What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Admiral Yi]

Since the US received most of those "joint benefits", it seems fair that they also paid more.

The US received more benefit from Russia not invading Poland and the Baltics than say, Germany did?  Please elaborate.

[Razgovory]

Well, I suppose it is time for you guys to step up and reap those immense benefits.

Oh they are.

And we will suffer.

But you get to feel smug. So that's good.

I doubt we will suffer that much.  Canada didn't suffer when we did the work, I imagine we'll be fine when Canada picks up our slack.  We would only suffer if they didn't pick up the slack, and of course that wouldn't happen.

You'll suffer because you won't have a friend in the world, just business partners.

Is that what it is like being a Canadian?

No? For example, Canadian tourists never pretend to be another nationality when traveling abroad, and they don't need to adorn their belongings with another country's flag because of how bad their country sucks.

Oh, then Valmy must be wrong.  Good luck on building up your military-industrial complex!  You are going to step up and defend the seas, right?  Stop genocide, be world policeman and so on?

[Zoupa]

Oh, then Valmy must be wrong.  Good luck on building up your military-industrial complex!  You are going to step up and defend the seas, right?  Stop genocide, be world policeman and so on?

Well, we won't murder random Venezuelan fishermen. So that's a start.

[Zoupa]

Since the US received most of those "joint benefits", it seems fair that they also paid more.

The US received more benefit from Russia not invading Poland and the Baltics than say, Germany did?  Please elaborate.

I thought you were talking about the general benefits of being a superpower. Usually military expenditure is part of that.

[Admiral Yi]

I thought you were talking about the general benefits of being a superpower. Usually military expenditure is part of that.

I was talking about the benefits of NATO.  Do you have anything you'd like to say on that subject?

Although I would also be interested in hearing your thoughts on the benefits of being a superpower and how those benefits are distributed.

[HVC]

Although I would also be interested in hearing your thoughts on the benefits of being a superpower and how those benefits are distributed.

Your theory being that America shouldered the task out of pure altruism?

[Zoupa]

I thought you were talking about the general benefits of being a superpower. Usually military expenditure is part of that.

I was talking about the benefits of NATO.  Do you have anything you'd like to say on that subject?

NATO has allowed the U.S. to project power globally (kosovo, Afghanistant were NATO missions), protect its economic interests (economies of scales), and shape the international order (HQ and all governing instances are all overstaffed with US personnel shaping policy) with far less cost and opposition than unilateral dominance would have reuired. Allies gained security, the U.S. gained hegemony.

[Razgovory]

Oh, then Valmy must be wrong.  Good luck on building up your military-industrial complex!  You are going to step up and defend the seas, right?  Stop genocide, be world policeman and so on?

Well, we won't murder random Venezuelan fishermen. So that's a start.

We won't know until you build a navy, will we?  You don't kill people not because you are more moral but because you are simply impotent.  There is a difference between harmless and merciful.  But I think you made a very good point about how American travelers sometimes claim to be Canadians.  I'm tired of people pissing on us for keeping the world from spinning out of control.  I think that you guys can take up that responsibility for a while.  So, with America in decline, when ARE you going to step up?  2070?  2080?  The clock is ticking, and genocide keeps happening.  Every day you waste is another child murdered.

[Tonitrus]

I thought you were talking about the general benefits of being a superpower. Usually military expenditure is part of that.

I was talking about the benefits of NATO.  Do you have anything you'd like to say on that subject?

NATO has allowed the U.S. to project power globally (kosovo, Afghanistant were NATO missions), protect its economic interests (economies of scales), and shape the international order (HQ and all governing instances are all overstaffed with US personnel shaping policy) with far less cost and opposition than unilateral dominance would have reuired. Allies gained security, the U.S. gained hegemony.

Kosovo (and Sebia/Bosnia before that) were US power projection?  I thought we were working together to stop mass murder/genocide?

I would contend that they were very much in US/Europe's interests, not part of any US hegemony.

[Admiral Yi]

NATO has allowed the U.S. to project power globally (kosovo, Afghanistant were NATO missions), protect its economic interests (economies of scales), and shape the international order (HQ and all governing instances are all overstaffed with US personnel shaping policy) with far less cost and opposition than unilateral dominance would have reuired. Allies gained security, the U.S. gained hegemony.

Kosovo I strongly dispute as a US interest.  Ethnic conflict there creates refugees in Europe, not America.

Economic interests I don't understand.  US investment in and trade with Kosovo?  A specific example would make your point clearer.

Neither do I get the hegemony point.  Are you talking about something like Reagan placing IRBMs in Germany?

[Admiral Yi]

Your theory being that America shouldered the task out of pure altruism?

My theory being America shouldered the task out of enlightened self interest.  An enlightenment that until very recently most NATO members did not enjoy the benefit of.

[Zoupa]

NATO has allowed the U.S. to project power globally (kosovo, Afghanistant were NATO missions), protect its economic interests (economies of scales), and shape the international order (HQ and all governing instances are all overstaffed with US personnel shaping policy) with far less cost and opposition than unilateral dominance would have reuired. Allies gained security, the U.S. gained hegemony.

Kosovo I strongly dispute as a US interest.  Ethnic conflict there creates refugees in Europe, not America.

Economic interests I don't understand.  US investment in and trade with Kosovo?  A specific example would make your point clearer.

Neither do I get the hegemony point.  Are you talking about something like Reagan placing IRBMs in Germany?

Economic interests: alliance members buy your gear overwhlemingly. You have a lot of bases in NATO countries. Assuming no NATO, all these bases/soldiers/equipment would need to be on US soil.

Hegemony means a cultural/economy dominance. You could argue that the US would have had that without NATO, but NATO was a force multiplier on that front.

[Admiral Yi]

Economic interests: alliance members buy your gear overwhlemingly. You have a lot of bases in NATO countries. Assuming no NATO, all these bases/soldiers/equipment would need to be on US soil.

Hegemony means a cultural/economy dominance. You could argue that the US would have had that without NATO, but NATO was a force multiplier on that front.

Non members overwhelmingly buy our gear.  I'm lead to believe it has to do with the quality of the gear.

Dominance means what?  Europeans buy more Coke and watch more Netflix than they would without NATO?

[Zoupa]

I refuse to believe you're this naive. I believe my previous posts explain my position clearly enough. You're free to disagree with it.

[HVC]

Your theory being that America shouldered the task out of pure altruism?

My theory being America shouldered the task out of enlightened self interest.  An enlightenment that until very recently most NATO members did not enjoy the benefit of.

But that enlightened self interest was still a net benefit, was it not? Outrage over freeriding seems misguided since even with that America benefitted in excess of any potential loss from free riders. Or maybe America is as bad at making a deal as trump claims


That's not to say countries shouldn't have met their obligations and kept their "word", since countries should. Though your country has decided that that isn't important after all... or at least 50% of the voting public.