> American's won't come and die for us

Not one person ever expected American blood to be spilled in Ukraine. Framing the opposing side with having these thoughts is arguing in bad faith. And what peace is there in letting a bully get away with the spoils? What's going to stop them from doing it again?

And yea the US didn't technically start the war, but if Ukraine didn't give up their nukes because of assurances by the US, then they wouldn't have been in this situation.

Because all the allies signed a treaty promising exactly that: we'll come and die for you. It's the whole point of an alliance! You don't consider someone an ally if you can't count on them to show up!

No the allies signed the treaty because they desperately needed Americas protection. They were looking for us to protect them, not for them to do anything for us. NATO was never a treaty of equals. It was America flexing its might and Europe having to concede. Europe has tried to play it off like they are "allies" but that is too strong a word as that implies the would actually be able to do something, which at the time they couldn't.

Also please note that Article 5 of the NATO treaty doesn't obligate the US to actually do anything. We can take any "Action It Deems Necessary". We are not obligated to send troops, money or material. There is no timeline for when we must take action, nor is there an automatic declaration of war. The whole thing is we can do what we want when we want.

Part of that treaty was they had spending requirements to meet as well. Yet that gets frequently forgotten by the parties who didn't meet those obligations. It is like Europe wants all the benefits of the treaty but don't feel compelled to keep up their end of the agreement.

Because they didn't keep their end of the agreement this means a greater burden would fall on America if we actually got lassoed into another European war. It seems the height of hypocrisy for Europe to demand America do the hard part in wartime when Europe couldn't even be bothered to do the easy part in peacetime.

First, 2% is a guideline, not a requirement. No one is required to spend 2% of GDP, which is an inherently fluctuating target anyway.

Second, European underspending has been by American design. Europe spent decades being told to rebuild their economies and states and not worry because the US nuclear umbrella protected them. This redounded to the US in terms of leading the world economy; it also gave the US tremendous influence in the EU.

In the 90s, Europeans talked about standing up an EU armed force. A small one, around 50,000 people, mainly to serve as an umbrella organization should EU forces come together for some mission, or to go to war as part of NATO. Clinton leaned on France and Germany to scuttle the idea. If Europeans became less dependent on the US, it meant less soft power for the US; less say in European affairs.

The secondary benefit of keeping everyone individually weak and collectively strong is that no European war was possible. The 80 years of peace in Europe following WW2 are the longest period of peace they've had in almost 400 years. Europe upping its defence spending directly threatened that and was actively discouraged until about a decade ago.

Europeans haven't been freeloading. They've wilfully subordinated themselves to the US security establishment for the collective benefit. To pretend otherwise is to be deeply ignorant of modern history.

This is a tough one as I agree with many of your points but not fully.

So here is my follow up. I don't believe it was Americas intention to keep Europe weak. That treaty was signed after WW2. Russian was at western Europe's door step and they were depleted from the war so they needed protection. They signed NATO treaty with America for that purpose. It was not a treaty of equals, it was America flexing its global power and Europe having to acquiesce. Over the years it has been retconned into an alliance of "allies" but really most of the "allies" were protectorates and not contributors.

I would counter that they have been freeloading. Europe absolutely willfully subordinated themselves for THEIR benefit. They have been getting national security for free for nearly 80 years. I am not ignorant of that. Yet I am no longer of the opinion that there is as much benefit to us as there once was. We have our own issues to attend to at home that we haven't had in the past. 100,000 Americans die every year from the drugs brought over by the cartels. We have 100,000's of illegals coming across our borders. We should prioritize our own defense for now and let Europe stand on its own. If Europe cant keep from having wars with each other than maybe the security the US was providing would be worth paying for.

This is a gracious response and I appreciate it.

Europe in total equals the US by numbers: population, GDP, military availability (though obviously not cohesiveness). It's not that the US wanted a weak Europe; they wanted weak individual states depending on each other and the US for collective security. No, it was never an alliance of equals; that's not the point. Collectively, NATO was incredibly strong, and what Europe offered was the battlefield. In the Cold War, the plans were that the Warsaw Pact forces would come streaming through the Fulda Gap and burst through NATO defences, crossing plains to the Rhine River and surging westwards across Europe. The NATO plan to handle this was to detonate nuclear land mines in the mountain passes, blocking them.

