On 4/21/2026 at 3:30 PM, scorecard said:

Here we go, instant love of war.

Why do so many Americans want war, with anybody?

Maybe they think if they do it often enough they might just get good enough to actually win one.

I realize Canada isn't any kind of utopia, but they deserve respect of their sovereignty (as well as very long close friendship) from ANY American president. But as we all know Trump isn't any American president.

35 minutes ago, Hummin said:

You are mixing three different things and pretending they are all the same.

Yes, the United States has complained about NATO burden-sharing for decades. But that is not the same as the modern 2% framework, which was politically locked in at the 2014 Wales Summit, where allies agreed to halt the decline and move toward 2% within a decade.

So when I say Obama started making this demand in the form we now keep debating politically, I am talking about the modern benchmark and the post-2014 pressure around it, not pretending no American president ever complained before that. Those are two different things.

And your Norway point is simply off. Norway’s F-35 decision was made in 2012, before the Wales pledge, before Trump’s noise campaign, and before the later stages of the Ukraine war changed the atmosphere again. So no, that was not something created by Trump shouting.

It is true that Norway did not reach NATO’s 2% guideline until 2024. But that still does not erase the fact that serious long-term investments were being made years earlier. Defense procurement is measured in years and decades, not in media cycles and campaign slogans.

And this is the part you keep avoiding: the United States was never just some innocent accountant standing outside the system. Up here in the north, we have long served as part of NATO’s, and in practice America’s, eyes and ears on Russia. Norway’s value was never only about a percentage on paper. It was geography, intelligence, the High North, maritime reach, and strategic positioning.

That is what you keep avoiding: what NATO is as a package, not just as a set of numbers.

The 2% commitment dates to 2006, not 2014. Re-confirmed in 2014.

Do you believe NATO members should satisfy the financial requirement agreement or not?

13 minutes ago, Bannoi said:

Maybe they think if they do it often enough they might just get good enough to actually win one.

We kicked your a**.

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The 2% commitment dates to 2006, not 2014. Re-confirmed in 2014.

Do you believe NATO members should satisfy the financial requirement agreement or not?

If you ask me personally, Trump gave us the kick in the ass we clearly deserved. I have said that before. And it should not just be about weapons or military spending, but about security in the wider sense too: energy, infrastructure, and food supply.

But NATO is still built on trust, shared obligations, and a common understanding of the treaty. Right now, the US does not appear as the reliable ally it once claimed to be, but rather as a growing source of instability, and in some ways even a threat.

16 hours ago, Effective altruism said:

Europe needs to take responsibility and contribute more. As a US citizen, I am frustrated with my tax dollars being used to defend an ungrateful continent.

You must be super frustrated to think that, if Trump had have thought out things, he could have kept the well thought out existing agreement with Iran, and extended and or improved it- rather than throwing it out willy nilly, leading to Iran enriching uranium without being watched - and Trump spending additional billions to fix something of his own making. A separate concern you may have - most important to many - is the loss of life and affect on economies around the world including the USA.

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

We kicked your a**.

Don't know who "your" is referring to, but the US hasn't won a war since 1945, and that's a fact. And no, little "excursions" like Panama etc. don't count.

I'm talking real wars where the enemy shoots back at you. Like in Iran, where Iran is currently winning.

2 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

You must be super frustrated to think that, if Trump had have thought out things, he could have kept the well thought out existing agreement with Iran, and extended and or improved it. Rather than throwing it out willy nilly, leading to Iran enriching uranium without being watched, and Trump spending additional billions to fix something of his own making. A separate concern you may have - most important to many - is the loss of life and affect on economies around the world including the USA.

Indeed. And it seems like this is where the current s**t show is headed. Back to a deal very similar to the one Trump tore up.

I hope the Iranians insist on calling it the President Obama 2.0 deal.🤣

2 minutes ago, Hummin said:

If you ask me personally, Trump gave us the kick in the ass we clearly deserved. I have said that before. And it should not just be about weapons or military spending, but about security in the wider sense too: energy, infrastructure, and food supply.

The commitment is for defense spending, not for anything you want to spend on.

2 minutes ago, Hummin said:

But NATO is still built on trust, shared obligations, and a common understanding of the treaty. Right now, the US does not appear as the reliable ally it once claimed to be, but rather as a growing source of instability, and in some ways even a threat.

Indeed, it is built on trust. For 70 years the USA trusted NATO members to meet their agreed to financial commitment, and those some members thumbed their noses at us

What NATO obligation has Trump defaulted on?

7 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

You must be super frustrated to think that, if Trump had have thought out things, he could have kept the well thought out existing agreement with Iran, and extended and or improved it- rather than throwing it out willy nilly, leading to Iran enriching uranium without being watched - and Trump spending additional billions to fix something of his own making. A separate concern you may have - most important to many - is the loss of life and affect on economies around the world including the USA.

Perhaps America will allow Germany to become a nuclear power at last. There is a reason Germany isn't a nuclear power. When Germany was just West Germany, NATO was structured to prevent Germany from becoming a major military power. Americans complain about "Europe" when forgetting the vast majority of US forces were in the two countries responsible for WW2; Germany and Italy. Keeping US forces up in these countries, mean there is no chance the former Nazi and Fascist countries will feel inclined to try and militarily dominate the contininent again.

Americans forget that what ended the Cold War was the positioning of short range nukes in Europe. Two major powers were arguing over who got to decimate Europe. Germans knew the score; if WW3 came, their country would be toast.

