Comments by "peabase" (@peabase) on "Can NATO survive without the US?" video.

@aflyingcowboy31 Truth be told, the US isn't spending 2% of its GDP on NATO. It's spending roughly half of its defence budget -- 3.5% -- on military assets in the Pacific. Then there's the Middle East and even Africa. None of those come under NATO.
16
@somerandomboibackup6086 You seem hilariously oblivious of the fact that the US can't seem to manufacture much in terms of products that we Europeans consider worth buying. In contrast, you Americans have a healthy appetite for European products. That's why Trump is so terribly upset about the lopsided trade balance. Keep up with the news.
7
@chickenfishhybrid44 You know little about the European arms industry. France just leapfrogged Russia to become the world's second-largest arms exporter. The French make US arms manufacturers squirm, snatching away "done" deals from under their nose, forcing the US to copy French technology-sharing deals. Germany, too, is a top 5 arms exporter. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the global arms industry before you comment -- you'll defo look smarter that way.
4
@SamardeepJohal Let's not forget Turkey -- it's presently in NATO, too. Turkey can't manage its economy and has a casual approach to human rights, but the Turks sure can fight.
3
It's all good and well to buy more military kit, but the problem is recruiting and training military personnel, which won't happen overnight. Reinstituting conscription would help. Proud citizen soldier here.
1
@aflyingcowboy31 We're currently spending 2.4% of GDP on defence -- a figure that would be significantly higher if were to pay our conscripts a salary and compensate our reservists (moi included) to the full for loss of earnings while on refreshers. We have just the one prospective enemy: Russia and Russia alone. With all our other neighbours we get on like a house of fire. You seem wholly unawares that NATO has a clearly defined geographic scope. It covers all the member states in Europe and North America, Turkey and islands north of the Tropic of Cancer. Interestingly, the Falkland Islands are located south of the Tropic of Cancer, which meant that Argentina's invasion didn't concern NATO and the UK had to sort it out by themselves. Likewise, if China were to "liberate" New Caledonia from the French, we, as NATO, would sit it out as well.
1
@iwantarandomname121 I wouldn't bet on Russia -- much less this imaginary Russian empire of yours -- to survive this war for long. Russia's empires have already disintegrated twice as a result of wars gone awry -- first the Russian Empire itself as a result of WW1, then the USSR after the Soviet-Afghan War. It bears reminding that the Russian Federation is a colonial construct that is held together by military force and economic coercion. That's why Putin blew his top when Ukraine got cosy with the EU -- Putin knew he'd gotten the short end of the stick economically, so in good old Russian tradition, he resorted to military force. Little did he know it would bring the demise of the Russian Federation closer instead of warding it off.
1
@joeyjojojrshabadoo7462 Let's not forget that Iceland -- which you claim has no military -- emerged victorious from not one but three(!) wars that it fought against a country that once ruled the waves -- yes, I'm talking about Britannia.
1
@chickenfishhybrid44 Tariffs and other obstacles play a role, but it's not like the EU unilaterally resorts to them. The USA, also during Trump's tenure, has been embroiled in numerous trade wars with the EU. As a result of these "wars", whatever tariffs that remain tend to cancel out one another. What you're basically alluding to is that Americans -- including Trump -- are poor saps that haven't been able to hold their own in a fair fight. You'll find that more often than not, Europeans think they're buying American, only the products in question aren't US-made, but rather, their manufacture has been outsourced to low-cost countries. In other words, you're blaming us for your enthusiasm for outsourcing.
1
With a few exceptions, we in Europe steered clear of the Iraq War and its ever-elusive WMDs. The Muricans were initially severely butthurt about that, but quickly cooled down when they realised they'd duped themselves first and foremost.
1
Talking about fair shares, the US doesn't spend the prerequisite 2% on NATO. Fact.
1
@johnnyhall9154 You do, but not to 2% of your GDP's extent. I spent time working in Japan, the Philippines and South Korea. I couldn't help bumping into US military stuff rolling and buzzing around. Also, US military personnel there weren't wearing any NATO patches, and why should they? They did wear NATO patches when I myself, too, served with them in Kosovo.
1
@johnnyhall9154 Uh, 2% is the deal, a deal that the US agreed to, and even pushed for in NATO. The US is, after all, an initiator and co-founder of NATO. We're late to the party, and held off (full) NATO membership for years saying that we preferred to join a more European NATO, as a nudge to the rest of Europe that it should get its shite together. Now it seem that we're getting our way, meaning that the rest of Europe will bolster its forces in any event, regardless of whether or not the US gets out of Dodge and leaves NATO. We have a saying that you should do something gladly or not at all. It's your choice. I'm fully aware where the EU and the USA stand in terms of GDP. For what would you like to be compensated? We spent 18 years in Afghanistan, fighting your losing war. We received no compensation for it, only a flood of Afghan refugees. Add to that your military adventure in Iraq, which brought us even more refugees. I'd like to write you an invoice for that as well. Syria, there's a case to be made for that as well.
1
@johnnyhall9154 The US signed up for 2%. It's not like it was shoved down your throat. I wonder when we get compensated for having had troops in Afghanistan for 18 years straight to fight your war. We all know the outcome, too. We only got refugees in compensation. Then there are the Iraqi refugees, the Syrian refugees... need I go on?
1
@simontaylor2143 What a wonderful idea. In recompense for us sending troops to Afghanistan, we should demand oil fields from the US that pose an environmental hazard and cause climate change. We'll just landscape them.
1
@karlisnikazis5653 As things are, any Nordic and Baltic defence agreements -- or JEF for that matter -- are complementary to NATO; they don't substitute for it. If NATO were to fragment, it doesn't need to fragment into a great many pieces.
1