Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

GrimeOfTheAncients t1_j05nyz6 wrote

It's a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy thoug.... expenditure on military bizarrely enough contributes to GDP.

So the USA pumps trillions into it's military industrial complex which shows up as a marvelous gdp whilst many of it's citizens are homeless and without medical care.

−2

Laranjaverso t1_j05otaz wrote

English isn't my first language so you can help me, what's GDP?

2

MidnightPale3220 t1_j05xzhi wrote

Also not all defence alliances are equal.

For example, currently there is a military conflict between Armenia (member of CSTO) and Azerbaijan, as well as between Kyrgyzstan (member of CSTO) and Tajikistan (observer status in CSTO). Russia as main "security provider" within CSTO doesn't appear to provide any meaningful security for its members in these cases.

15

MyaheeMyastone t1_j0608d5 wrote

It must be nice to be a small European country with free healthcare and generous welfare policies without having to contribute anything towards defense spending.

Literal continents rely on the US defense mechanism

12

SHODANs_insect t1_j064mdk wrote

That doesn't necessarily mean much, though. There are states in the US that are bigger recipients of federal funds than contributors of federal funds. There are many ways to carve up populations to indicate that some people are getting a free ride.

The disappointing thing about the US is that it has the capacity to retain its current military spending and provide universal healthcare and more generous welfare policies - and it doesn't.

11

never_rains t1_j065fnr wrote

When it is the whole continent of Europe getting a free ride on US defense spending it becomes a problem. The problem was known but not acknowledged. Now even the Finnish PM accepts that European security is too dependent on US. Germans aren’t spending enough to defend themselves. UK has a decent navy but there army is too small to offer any challenge. French might be the only one doing enough in terms of land army.

−1

never_rains t1_j065lyx wrote

Not all alliances are mutually exclusive. Pakistan is a major non NATO ally but India has closer relationship with US via quad in terms of Chinese threat. If there is a conflict between India and China then US would supply weapons to India and Pakistan would provide support to China.

6

SHODANs_insect t1_j065qcg wrote

>When it is the whole continent of Europe getting a free ride on US defense spending it becomes a problem.

What's the problem, exactly?

Because a moment ago it was that European nations could afford universal healthcare and generous welfare. The US can currently afford the same but chooses not to.

Are you moving the goalposts to another problem?

8

MidnightPale3220 t1_j067nyf wrote

True, but this doesn't invalidate my point that it is not necessarily very meaningful to just compare security alliances.

Can we talk about CSTO even being a security bloc if its members are fighting each other unchecked?

2

leela_martell t1_j07gyd9 wrote

Many "small European countries" have conscription. Every fifth person in my country (that has generous welfare policies) is in the army reserves and has completed at least 6 months of military service. It's just a different way to contribute.

The US has the money but most of its citizens don't have to go to the army.

5

AuburnElvis t1_j07o2xt wrote

OP doesn't acknowledge half of Africa's existence.

2

6658 t1_j07ta20 wrote

How is Mexico not a US ally?

2

vtTownie t1_j07tkvx wrote

As well, at this point, us is a good defense ally with the Brit’s and other Western European countries, but generally defense and intelligence wise, the US is closest with the aussies.

2

SenecatheEldest t1_j082g1g wrote

This chart is incredibly flawed. As someone mentioned, security arrangements vary in scope or scale - the Rio Treaty is defunct, and countries can be allies irrespective of formal security arrangements. For example, it strains belief to imagine that the US would treat an invasion of Austria or Ireland the same way it would treat one in the DRC or Sudan. Pakistan may b a 'Major Non-NATO Ally', but it's closer to China these days than the US.

1

partoftheplan4 t1_j08eq54 wrote

I think USA needs to be kinder to Mexico because we may need their help someday.

0

GrimeOfTheAncients t1_j08m61s wrote

Good old propaganda cool aid that line....

I bet you're talking about Europe vs the Big Bad Russian Bear right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

UK alone is spending more than the Big Bad Bear. France and Germany combined dwarfs the Big Bad Bear's expenditure.

Look at graph 5 of https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/3/pdf/220331-def-exp-2021-en.PDF

It's clear that NATO allies expenditure is disproportionately large compared to the threat it's facing.

4

MyaheeMyastone t1_j09hfan wrote

Yeah and that’s nice to have standing armies but large standing armies are not the name of the game anymore. It’s all about military tech, rockets, vehicles, etc. None of the countries conscripting are contributing even close to the amount the US does.

The sole reason these people are conscripted is so that they can learn how to use the equipment that we have developed for them

2

SnooPoems3567 t1_j0ahhpk wrote

Oh Pie Chart, you hide more information than you give. Half of Africa missing.

1

leela_martell t1_j0b5vqn wrote

My country paid 10 billion to the US for F-35s alone recently, you do understand that you’re getting money for that military tech? Yes the US military industry is big, but that is how the market works. I also use an Apple smartphone. 🤷🏻‍♀️

That doesn’t mean Europe isn’t too reliant on the US, cause we are, but us small countries are often punching well above our weight compared to the bigger European countries.

Anyways, the US is still the only Nato country to have ever invoked Article 5. So I guess your allies aren’t completely useless to you

2