France has now adjusted its nuclear doctrine from protecting France to protecting Europe.

I hear about "ungrateful Europe". What about "ungrateful America", the America that is lead by people with no personal experience of sacrifice.

10 hours ago, Hummin said:

Simple MAGA rhetoric. What Trump wants is not justice or principle, but for others to pay more for America’s mistakes, its wars, and the consequences of its own choices. He is not correcting empire, he is cashing out what is left of it. And in the end, your own side sold you out through greed, from what was once the best and most promising empire the modern world had seen.

Yes, Europe has a colonial legacy. Nobody serious denies that. But America is hardly in a position to lecture as if it stands outside war, coercion, exploitation, and imperial behaviour itself. So no, this is not some noble correction of history. It is grievance politics dressed up as strength.

And as for NATO, yes, the data exists. The real question is what you think it proves. Burden-sharing disputes inside alliances are normal. They do not suddenly prove that Europe contributes nothing or that the alliance has no value. Europe is already rearming and preparing for a future where American reliability can no longer be taken for granted.

The deeper irony is this: while you lecture Europe about empire, you cheer for a man who is actively dismantling the very alliance structure that gave the West its longest period of relative stability and strength.

In your excitement to propagate your political views you ignore the reality and have invented conditions that do not apply. Deal with the facts, and not your imagined scenarios.

-I have already stated my support for NATO. Claiming that a recitation of the established facts that show an historical underfunding and failure to invest in NATO member's defence and infrastructure, is "MAGA rhetoric", does not change those facts. MAGA did not invent the intentional refusal to invest in national security of multiple NATO members.

-America is not lecturing on colonial legacies. Rather it is the self appointed "moralists" of Europe, who lecture everyone of what is right and what is wrong. The reality and it is something that people like you cannot accept is that the two modern era periods when the world has been most at peace, has been when the European lust for wealth and power has been contained. Two of the most peaceful periods recognized by historians are when Great Britain defeated the Napoleonic alliance and then kept the Europeans from killing others in the period of 1815-1914. The peace was kept until the Europeans started WWI. The next great era of peace was the period of 1950-2020. Despite all the conflicts of liberation, and the war in Vietnam, the US presence kept the world at peace and successfully managed health epidemics and famines . Don't believe me? Consult with the common reviews. It is called the Long Peace. It's apex was the victory of the west over Russia when the eastern Europeans were freed from the yoke of Russian tyranny. There were conflicts for sure, but they were contained.

-The problems of NATO were not simple burden sharing disputes. It was government policy: A refusal to honour funding commitments. Multiple countries chose to neglect their basic defense capabilities. Canada, went from having one of the world's largest navies after WWII to an inability to patrol its own waters. The UK went from the powerhouse that was once the RAF to a service that lost its long range abilities after the Falkland conflict. Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Germany and others chose different priorities knowing that the presence of US military bases in Europe protected them.

Trump would not have a foot to stand on if the NATO members had lived up to their obligations. It is because of Trump that the UK, Canada and Germany and others have finally started to invest in their national defence. They would not have done so unless he had made it an issue. That's the reality you ignore. The US and even the key people in NATO member countries warned of the situation for decades and were ignored. Polite and tactful discussion did not work. Trump finally got a result. I believe that NATO will emerge from this stronger than before. The USA will not leave NATO because there is no currently little support for it in the US Congress and Trump will be gone in 2 years. Until then, the NATO members can meet their agreed upon obligations.

10 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

In your excitement to propagate your political views you ignore the reality and have invented conditions that do not apply. Deal with the facts, and not your imagined scenarios.

-I have already stated my support for NATO. Claiming that a recitation of the established facts that show an historical underfunding and failure to invest in NATO member's defence and infrastructure, is "MAGA rhetoric", does not change those facts. MAGA did not invent the intentional refusal to invest in national security of multiple NATO members.

-America is not lecturing on colonial legacies. Rather it is the self appointed "moralists" of Europe, who lecture everyone of what is right and what is wrong. The reality and it is something that people like you cannot accept is that the two modern era periods when the world has been most at peace, has been when the European lust for wealth and power has been contained. Two of the most peaceful periods recognized by historians are when Great Britain defeated the Napoleonic alliance and then kept the Europeans from killing others in the period of 1815-1914. The peace was kept until the Europeans started WWI. The next great era of peace was the period of 1950-2020. Despite all the conflicts of liberation, and the war in Vietnam, the US presence kept the world at peace and successfully managed health epidemics and famines . Don't believe me? Consult with the common reviews. It is called the Long Peace. It's apex was the victory of the west over Russia when the eastern Europeans were freed from the yoke of Russian tyranny. There were conflicts for sure, but they were contained.

-The problems of NATO were not simple burden sharing disputes. It was government policy: A refusal to honour funding commitments. Multiple countries chose to neglect their basic defense capabilities. Canada, went from having one of the world's largest navies after WWII to an inability to patrol its own waters. The UK went from the powerhouse that was once the RAF to a service that lost its long range abilities after the Falkland conflict. Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Germany and others chose different priorities knowing that the presence of US military bases in Europe protected them.

Trump would not have a foot to stand on if the NATO members had lived up to their obligations. It is because of Trump that the UK, Canada and Germany and others have finally started to invest in their national defence. They would not have done so unless he had made it an issue. That's the reality you ignore. The US and even the key people in NATO member countries warned of the situation for decades and were ignored. Polite and tactful discussion did not work. Trump finally got a result. I believe that NATO will emerge from this stronger than before. The USA will not leave NATO because there is no currently little support for it in the US Congress and Trump will be gone in 2 years. Until then, the NATO members can meet their agreed upon obligations.

