With the cost for European defense largely borne by the US, is European socialism essentially being subsidized -- and would it collapse without NATO?
Yes. Most European countries would have to make significant cuts should they suddenly be required to pay for the entirety of their actual defense.
Europoors won't understand this until we let them get run over by Russia again.
>>70106563
>17 billion dollars
Please let NATO collapse, please. I want my government to burn
>>70106666
That's something that's always made me laugh. I love explaining the amount that US taxpayers spend on propping up European lifestyles when international students try to act haughty about their superior European way of life.
>>70106666
>6666
Devil's advocate I see.
But imagine all the chaos that it would cause if you didn't subsidise them. You'd be looking at cutting loose a bunch of rogue nations that your President will have to deal with.
And this time itll be even worse whereas a hundred years ago you had the European Great Powers to keep things in order now you'll have Muslim infested countries ready to explode at the slightest of provocations.
TLDR Its a necessary evil and you are the good goys paying for it.
>>70106880
That pie chart I found looks like a big blue pacman about to eat some Yurop pizzas.
>>70106563
1. No European country is socialist.
2. NATO is a US imperialist front. Should've dissolved in 1990. There's literally no reason for the US to integrate Eastern European and Caucasus states other than encircling Russia, whose economy is already in tatters.
3. If NATO dissolved European countries would be fine. The US would certainly lose a lot of influence however, and would be constrained to the Pacific.
>>70106563
But USA is never going to use LESS money on millitary. Be realistic.
>>70106563
NATO can fuck off and die. If it wasn't for NATO belligerence relations between Europe and Russia would be much better.
>>70106735
Just start bombing ISIS then they will attack you as well.
>>70106563
>collapse without NATO
What's your thesis for this? What would happen if NATO didn't exist tomorrow?
>>70106563
>yfw trump makes Europe great again
>>70107326
Russia takes Finland, Estonia, and the Caucuses within 10 years.
>>70107177
BS.
Don't be ungrateful little cunt. Russia is and will always be playing her own game, Russia claims to be bullied when in fact she has no reason or evidence to back that statement up.
You are falling for RT memes.
>>70107740
>Russia takes Finland,
Amerifat, Finland is not NATO meme, we are fine with them, we don't want to annex anything except parts of Ukraine, stop being that stupid.
>>70108465
NATO is nothing more than the tool the neo-cons use to enforce their vision laid out in the PNAC's documents.
NATO existed to counter the SU. The SU is dead and buried. NATO's new mission is the degradation and ultimate balkanization of Russia.
It's the only thing that makes it appear like its doing ok.
>>70107740
That's not going to happen. They could take South Ossetia and Abkhazia but that's not the end of the world. Why would it matter to the United States?
Russia's economy is in the shitter. They won't be conquering anything any time soon.
>>70108831
You have been slurpin' russian harder then a krokodil addict m8 if you believe that meme.
NATO is a military alliance and after the fall of USSR they have been engaged mostly in peace keeping missions.
I have talked with people from the Baltics, they are constantly harassed and threatened by no reason, among the chief weapons of Putin uses to bully it's neighbours are the so called russian "minorities" abroad, which he claims are being treated like juden, when in fact they live better outside Russia then in Russia.
NATO still has purpose, simply it's original intent has changed. Joint military training and operations, cooperation, sharing of technology.
Divided we fall, united we stand, that is the whole purpose of NATO.
Two motherfucking world wars and your beady Anglo ass still hasn't learned the lesson.
>>70109501
Peace-keeping? Just like in Serbia.
>Divided we fall, united we stand, that is the whole purpose of NATO.
NATO manages to divide the world pretty well into with us or against us. But please tell me more about how Libya was totally worth it and humanitarian in nature.
>>70109501
Why is it, that it is always retards that were born in a era of relative comfort and peace that can't see past their navel? I wonder.
>"Uh uuh, we don't need NATO anymore we live in epace and shiiiiet"
>Next world war happens.
>"Please someone help me! if only there was a military coalition to prevent these kinds of situations."
