US (so perhaps he could be regarded to not be begging for more relative partner spending), Every time Reagan opened his mouth regarding NATO he loudly complained of the inadequacy of NATO partner defense spending frequently noting that overall the rest of them weren't even achieving a 2% of GDP goal and certainly from his presidency on the 2% of GDP metric was frequently cited even if it was not made into a treaty or official obligation there was a change from largely backchannel pressure to increasingly public communications of dissatisfaction and pleading. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama they all repeated the need for NATO partners to step up if NATO was going to make any kind of sense for the US. In any event Whether it was US presidents' job to remind them or not, the fact was that the US was putting a lot more into NATO than it was getting out and everyone else seemed to be just fine with that. They did in fact speak up and were politely ignored.

In the early 1960ies NATO countries spent more, incl. western Germany reaching almost 5% (4.9 in 1963)

The late 60ies are the start of detente so it went down again, to roughly 3%. In 1990 it was still 2.5. Only after 1990/91 it went down seriously below 2.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=DE

[Geronimo]

Still propaganda. Shall we have a look at manpower eh?

1.9 million in EU + almost 200k for the UK

vs

1.3 million in the US

I think you've been watching a bit too much Fox News there. And we're not in a permanent, paranoid war footing like your own country. Will do you well not to repeat Trump soundbites and look at the data instead.

in modern war it's budget.

[N35t0r]

Are you seriously suggesting that the composition of a NATO member's immigration profile factors into the relative defense weight contributed to the alliance by that member? tell me more about how that works.

So if France had illegally invaded Colombia and caused a refugee crisis in the US, you'd think it would be fine for France to then demand the US spend more money on meeting it's climate goals?

(Well, I guess it's a ridiculous question, since the US has withdrawn from the Paris climate agreement, and any huge surge of irregular migrants on the southern border would very probably just be gunned down.)

bull****. The EU gives ample forum and opportunity alongside NATO to broker specialization of MIC amongst each other. it's ludicrous to assert that it's less painful for large countries to meet such goals than for smaller countries.

What are you smoking? Do you know how much a latest-generation fighter development program cost? The US will happily subsidize it's own MIC to the tune of billions of dollars, but hardly spend a cent on other countries'.

Besides, why would Europe want to spend so much on a military? The greatest threat it's facing, Russia, is bogged down attacking a Ukraine that got leftovers from the bottom of the barrel. Poland could take Russia on by themselves if it wasn't for the nukes.

Which brings me back to your ridiculous nuke Hawaii scenario. Who the **** would just nuke Hawaii? Any nation-state that does will get turned to glass in the 30 minutes it takes for the missiles to get there (or less if the US decides to use boomer missiles). What use is a conventional military in a case like that? The only country dumb enough to send soldiers into irradiated territory is Russia.
In case it's not a nation-state, then Europe already went to war with you in Afghanistan, and in thanks they got freedom fries and now threats of invading Greenland.

Well, I guess Europe really needs the military to defend itself from US aggression, that's true.

[Geronimo]

What are you smoking? Do you know how much a latest-generation fighter development program cost? The US will happily subsidize it's own MIC to the tune of billions of dollars, but hardly spend a cent on other countries'.

Besides, why would Europe want to spend so much on a military? The greatest threat it's facing, Russia, is bogged down attacking a Ukraine that got leftovers from the bottom of the barrel. Poland could take Russia on by themselves if it wasn't for the nukes.

Which brings me back to your ridiculous nuke Hawaii scenario. Who the **** would just nuke Hawaii? Any nation-state that does will get turned to glass in the 30 minutes it takes for the missiles to get there (or less if the US decides to use boomer missiles). What use is a conventional military in a case like that? The only country dumb enough to send soldiers into irradiated territory is Russia.
In case it's not a nation-state, then Europe already went to war with you in Afghanistan, and in thanks they got freedom fries and now threats of invading Greenland.

Well, I guess Europe really needs the military to defend itself from US aggression, that's true.

There is nothing "happily" about spending billions on defence. That is exactly the problem. The US was eating a grossly disproportionate share of the defence expenditures. You seem to assume that's some natural consequence of the US being a bigger country and spending more on defence.