I think you make a fair point about Trump pushing other members of NATO to increase their funding. On the other hand, it's not at all clear that Trump really grasps the point about NATO. Unless you believe threatening to seize Greenland is consistent with the treaty that NATO is founded upon.

5 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

I think you make a fair point about Trump pushing other members of NATO to increase their funding. On the other hand, it's not at all clear that Trump really grasps the point about NATO. Unless you believe threatening to seize Greenland is consistent with the treaty that NATO is founded upon.

The methodology of Trump on Greenland was inappropriate. However, it did get the Europeans to take action. They were warned for years. We all know the Greenland annexation would fail, although some buffoon most likely presented it as a viable option. At least the US backed off. The winners have been Greenland residents who are now seeing investment in infrastructure. They even have some new air service, although I wonder how long that will last.

And what about Panama and Venezuela? Both seem to be success stories with China largely out, and the US in.

11 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

The methodology of Trump on Greenland was inappropriate. However, it did get the Europeans to take action. They were warned for years. We all know the Greenland annexation would fail, although some buffoon most likely presented it as a viable option. At least the US backed off. The winners have been Greenland residents who are now seeing investment in infrastructure. They even have some new air service, although I wonder how long that will last.

"We all know the Greenland annexatin would fail..."

Does that "We" include Trump ? He revived the issue again recently.

Poorly run, piece of ice’: Trump targets Greenland again as Iran war deepens NATO rift

U.S. President Donald Trump appears to have set his eyes on Greenland again while venting frustration at NATO, as the diplomatic fallout from Iran war exposes rifts in Washington’s ties with the security alliance.

In a Truth Social post Wednesday evening stateside, Trump said that “NATO WASN’T THERE WHEN WE NEEDED THEM, AND THEY WON’T BE THERE IF WE NEED THEM AGAIN. REMEMBER GREENLAND, THAT BIG, POORLY RUN, PIECE OF ICE!!!

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/09/trump-greenland-nato-rift-iran-war-deepens.html

Or is this a mind reading performance on your part?

12 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

In your excitement to propagate your political views you ignore the reality and have invented conditions that do not apply. Deal with the facts, and not your imagined scenarios.

-I have already stated my support for NATO. Claiming that a recitation of the established facts that show an historical underfunding and failure to invest in NATO member's defence and infrastructure, is "MAGA rhetoric", does not change those facts. MAGA did not invent the intentional refusal to invest in national security of multiple NATO members.

-America is not lecturing on colonial legacies. Rather it is the self appointed "moralists" of Europe, who lecture everyone of what is right and what is wrong. The reality and it is something that people like you cannot accept is that the two modern era periods when the world has been most at peace, has been when the European lust for wealth and power has been contained. Two of the most peaceful periods recognized by historians are when Great Britain defeated the Napoleonic alliance and then kept the Europeans from killing others in the period of 1815-1914. The peace was kept until the Europeans started WWI. The next great era of peace was the period of 1950-2020. Despite all the conflicts of liberation, and the war in Vietnam, the US presence kept the world at peace and successfully managed health epidemics and famines . Don't believe me? Consult with the common reviews. It is called the Long Peace. It's apex was the victory of the west over Russia when the eastern Europeans were freed from the yoke of Russian tyranny. There were conflicts for sure, but they were contained.

-The problems of NATO were not simple burden sharing disputes. It was government policy: A refusal to honour funding commitments. Multiple countries chose to neglect their basic defense capabilities. Canada, went from having one of the world's largest navies after WWII to an inability to patrol its own waters. The UK went from the powerhouse that was once the RAF to a service that lost its long range abilities after the Falkland conflict. Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Germany and others chose different priorities knowing that the presence of US military bases in Europe protected them.

Trump would not have a foot to stand on if the NATO members had lived up to their obligations. It is because of Trump that the UK, Canada and Germany and others have finally started to invest in their national defence. They would not have done so unless he had made it an issue. That's the reality you ignore. The US and even the key people in NATO member countries warned of the situation for decades and were ignored. Polite and tactful discussion did not work. Trump finally got a result. I believe that NATO will emerge from this stronger than before. The USA will not leave NATO because there is no currently little support for it in the US Congress and Trump will be gone in 2 years. Until then, the NATO members can meet their agreed upon obligations.

You are still flattening several different arguments into one.

Yes, underinvestment happened. Yes, multiple NATO members neglected defense for too long. Yes, the U.S. complained about this for decades. I have never denied any of that. What I object to is the cartoon version of it, where the entire alliance is reduced to a bill, a percentage, and a morality play in which the U.S. alone behaved responsibly while the rest simply freeloaded.

That is not the full reality.

Europe did underinvest, but it did so inside a post-Cold War order that the U.S. itself helped shape, encouraged, and benefited from. Europe was not just hiding behind America. Europe also functioned as strategic depth, forward geography, intelligence reach, logistics, naval access, air bases, and political legitimacy for the wider American-led order. Up here in the north, that is especially obvious. We were never just numbers on a spreadsheet. We were part of the package.

And that is exactly what you keep avoiding: what NATO is as a package, not just as a set of percentages.