>>70109501
>peace keeping missions.
Don't ever wew me or my lad again.
>>70109824
That is USA and European politics, not the responsibility of NATO.
NATO is strickly military.
Want NATO to be a bit less shitty, maybe you should start voting for better politicians.
>>70109915
In Africa, Timor and other parts of the world NATO has been involved in such things. They don't draw attention because probably autists like you only look at media for disasters to justify your bias.
>>70106563
Overblowing things as always. It would be only a few percent cut from other budgets for major European countries and that's it. Go play a hero elsewhere.
I'm glad Finland isn't in Nato.
>>70109968
>NATO is strictly military.
NATO is politicised by the US. The US does not need our assistance in their ME adventures. We simply provide cover in the media. We're also a handy crumple zone for if the new cold war gets hot. For further evidence of this politicisation just look at any of the shit that comes out that prick Breedlove's mouth.
>>70109831
You don't think the next world war could come about as a result of posturing between the Russians and NATO? Besides, now that half the fucking world has nukes or can acquire them at short notice NATO isn't going to save our asses should it happen.
>>70110095
Why was NATO required and not a combined volunteer force under UN auspices?
they fucked all those people and they didn't get putin
reckless
>>70106563
Am I blind, or is Turkey not in that diagram.
I think Turkey is one of the few countries that meeets the 2% threshhold.
>>70106666
>Have islamic king obonga leading NATO
>Russia is the real threat, goy
Yeah fuck you. Obonga is currently running Europe into the ground so he can see his caliphate, there's reason why he refuses to call Islamic "attackers" terrorists. His father and brother are muslims, but not him no, he's just driving agenda that goes with islam.
>>70106563
Americas spending would be impossible without the petrodollar. Nato members, allies and "allies" trading oil in dollars, effectively subsidises Americas spending.
>>70110248
That is right it isn't US that needs us, we need them, you included, they bailed you twice from very poor decisions and looking at how things are shaping up, they might need to do it a third time.
Ungrateful mollycoddled Anglo.
Because there are nukes, conventional military operations are irrelevant? Sorry but that is a really bad argument. Conventional arms are still relevant and even in the case of nuclear warfare having a military coalition would have it's benefits over individual countries all doing their own thing.
You must think NATO is some sort of boy scout club, you really think they don't have in depth plans and studies on the possibilities of nuclear warfare too?
>>70108831
>he thinks the Cold War ended
>>70110762
Pretty much.
> Is NATO the only thing allowing European socialism?
No.
It's the US. You can track back any and all socialist and pro-refugee shit to "NGO"s from the US (and the UK, which is the US' lapdog).
>>70110585
NATO members' economies are effectively existing because of the United States. The US buys all the shit the world sells
>>70106563
Considering it existed before NATO?
No, also this >>70107069
>>70107740
>This is what Americans actually believe
>>70106666
>implying portugal or belgium need this kind of defense
>>70106563
>>70106666
>>70106845
>>70107365
>>70107740
fucking burgers don't use conscription and then cry about """""""""""""""""defense""""""""""""""" expenses. you actually have to pay people to fight for your country because no one wants to do it willingly. europe will do more than fine without your retarded bases everywhere. if they grow their defense budgets, it will only improve their economy because it is basically subsidizing their own weapons industry. also keep in mind they don't do expensive crusades
>>70111001
They are actually right. Baltic states would be run over in a instant.
Because "muh russian minorities", "muh Western harassment" and most importantly "muh access to the Baltic pond (sea)".
Finland i have no idea.
>>70111147
You are missing the point of NATO, which is military COOPERATION.
Christ is it that fucking hard to grasp the concept.
>>70110632
>That is right it isn't US that needs us, we need them, you included, they bailed you twice from very poor decisions and looking at how things are shaping up, they might need to do it a third time.
NATO is one of the factors that make ww3 more likely because they're target has changed in name only.
>Because there are nukes, conventional military operations are irrelevant?
