Coup attempt in Turkey

[Razgovory]

I don't think wringing your hands about free riders is particularly helpful in this case.

[Tamas]

I think as well we fall into this trap of "Well, if we bail on them, then we lose whatever influence we have..." which just means that we have no leverage, since the alternative is always "Shit is better than nothing, so have a dosing of that!".

At some point, as Trump would say, you *must* be willing to walk away, or the other party will always win in any negotiation.

Right now, NATO is pretty sure the US will never walk away, so why should they meet their obligations?

I don't even know if NATO makes sense if they all DID meet their obligations.

Yeah, but this thing goes both ways: sure the militaries of most European NATO members are an utter joke, and yes, they can only get away with that because the US is willing to do everything for them.

But that leaves all those states subordinate to the US in most if not all foreign military matters, and reduces their diplomatic power play options very close to zero.

If France Germany etc. had their military independence, the US would have to worry about them packing it up and moving in with Russia over an issue or two, and suddenly you find yourself in much higher military spending just to keep up with all possibilities.

[OttoVonBismarck]

In what case? In the case of analyzing whether NATO membership makes sense for the United States? I think free riders are one of the more egregious problems with NATO, but by no means is it the biggest. The biggest problem with NATO is America is now largely responsible for conducting the interventionist military policy of Europe (when Europe is inclined to intervene in things.) This is a serious problem. I also think the people that hear any antipathy toward NATO imagine some crazy Trumpian "flip a switch" and leave scenario, it wouldn't need to be that we.

We just announce we're scaling back our commitments in NATO and that region of the world. I think we still have like 60,000 soldiers in Germany alone. I'd just slowly start reducing that while also increasing deployed forces in Poland and the Baltics. My end goal would be no more than 30,000 American soldiers in continental Europe, with essentially all of them stationed in Poland or further East.

What that does is gives us the ability to say, when Europe wants to pressure us to start fighting in the MENA region again to simply say, "Sorry, our forces in Europe are of a size to satisfy defensive requirements of the Alliance, we cannot increase deployments to this part of the world to facilitate interventions in the MENA region." Now, if America decides, of our own, that we need to intervene, then sure, we will, but we cannot be Europe's Army. I'm fine helping Europe defensively, but not allowing them force projection capabilities they aren't willing to pay for.

America is often mocked for spending so much on defense, but the reality is you have to spend a lot on defense to project force. Russia spends 5%, we only spend a little under 4% (on a much larger GDP than Russia's), I don't think European countries need to spend 5x as much as they're spending now. But I do think  a region of like 500m people (NATO sans the U.S. and Turkey is a little over 500m), with a huge GDP, needs to spend some significantly more than they do now. That's my opinion. Maybe those countries disagree--that's their prerogative. But if they want to continue overseas interventions they need to build a military force capable of engaging in them. If not, then so be it. But that should not be America's role.

America in the 21st century absolutely needs to pivot to Asia. The "West" is weaker than it should be because America has to work on two fronts, because more than half of the West's people won't even defend themselves or take care of their back yard. If we didn't have to baby sit shit in Europe's obvious sphere of influence we'd be in a far better position to more robustly work with longstanding Asian allies like Japan and South Korea, and more deeply engage with emerging ones like Vietnam (and longstanding but strained allies like the Philippines.)

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think as well we fall into this trap of "Well, if we bail on them, then we lose whatever influence we have..." which just means that we have no leverage, since the alternative is always "Shit is better than nothing, so have a dosing of that!".

At some point, as Trump would say, you *must* be willing to walk away, or the other party will always win in any negotiation.

Right now, NATO is pretty sure the US will never walk away, so why should they meet their obligations?

I don't even know if NATO makes sense if they all DID meet their obligations.

Yeah, but this thing goes both ways: sure the militaries of most European NATO members are an utter joke, and yes, they can only get away with that because the US is willing to do everything for them.

But that leaves all those states subordinate to the US in most if not all foreign military matters, and reduces their diplomatic power play options very close to zero.

If France Germany etc. had their military independence, the US would have to worry about them packing it up and moving in with Russia over an issue or two, and suddenly you find yourself in much higher military spending just to keep up with all possibilities.

That's not realistic. Germany already wants to bend over for Russia at every provocation, and has many times in the past. I'm curious as to what "foreign military matters" the European NATO states and Russia would see eye to eye on. Invading and destabilizing states on the Russian periphery? Maybe the Euro NATO allies would be okay with ignoring it, but if so that's their choice. We've mostly ignored it ourselves until it hit Ukraine.

Europe already has pretty strong economic ties to Russia and that is reflected in their decision making. I don't think it's anything but nonsense to suggest America would be in any serious danger of some Euro-Russian alliance on any matters of strategic importance. Europeans were screaming in the streets when the U.S. invaded Iraq to depose a monstrous dictator, I cannot imagine European politicians being on board with aggressive Russian expansion into countries that, by requirement would be democratic (since most of Russia's obvious expansion targets are established democracies.)

[Zanza]

I'll use my home country as an example. Germany wouldn't do more with its military than now even if it would spend 10% of its GDP on defense and had a million men under arms. The issue that really splits NATO is not spending, but willingness to intervene abroad. Which is just not there in most European countries. As far as defense is concerned, NATO would still be an impregnable fortress for all external foes even if the US would also lower its defense spending to 1.5% of GDP or so. So if you just consider territorial defense of the NATO states as the point of NATO, what is done is sufficient to deter all potential foes. If you expect NATO to be a tool for further geopolitical strategies, it fails because not all of its members share that view of it.