It is also worth remembering that Washington never really wanted a Europe strong enough to become a true equal. It wanted a Europe strong enough to be useful, but dependent enough to remain inside an American-led order. A dependent Europe is easier to lead, easier to influence, and easier to keep aligned than a Europe acting fully on its own terms.

And many European countries did in fact support U.S. foreign policy again and again, even when large parts of their own populations disagreed. Politicians and much of the media helped sell those policies to the public and stood behind them even when the direction was plainly wrong. That happened in one U.S.-led war after another.

But this time is different. If Trump chooses to move against Iran on his own instincts, without serious coordination, without proper warning, and without treating NATO as an actual alliance, then expecting Europe simply to fall in line afterward is far-fetched. Especially after years of threats, contempt, and open hostility toward allies. You do not spend years insulting, pressuring, and destabilizing your partners and then suddenly expect automatic loyalty the moment you need them.

As for the “Long Peace,” that is a real term, but using it as a moral certificate for Anglo-American power is far too neat. The period was not peaceful because one side was simply wiser or more virtuous. It was also held together by nuclear deterrence, balance of power, alliance systems, economic integration, spheres of influence, and the fact that many conflicts were pushed to the periphery rather than removed. Calling that peace without qualification is already a selective reading.

And on Trump, again, too simple. He did not invent the problem, and yes, his pressure coincided with movement. But that does not mean he alone solved it, nor does it mean polite pressure never mattered. Europe had already begun reacting after 2014, after Crimea, after the Wales Summit, and through longer procurement cycles that were already underway before Trump turned it into a performance.

That is the part people keep skipping over: defense is not built on slogans, tweets, or tantrums. It is built on planning, procurement, doctrine, infrastructure, and political consensus, all of which take years.

So yes, Trump made noise. But noise is not the same as strategy, and coincidence is not the same as sole causation.

If NATO emerges stronger, good. But that strength will not come from Trump’s mythology. It will come from Europe finally rearming on European terms, while also reminding Washington that alliances are not tribute systems and allies are not dependents.

And on a more personal level, I have been deeply frustrated by how Norway neglected the importance of infrastructure, national preparedness, and our own energy potential. Not just pumping oil and gas and selling it raw, but building more real strength through refining, reserves, and long-term strategy. We could have become an even stronger energy nation for both ourselves and Europe. Instead, we made ourselves more vulnerable, while the now famous cables helped drive electricity prices in the wrong direction at home. We also once had food and fuel reserves, and let much of that thinking fade away. So no, I am not defending obvious mistakes. A lot of this is also the result of political choices, bad priorities, and voters choosing foolishly.

47 minutes ago, Hummin said:

You are still flattening several different arguments into one.

Yes, underinvestment happened. Yes, multiple NATO members neglected defense for too long. Yes, the U.S. complained about this for decades. I have never denied any of that. What I object to is the cartoon version of it, where the entire alliance is reduced to a bill, a percentage, and a morality play in which the U.S. alone behaved responsibly while the rest simply freeloaded.

That is not the full reality.

Europe did underinvest, but it did so inside a post-Cold War order that the U.S. itself helped shape, encouraged, and benefited from. Europe was not just hiding behind America. Europe also functioned as strategic depth, forward geography, intelligence reach, logistics, naval access, air bases, and political legitimacy for the wider American-led order. Up here in the north, that is especially obvious. We were never just numbers on a spreadsheet. We were part of the package.

And that is exactly what you keep avoiding: what NATO is as a package, not just as a set of percentages.

It is also worth remembering that Washington never really wanted a Europe strong enough to become a true equal. It wanted a Europe strong enough to be useful, but dependent enough to remain inside an American-led order. A dependent Europe is easier to lead, easier to influence, and easier to keep aligned than a Europe acting fully on its own terms.

And many European countries did in fact support U.S. foreign policy again and again, even when large parts of their own populations disagreed. Politicians and much of the media helped sell those policies to the public and stood behind them even when the direction was plainly wrong. That happened in one U.S.-led war after another.

But this time is different. If Trump chooses to move against Iran on his own instincts, without serious coordination, without proper warning, and without treating NATO as an actual alliance, then expecting Europe simply to fall in line afterward is far-fetched. Especially after years of threats, contempt, and open hostility toward allies. You do not spend years insulting, pressuring, and destabilizing your partners and then suddenly expect automatic loyalty the moment you need them.

As for the “Long Peace,” that is a real term, but using it as a moral certificate for Anglo-American power is far too neat. The period was not peaceful because one side was simply wiser or more virtuous. It was also held together by nuclear deterrence, balance of power, alliance systems, economic integration, spheres of influence, and the fact that many conflicts were pushed to the periphery rather than removed. Calling that peace without qualification is already a selective reading.

And on Trump, again, too simple. He did not invent the problem, and yes, his pressure coincided with movement. But that does not mean he alone solved it, nor does it mean polite pressure never mattered. Europe had already begun reacting after 2014, after Crimea, after the Wales Summit, and through longer procurement cycles that were already underway before Trump turned it into a performance.

That is the part people keep skipping over: defense is not built on slogans, tweets, or tantrums. It is built on planning, procurement, doctrine, infrastructure, and political consensus, all of which take years.

So yes, Trump made noise. But noise is not the same as strategy, and coincidence is not the same as sole causation.

If NATO emerges stronger, good. But that strength will not come from Trump’s mythology. It will come from Europe finally rearming on European terms, while also reminding Washington that alliances are not tribute systems and allies are not dependents.