Not what I said. But it is fucking common sense that if there was ww3 nukes would fly. Russia recently revised their doctrine, removing their first strike option but if the 'territorial integrity' of Russia is challenged, the bombs will fly.
>you really think they don't have in depth plans and studies on the possibilities of nuclear warfare too?
You can't plan against mushroom clouds and the nuclear winter dumbass.
>>70110787
This doesn't work since you already responded to a comment where I acknowledge the new cold war. But fine. You say the cold war never ended. Presumably Russia when it liberalised in the 90s was simply trying to wrongfoot NATO by throwing away their economy? Cause obviously you believe in this conflict Russia is the only one capable of aggression.
>>70111147
Not to mention a benefit of NATO for the US is that because of standardisation of gear used the euros are keeping the MIC afloat.
But yeah I'm sure Russia are going to try take over Europe any day now, like they always do. THANK DOGE FOR NATO.
>>70110134
>It would be only a few percent cut from other budgets for major European countries and that's it
Delusion the post.
>>70111722
Check the budget of Britain for example and you'll see that doubling the military budget is nothing on it. You may now fuck off.
>>70111509
>Implying that Russia is a good goy that only wants to be f'einds with the west.
>Common sense or not, that doesn't invalidate the whole purpose. I think US being the inventor of A-bomb knows better then anyone else it's potential and nuclear capabilities have most certainly been taken into account in plan making.
>Not an argument. Try again.
>Russian liberalized, but Putin his basically a autocrat that censors media, assassinates inconvenient targets and fosters proxy wars in it's bordering nations.
>>70111945
When you spend nothing, doubling that will still be nothing. You wouldn't just double the funding to offset America's contributions. Stay in school buddy.
>>70111198
>muh access to the Baltic pond (sea)
You are an idiot, we have St.Peterburg with access to Baltic sea
>"muh russian minorities"
They really oppress them. But this doesn't mean we will annex baltics, they have too many anti-russian population.
>>70111978
You know it's impossible for a foriegn power to occupy another country indefinitely?
>>70106563
There isn't a single Socialist country in Europe.
No, France isn't "Socialist", it has a mixed market economy.
tbqh the US should just pull out of NATO and lol at the fallout.
They never will, but it would certainly be funny.
>>70111978
>Implying that Russia is a good goy that only wants to be f'einds with the west.
If NATO was for peace Russia would have been invited. As it stands, most of Russia's irrational actions come from fear of NATO's plans.
I don't even know what point you are making or referring to in your next two lines so imma ignore em.
>>Russian liberalized, but Putin his basically a autocrat that censors media, assassinates inconvenient targets and fosters proxy wars in it's bordering nations.
Yeah I was talking about the liberalisation in tjhe 90s where Russia opened up to markets and its national assets were stipped and the population at large thrown into abject poverty. Putin restored a sense of pride and in spite of recent sanctions has increased the per capita GDP five-fold over the 90s.
Loving your charge sheet against Putin btw.
>>70113666
This sounds like something a socialist would say...
Christ. No.
You keep jacking off to your relatively huge expenditure as if it was keeping the peace in Europe. It's not. It's keeping the dollar as the world reserve currency, it's keeping troops all over the world, it's in Japan and Korea, fighting in Afghanistan and Syria, it's in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. This isn't NATO expenditure. It's "USA keeping the world in line with its personal policy, for its personal gain" expenditure.
There's not even any reason for Europe to spend more. Especially not much more. Russia would have neither the manpower nor the economy to back an invasion on this scale anyways, everyone else is literally who or far away. There's no real danger to us in military terms.
What we have is enough for defense. It would also be enough for defense in the US, but the US needs more than defense, it needs constant offense and worldwide threats.
>>70106563
what defense do we need? Putin benefits more from us as business partners than occupied territory in which production will go completely to shit, he has enough land and natural resources.
The only security threat we have are Muslim invaders which NATO has helped more than hindered.
>>70106563
>cost for European defense largely borne by the US
So when you guys going start defending Europe and stop herding refugees in our direction?