I personally think that Germany for example should be more assertive and spend a bit more on defense. No idea about the 2% as that seems arbitrary, but we should make clear that we are committed to defending the Baltics. Maybe by stationing a larger force than the 1000 men we currently have there (although that's prohibited under the NATO-Russia agreement).

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'll use my home country as an example. Germany wouldn't do more with its military than now even if it would spend 10% of its GDP on defense and had a million men under arms. The issue that really splits NATO is not spending, but willingness to intervene abroad. Which is just not there in most European countries. As far as defense is concerned, NATO would still be an impregnable fortress for all external foes even if the US would also lower its defense spending to 1.5% of GDP or so. So if you just consider territorial defense of the NATO states as the point of NATO, what is done is sufficient to deter all potential foes. If you expect NATO to be a tool for further geopolitical strategies, it fails because not all of its members share that view of it.

I personally think that Germany for example should be more assertive and spend a bit more on defense. No idea about the 2% as that seems arbitrary, but we should make clear that we are committed to defending the Baltics. Maybe by stationing a larger force than the 1000 men we currently have there (although that's prohibited under the NATO-Russia agreement).

And that's actually fine, if the Euro NATO members do not want to engage in interventionism, they shouldn't. But America has been literally pulled into intervening in Europe's region of influence solely because you could not on your own. Stuff like Libya, the expanded war in Syria, the Balkans in the 90s, those are all examples of where America had to intervene largely because our European allies wanted us to; if those allies really don't want to intervene in foreign conflicts then they should not expect American soldiers to fight and die to intervene for you, simple as that.

[Zanza]

That's not realistic. Germany already wants to bend over for Russia at every provocation, and has many times in the past.

Germany had way more exposure to the sanctions against Russia than any other country besides the direct neighbors of Russia (Baltics, Finland) and yet stood for them and worked towards keeping them (against Italy or Greece if my memory serves). And if my recollection is correct, it was Germany that led all the diplomatic initiatives to resolve that the Ukraine crisis.

[Berkut]

I think as well we fall into this trap of "Well, if we bail on them, then we lose whatever influence we have..." which just means that we have no leverage, since the alternative is always "Shit is better than nothing, so have a dosing of that!".

At some point, as Trump would say, you *must* be willing to walk away, or the other party will always win in any negotiation.

Right now, NATO is pretty sure the US will never walk away, so why should they meet their obligations?

I don't even know if NATO makes sense if they all DID meet their obligations.

Yeah, but this thing goes both ways: sure the militaries of most European NATO members are an utter joke, and yes, they can only get away with that because the US is willing to do everything for them.

But that leaves all those states subordinate to the US in most if not all foreign military matters, and reduces their diplomatic power play options very close to zero.

If France Germany etc. had their military independence, the US would have to worry about them packing it up and moving in with Russia over an issue or two, and suddenly you find yourself in much higher military spending just to keep up with all possibilities.

I don't think that is even a remote worry.

Germany and France are not aligned with the US because NATO, they are aligned with the US because our interests and values are aligned. That will not change.

[LaCroix]

america being willing and capable of fighting and dying for other countries increases our global influence

[OttoVonBismarck]

america being willing and capable of fighting and dying for other countries increases our global influence

Influence that helps America to what end?

[Zanza]

We just announce we're scaling back our commitments in NATO and that region of the world. I think we still have like 60,000 soldiers in Germany alone.

Most of those are not there to defend Germany though. My hometown has the US Africa Command in it. You're welcome to stay, but I feel like this is more to further American geostrategic goals rather than area defense.

I'd just slowly start reducing that while also increasing deployed forces in Poland and the Baltics

That would violate the NATO-Russia agreement of 1997 (or so).

I'm fine helping Europe defensively, but not allowing them force projection capabilities they aren't willing to pay for.

Concur.

Russia spends [...] I don't think European countries need to spend 5x as much as they're spending now. But I do think  a region of like 500m people (NATO sans the U.S. and Turkey is a little over 500m), with a huge GDP, needs to spend some significantly more than they do now. That's my opinion.

We already outspend Russia significantly.

But if they want to continue overseas interventions they need to build a military force capable of engaging in them.

Not particularly interested.

[Zanza]

And that's actually fine, if the Euro NATO members do not want to engage in interventionism, they shouldn't. But America has been literally pulled into intervening in Europe's region of influence solely because you could not on your own. Stuff like Libya, the expanded war in Syria, the Balkans in the 90s, those are all examples of where America had to intervene largely because our European allies wanted us to; if those allies really don't want to intervene in foreign conflicts then they should not expect American soldiers to fight and die to intervene for you, simple as that.

Full agreement.

[Zanza]

Germany and France are not aligned with the US because NATO, they are aligned with the US because our interests and values are aligned. That will not change.

Russia is a market, America is a friend and partner.

[LaCroix]

america being willing and capable of fighting and dying for other countries increases our global influence

Influence that helps America to what end?

trade agreements, security, etc. all the benefits of being a superpower. a superpower can't be isolationist because then it loses the global influence that helps maintain that superpower status.

[Zanza]

Stuff like Libya, the expanded war in Syria, the Balkans in the 90s, those are all examples of where America had to intervene largely because our European allies wanted us to; if those allies really don't want to intervene in foreign conflicts then they should not expect American soldiers to fight and die to intervene for you, simple as that.

Libya and Syria I agree on.

I am honestly too young to remember the exact details of the Balkan wars. I know that Germany back then was still in its totally non-interventionist post-WW2 stance and it was domestically impossible to think of using German soldiers abroad. I am also not sure if a German military intervention a year or two after reunification would have been welcomed by the other European countries. I doubt that as back then a lot of people were still quite sceptical about the power of a reunified Germany.