And on a more personal level, I have been deeply frustrated by how Norway neglected the importance of infrastructure, national preparedness, and our own energy potential. Not just pumping oil and gas and selling it raw, but building more real strength through refining, reserves, and long-term strategy. We could have become an even stronger energy nation for both ourselves and Europe. Instead, we made ourselves more vulnerable, while the now famous cables helped drive electricity prices in the wrong direction at home. We also once had food and fuel reserves, and let much of that thinking fade away. So no, I am not defending obvious mistakes. A lot of this is also the result of political choices, bad priorities, and voters choosing foolishly.

From you post: "Yes, underinvestment happened. Yes, multiple NATO members neglected defense for too long. Yes, the U.S. complained about this for decades. I have never denied any of that. What I object to is the cartoon version of it, where the entire alliance is reduced to a bill, a percentage, and a morality play in which the U.S. alone behaved responsibly while the rest simply freeloaded."

So, what was the US to do, complain more?

I am opposed to the much of Trump's rhetoric as well, but as we know, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and Europe is stepping up their defense capability.

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

From you post: "Yes, underinvestment happened. Yes, multiple NATO members neglected defense for too long. Yes, the U.S. complained about this for decades. I have never denied any of that. What I object to is the cartoon version of it, where the entire alliance is reduced to a bill, a percentage, and a morality play in which the U.S. alone behaved responsibly while the rest simply freeloaded."

So, what was the US to do, complain more?

I am opposed to the much of Trump's rhetoric as well, but as we know, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and Europe is stepping up their defense capability.

I think the issue is a bit broader than percentages alone.

Of course underinvestment happened, and of course Europe should rebuild serious defense capacity. I do not think many would deny that. My point is only that NATO has never been just a financial spreadsheet. It has also been geography, infrastructure, intelligence, logistics, political alignment, and the wider strategic role different countries have played within the alliance.

Europe has also carried other burdens connected to the broader order it has been part of, including instability, migration pressures, and the political strain that followed from a number of U.S.-led interventions that European governments often supported, even when public opinion was more doubtful. That is part of the picture too.

So yes, higher spending matters. But higher spending by itself is not a strategy. What matters just as much is what the money is used for, which capabilities are actually needed now, and how those investments fit into a serious long-term structure. A lot of what seemed important twenty years ago is no longer the same today. Norway, for instance, made major defense investments long before it formally reached the 2 percent benchmark, which shows that procurement and headline numbers do not always move in step.

Personally, I would have no problem seeing far higher budgets if they genuinely strengthened defense, civil safety, preparedness, and infrastructure. But in the real world these things move through politics, priorities, procurement systems, and public debate, and that always takes time.

There is also a practical concern here. As budgets rise quickly, the risk of waste, poor procurement, and corruption rises with them. Norway is already seeing warnings and cases in that direction, which is exactly why money needs strategy, oversight, and discipline behind it.

And on top of that comes the democratic paradox. Its strength is that power is slowed, checked, and forced through process. Its weakness is exactly the same. Things move too slowly, vested interests delay necessary decisions, and paralysis sets in. But the opposite model is hardly better, because when decisions become too easy and too concentrated, self-interest and private gain take over even faster. We are seeing both patterns now, in the U.S. and elsewhere.

The bottom line is that the United States, as the leading power in the alliance, also carries the greater responsibility for keeping it together. Maybe not exactly in its old form, but at least in a way that keeps it coherent and close without relying too much on force, threats, consequences, and burdens. If this current direction continues, then the alliance as we have known it may be over for good.

So I suppose my point is simply this: more money matters, but money on its own is not strength. It becomes strength only when it is tied to clear priorities, good planning, proper control, and a political system capable of acting before it is too late.

10 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I think the issue is a bit broader than percentages alone.

Of course underinvestment happened, and of course Europe should rebuild serious defense capacity. I do not think many would deny that. My point is only that NATO has never been just a financial spreadsheet. It has also been geography, infrastructure, intelligence, logistics, political alignment, and the wider strategic role different countries have played within the alliance.

Europe has also carried other burdens connected to the broader order it has been part of, including instability, migration pressures, and the political strain that followed from a number of U.S.-led interventions that European governments often supported, even when public opinion was more doubtful. That is part of the picture too.

So yes, higher spending matters. But higher spending by itself is not a strategy. What matters just as much is what the money is used for, which capabilities are actually needed now, and how those investments fit into a serious long-term structure. A lot of what seemed important twenty years ago is no longer the same today. Norway, for instance, made major defense investments long before it formally reached the 2 percent benchmark, which shows that procurement and headline numbers do not always move in step.

Personally, I would have no problem seeing far higher budgets if they genuinely strengthened defense, civil safety, preparedness, and infrastructure. But in the real world these things move through politics, priorities, procurement systems, and public debate, and that always takes time.

There is also a practical concern here. As budgets rise quickly, the risk of waste, poor procurement, and corruption rises with them. Norway is already seeing warnings and cases in that direction, which is exactly why money needs strategy, oversight, and discipline behind it.

And on top of that comes the democratic paradox. Its strength is that power is slowed, checked, and forced through process. Its weakness is exactly the same. Things move too slowly, vested interests delay necessary decisions, and paralysis sets in. But the opposite model is hardly better, because when decisions become too easy and too concentrated, self-interest and private gain take over even faster. We are seeing both patterns now, in the U.S. and elsewhere.

