Heck, less than half of Western Europeans would fight to defend their own country[0]. In the UK, only a third of people surveyed would do so. That's less than those who believe that the US would come to their aid!
Irrelevant. This measures trust towards USA to send their people who are willing to fight implied by them joining the military, not willingness to fight amongst the general public.
We don't care. Approximately 0% of the American public believes the UK would help us if we were invaded, because we have eyes and have seen how absolutely degraded the European militaries have become, outside of a few outliers like Poland and Turkey.
I worked in the Pentagon for 10 years, and went over to the UK about twice a year for work at RAF Mildenhall, which, of course, is primarily filled with USAF planes and airmen.
European nations stopped caring about defending themselves, and turned NATO into a charity of which they are the recipients.
More recently (2016-2021), I would travel to London on a regular basis to work with a team based out of an office in Shoreditch. The sentiment of the average Londoner to the US military was fairly negative, typically accompanied by a face that looked like they had just smelled a fart.
My son is 18. I don't want him being drafted into any war on behalf of a demoralized population that doesn't want to fight for their own country. It's morally reprehensible to expect us to subsidize a society that has imprisons citizens for social media posts and fines our tech companies every chance they can get.
Brits and Europeans died for America's last two wars, on a percentage basis more Dutch and Canadian troops died than Americans. Nearly 500 British troops died for your war.
Next time America asks for assistance, whether it's troops or firefighters I hope the attitude is reflected back and it comes with a costs+ invoice due up front.
Our next war is going to be in the Indo-Pacific, and the Diego Garcia is already a de facto American run base, and now going to be part of Marutius due to French and Indian lobbying [0], and because the UK deal was set to expire in 2036.
I'd trust the French more than the Brits in an Indo-Pac conflict, because they have actual stakes due to French Polynesia and Mayotte.
And if we're honest, it doesn't make sense for the UK to fight a Pacific war anyhow. The UK has constantly stepped up to help Ukraine and remains a very strong buttress against Russia. It's best if the UK remains a lynchpin for European security.
America not honoring another country's article 5 after America itself was the only country to call article 5... this attitude will absolutely spur nuclear weapons programs in countries across the world.
> Approximately 0% of the American public believes the UK would help us if we were invaded
This is just silly nonsense.
In various polls the US and UK poll quite similarly, in that the percentage of people who believe their country should honour article 5 in case of an attack on a NATO ally, polls about 2x greater than the percentage of people who believe their country shouldn't.
So approximately 0% is nonsense.
But besides the fact that the beliefs of the US population isn't 0%, look at the reality: the UK went to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight alongside the US on foreign soil, while most of the world didn't and opposed those wars. What makes you think the UK won't fight alongside the US if it was under attack on its own territory? It makes no sense.
The US being invaded essentially means there is a world war. The idea that the UK would try to stay neutral instead of follow its treaty requirements with its greatest historical ally ever, and bow to its new ruler, is just silly.
As for the UK military's prowess, it is obviously not what it used to be, in relative terms. But to compare it unfavourably to Poland and Turkey? Neither could beat the UK, except on their home soil. And in the context of an invasion of the US, I'd rather have the UK as an ally, it actually has long-distance projectionist military power which is exceedingly rare outside of the US, Turkey or Poland don't have it.
I'm curious if there is any polling data on British willingness to help Canada should they face invasion from the U.S. Canada being a commonwealth country with their King as their head of state.
What if the trigger was the US annexing a NATO nation's territory? He's already made noises about Canada and Greenland (Denmark). That would be the ultimate farce.
Greenland is about the arctic. It's not some farce or meme. Look at an actual globe and when the ice melts that white stuff is going to be a navigable ocean between Canada Greenland and . . . Russia.
We tend to think of the world on a flat world Google map and Russia seems so far away, but when the pole melts Russia will be closer to north America and they will be wanting that area too.
