Preferences

> Some people in the US deride it's close allies as "freeloaders" because they choose to use and buy US tech

This is a disingenuous straw man. The allies are derided for literally freeloading on US military protection while underinvesting in their own defense.


Freeloading?

My country spends less on defence as a percentage of GDP than the US. But it spends much of that with US companies. This is not Freeloading. It was a deal. Cancel TSR-2, and buy American and we will lend you some money. Cancel your nuclear program and buy US submarine launched missiles and we will help you look after yourself. Now let Visa and Mastercard skim off all your transactions and we will keep you secure to keep the money flowing. Sweetheart tax deals for US companies to operate, and we will keep you safe to keep the money flowing. It is not Freeloading, it is colonialism

Agreed those things exist, in most contracts one or both parties feel they are not getting a 'fair' deal and will renegotiate terms, this is very common.
I can hear the whoosh going over the head of anyone associated with Trump. Thanks for trying though.
The current U.S. President has insisted that Europeans are freeloading. Given that he’s been the primary proponent of this idea, and given that he’s been cutting off aid and has made cutting off this “freeloading” the central plank of his defense strategy, the U.S. defense budget must have gone down significantly right?

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5656174-trump-si...

> The bill approves a record $901 billion in military spending for fiscal 2026

Oh…

Obviously faulty logic. This isn't a zero-sum game. In fact, the whole point is to increase our combined combat power.

For too long European NATO countries have kept token militaries lacking any substantial combat power. They have centered their national defense strategies around holding off Russia for just long enough for Uncle Sam to swoop in, fight the Russians, and save the day. But the US does not have the combat power to fight both Russia and China. So our total combat power must increase. Should the US bear this increased burden alone? Or should the rest of NATO finally get serious about funding and fielding effective militaries?

European states have been freeloading, and US defense budgets are not going to decrease just because Europe finally starts to take some responsibility for its own defense.

How's that? How many Middle Eastern refugees are America sheltering from the fallout of American aggression and the regimes it props up?

The US isn't anywhere close to paying its way.

Pray tell, how much of, say, the latest Afghanistan war did the US pay and how much do their allies need to bear? The rebuilding of a whole country, the reinstatement of the Taliban regime, the destabilization of the region, and the still ongoing stream of refugees? The political aftermath of which is still felt in Europe.
Europe could have simply denied entry to the refugees and avoided their entire refugee problem. It's especially silly to blame the US when most EU states strongly supported the downfall of Qaddafi and Assad.
That's the thing though. Most European states (inside and outside the EU) consider the US their strategic ally, and they will support whatever it takes to make that strategy work. Policy at international level is made for strategic reasons, and you have to look at what countries do, not at what they say.

The strongest state, economically and military, can get away with a lot others wouldn't, since everyone else will want to be on their good side. The new US administration has clearly shifted in terms of what they say, but not yet much in terms of what they do. Maybe Ukraine will be the exception here.

> The allies are derided for literally freeloading on US military protection while underinvesting in their own defense.

1. No one forced the US to spend a bajillion dollars on defense.

2. The US did so out of their own free will, and out of self-interest: their power hegemony allowed for peaceful trade routes that benefited the US economy and US corporations.

3. Their own defense against what? What threats, until fairly recently, did the Europeans face that they needed to spend money protecting against?

> Their own defense against what? What threats, until fairly recently, did the Europeans face that they needed to spend money protecting against?

Same ones the US built the most expensive army in the world to defend against

Let's not pretend this was something the US didn't want for most of the last seventy years.
Guess which country had never any interest in a strong (politically and militarily) Europe, to maintain the world hegemony?

A Europe with an independent defense is dangerous competition for the US. Maybe it means that some international trade will be done in Euro. Maybe it means foreign policies in Europe's interests.

This item has no comments currently.

Keyboard Shortcuts

Story Lists

j
Next story
k
Previous story
Shift+j
Last story
Shift+k
First story
o Enter
Go to story URL
c
Go to comments
u
Go to author

Navigation

Shift+t
Go to top stories
Shift+n
Go to new stories
Shift+b
Go to best stories
Shift+a
Go to Ask HN
Shift+s
Go to Show HN

Miscellaneous

?
Show this modal