The bottom line is that the United States, as the leading power in the alliance, also carries the greater responsibility for keeping it together. Maybe not exactly in its old form, but at least in a way that keeps it coherent and close without relying too much on force, threats, consequences, and burdens. If this current direction continues, then the alliance as we have known it may be over for good.

So I suppose my point is simply this: more money matters, but money on its own is not strength. It becomes strength only when it is tied to clear priorities, good planning, proper control, and a political system capable of acting before it is too late.

Again, what was the US to do, complain more?

16 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Again, what was the US to do, complain more?

That is too late now if you are talking about investment in NATO, then Trump seems to have blown much of that in his second term. Europe will now invest in Europe with Europe’s own interests in mind, not as an extension of wider U.S. global policy. And if he has not blown it now, he certainly began undermining it earlier through his lack of diplomatic skill.

I can only really speak for Norway, which is already above the old benchmark at around 3.3 percent, while Denmark has moved above 3 percent, Sweden is in the mid-2s and aiming higher, and Finland is also in the mid-2s with plans to move toward 3 percent and beyond. Taken together, the Nordic countries do seem to be moving faster and more seriously than much of Europe.

The 2014 NATO goal was not an instant requirement. It was a timeline.

At the Wales Summit in 2014, Allies agreed to stop the decline in defense spending, increase spending in real terms as GDP grew, and aim to move toward the 2% of GDP guideline within a decade. They also aimed to spend 20% of defense budgets on major equipment and R&D, so it was not just about more money, but also about modernization and capability gaps. In practice, the timeline was roughly 2014 to 2024.

I asked AI about the rest of Europe, and what comes back looks far more like the result of long-term planning, changing threat perceptions, and years of delayed adjustment than some sudden miracle caused by Trump. He may like to claim the honor, but that is a much simpler story than the facts support.

Broadly, the rest of Europe is moving up, but not at the same speed.

The overall picture is that Europe is no longer standing still. NATO says all Allies met or exceeded the old 2% benchmark in 2025, and European Allies plus Canada reached about 2.3% of their combined GDP, which is a clear jump from earlier years.

But inside Europe, the pace is uneven. The UK is already comfortably above the line at about 2.4%, France is just above it at about 2.07%, and Germany is above 2% as well, with a path now being set toward much higher levels by the end of the decade.

https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/2014/09/05/wales-summit-declaration

6 minutes ago, Hummin said:

That is too late now if you are talking about investment in NATO, then Trump seems to have blown much of that in his second term. Europe will now invest in Europe with Europe’s own interests in mind, not as an extension of wider U.S. global policy. And if he has not blown it now, he certainly began undermining it earlier through his lack of diplomatic skill.

I can only really speak for Norway, which is already above the old benchmark at around 3.3 percent, while Denmark has moved above 3 percent, Sweden is in the mid-2s and aiming higher, and Finland is also in the mid-2s with plans to move toward 3 percent and beyond. Taken together, the Nordic countries do seem to be moving faster and more seriously than much of Europe.

The 2014 NATO goal was not an instant requirement. It was a timeline.

At the Wales Summit in 2014, Allies agreed to stop the decline in defense spending, increase spending in real terms as GDP grew, and aim to move toward the 2% of GDP guideline within a decade. They also aimed to spend 20% of defense budgets on major equipment and R&D, so it was not just about more money, but also about modernization and capability gaps. In practice, the timeline was roughly 2014 to 2024.

I asked AI about the rest of Europe, and what comes back looks far more like the result of long-term planning, changing threat perceptions, and years of delayed adjustment than some sudden miracle caused by Trump. He may like to claim the honor, but that is a much simpler story than the facts support.

Broadly, the rest of Europe is moving up, but not at the same speed.

The overall picture is that Europe is no longer standing still. NATO says all Allies met or exceeded the old 2% benchmark in 2025, and European Allies plus Canada reached about 2.3% of their combined GDP, which is a clear jump from earlier years.

But inside Europe, the pace is uneven. The UK is already comfortably above the line at about 2.4%, France is just above it at about 2.07%, and Germany is above 2% as well, with a path now being set toward much higher levels by the end of the decade.

https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/2014/09/05/wales-summit-declaration

So you want to pi** and moan about what the US did, but you have no idea what should have been done differently.

Then you "I can only speak for Norway" yet you are on here daily basing the US and telling us what we're doing wrong.

Please provide a source for Norway currently being at 3.3%, I think that isa projection.

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So you want to pi** and moan about what the US did, but you have no idea what should have been done differently.

Then you "I can only speak for Norway" yet you are on here daily basing the US and telling us what we're doing wrong.

Please provide a source for Norway currently being at 3.3%, I think that isa projection.

You are not undermining my argument, only nitpicking around the edges of it. The 3.3 percent figure is an official estimate for 2025, and it includes support for Ukraine, which is hardly irrelevant when that support also strengthens NATO’s wider security position. And just because Norway is the country I know best does not mean I need your permission to discuss NATO, Europe, or U.S. policy.

What is more striking is how many Americans now seem happy to talk down Europe, echo Trump’s contempt, and become copycats of his attitude without much thought of their own.

https://www.regjeringen.no/en/whats-new/norwegian-government-commits-to-allocating-5-of-gdp-to-defence-related-expenditures/id3110204/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

28 minutes ago, Hummin said:

You are not undermining my argument, only nitpicking around the edges of it. The 3.3 percent figure is an official estimate for 2025, and it includes support for Ukraine, which is hardly irrelevant when that support also strengthens NATO’s wider security position. And just because Norway is the country I know best does not mean I need your permission to discuss NATO, Europe, or U.S. policy.