>>70113666
>No, France isn't "Socialist", it has a mixed market economy.
You need to tell the French cause I'm pretty sure they think they're socialist.
>>70106735
What the hell are you even spending that money on?
>>70106666
>>70106563
>>70106845
Are you guys this dense? NATO is a military alliance. It means when one country goes to war, the others pile on together. It's comprised of member nation's armies. You aren't defending Europe, Europe isn't even under attack.
>>70111147
This. Not to mention America's attitude towards sticking military bases all over the world was their own idea.
>>70114284
Nuh-uh. As soon as NATO collapse Putin will personally march all they way to France making rape-babies all the way there.
>>70106563
nato now says it's mission it to protect the private property of energy corporations and pipelines of the countries they overthrow
14 billion dollar scam
>>70114133
yeah what do you need to worry about the military for europe would NEVER go to war with itself
>>70106563
Yes. NATO is designed to keep us weak. This way our politicians won't occupy themselves with our safety and sovereignty (that's what they americans are doing duh) and can concentrate themselves on redistributing wealth to Achmed and his 9 children
why the fuck should canada pay to protect oil in iraq?
>>70106563
You wanted loyal, powerless vassal states, bro. Don't complain about it now.
>>70114107
>This sounds like something a socialist would say...
Name one single country in Europe with a commitment to the common ownership of production.
Just one.
Respect to places like Poland, Estonia, UK, and others that pay their fair share.
We should strengthen our alliances with people like this and completely scrap those who have been paying jack shit.
>>70114389
corrupt politicians
>>70115029
The whole relationship should be viewed as a political convenience for the US. Europe are subsidized vassals of the US.
If we view them as equals, then it makes sense to be upset about paying for their defense. If we view them as subjugated vassals, then subsidies are fine since we are getting their cooperation to further our own interests.
Tbh we should end NATO and remove all of our foreign military base. It's immoral to use it as leverage for another country, just like it is immoral to interfere in another country's domestic and international affairs.
Though. why haven't more European nations left NATO already if they don't need it?
>>70114976
weird, the more free trade deals we get the poorer we get
>>70114995
I was only half serious.
The old 'no true scotsman' is as alive and well as ever in leftist circles I see.
>>70115337
>Though. why haven't more European nations left NATO already if they don't need it?
No benefit in leaving. A small benefit in staying.
>>70115788
Then why do Europeans get pissy about its existence?
>>70106563
I want NATO to end.
>>70106845
In all fairness the powers that be wanted most of Europe to be vassal states - that's why there's no singular european "great power" to keep the other countries surrounding it in check.
Essentially you're the world's policeman - like Britain was in the late 1800s.
>>70115863
Do we?
I mean, lefists whine about the mere notion that military may be a necessary thing, but regular people go about their day not giving a shit. It's a thing, and it doesn't particulary matter to us.
>>70115969
world's policeman
if this is what the police do, we need to get rid of them
>>70116165
I didn't say they were any good at being the world's policeman.
>>70116005
Eh, is that so?
On our end we see a lot of leftist "US is imperlializing Europe and forcing us to commit to their imperialistic agenda" mixed with "Baltics beg NATO to save them" and "NATO lets Turkey abuse everything and everyone because they need it geopolitically."
I figured that the European consensus was NATO was a detriment that should cease to involve them, and figured they were scared of some weird economic war the US would wage on them if they left.
>>70111048
Pretty sure they do, notice how the Caliphates stopped expanding once America stood up to their shit?
>>70115438
>no true scotsman...
It's a fact: no European country is Socialist.
The EU is a Neoliberal trade zone.
>>70116238
>I figured that the European consensus was NATO was a detriment
The left see it as such, but they're just the very vocal minority - like in America.
I personally don't think its needed anymore or it should be restructured so Europe bears at least some of the cost. Most people don't actually care though.
>>70116217
maybe mafia would be a better word
>>70116451
Pretty sure you'd claim that no country has ever been true socialist though?
