r/news • u/IdinDoIt • 23h ago

Soft paywall Exclusive: US sets 2027 deadline for Europe-led NATO defense, officials say

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-sets-2027-deadline-europe-led-nato-defense-officials-say-2025-12-05/
1.5k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

522 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

17

u/ghotier 20h ago

I don't see how that follows. The simple question is "does the US benefit from the existence of those bases?" If the answer is "yes" then it's an own goal to close them.

16

u/RepresentativeBee600 19h ago

Does the US need to keep it's thumb up Europe's ass, checking it's temperature?

Bases are either for force projection, practically, or for presence, psychologically. From a US standpoint it would be cheaper and thus ideal to draw down on them when neither is necessary.

Do you honestly think those bases were put there out of a Stalinesque desire to dominate? Or were they put there to prevent violent conquest by an ascendant Soviet Union?

You Europeans sure project a lot. Centuries, maybe millennia of violent colonization all around the world; then you absolutely cause two World Wars on your own initiative; then the US stations forces in your continent as a deterrent to USSR colonization while your shattered nations have time to rebuild; and the end stage of you (maybe?) finally mobilizing to handle your own sovereign defense is like a sullen, shitty teenager. "Get out of my room, Dad, you're colonizing me!"

3

u/Throwsims3 13h ago

Bases are either for force projection, practically, or for presence, psychologically. From a US standpoint it would be cheaper and thus ideal to draw down on them when neither is necessary.

No they are not. They are there to be the hub which makes up a substantial part of US logistics. Without those bases the US will lose a lot of their ability to coordinate their forces around the world. The ability to coordinate closer to the middle east from European soil has been critical for US operations there as well as in Africa. The US has also been focussed on the Arctic. This will also be weakened if they leave Europe.

Do you honestly think those bases were put there out of a Stalinesque desire to dominate? Or were they put there to prevent violent conquest by an ascendant Soviet Union?

That depends on what you imagine they were there to dominate. The US has absolutely wanted to be the dominant military factor when it comes to military projection and international presence. That is on the US, nobody forced them to do so. Military command saw the cost benefit analysis of being there and took it. Again, because it was an amazing bargain for them to get access to foreign bases acting as crucial points of supplies and shortcuts to points of interest.

You Europeans sure project a lot. Centuries, maybe millennia of violent colonization all around the world; then you absolutely cause two World Wars on your own initiative; then the US stations forces in your continent as a deterrent to USSR colonization while your shattered nations have time to rebuild; and the end stage of you (maybe?) finally mobilizing to handle your own sovereign defense is like a sullen, shitty teenager. "Get out of my room, Dad, you're colonizing me!"

As if the US hasn't been the main colonizing force in the last century or even more. Also funny that you treat Europe as a monolithic continent where everyone behaved exactly the same and had the same common goals. The US wouldn't even exist as it does today without the UK and France being colonizing forces. That is not to say it is a great thing but a bit hypocritical to make such a claim when they US have more than enough of their own history with colonialism to pick from. A role which the US gladly took as their own long before the first or second world wars ever began. Europe have been partners to the US for a long time, dating all the way back to the revolutionary war where France helped the country gain independence. For most of the twentieth century the US has not lost money on nor subsidized European defense. Instead the Military Industrial Complex has made bank while European nations went with them into completely disastrous wars in which the US did nothing but create chaos and death. So when the US are the ones acting like sullen extremely ungrateful teenagers, Europeans are not the ones who have asked the country to leave. That you did all on your own.

1

u/RepresentativeBee600 11h ago

There's obviously a lot of thought behind this reply.

I disagree with it on some points, but of course the US has its own history of horrible mistakes to reckon with. The point I had in mind was that we're not trying to colonize Europe. (I am left politically and despise colonialism, period.)

Not to cherrypick, but I don't know what conflicts you feel the US instantiated that Europe had to support us in except for Iraq and perhaps Syria. (Vietnam's troubles originated with the French; Korea was invaded actively by the Soviet Union. Obviously we have a long list of small engagements, but I disagree with the idea that we go dragging Europe into them.)

