A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
US also needs to remember that should it choose to leave it will also need to exit all it's European bases currently occupied under the pretext of NATO.
Good luck trying to expand your global empire of regime change without European bases and or airspace.
Maybe they will stay happy in their corner of the world torturing Cuba, Venezuela and fucking with Canada with a daily threat.
What exactly is the point of hoping for the US to stay when their contribution currently seems to boil down to blackmailing and threats of abandonment should shit really hit the fan? This sounds more like an abusive relationship than a defence treaty...
The hope is that this is just a temporary glitch and America will revert to what it has been for 250 years, for better or worse.
The Biden Administration, for instance, was viewed very favorably by NATO partners, and that was just two years ago.
The Biden Administration, for instance, was viewed very favorably
Careful. A positive comment about the Biden administration goes against the narrative.
What narrative?
Because, for decades prior, the US was the military of NATO. The US pumped massive percentages of its GDP into maintaining a standing military while most of NATO focused more on social programs with comparatively minimal military spending.
And threats like russia wouldn't attack out of fear of having to fight said militarized nation. Whereas now there is a very clear window where the nations that might stand up against them are rebuilding. "Fortunately" russia is stretched pretty far by a failed invasion of Ukraine but... go read the wikipedia article on how their previous invasions of Ukraine went.
Welp. The Internet as a whole is real broken. But Lemmy is very rapidly taking the cake for THE place where you can never discuss anything and the only responses are people who are incapable of having a conversation and are just angry that you didn't say what they wanted to hear.
Dead Internet Theory looking increasingly not that bad. Or, better yet, prioritizing different social media where people respond to each other rather than the voices in their own heads. Somehow... we managed to actually leap frog reddit on the way down?
You're right of course.
But two things I'd like to point out:
Yes, the US WAS the military of the treaty. WAS being the important part here as the trust that made this arragement possible is heavily eroded today due to the lunatic in charge.
You're first paragraph is onesided and resembles the talking points of the Trump admin. The reality is more complex: The Us would have spend that money anyways as it aimed for global military domination during and after the cold war. The NATO treaty allowd to convert this alread spend money not only in hard military but also in soft power: The US gained massive multi-level influence in the member states due to the military depency and also bought their international voices (for example inside the UN) with it. It was a win-win situation with kooperative cost advantages for both sides. Not a one sided deal to the disadvantage of the US as Americans seem to be made believe by Trump and his oligarchy.
Not a one sided deal to the disadvantage of the US as Americans seem to be made believe by Trump and his oligarchy.
Where did I ever say this was a one sided deal?
The first sentence very much seems to imply that.
I disagree. Simply saying that fact doesn't imply it's a bad thing, even though that is something we often hear from those who are anti NATO. I would expect anyone here to understand that the US benefited heavily from the arrangement, and is now losing soft power in a huge way
Its one of Trumps main anti NATO talking points, its not particularly surprising people will recognize it as that.
Totally agree, I just think it's unlikely that anyone in this forum would be parroting a Trump talking point for the sake of it.
I see your point
You didn't say that.
I got triggered since you only linked US military spending to european social security programs while leaving out other aspects, a reasoning which I only know from US conservatives including Trump.
If I mistook you I'm sorry.
Pointing out that the US spends massive amounts of money on military spending is just a fact. https://www.nato.int/content/dam/nato/webready/documents/finance/def-exp-2025-en.pdf is the official NATO write up of this from last year and the only countries that outspend the US (as a percentage of their GDP) tend to be the countries that are where The War will kick off Poland) or... countries with other things going on
And keep in mind that is in terms of GDP percentages and how massive the US's economy was for most of that period.
The "conservative" talking point is not: "The US spends money on war while the EU spends money on healthcare and actually giving a shit about its population". It is "The US spends money on war so you should do whatever we want". Its also worth understanding that The EU did not spend that money anywhere near that altruistically but it doesn't change the situation that the EU/NATO finds itself in.
Because when that military is increasingly likely to be the aggressor? You need to rapidly start making guns and revisiting what is required of your populace. People have exploded over Germany recently more or less codifying a standing policy but... there is a reason politicians are looking at their conscription laws.
Look. We all live in a content bubble. But if you actually want to understand the world, rather than just get angry in ways that are convenient to influencers and politicians, actually look at statistics and respond to facts. Rather than getting pissy and screaming "fake news" because you don't' like what you saw.
Because, to be clear, I REALLY don't fucking like how broken the US is because of how much it spends on the military.
If you think we ‘happened’ to keep a large standing army just because we were defending Europe.
The plain fact is we didn’t even try and reap the peace dividends following the Cold War. We doubled down and found an excuse to pad the pockets of the MIC.
If we’d shrunk down instead of maintaining all this obsolete gear, it’d be easier to be proactive to changes in warfare like drones. We wouldn’t maintain fleets of fourth gen fighters and build out our fifth gen fleets.
You maintain military production capacity by having a strong civil industrial capability.
As we learned in WW2, it doesn’t take much to convert from making cars to making tanks.
Bonus side effect: prevents us from getting embroiled in nation building or getting after commercial wet dreams for regime change when it takes 2-3 years to build up a force.
The plain fact is we didn’t even try and reap the peace dividends following the Cold War.
The US did reap a peace dividend. Loads of storied US military supply companies had to close, because there were no longer infinite money for defense.
If you think we ‘happened’ to keep a large standing army just because we were defending Europe.
Where did I ever say that?
Because, for decades prior, the US was the military of NATO. The US pumped massive percentages of its GDP into maintaining a standing military while most of NATO focused more on social programs with comparatively minimal military spending.
Here ya go buddy. Here’s where you said it.
Yes... I said that the US was the military might of NATO. I did not say that was the only reason we have a truly massive military.
If all you are able to do is build tangential strawmen then... do yourself a favor and just go post on chatgpt.
Let's remember that the US has been, by far, the richest country in the world since the world wars, largely because it stayed out of them til the ends, and issued massive loans to European countries that they continued to profit off of for decades and decades.
You talk about GDP percentage, as if every country had a similar GDP per capita, and could thus afford to spend similarly. The reality is that the US had more then enough money to both fund its military and fund its social programs, but it chose to instead fund the military and the already wealthy.
You talk about GDP percentage, as if every country had a similar GDP per capita, and could this afford to spend similarly
Where did I ever say this?
The reality is that the US had more then enough money to both fund its military and fund its social programs, but it chose to instead fund the military and the already wealthy.
Which changes absolutely nothing from the perspective of NATO
Where did I say this?
👀
The US pumped massive percentages of its GDP into
....
Which changes absolutely nothing from the perspective of NATO
Lmao yes it does. It only doesn't if you declare "I'm ignoring this information", and stick your head in the sand.
That's not reasoning, that's weaponized incompetence.
No americas treaty organization.
No americas treaty organization.
Hey! What did we do? -- Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Bolivia, etc.
The hope is Congress grows a pair
The hope is americans grow a pair.
At this point, I don't blame them for not WANTING to keep us
Yup. I'm from Poland and I am more worried that the US would pull us into WW3 than I am worried about Russia.
Nope