It has enabled a very stable and predictable world. This has benefited USA immensely. It it not clear to me, that rewinding and dismantling this system will have net positive effects in the next 50 years for USA.
There's no reason Germany (and in reality it's only Germany that's the laggard) can't rebuild their conventional fighting capacities to help load balance again.
It's just German instraginence because of their fanatical opposition to deficits that is hampering their ability to do so.
> increase risk of nuclear war without NATO (Japan, South Korea, Europe, etc would acquire nukes without USA guarantees)
As I wrote below, that is highly unlikely in much of Europe, as most European states (except the UK and France) lack the capabilities to develop credible nuclear delivery systems like ballistic missiles or nuclear submarines.
They could, yes. But would they need to if Russia is weak? The current strategy from USA seems to be to appease Russia, give them what they want and weaken security guarantees. The point im trying to make is that there is another way here which i beleive nets the West (both USA and Europe – USA's natural ally) more benefits than gearing up for war (aka the Peace Dividend).
>lack the capabilities to develop credible nuclear delivery systems
Is this the case? I think Sweden were months away from testing their nuclear bombs when they were conviced to dismantle the system in return for protection from USA's nuclear umbrella and were in process of producing supersonic nuclear bomber in the 1950s. They still produce today world class submarines, develops and build their own fighter jets.
I would think that Europe has knowledge and skillset. I mean, North Korea managed.
It's not clear to me that unwinding our interventionism around the world is going to make the world more stable. But it is clear to me that we can't afford to keep doing it. China is eating our lunch and they have about 3x as many people as we do. Neither Europe nor the US are producing much, and the entire West is in massive debt. Do you seriously think we can win the inevitable war with China? We can't even defeat Russia in Ukraine, and China would fight much dirtier than Russia. It's time to get real, restructure our debts, and rebuild our own country.
There's no such thing as NATO expansionism. Eastern Europe became dead set on joining NATO after seeing the destruction of Russian democracy by the remnants of the Soviet security-military complex. They correctly predicted that Russia would degenerate into an authoritarian dictatorship that would turn outwardly expansionist after KGB hardliners consolidated power and crushed all internal dissent.
Eastern Europe's entry into NATO is like townsfolk signing up for neighborhood watch after seeing the social order break down in the next town and fearing that criminality will spill over into their own community. The criminals, of course, are disturbed that people are setting up security cameras and looking out for each other. Breaking into houses would be much easier in a town where everyone keeps to themselves.
Eastern Europe managed to break free of Russian military occupation only in 1994. Criminal gangs had taken over our town by force at the end of WWII and prevented us from living normal lives for half a century. Now, the same criminals demand that we dismantle cameras, fire security guards, and stop cooperation amoung ourselves because "neighborhood watch expansionism" violates their "interests." Damn right it does.
I believe showing Russia, China, and the world, that USA stands behinds it commitments and allies, defends the rule based world order and is true leader of the democratic society would deter leaders such as Putin and Xi from trying anything.
NATO is (imo) close to collapsing. All it would take is a minor just-under-war incursion, e.g. in northern Finland by Russia. Would USA (Trump) defend Finland in this scenario? If not, NATO is dead and the next 100 years belong to China and Russia.
Never a better time to throw your allies under the bus.
I agree. It is doable for individual European states to rebuild their conventional fighting capabilities.
France has been a proponent of this kind of "strategic autonomy" for decades, and so has the UK to a certain extent.
Most of the angst is coming from Germany, who let the Bundeswehr degrade from being one of the most capable Armed Forces in Europe in 1990 to what it is today.
(Although USA has threatened to occupy EU territory in the last weeks.)
It does not have to be a threat, but if Europe should take more responsibility for their own defense, it would make sense build up their nuclear capacity.
(And I am well aware of the differences between EU, Europe and individual countries. But it seems to me tha France is the country to build upon.)
Ukraine had nuclear weapons that they gave away. Maybe they shouldn't have?
Also - universal healthcare is not about 1-2 percent lower military spendings (much of which goes back to the country itself). USA is a rich country, you could also afford it.
>Also - universal healthcare is not about 1-2 percent lower military spendings (much of which goes back to the country itself). USA is a rich country, you could also afford it.
We can't afford it. Most of the Western countries that have it can't actually afford it either. The US and the rest of the West are only rich in a very narrow sense, in that they get to borrow more than anyone else. Manufacturing has left, and everyone is running a trade deficit. It's time to turn all that around before our countries become 100% dependent on imports and unable to defend themselves.
AFAIK USA pays more for healthcare per capita per person. It is not about economy, but political will. (And I did not bring up this argument).
One thing that can be criticised though is low retirement age in southern Europe. But whenever that question is brought up (Macron has bet much of his political future on it), the JD Vance friends from the far right wakes up and start wild protest and collecting votes against (yellow vests, AFD).
I don't think we disagree that Europe has been naive in trusting both USA and the current world order with free global trade.
But that also gives them the freedom to act.