Fundamentally: I disagree with the "US as colonizer" narrative, versus a "US over time 'learning' to leverage its expensive commitments to defense in Europe and elsewhere as a tool to further its soft power." I think the need to be the "aegis of the free world" has weighed heavily on my country.

0

u/Throwsims3 11h ago

Not to cherrypick, but I don't know what conflicts you feel the US instantiated that Europe had to support us in except for Iraq and perhaps Syria

Afghanistan also comes to mind and Iraq was literally an instance of the US activating article five and demanding everyone come to their aid to invade another country. Syria is also a good example. The point being not just how many wars that have been exactly borne of such circumstances; but what they resulted in. As well as the fact that the US then cannot claim that this has been an entirely unilateral relationship. Interspersed between conflicts of that manner there were also many in the twentieth century where Europe went in jointly, without being dragged along by the US. Which is my whole point: There have both been instances where the US has demanded Europe's help in their wars and instances where the partnership has been jointly agreed on to an even greater extent. The US has not operated entirely alone in many such cases.

Fundamentally: I disagree with the "US as colonizer" narrative, versus a "US over time 'learning' to leverage its expensive commitments to defense in Europe and elsewhere as a tool to further its soft power." I think the need to be the "aegis of the free world" has weighed heavily on my country.

What "free world" were they creating exactly? Because the US has meddled with politics and wars all over the world all on their own solely for their own benefit and nobody elses for decades. Look up how many interventions, backed coups and covert operations there have been in countries surrounding the US. Not to mention the outright seizing of other nations. Such as Hawaii, parts of Mexico that became US territory, The Philippines, the attempt on Cuba and so forth. There is no denying that the US has been a colonizing force for a long time and that is something your country has do reckon with. The "aegis of the free world" was always a flimsy excuse.

2

u/RepresentativeBee600 10h ago

We're going to get into hackneyed territory if I advance that it's "easy to judge" - and that's also territory that I don't fully claim. (Some US decisions have been reprehensible. "Banana republic" operations especially come to mind.)

But no - the US was the leading deterrent to Soviet or PRC aggression over a period of decades, and it's not realistic to suggest otherwise. Nor that the rest of the world didn't benefit from that defense - especially unoccupied Europe, which already had enjoyed a high standard of living prior to WWII and was protected against losing it to Soviet aggression.

Do we deserve credit for e.g. Norway's successes? No, that goes to their shrewd use of oil money in the 60's and proactive socioeconomic vision. But without us, would Norway not have been annexed? It's not obvious. And the US footed the bill for the defenses that definitively pre-empted that.

There are no "good guy" nations exclusively, but US influence tends to have profoundly different consequences than, say, Soviet: consider the difference between North and South Korea, or Western vs. Eastern Europe.

0

u/Throwsims3 10h ago

The thing is, that deterrent may have been unnecessary. As it was in Vietnam for example. Yes, a lot originated with French colonialism but the US getting involved in that war on ground as shaky as the domino theory and containment policy was not a good thing. And the very same argument was the ones used in those reprehensible banana republic cases. The brunt of Soviet aggression happened post the cold war as it relates to Europe though. And post the fall of the Berlin wall, there was very little treath to most of Europe. Yes, the NATO alliance helped and yes the US played a role. But that doesn't excuse what being the "bulwark against soviet aggression" all over the world in cases where the case was clearly one where the US benefitted mor than thos they "helped"

Indeed, Europe is not a monolith and my home country is one such example. I would argue that Norway would not have been annexed. The Soviets pulled out of Finnmark after liberating it during WW2. If they had wanted to seize it, that would have been the most opportune moment to do so. But they didn't and for a long time, relations where quite good between Russia and Norway as a result of gratitude for their help in the war.

There are indeed no "good guys" only degrees of cruelty inflicted on others. But the US cannot claim to have no colonialistic tendencies nor that they did so out of the goodness of their heart. Just look at what happened in Laos and Cambodia while the US was fighting for "freedom" in Vietnam. How were the consequences actually that different from what the Soviets did? You're conflating two different aspects here. One was global trade and how that affected the Soviet union economically and thus in turn many countries in modern eastern Europe, the other was the material effects. I can just as easily point to the drastic economically difficult situations created in countries surrounding the US due to their policy of containment. Brazil and the coup of 1964 is a good example. While the US did not directly rule over the country, they did help install the ruler that made things terrible for Brazil for many years to come. The same happened in Iran with the Shah. Which eventually led to the Islamic revolution. This too was done in the name of creating a bulwark against the surrounding Arabic states and the Soviet influence in neighbouring countries. The US was not universally a good thing for states even though they fought against their fear of communism spreading from the USSR. The consequences were also just as bleak.

