Hey, Rayiner. Please don't generalize about whole huge groups of people this way. This is just about how you're choosing your words, not about what you're trying to say. When you say things like this, you're begging to have the thread spin out on a useless slapfight about Europeans vs Americans. I'm not just randomly making it up; it's a guidelines thing (the search bar will avail). If you see me write things like this, I'd be grateful if you mentioned it to me, too.

Fair enough--I mean "many of the same europeans who mocked American military spending in the past." Many Europeans making negative comments about American defense spending is definitely a recognizable phenomenon. I'm simply trying to comment on the shift in tone now that there is a threat in their own back yard.

"Many of the X who Y" seems like a useful pattern. It's annoying, but we have to be extra careful when we step into these kinds of debates (as opposed to, like, debates about register allocators), because they're especially flammable. But I also think the exercise of revising comments to devenomize them (especially when you didn't mean to mix any venom in!) is valuable even outside of HN.

Sweden and Finland should not be allowed to join NATO until they pay backdues. It is obvious that a large portion of countries depend implicitly on the United States for their defense against certain bad actors, like Russia, North Korea, and China. They ought to pay us, because right now, American military spending which guarantees these country's security is being disproportionately paid for by Americans, who are enjoying only partial benefits.

Sweden and Finland have paid more "dues" than much of the rest of NATO. They've both got very capable militaries that have done joint exercises with NATO. Any increased costs to defend them are more than balanced out by decreased costs to defend the Baltics.

What backdues? They were neutral, there was no treaty.

> "Depend implicitly"

That is your opinion. These countries have capable armies.

US benefits from NATO in a different way; it gets unprecedented level of access and control of airspace and land. It is a military and political power benefit, much more precious than some joke money. US can print all the money it needs, since US dollar is reserve currency.

Huh. I always thought Finland paid its dues when it fought off an invasion from the Soviet Union without help from the anti-German alliance in 1940.

Sweden and Finland should join NATO, and America should leave. Europe’s security is their problem, not ours.

I have no idea why what I wrote resulted in your reply.

As I recall you were pretty critical of the American military in the past. It just seems like many of the folks who threw around the term “warmonger” with respect to the US when a middle eastern dictator was threatening his neighbors are now sounding the same way Bush administration people did when talking about Saddam.

I am entirely free to have my own opinion which does not necessarily lie nicely aligned with various American political parties or groups. The whole idea that because my worldview does not align perfectly with yours that you get to start generalizing about 'Europeans sounding like neocons' is a bit strange.

As far as I'm aware the country where I live - and plenty of others - have contributed to various NATO exercises, budgets, weapons spending and in fact combat missions.

If you think that it was 'too little' then that's fine with me but it still does not align my world view with that of the neocons or any other American political organization. The world is a little bit more complex than that.

The Bush administrations reasons for interfering in Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq threatening their neighbors, you really should read up a bit on that particular chapter if you want to start arguing about it. And in spite of all the bullshit that led to that particular war there - again - were plenty of people from countries besides the US involved. Though, it has to be said, not at the same level but this in part had to do with the fact that the evidence that led to the Iraq war was about as dodgy as it gets.

NATO did escalate with Russia since the fall of the USSR. Even former Bush admins protested against this.

Hard disagree. NATO doesn't expand; independent countries choose to join NATO as is their right. No country is in someone's natural sphere of influence, that's 19th century thinking. Joining a defensive alliance is not an escalation except in the eyes of an empire that wants to annex its neighbours.

Like walking alone while wearing a very short skirt in the wrong part of town after midnight, I find that idea principled but self-destructive. Is it your right to ask to join a military alliance? Absolutely. Is it surprising that provokes a violent reaction from the state whose power is threatened by that alliance? Only if you're very naive. Is that reaction ok? Of course not, but silly of you if you weren't expecting it and is the principle really worth the personal cost?

In this case, yes it's clearly worth it. The alliance is more than capable of dealing with the bully, so there's no need for concessions.

All empires have to face their end eventually and it's well past the time for Russia to demilitarize and make amends for their violent past.

The alliance is capable of dealing with the bully, but it clearly prefers not to, and will probably say meh even if Ukraine gets totally destroyed. Which may cause some leaders in Ukraine, just as some already do in EU/America, think that maybe the whole nation building and bear poking on its doorstep wasn't worth it. But it is also possible that Russia won't be strong enough to keep this up and some stalemate will be reached. Time will tell.

Has it been worth the price for Ukraine, and the common people who paid it with their lives? Couldn't the same point be made regarding the US? Would every Iraqi be in favour of the West being the only military power on Earth?

A good place to note I fully condemn Russia for the invasion and loss of lives... I just don't find it surprising in the least and do think NATO expansion catalysed much preventable harm.

Ukraine did not join NATO, and it's not ok to draw a direct line between former Warsaw Pact countries joining NATO and the current war in Ukraine.

Also, as said you shouldn't say "NATO expansion". That's the imperialistic Russian viewpoint. NATO doesn't expand, countries join the alliance.

And I repeat that that's a very naive point of view. NATO absolutely expands and is aligned with a political point of view. I'm part of it and presumably so are you, but that doesn't give it magical properties. Ignoring NATO's historical context does no good.

NATO is not just a defensive alliance as we saw in Afghanistan. Defense activities don't result in a twenty year occupation.

Yes they do. Russia occupied Germany for decades after a defensive war.

Lots of 3-month old accounts spewing nonsense in this thread.

I wished it was limited to those.