The real problem I'm trying to draw attention to here is that with relatively lower partner defence budgets and especially given much larger partner exposure to potential threats what motive did the US have in remaining in NATO? The grown ups in the oval office had a tougher and tougher sell for NATO and mutlilateralism in general the more glaring the contrast in defence capability and contribution becomes.

[N35t0r]

There is nothing "happily" about spending billions on defence. That is exactly the problem. The US was eating a grossly disproportionate share of the defence expenditures. You seem to assume that's some natural consequence of the US being a bigger country and spending more on defence.

The real problem I'm trying to draw attention to here is that with relatively lower partner defence budgets and especially given much larger partner exposure to potential threats what motive did the US have in remaining in NATO? The grown ups in the oval office had a tougher and tougher sell for NATO and mutlilateralism in general the more glaring the contrast in defence capability and contribution becomes.

The US spent the last half of the 20th century invading every****ingwhere. Even after the USSR fell. You guys are addicted to your MIC and to waving your army around. If the intent was just defense, you wouldn't need half as much as you do.

You're talking like the US has been sending troops to cover Europe from waves of invasions, while in reality Europe's biggest threat is a joke and instead it's been Europeans who have been dying for the US.

[Provost Harrison]

Cuban missile crisis, or any total nuclear war scenario, I think may qualify as existential.

Well this refers to the invocation of article 5 after the 9/11 attacks, which certainly was not existential.

[Geronimo]

The US spent the last half of the 20th century invading every****ingwhere. Even after the USSR fell. You guys are addicted to your MIC and to waving your army around. If the intent was just defense, you wouldn't need half as much as you do.

You're talking like the US has been sending troops to cover Europe from waves of invasions, while in reality Europe's biggest threat is a joke and instead it's been Europeans who have been dying for the US.

and you're talking like the US public isn't getting seriously fed up with all of that world police adventure BS. The consequence is someone like Trump dumping all that diplomatic capital overboard to pander to that sentiment. There may well be parties and individuals "Addicted" to the MIC... but not the US electorate.

[Geronimo]

Well this refers to the invocation of article 5 after the 9/11 attacks, which certainly was not existential.

I would also add that Europe would have had a pretty good shot of heading off Bush invoking article 5 if they had had credible defence posture sans US. Europe should have invested more in defence for decades now. they didn't and it not only directly weakened the alliance it also weakened its justification for existing from a US perspective.

[giblets]

How much of US military spending is actually relevant to NATO? During the Vietnam War a lot of it was irrelevant.

[Aeson]

There is nothing "happily" about spending billions on defence. That is exactly the problem. The US was eating a grossly disproportionate share of the defence expenditures. You seem to assume that's some natural consequence of the US being a bigger country and spending more on defence.

The real problem I'm trying to draw attention to here is that with relatively lower partner defence budgets and especially given much larger partner exposure to potential threats what motive did the US have in remaining in NATO? The grown ups in the oval office had a tougher and tougher sell for NATO and mutlilateralism in general the more glaring the contrast in defence capability and contribution becomes.

Geopolitics and trade.

The US has benefited more from the general geopolitical/trade landscape since WWII than any other nation. Withdrawing from our leadership position will just allow some other nation to take the mantle with all it's advantages.

All our problems are self inflicted. Stupid unnecessary wars. Stupidly expensive healthcare. Stupid "lesser of two evils" politics. Stupid antiscience. Stupid wealth inequality. Stupid racism/xenophobia.

Adding stupid isolationism and trade wars isn't going to help.

[-Jrabbit]

Trump isn't a White Nationalist or Christian (of any sort). But he craves being worshipped, and he gets it from those groups.

They wrote this playbook for him in the hope he can bring about a Christian theocracy that at "worst" (for them) is predominantly white. Now, maybe he's too incompetent to do so, or maybe there's enough spine left in Congress and the courts, or the US populace, to stop him, but that's the road he's chosen to follow.

Getting back to Aeson's original point, he fails to fold in a key reality, being that all the political stuff is much more transactional than deliberately evil. Trump is (aguably) post-political, and certainly post-moral. He cut his deal with the evangelicals and their ilk over abortion, and he's simply paying the piper -- in a currency that he could not care less about. Similarly with other single-issue blocs. What we're witnessing this time around is actually a corporate takeover, more of a leveraged buyout (technically, of Trump) by a mix of billionaires and multinationals (and their affiliates) who similarly bargained for keys to the kingdom in exchange for ensuring his re-ascendance.