No ice means it's easier to drill for natural resources. The US is preempting the melt and trying to get ahead in the race for the arctic. It's much more valuable than at first glance.
I laughed first too. I then felt that my laughter was due to not understanding it. "How bizarre, LOL". Then I felt like I was missing something big. Now I try to use these "bizarre jokes" as a sign to look deeper.
In a way (although this info isn't secret at all, just boring) we can use Trump's inability to have a filter to leak the advice that his advisors are giving him more than past statesmen would.
Yeah, we should ask USA to pay for the help we offered them and for our soldiers that died in those conflicts sinee the USaians really are into "deals" and paying for help.
You entered ww1 in 1917, almost at the end of the war after German submarines attacked American ships, if I remember correctly. So the US tried to stay out for quite some time.
You mean when Japan attacked USA and you were forced to enter the war? I do not remember USA attacking nazis because of morality, in you were forced by getting attacked. I remember USA doing business with nazis so the "help" was mustual you were fighting same enemy and my country Romania was in fact on the other side , we were sold to USSR in the end so you got your payment when you split the world with USSR
You implied the US entered WW2 to help out the European allies and thus they still owe you. But as the person you're responding to pointed out, you entered it of your own accord, pursuing your own interests.
So, no, we're not going to, in your own words, "compare them to WW1 and WW2 and see if we owe you any money".
Moreover, the US were paid back for any weapons or resources you supplied.
No, you're the one gaslighting. It was not a few NATO nations throwing some resources, although, obviously, you deliberately chose this language to gaslight...
In reality, it was NATO nations responding to the US invoking Article 5, the only time it's been invoked in NATO's history. And in contrast to righteously throwing around empty words about Americans hypothetically coming to die for someone, these nations actually sent their troops, and some of them literally died for you.
> I said bring receipts and we can compare
Again, what are you going to compare against? WW2? The US did not enter WW2 as a favour to the other allies, you entered the war in response to Pearl Harbor. Meanwhile Hitler was dreaming of New York in flames. So your troops went to Europe to protect your own country. Sure you were fighting alongside the UK's forces but they were helping you to protect the US as much as you were helping them defeat Nazi Germany.
> Europe has not been meeting is spending targets as specified by the treaty.
Yeah, because recognizing USD as the world's reserve currency is suddenly not enough.
> I say article 5 is a complete non starter and should be utterly disregarded
Don't remember a lot of US people saying this when it was being invoked in 2001. Maybe you were saying it back then?
That said, it's not surprising at all. What do you call taking advantage of a friend and abandoning them afterwards? Another Friday?
Yeah, I was wondering at what point Putin decides to roll the dice and put that to the test by rolling into Estonia, Lithuania or Latvia. He must be feeling his chances are pretty good right now.
yeah NATO got irrelevant and Putin certainly now wishes he would not have attacked Ukraine. Rolling into these 3 mini countries with his entire army from 2022 would have been a much easier task
Even if the US did nothing, rolling into NATO lands would put them up against the UK, Germany, France. Poland et al as well as Ukraine.
The worry is more that a ceasefire is called. Russia rearms and succeeds in taking over Ukraine and then a combined Ukraine and Russia attacks Europe with President Vance supporting Putin.
Is that dumb? These transport animals basically make themselves. Self-replicating, way cheaper than robots, easy to replace when they break down. Don't need sophisticated software, etc. Just some training and sensory deprivation.
I wish humans would not involve other species in their sadistic ways of killing and maiming each other, though. Donkeys, horses, ... all benefited from war mechanization. Dogs not so much so far. Dutch happily train dogs that are then sold to allies to be used to attack, threaten, maim, shit and piss on, sodomize, and kill defenseless people. Bizarre.
It isn't dumb so much as desperate. Their preference is to supply troops with trucks, but they have lost a huge number of trucks and use many of those remaining as troop transports on the front line which also speaks of desperation.
