32
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2026
32 points (100.0% liked)
World News
1955 readers
511 users here now
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great Communities:
Rules
Be excellent to each other
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
How would that fee the US troll?
The US wanted the war between Ukraine and Russia and is in their Interest that it last as long as possible whilst at the same time making deals wit the same russians. To answer your question, the US used ukraine as a lever to demand more money from other members. Furthermore, money whe are paying for Ukraine, as we speak, is being funneled into Ukrainian support to US and Israel against their illegal war against Iran.
US wanted the Russia to take over Crimea and Donbas? What for?
The money spent to NATO defence does not go to NATO. It goes to Czechia. It means Czechia buying tanks, howitzers, drones and ammunition for Czech stockpiles. I don't think Trump really understood this when demanding we ramp up our defence spending here in EU, but that's not money for NATO. It's a demand that we use more money for our OWN defence. Furthermore, the demand is that 3% should be for direct military use, further 2% should be for any use that is usable also by the military: For example any railway connections that would be useful in the time of a war count as defence spending for those extra 2%.
Czechia or Finland building new railway routes brings zero money for Trump.
In other words: Trump "used Ukraine" as a lever to demand other members spend more money for their own militaries.
...by buying weapons from american companies. Sure, Trump didn't get the money directly, but the companies he is being lobbied by.
...or alternatively, by buying weapons from European companies, giving them resources for expansion, and enabling them to sell their products to countries outside EU that earlier had US companies as their only option.
There was a very complex framework for the division of responsibilities between USA and EU. Part of its point was to keep the EU weapons industry down. USA demanded that EU armies stay small so that USA would have a military hegemony. We were okay with that, because that included USA defending us, should be ever need to be defended. And that meant we saved a LOT of money. Several percents of our GDP could be used for stuff other than military because of this deal. And similarly, USA profited a LOT from having an uncontested military hegemony.
Trump disassembled all of that. I think it is more of a positive thing than a negative one, because I have never liked USA as a country at all. (It's people as a culture, and the nations inhabiting USA, however, have always been fascinating to me!)
Trump surely did imagine we'd buy from American companies, but it is more likely that in the long run the American military companies will lose big time in this change of geopolitical structure Trump has initiated. Remember that Trump did this because Putin wanted so, and all these changes were done to benefit the Russia, not really to benefit USA.
long story short, you are saying that in the long run we will start buying EU weapons. That is a very long run, a marathon. Untill then its uncle sams bodega.
Your point about EU contries wanting to have small armies and stay under US umbrella is wrong. Ask the french, de Gaulle kicked them out in the 50ies. The axis didn't have that choice.
As my last point, here is an quote from Natos first secretary, Lord Hastings Ismay in 1949. "keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down"
That was not my point.
My point was US wanting European countries to have weak armies and stay under US umbrella. And they did what they could in order to achieve that. Also France was using much less than 2% of their budget for defence as a result of US pressure against raising that number.
There's a quote from a NATO person from the 1940's pointing out what I am trying to explain to you: “keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” Read it, think about it, and take heed!
who in their right sense would then try to defend the organisation ruled by the same ruler that wants to keep the other ones down? to be honest i now dont think you have EUs best interest i mind.
Because in exchange for that, USA showed itself as a country Europe could rely on. The deal also included EU getting a lot of money for all kinds of social benefits and such. The money we didn't have to use in our military was used for better things.
We defended the concept of USA defending us so that we could save a lot of money in our defence budgets.
jesus, stop it. the mental gymnastics are of the charts with you. I'm off, there is no point