[Provost Harrison]

I would also add that Europe would have had a pretty good shot of heading off Bush invoking article 5 if they had had credible defence posture sans US. Europe should have invested more in defence for decades now. they didn't and it not only directly weakened the alliance it also weakened its justification for existing from a US perspective.

Possibly but we were sympathetic to your plight. Massively so. I don't think anyone in Europe was thinking in quite such a Machiavellian sense and was supportive. A few lines in the sand were crossed when it came to the (re)invasion of Iraq but, like a loyal poodle, Blair made it possible. And I think that has set in sequence a set of events that has lead to this point and for my country, finally, questioning the legitimacy of our special relation, especially now. Personally, and I speak for many, consider it to be null and void. It was only ever a convenience if we're honest about it.

I think we can all be wise in hindsight and to see this outcome this far down the line was impossible (I think in the early 00s western democracy seemed unassailable, that none could ever fall, especially not the US, regardless of the circumstances). Pure hubris in hindsight on all of our behalf.

[Provost Harrison]

Geopolitics and trade.

The US has benefited more from the general geopolitical/trade landscape since WWII than any other nation. Withdrawing from our leadership position will just allow some other nation to take the mantle with all it's advantages.

All our problems are self inflicted. Stupid unnecessary wars. Stupidly expensive healthcare. Stupid "lesser of two evils" politics. Stupid antiscience. Stupid wealth inequality. Stupid racism/xenophobia.

Adding stupid isolationism and trade wars isn't going to help.

Well China certainly smells blood in the water, and I'd say, slowly, the rest of the free world is starting to realign sans USA. It took one month to reach this point of a complete demolition of the US's diplomatic currency amongst its allies. And the geopolitical shift looks very, very bad for the US, after all, we were all close allies and it is tantamount to a swift and sharp betrayal, pivoting almost on a point in terms of position. With China or Russia they are a known entity and no trust was there. With the US it is a bitter betrayal and you will be punished for it.

[Geronimo]

Well China certainly smells blood in the water, and I'd say, slowly, the rest of the free world is starting to realign sans USA. It took one month to reach this point of a complete demolition of the US's diplomatic currency amongst its allies. And the geopolitical shift looks very, very bad for the US, after all, we were all close allies and it is tantamount to a swift and sharp betrayal, pivoting almost on a point in terms of position. With China or Russia, they are a known entity and no trust was there. With the US it is a bitter betrayal, and you will be punished for it.

I would say the only thing holding back the punishment at the moment is waiting to see how deeply the actions follow the words. If Trump didn't further follow through on any of his betrayals the fallout might end with general exclusion from the highest levels of trade and strategic planning (the ones that require the highest level of trust as well as influence). The meeting with Putin and the promise of tariffs on allies (especially with such ridiculous short advance warning) have sealed those outcomes. If Trump actually follows through on these tariffs or if he sanctions Ukraine or helps Russia vs Ukraine in any direct way, he will transition from those consequences to outright hostile responses. If instead, he doesn't follow through and those who already act as enemies of the US force him to reveal his threats as only bluffs there will still be a lasting additional harm of zero US diplomatic credibility at any level for the rest of his term at least. There is no route forward for Trump that doesn't result in harm all out of proportion to "wins" he and his supporters are going to be trumpeting. I don't understand how the money and powers behind the throne failed to curb him and I'll especially never understand why he won a major party nomination. It just doesn't make sense. But then ape-**** insanity becoming reality seems to have been a recurring theme since Brexit at least.

I would also add that while it will probably be vastly more satisfying to punish the US it would probably be a huge mistake on the part of the allied democracies. The same thing that made the swift betrayal possible will also make it largely reversible. Wait until the end of Trump's legal term to really move to punish the US, assuming he doesn't step down at that time. Instead, the allied democracies should focus on enough short-term reversible retaliation to demonstrate that the bullying betrayals aren't paying off. The primary *emergency* focus needs to be on a swift united verbal set of ultimatums of their own along with a demonstration of will and organization intended to serve as some of that short-term reversible retaliation which will demonstrate what the US would really be up against. I believe even Trump could be thrown off of his game by such a demonstration of unity. If successful, the post-Trump US could even be brought back into an even stronger western alliance than the one Trump began to leave.