The NATO plan was to detonate nukes on German soil to take out the initial advance and block the second echelon of Soviet tank divisions (without Soviet nuclear weapons, tactical or otherwise, having been used). Germany OK'ed this plan. Upon detection of an imminent Soviet attack, special forces would, 12-24 hours in advance, emplace the nuclear mines (about the size of half a minivan) and prepare to detonate. NATO's warplans always anticipated first use of tactical nukes (because NATO numbers were always dwarfed by Warsaw Pact numbers) and the battlefield was always Europe. Every warplan always involved European allies taking the first blow and America responding.

Calling European states protectorates that begged for American protection really undersells the value of a relatively independent (western) Europe, both economically and militarily. Without Europe as the front line in a future war against the Warsaw Pact, America would either have to watch Europe be subjugated by the Soviet Union, or fight a war across the Atlantic without local cooperation (and the Pacific, where Japan/South Korea stood in for Europe). Europe offered intelligence co-operation and direct contact. Economically, Europe (and Japan) rebuilding quickly and participating in first world market economics was unbelievably beneficial to the US. If nothing else, the fact that the US dollar is the world's reserve currency is justification enough for US expenditures in the Cold War.

To go back to my original point, it was always mutually beneficial, and everyone knew it and was in agreement. Everyone was stronger together, and no one is in debt to anyone else.

If the cost/benefit calculus has changed, then that's just life: shit changes. All of the problems you mention are exclusive of America's (previous) commitment to NATO--American has more than enough money to attend to both. But the idea that Europe/the rest of NATO should suddenly be a defense subscriber to the US is just... America didn't bootstrap itself to the position it's in now. Its prior close workings with the free world have made all the difference, and for a while (and no longer) it seemed like everyone understood how it all worked.

I appreciate the thoughtful response it’s refreshing to have a real discussion rather than the usual knee-jerk reactions.

That said, I think you’ve actually made my point for me. You laid out how Europe is equal to the U.S. in GDP, population, and military availability, all of which just reinforces why it no longer makes sense for the U.S. to keep shouldering the majority of European defense.

If Europe is fully capable, then it should be fully responsible for its own security. That doesn’t mean alliances disappear, but it does mean the dynamic needs to shift. The U.S. has carried this burden for 80 years, and at some point, grown-up nations take full responsibility for their own defense.

I agree that NATO served its purpose mutually during the Cold War. But now that the geopolitical landscape has changed, so should the arrangement. The U.S. has pressing priorities at home, and if Europe is as strong and independent as you say, then it should have no problem stepping up.

If Europe wants full American protection, then maybe it’s time they start paying for it.

I think you're going to get your wish: the summit in London today is focussing exactly on "how does Europe proceed without depending on the US?" They're going to ramp up defense spending, and support of Ukraine, and France is already talking about lending its nuclear weapons to partner nations to establish broader deterrance. Between this and Trump's tariffs, the EU has been given a strong push towards independence, and is jumping on it.

Honestly, at this point I think NATO itself is over. Once the trust was broken, once Europe realized that they can't depend on the US, the alliance was a foreign policy option rather than a commitment. The loss of stability that implies scares me to death, though.

I think our news cycles are very different. All I heard about from our allies in the wars was how they didn't want to be there and America should ramp them down. Also their contributions weren't exactly "overwhelming" aside from Canada and British they were more token then anything.

Line of "The US does nothing for free or out of goodwill" comes up all the time. Please tell me what country does? Then the next thing they do is go right into some form of name calling or denigration, just like you did.

Nothing in your response was about the main points of my comment. Which were firstly that America doesn't have to negotiate peace for/with Ukraine in a way that Ukraine really wants. Secondly because of how Americans feel they have been treated by Europeans over the last century a large portion of the population no longer views them as worthy allies, they feel more like fair weather supporters than allies tbh. So they feel it would be unwise to send our children to die for Europe's safety.

The last point is Europe has been neglecting its own commitments to NATO via its annual spending. So it feels like they are expecting free protection from the Americans which feels like a form of entitlement which leads back to the second point.

I get that these are contentious issues and controversial topics at times but trying to insult or insulate things about someone based on perceived political alignment is not what this site is about.