What is more striking is how many Americans now seem happy to talk down Europe, echo Trump’s contempt, and become copycats of his attitude without much thought of their own.

I am responding to Europeans in kind. You talk down and ridicule us, and then you get all butt-hurt when you get a taste of it. Typical. You sound exactly other Trump-hate-obsessed non-leftist yet you call me a copy-cat. I have never said Europe were freeloaders, but that does not stop you from spewing that nonsense.

28 minutes ago, Hummin said:

https://www.regjeringen.no/en/whats-new/norwegian-government-commits-to-allocating-5-of-gdp-to-defence-related-expenditures/id3110204/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

As I said, the 3.3% is not the current level, it is a projection. Did you even read it?

I thin Norway is a great longtime ally and I am happy to see they/you are stepping up to meet their/your commitment.

The left is destroying my county.

Trump is trying to stop them.

Trump is rude and crude, which I do not approve of.

I am happy Trump, and not Harris is president.

All of these things can be true at the same time.

On 4/21/2026 at 10:10 AM, VocalNeal said:

And getting smaller as the clock ticks.

The clock is definitely ticking but most of us would argue that he's getting dumber, more senile, and infinitely more unstable and insane as the days move forward. Downhill Don.

There is no surge capacity to replace Canadian imports, even analysts on Fox Business admitted it could take a decade to rebuild domestic production. And even if rebuilt, will it be competitive? So instead of protecting American jobs, tariffs will do the opposite, they will make lumber unaffordable in the middle of a housing crisis, and while America is having a political meltdown, Canada was having a strategy meeting. Trump expected the usual script, retaliation, angry press conferences, maybe a new round of tariffs. Instead Canada did something no one saw coming, no shouting, no threats, no photo ops with fingerpointing, politicians stepped up to a podium and announced a 1 billion dollar support program for Canadian lumber companies. Every company taking the money had to commit to Canada's new 25 billion dollar domestic housing program, in other words America just gave us our own lumber back and we're going to use it to fuel a big housing bill. Thanks for the favor Trump!

 

Because of silly political grand standing a kitchen renovation that cost $30,000 in January now costs $35,000. Not because there wasn't enough wood or steel but because of political theater in Washington. Multiply that by millions throughout America. Trump promised to fix the housing crisis, but instead he's destroying it.

 

If Canada, America's closest ally with the longest undefended border could openly defy US pressure, then the question becames avoidable for the rest of the world. What's stopping us from doing the same? Maybe we don't need American approval, China took notice, the EU took notice, so did Mexico. Many other countries did too. 

 

2 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

There is no surge capacity to replace Canadian imports, even analysts on Fox Business admitted it could take a decade to rebuild domestic production. And even if rebuilt, will it be competitive? So instead of protecting American jobs, tariffs will do the opposite, they will make lumber unaffordable in the middle of a housing crisis, and while America is having a political meltdown, Canada was having a strategy meeting. Trump expected the usual script, retaliation, angry press conferences, maybe a new round of tariffs. Instead Canada did something no one saw coming, no shouting, no threats, no photo ops with fingerpointing, politicians stepped up to a podium and announced a 1 billion dollar support program for Canadian lumber companies. Every company taking the money had to commit to Canada's new 25 billion dollar domestic housing program, in other words America just gave us our own lumber back and we're going to use it to fuel a big housing bill. Thanks for the favor Trump!

 

Because of silly political grand standing a kitchen renovation that cost $30,000 in January now costs $35,000. Not because there wasn't enough wood or steel but because of political theater in Washington. Multiply that by millions throughout America. Trump promised to fix the housing crisis, but instead he's destroying it.

 

If Canada, America's closest ally with the longest undefended border could openly defy US pressure, then the question becames avoidable for the rest of the world. What's stopping us from doing the same? Maybe we don't need American approval, China took notice, the EU took notice, so did Mexico. Many other countries did too. 

 

Ah, Fox news

29 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I am responding to Europeans in kind. You talk down and ridicule us, and then you get all butt-hurt when you get a taste of it. Typical. You sound exactly other Trump-hate-obsessed non-leftist yet you call me a copy-cat. I have never said Europe were freeloaders, but that does not stop you from spewing that nonsense.

As I said, the 3.3% is not the current level, it is a projection. Did you even read it?

I thin Norway is a great longtime ally and I am happy to see they/you are stepping up to meet their/your commitment.

The left is destroying my county.

Trump is trying to stop them.

Trump is rude and crude, which I do not approve of.

I am happy Trump, and not Harris is president.

All of these things can be true at the same time.

Sorry if it came across too personally. That was not really my intention. My point is more general: Trump keeps returning to the same exaggerated and misleading claims about Europe, and many MAGA supporters then repeat them almost automatically. That wider pattern is what I am reacting to, not just you as an individual.

And there is another reason for that frustration. The United States has often presented itself as the defender of order or freedom while in practice acting as the aggressor in conflicts shaped heavily by imperial interests, economic strategy, and control over vital resources, especially oil.

And that frustration also comes from the fact that Europe has not exactly stood outside America’s post-war power projection. As allies, we have been tied into that order both through NATO and through the wider economic system around it. In many of the major conflicts and interventions led by the United States after the Second World War, European countries have been represented in one form or another — militarily, politically, logistically, or economically. So it is not as if Europe simply sat back while America carried everything alone.

