> I think other countries around the world intentionally don't invest much because they know they can rely on the US's military to scare off attacks.
Ukraine has proved that's not true for US-friendly countries facing US-hostile foes, which is essentially the optimal scenario short of actual formal alliance, so I don't think that actually is a plausoble explanation except possibly for formal US allies.
This is a really insightful example. It pretty near demolishes all the self-serving theories pushed by MIC-underwritten think tanks etc. So what are we left with? Maybe most other nations have just rationally decided that human life can and should be more peaceful, so it's not necessary to stockpile enough armaments to kill all humans fifty times over.
It's not particularly insightful or correct. It is absolutely true that our traditional NATO allies (except maybe Turkey) cheapen out on defense spending in reliance on U.S. protection. Their leaders admit that themselves: https://apnews.com/0229dd7556264040810d9e7f96f3aa0a/France%2...
> In a speech to French ambassadors in Paris, Macron said “Europe cannot rely on the United States only for its security. It’s up to us to meet our responsibilities and guarantee our security, and therefore European sovereignty.”
Nobody has decided that "human life can ... be more peaceful" without military superiority. Now that Trump has given Europeans reason to be skeptical about America's commitment, there is already a push to build up Europe's military forces. Macron will increase defense spending by 35% over six years, reversing a decade of decline: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-defence/france-com...
Ukraine is not a particularly good counter-example of that theory. First, Trump is the first U.S. President to exhibit some isolationist tendencies since Carter. But European disinvestment in defense has been going on since the USSR collapsed. Second, Ukraine is a former USSR country with a complicated history with Russia. It's not indicative of whether the U.S. would come to the defense of a real U.S. ally.
Parent already excepted "formal" allies, so we're not even talking about France. Incidentally, France is unique among the nations of western and central Europe in spending more than 2% of GDP. Ukraine (and Russia) spends more, but that's kind of the point: Ukraine is one of the few nations that rationally fears external aggression. Taiwan is another such nation. They don't imagine we'll go to war with China for them, anymore than we went to war for Crimea or Georgia. In general, nations that spend more than 2% of GDP on the military are more concerned with internal enemies and local opportunities for plunder than with a real war with another nation. The world ain't perfect yet. Even so, lots of nations in Europe, Latin America, Southeast Asia, etc. aren't afraid to spend reasonable amounts on armaments.
Grandparent's claim was that other nations "can rely on the US's military to scare off attacks". Ukraine clearly can't rely on that, any more than Taiwan can. This quibbling over accounting is beside the point.
Philippines have already kicked USA military out of all the various bases they had built there. (No one who knows a bit of history was surprised by that.) RoK will eventually spend more resources supporting DPRK than menacing it, and they might very well kick USA out in the next decade. Korea fairly exemplifies the situation of nations who might consider USA military "assistance". Their current situation is far from what they would consider ideal, even if worse could be imagined. They could keep militarizing more and more, running to stand still, but that won't be tenable forever. We're told to fear change, but the change that the militarists really fear is more peace.
Ukraine has proved that's not true for US-friendly countries facing US-hostile foes, which is essentially the optimal scenario short of actual formal alliance, so I don't think that actually is a plausoble explanation except possibly for formal US allies.