The US may currently piss off the allied democracies the most right now, but if it does not become another authoritarian regime, it will be much easier to deal with than the authoritarian adversaries.

Keep your eye on the ball of actual power and avoid being moved by sentiments like vengeance for betrayal. You can't afford it.

[Provost Harrison]

I would say the only thing holding back the punishment at the moment is waiting to see how deeply the actions follow the words. If Trump didn't further follow through on any of his betrayals the fallout might end with general exclusion from the highest levels of trade and strategic planning (the ones that require the highest level of trust as well as influence). The meeting with Putin and the promise of tariffs on allies (especially with such ridiculous short advance warning) have sealed those outcomes. If Trump actually follows through on these tariffs or if he sanctions Ukraine or helps Russia vs Ukraine in any direct way, he will transition from those consequences to outright hostile responses. If instead, he doesn't follow through and those who already act as enemies of the US force him to reveal his threats as only bluffs there will still be a lasting additional harm of zero US diplomatic credibility at any level for the rest of his term at least. There is no route forward for Trump that doesn't result in harm all out of proportion to "wins" he and his supporters are going to be trumpeting. I don't understand how the money and powers behind the throne failed to curb him and I'll especially never understand why he won a major party nomination. It just doesn't make sense. But then ape-**** insanity becoming reality seems to have been a recurring theme since Brexit at least.

I would also add that while it will probably be vastly more satisfying to punish the US it would probably be a huge mistake on the part of the allied democracies. The same thing that made the swift betrayal possible will also make it largely reversible. Wait until the end of Trump's legal term to really move to punish the US, assuming he doesn't step down at that time. Instead, the allied democracies should focus on enough short-term reversible retaliation to demonstrate that the bullying betrayals aren't paying off. The primary *emergency* focus needs to be on a swift united verbal set of ultimatums of their own along with a demonstration of will and organization intended to serve as some of that short-term reversible retaliation which will demonstrate what the US would really be up against. I believe even Trump could be thrown off of his game by such a demonstration of unity. If successful, the post-Trump US could even be brought back into an even stronger western alliance than the one Trump began to leave.

The US may currently piss off the allied democracies the most right now, but if it does not become another authoritarian regime, it will be much easier to deal with than the authoritarian adversaries.

Keep your eye on the ball of actual power and avoid being moved by sentiments like vengeance for betrayal. You can't afford it.

I'm not talking about punishment being literally inflicted but being the consequence of actions and a sudden, forced shift in geopolitics almost akin to an extinction level event on an ecosystem. Trump's moves have been repugnant to all around and no one wants to be involved in that. From governments to individuals deciding what products to buy, where to go on holiday next, who to go to for their next consignment of military equipment and systems. All turning away from the US. Those military bases in Europe previously thought to be those of an ally with everyone's best interests at heart? Now seen as a very real internal threat. Who knows when they could turn at the behest of Trump? Who can trust your equipment to not be compromised when you are actively collaborating with enemies of the free world?

But if Trump follows through on his words it proves he is consistent. And traitorous and untrustworthy. If he doesn't then he's still untrustworthy. Either way, no one can rely on the US, and that is going to hurt.

And good luck with the end of his term, if we have moved this far in a month, what does 4 years hold in store? Even if the man himself is gone (he is old, he is not going to be around for that long) this is a new order in the US which has irrevocably changed your political landscape. Political purges are going on, puppets being placed in prominent positions. So another step for the rest of the world is damage limitation and quickly due to the volatility of the situation - and the man. Getting the hell away from the US before anything worse happens. To be associated with this, what next sleight from an ally will incur the US's wrath? It results in one inevitable truth, the US cannot be trusted on any level. All of your checks and balances have failed (I mean when you have the political appointing the judiciary directly in this manner then this can happen). And no one wants to be at the mercy of your, let's not mince our words here, dictatorship. Only a dictator can make such direct orders and for them to go virtually unchallenged. And to have such an erratic dictator too. I don't think it is a stretch to describe your country as looking like a banana republic at the moment.