We pay good money for that home to be safe, something Europeans constantly chide us for. Maybe Europe shouldn't have been relying on cheap resources.

We? As in the US?

The oceans keep us safe. The money we spend is to maintain hegemony.

Are you sure its just the oceans and not the massive navy we have in them?

Aircraft carriers are basically by definition not defensive.

A navy is an effective mobile border when you don't have a Hawaii everywhere. It's easier to defend your castle when your first wall is 2000 miles from your natural border.

Plus the best defense is a good offense. Nukes aren't a defensive weapon and yet they're an effective deterrent.

Yes. Invasion is basically logistically impossible without the assistance of Canada or Mexico, and with their assistance, would require a large, obvious, and vulnerable preparation lasting at least many months.

Of course our having a navy is a good idea. I'm obviously (and I think you know this) not advocating complete disarmament. We probably don't need a navy large enough to project force to the literal other side of the world in multiple places at the same time, though. Nor a standing army large enough to invade and occupy 2+ weaker countries at the same time.

The vast majority of our military spending is about hegemony maintenance and the ability to impose our will around the world, not defending ourselves. Our oceans do in fact put us on easy mode, for simply defending ourselves—we don't need the world's strongest military to do it.

Well, since EU is most definitely NOT safe from Russia I'd say you either don't pay enough or the money's squandered on something else.

EU's safety is the EU's problem. It has long been underinvesting in security hoping that the US would be its bodyguard. Time to see how little money you have left over for social safety nets when you're not buying cheap resources from the same enemy you need protection from.

If EU's safety is its problem then why are we not allowed to take an independent stance in any matter? As to the cheap resources, I'm sorry we didn't invade Iraq, Libia, Syria to get oil for pennies. The EU bought at market price from Russia, what's your point? Was US oil cheaper and we said no?

>If EU's safety is its problem then why are we not allowed to take an independent stance in any matter?

The EU pushed for sanctions just as much as the US did, you just don't like the outcome.

>As to the cheap resources, I'm sorry we didn't invade Iraq, Libia, Syria to get oil for pennies.

Well, first, you need a military to be able to do that. Second, we don't get oil for pennies anymore but we're not under existential crisis as to the future of cost of living.

>The EU bought at market price from Russia, what's your point?

You built a dependence on a country you're now scared of and that manages to get by without your money and that was a strategic mistake. The US has and is making a similar mistake with China. If the China situation pops off, it'll be the same thing here (and Europe is going to feel the pain of that because it's reliant on China for cheap tchotchkes too).

The US has plenty of useful idiots in positions of power in the EU, yes. They knew precisely what sanctions meant for the populace but went ahead anyway.

As to the military I'd like to refer you to this: https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-nato-problem-defense-...

A couple of quotes:

"Opposition comes not only from the U.S., which despite Trump’s browbeating of allies to spend more, is intent on preserving a 70-year-old framework that lets Washington call the shots and put its interests first."

"Under the guise of avoiding “duplication” and demanding “complementary” capabilities, the U.S. and NATO’s political leaders continue to put up strong resistance to the EU ever developing the command-and-control capabilities that would allow it to operate outside of the alliance’s existing umbrella."

At least on the China situation we seem to agree...