And honestly, I have read enough history to know that it takes a toll to be the empire, and even more to keep one together. That does not happen through blind faith alone. It takes judgment, restraint, and an understanding of what the real alternatives are. It is still better to be united with an empire of your own broader civilization if it can function and if enough still binds it together. But once you get someone like Trump, who is so obviously driven by self-interest, ego, and short-term impulses, that is when something that could have been a great and long-lasting empire starts to decay from within. That is where my criticism lies.

And when the blame is shifted away from where much of it actually belongs — their own greed, their own mistakes, and their own political failures — and redirected instead toward allies, what does that tell you? I have said that often enough already. Europe is not standing still. Europe is moving broadly in line with the 2014 NATO timeline, which was never designed as an overnight correction but as a ten-year path toward higher spending and capability improvement.

That is too late now if you are talking about investment in NATO, then Trump seems to have blown much of that in his second term. Europe will now invest in Europe with Europe’s own interests in mind, not as an extension of wider U.S. global policy. And if he has not blown it now, he certainly began undermining it earlier through his lack of diplomatic skill.

I can only really speak for Norway, which is already above the old benchmark at around 3.3 percent, while Denmark has moved above 3 percent, Sweden is in the mid-2s and aiming higher, and Finland is also in the mid-2s with plans to move toward 3 percent and beyond. Taken together, the Nordic countries do seem to be moving faster and more seriously than much of Europe.

The 2014 NATO goal was not an instant requirement. It was a timeline.

At the Wales Summit in 2014, Allies agreed to stop the decline in defense spending, increase spending in real terms as GDP grew, and aim to move toward the 2% of GDP guideline within a decade. They also aimed to spend 20% of defense budgets on major equipment and R&D, so it was not just about more money, but also about modernization and capability gaps. In practice, the timeline was roughly 2014 to 2024.

I asked AI about the rest of Europe, and what comes back looks far more like the result of long-term planning, changing threat perceptions, and years of delayed adjustment than some sudden miracle caused by Trump. He may like to claim the honor, but that is a much simpler story than the facts support.

Broadly, the rest of Europe is moving up, but not at the same speed.

The overall picture is that Europe is no longer standing still. NATO says all Allies met or exceeded the old 2% benchmark in 2025, and European Allies plus Canada reached about 2.3% of their combined GDP, which is a clear jump from earlier years.

But inside Europe, the pace is uneven. The UK is already comfortably above the line at about 2.4%, France is just above it at about 2.07%, and Germany is above 2% as well, with a path now being set toward much higher levels by the end of the decade.

https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/2014/09/05/wales-summit-declaration

Pre 2014, NATO was rapidly becoming a joke. It took a decade to finally stagger to a still meager percentage of GDP to be spent to defend themselves. The US alone outspent the rest of NATO by 2 to 1. Even now, the US outspends the rest of the group by a good margin.

I can understand the frustration of the Americans. They are waaaaaaaaay over on the other side of the ocean but are expected to pony up the big bucks.

Royal Navy, 15 warships. British Army, unable to deploy a regiment to the Continent. And so it goes.

11 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

20 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Pre 2014, NATO was rapidly becoming a joke. It took a decade to finally stagger to a still meager percentage of GDP to be spent to defend themselves. The US alone outspent the rest of NATO by 2 to 1. Even now, the US outspends the rest of the group by a good margin.

I can understand the frustration of the Americans. They are waaaaaaaaay over on the other side of the ocean but are expected to pony up the big bucks.

Royal Navy, 15 warships. British Army, unable to deploy a regiment to the Continent. And so it goes.

I don’t deny the American frustration. Europe and Canada became too comfortable under the US umbrella, and that had to change.

But let’s not pretend the US carried NATO only out of charity. Washington also benefited from that dependency: influence, bases, intelligence reach, strategic depth, arms sales, and leadership over the Western alliance.

After 9/11, the War on Terror drained American resources and attention, and after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, the weakness in NATO’s European defence posture became impossible to ignore. That is why the Wales Defence Investment Pledge happened under Obama: allies agreed to move toward 2% of GDP on defence within a decade.

By now, that old target is mostly, and according to NATO’s 2025 estimates fully, met. Trump may claim credit for the pressure, but the process did not start with him. What Trump has done is turn a legitimate burden-sharing argument into a much harsher political weapon.

So yes, Europe was late. But America also benefited from European dependency. And the new 5% direction shows that 2% was never the end of the discussion. It was only the beginning.

3 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I don’t deny the American frustration. Europe and Canada became too comfortable under the US umbrella, and that had to change.

But let’s not pretend the US carried NATO only out of charity. Washington also benefited from that dependency: influence, bases, intelligence reach, strategic depth, arms sales, and leadership over the Western alliance.

After 9/11, the War on Terror drained American resources and attention, and after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, the weakness in NATO’s European defence posture became impossible to ignore. That is why the Wales Defence Investment Pledge happened under Obama: allies agreed to move toward 2% of GDP on defence within a decade.

By now, that old target is mostly, and according to NATO’s 2025 estimates fully, met. Trump may claim credit for the pressure, but the process did not start with him. What Trump has done is turn a legitimate burden-sharing argument into a much harsher political weapon.

So yes, Europe was late. But America also benefited from European dependency. And the new 5% direction shows that 2% was never the end of the discussion. It was only the beginning.

How did the USA benefit from European dependency?