I don't think that we're this far gone yet, but is there a chance the US sides with Putin in this case? I think it would be risky, and I don't _think_ Trump's base would go for it, but it does feel like the long term goal is to try to sanitize the idea of a shift in the geopolitical order to ally America with Russia instead of with Europe.
trump and the republicans must really be stupid to trade NATO for russia, while leaving an opening for china to side with europe. If US ditches europe, india/SK/JP and the rest of asia will soon reciprocate.
All this so that US sides with a bankrupt cleptocracy and dictatorship. 1000iq move, I guess.
Unless Trump wants to start WW3 the US won't be able to do anything, and even if he did start WW3, Europe would be able to destroy those bases.
The whole point of them was to give the US influence while improving US security. Given Europe can't trust Trump will come to their aid, they won't give the US as much influence over Europe.
Have you ever wondered why the US is able to spend so much on its military? Ever wondered why the US keeps on printing the dollar that's not backed by any gold reserve and other nations still give you real things such as food, resources, goods in exchange for it?
Here's a hint! It's your military. To put it bluntly, European nations and other US allies pretend the dollar has actual value and the US in turn guarantees security and backs the world order based on the rule of law.
Looks like the US is looking to pull out of its end of the deal. That's fair enough, being the world's policeman is sure a heavy burden to carry. I just don't see many people recognizing the implications for the US economy.
Maybe this passes as insightful in some circles but it's completely untrue when you consider how much of his base is currently fuming about weak Epstein annoucement and Israel more generally.
I am trying to express in good faith, I have found the Left to be generally less effective in dealing with grassroots criticism (it's seen as too populist). Trump will flip on an issue due to pressure from the frog guys. The Left are more dogmatic from top intellectuals, don't really listen to the base. Huge issue in the last elxn. Fixable though imo.
Nah, they'd say it was god's will or some nonsense and pretend it's all right. A minority might even be completely fine with losses as long as their god emperor wins in the end and owns the libs.
Yes, he did everything he could to prevent it - being mocked mercilessly by the rightwing for suggesting Putin might do what he eventually did.
Biden did not do enough to kick Russia out, though. He should have given Ukraine everything they wanted, including a no-fly zone (and ideally Warthog support when Russia was stuck in the mud).
IMHO, they are already there. There's no spine in the Republican party to prevent bowing down to Putin, they have always been anti-Europe, and Putin is a big daddy that they actively court when they idolize Hungary's dictator and hold CPAC meetings and try to emulate Orban.
I think in this era of misinformation Trump+Elon can convince their falolowers that is the greatest idea to help Putin, and that Putin is the second greatest leader in the world history after Trump... you can still see USAians claiming USA paid more then Europe even if the lie was exposed days ago
"Glory", so not specifics around hypothetical land Putin aka Hitler 2.0 imagines he wants. There's no evidence for him saying anything besides … what he's literally says. This fantasy conjecture is weakening the international position on Ukraine, especially with such easy access to Russian translation tools where we can just expose this secret conspiracy of yours. He literally only talks about Ukraine, you can look into this yourself.
Or perhaps you mean "glory" in the sense of some kind of national pride and confidence in culture and nationality? I am not sure arguments against any nation seeking a sense of themselves are particularly compelling…
Just because the US changing its mind about Russia changes NATO's dynamic as a whole does not mean that the Baltic states are immediately in danger. Poland and Finland are both nearby NATO countries that have experienced Russia's thumb directly with their own military industrial base or are developing one that would absolutely step in if need be.
Reminder that Finland is really close to St. Petersburg, the 2nd largest city in Russia with some pretty big cultural and military importance. Putin's done some fantastically stupid stuff in regard to the 2022 Ukraine war, namely resuming it, but he's probably not that dumb.
You are right. I do hope Zelenksy noticed the sudden caveats he added a few days ago, too. Same thing - Trump wants many billions in resources, yet "can't" guarantee anything in return.
Russia immediately responded by saying it would happily share those resources. Of course.
