IMO, if any random country’s government whom we are not allied with through NATO publicly criticizes the USA’s response to helping them out in a war that we have no obligation to help with, I believe we should immediately cease any and all financial aid and let them feel the squeeze. When they publicly apologize and recognize that the United States is truly the only thing keeping any order in the world, then and only then do we consider resuming whatever support we deem appropriate. This should apply to any NATO-allied nation who hasn’t met their 2% defense spending as well. If your country doesn’t keep up their end of the deal, we certainly shouldn’t keep ours.
I understand the impulse to not want to support other countries who don't seem grateful for the aid -- but this sounds like one of those "cutting of your nose to spite your face" situations. Even if you're annoyed that a recipient of US aid is insufficiently grateful, and even if you think NATO allies should be paying their 2% ... a key question is still, "Do we prefer the world where the current-aid-recipient is unsupported?"
If the US prefers the world where Ukraine is not annexed into Russia, then even if our support is not appreciated to your satisfaction, it may still be best _for the US_ to provide the support.
This is exactly why “America is bad” is such a common opinion.
The preferred response of many of its citizens and politicians, is to prove the critics right with no thought of how that affects the world. This vindictive idea is worthy of a 4 year old child that doesn’t know any better.
And I bet you think that the US never benefited from being the world police. You think that the only super power in the world projecting influence all over the globe was all done out of the goodness of their hearts?
Despite much criticism, the US was the country most democracies looked up to or followed. It’s sad and quite worrying for the world that we’re now seeing the end of that.
It is not about what America has or hasn't done, good or bad, but all about the possibility of Trump. The idea of the US getting a president as immature as yourself, who rather aligns himself with the gangsters of the world, whose idea of diplomacy is beg-for-mercy-who-is-your-daddy-now oneliners, that is what scares Europa into self-reliance.
Since Trump, the US might not be the US anymore in the future. It might break its promises, withdraw from NATO, from Paris and any other treaty it has made. War is coming closer to us, we cannot rely on a US that is actively flirting with authoritarianism.
Hopefully not, but it is a very real possibility. And we are not ready for it.
I didn’t like him as president, but he was entirely right about that. Any president would be, regardless of their politics. As bluntly as possible:
Keep your promises, and we will keep ours. But if you fail to keep yours, I do not believe we have any obligation to fulfill ours, even if it leads to loss of life. That’s not immaturity, that is the most basic, foundational tenets of a pact.
Europe constantly fails to meet the requirements across multiple agreements, wether that’s defense spending, carbon emissions, or whatever else, but the second that the U.S. slightly slows down on handing out free cash to anyone who asks, we are a horrible, evil “mafia” country. It would be laughable if it weren’t so depressing.
Ironically, more countries in NATO are meeting their 2% defense spending bill than ever before, because of a possible Trump presidency on the horizon. They know there’s a chance US funding gets rug-pulled, so they’re actually taking their defense spending seriously. Precisely because he is a poor, unpredictable leader, a Trump presidency is ironically what will save Europe from themselves.
The problem with Trump is the same as with your post: you don't even know what you're talking about. The 2 percent was agreed on only in 2014 as a response to Russian annexation of Crimea, and the goal was to reach it in 10 years, which we now have collectively as NATO. 18 members spend 2% or more, and the pressure is on for the rest.
Do they have some explaining to do? Of course. But this is not a reason to threaten military allies of more than 70 years by saying Russia can invade them with impunity. Its like I'm a week late on a payment and the landlord promises to send a pack of mobsters to kick me out if I don't pony up the next day. Let's not talk about the emissions that is absolutely insane coming from the worst offender by far.
Now the GOP is going to block the 'slight' spend of 60 billion in aid because it is using Ukraine as a bargaining chip for its anti-immigrant policies.
This is about Trump, but beyond him the US might become a very unreliable and chaotic partner. I'm worried this will backfire. If it does, on the long term, China will start to look a lot more interesting to some European countries as a force of stability.
The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at political level, but it is not entirely clear whether the instrument is devoid entirely of legal provisions. It refers to assurances, but unlike guarantees, it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties.[2][52] According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine."[51] In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, and they did not believe the US Senate would ratify an international treaty and so the memorandum was adopted in more limited terms.
If anything US should take a view of self interest as they are losing the credibility as an important international power very rapidly and are instead seriously helping their most dangerous adversaries to gain momentum.
Russia was in a very bad position a year ago, Putin's power was crumbling, but US withholding of critical help let him to sustain his power. Where are we now? Russia is threatening US space assets. Authoritarian powers all over the world are becoming more and more cocky as they see that US is becoming week and impotent.
It is sickening for me to watch how US is hurting itself out of stupidity.
“Maturity” is paying your bills on time, and not biting the hand that feeds you.
It’s not a hissy fit to feel annoyed at blame on the U.S. for Ukraine losing a war that has nothing to do with us. It’s not a hissy fit for wanting European allies to take their own defense halfway as serious as we have. We’ve kept stability in Europe, in spite of Europe’s actions.
This comment can be attributed to lacking knowledge in history. North Atlantic security model was decided 70 years ago. It was decided that instead of strong European military union US will be the grantor of security against common adversaries. Instead of very strong European armies, US will have overwhelming power. Do you realized why this might have felt a good idea after WW2?
It is most notable that all countries who feel threatened by Russia contribute well over 2% of their GDP into defense. Do you understand in US that this stupidity that is going on in the congress and this dangerous rhetoric is especially hurting these countries? Do you realize that for example Spain is not really feeling threatened by Russia and people in Spain (the voters who effectively decide the size of the defense budget) do not really care about US not helping them as they don't see any credible threat? This is only hurting US, what is losing its credibility globally as a serious security partner.
IMO, if any random country’s government whom we are not allied with through NATO publicly criticizes the USA’s response to helping them out in a war that we have no obligation to help with, I believe we should immediately cease any and all financial aid and let them feel the squeeze. When they publicly apologize and recognize that the United States is truly the only thing keeping any order in the world, then and only then do we consider resuming whatever support we deem appropriate. This should apply to any NATO-allied nation who hasn’t met their 2% defense spending as well. If your country doesn’t keep up their end of the deal, we certainly shouldn’t keep ours.