To be precise, the NATO target is 5% of GDP. The US spends 13.3% of its budget on defense, but only 3.4% of GDP.

Where are you getting this NATO target of 5% of GDP?

>...In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending to continue to ensure the Alliance's military readiness.

>...The combined wealth of the non-US Allies, measured in GDP, is almost equal to that of the United States. However, non-US Allies together spend less than half of what the United States spends on defence.

https://www.nato.int/cps/em/natohq/topics_67655.htm#:~:text=...

Well, I genuinely hope our governments start getting in talks with China.

1. I think it’s also fair to say that since the interview, Mark Rutte has come out and said that NATO countries need to increase their spending to be able to protect themselves. Countries like Poland, Sweden, and Lithuania (possibly more, though I haven’t followed this closely) have shared the same opinion. Paraphrasing Tusk's comments, wanting your allies to be stronger can hardly be considered a hostile move.

2. The only thing to add here is that, over time, this has morphed from “not ruling out the use of force” to “threatening the use of force.” Either way, I agree, it’s not a good look.

3. To counterbalance, the EU has been using US tech companies as a piggy bank for many years now, yet that hasn’t hindered collaboration between the US and Europe.

NATO isn’t dead but is likely only going to grow stronger. FVEY will probably continue, especially on initiatives where everyone stands to benefit.

> the EU has been using US tech companies as a piggy bank for many years now,

Ouch ouch... I have to tell you that you got this backwards. Those tech companies are very happy to hoard billions of dollars from EU citizens. The problem is more that they don't like competition and have utmost disrespect for human rights like privacy. There were lawsuits for the very basic thing of ANTI-COMPETITIVE behavior.

The real tragedy US people do not even know anymore what a healthy, competitive economy does entail. US companies do not like to compete, they like to kill competition.

I did not even mention they facilitate illegal stuff, poison society with disinformation and function as a springboard for adversary states. Those slaps on the wrist were a shame. Google, Apple and MS should have had received a ban for 20 years, but the EU has been to late to decouple, and now they find themselves in the grip of tech oligarchs.

(Luckily, some of them are also openly nazi-supporters, otherwise the Afd would miss some keynote speakers).

Nice story, but it doesn’t really match the reality I’ve seen.

One example: I was involved in the implementation of Article 15/17 at one of the FAANG companies. Throughout the process, we had many meetings with governmental bodies in the EU and, specifically, with the European CMOs (many of these are government controlled in Europe). It was clear as day that all they wanted from us was to pay up. It was literal extortion and had nothing to do with helping the "creatives" or fair competition or anything else.

Man, that sounds unfair. If I would be the owner of a FAANG company, I would tell the EU to fuck themselves instead of using them as a piggy bank. Why do those FAANG companies still want to do business there? It almost sounds like the EU wants companies to pay taxes and fines if they violate the law.

An alternative theory is that you were not in every relevant meeting.

I am sorry for the sarcasm, but I totally don't buy it. And you understand why.

> I would tell the EU to fuck themselves instead of using them as a piggy bank. Why do those FAANG companies still want to do business there?

Maybe because no one makes business decisions based on emotions? The situation could be unfair but you might still choose to continue to engage just because it's beneficial for the company for all other reasons. All things considered, they still make money in that region, maybe not as much as they would have made otherwise.

> An alternative theory is that you were not in every relevant meeting.

I'm telling you what we heard directly from the gov agencies and you're saying that I wasn't in the right meetings? Maybe, but I at least have some first-hand knowledge to share here and not just snarky comments.

> I am sorry for the sarcasm, but I totally don't buy it. And you understand why.

No, I don't understand why and I'm not very interested in continuing this conversation either. You don't seem to have much to add it.

Well, let me be clear. No government can extort you here. There are laws. If you found the government agency in violation of the law, you should take it to the right court.

(A FAANG company usually has a lawyer or two. In an extreme case a fine would have been handled as a settlement for a complex series of violations by the company. The FAANG lawyer would understand it if the company still had a case or not. We know that FAANG companies have been in violation of various laws. Maybe FAANG got lucky and got a deal. That is unfair, I think a market access ban for several years is more fair for all people. The EU doesn't have a Trump. What you experienced was most likely competent and educated personnel from its executive branch. But you did not understand what your company did wrong. Hate me now, thank me later for giving a reality check.)