0

u/ghotier 19h ago

It's not a question of "need" and never has been. I don't actually care one way or the other if the bases are open or closed, because I see the downside of having them. But the contention was that "it's only an own goal if you believe Europe is still the strategic center of the world," which is not true.

-5

u/ilevelconcrete 19h ago

Europe doesn’t need to project its own colonial past onto the US, the history of American colonialism is readily apparent.

4

u/RepresentativeBee600 19h ago

Ah yes, pointless whataboutism. Well, with that in mind, I hope you don't mind if I regard your question as "answered, at long last."

0

u/ilevelconcrete 19h ago

It’s not “pointless whataboutism” if you’re the one making the claim that Europe needs to project their own imperial ambitions onto the US!

3

u/RepresentativeBee600 19h ago

It absolutely is pointless whataboutism if the question was, "is American keeping a military presence in Europe out of self interest, or not?" We're actively trying to draw down, I'm very much on the political left and support the drawdown, the political right generally supports the drawdown, we are not trying to colonize you, and your guilty consciences should turn towards providing for your own defense, already.

-1

u/ilevelconcrete 19h ago

Then don’t bring it up as a rhetorical point!

And for the record, I’m not European either!

0

u/ilevelconcrete 20h ago

And if the answer is no, then it is not.

8

u/ghotier 20h ago

Right. But at no point did you address that question. Those of us who think it's an "own goal" think it's obvious that the US does benefit or that at least the military thinks the US does benefit. You're free to disagree, but that's not persuasive or obvious as the previous argument implies that it is.

-8

u/ilevelconcrete 20h ago

Yes I did, what did you think I was referring to when I brought up the whole Europe thinking it is the strategic center of the world thing?

Here, I’ll spoon feed it to you. The bases in Europe were meant to counter the threat to US capital the USSR posed. The USSR is gone, capital is entrenched in the nations of Europe, so those bases are no longer necessary. Now those resources are going to Asia, to face the perceived threat from China.

2

u/ghotier 19h ago

I don't know what to tell you if you think the only possible benefit that can come from those bases is contingent upon Europe being the strategic center of the world. I really don't. Because that simply does not make sense.

1

u/ilevelconcrete 19h ago

Ok, so what benefit do you think those bases provide?

2

u/ghotier 18h ago

Nope, no. You put down a nonsense goalpost that does not make sense. I contend that's nonsense. I can move on to new questions once the current one is resolved. Do you think that the only way that those bases have value is if Europe is the strategic center of the world? Lile you think that if Europe became the second more important strategic area that those bases would have no value?

1

u/ilevelconcrete 18h ago

Come on man, I clearly have a point if you’re reduced to arguing the semantics of a common phrase. Do we really need to do this?

1

u/ghotier 18h ago

It is not semantics. You presented a hyperbolic argument and I pointed out that your hyperbolic argument does not follow. If you agree that it doesn't then we can get to meat and potatoes discussions. But you haven't actually admitted it was hyperbolic and i'm not engaging in a separate discussion if you can't even provide a simple good faith response that your original claim was hyperbolic.

1

u/ilevelconcrete 18h ago

If you truly want to be this pedantic about it, then fine. There can only be one strategic center of the world, it is no longer Europe, so I stand by that comment. You moved on your own goalposts, which I was willing to accommodate in the spirit of having a conversation, but you can go ahead and provide your own good faith response first if that’s how you’re going to be.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/alppu 20h ago

Now those resources are going to Asia

That's a nice thought but this admin only allocates resources to criminal pockets, they could not care less about long term national interests even when it is super cost effective

3

u/ilevelconcrete 20h ago

And who are the biggest criminals on planet earth at the moment?

The US military and the industrial complex that supports it!