Hacker News Reader

Comment by varispeed | Hacker News Reader

This assumes the US will be still in NATO and on our side. Given that the US is now governed by Russian assets, I don't think it is even a good idea to buy American weapons at all. The UK should double down on home grown military tech.

View on HN

Yeah as a British person if anything I think the French had the right idea and we need to be moving away from dependence on American SLBMs in favour of a fully indigenous programme.

I find the idea that our nuclear deterrent depends on American missiles we can't produce ourselves concerning with isolationism being a recurring factor with American politics, sure Trump doesn't seem to particularly dislike us but Vance clearly sees us with open contempt given his comments about our forces. We're far too geographically close to Russia for us to depend on anyone but ourselves in my opinion.

> Given that the US is now governed by Russian assets

Donald Trump has consistently and forcefully argued that European NATO members must significantly increase their defense spending. He has long criticized European nations for not contributing enough to their own defense and relying too heavily on the United States.

Why would you do this if you're a Russian asset..?

Because destabilising NATO by framing it as an unfair burden is the Russian objective. You think yelling at allies to pay up, threatening to leave NATO, and undermining trust serves Western unity? Putin doesn't need puppets who wave a Russian flag - he needs chaos agents who erode alliances under the guise of tough love. Congrats on falling for the 'if he criticises Europe, he must be pro-America' bait. Textbook.

> You think yelling at allies to pay up, threatening to leave NATO, and undermining trust serves Western unity?

Yet look at the current NATO spending review:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/jun/25/nato-dona...

Looks like unity to me...

The classic "Europe was freeloading" line - straight from the Kremlin's greatest hits compilation. Here's the thing: the post-WWII security architecture wasn't designed out of charity or naivety. The U.S. wanted to anchor Europe under its military umbrella, precisely to prevent another arms race on the continent (you know, like the one that gave us Nazi Germany). Re-arming Europe too fast or too independently was a geopolitical nightmare the U.S. wisely avoided.

Framing this long-term strategic choice as mere European "freeloading" is historical malpractice - and straight-up disinformation. It's the kind of reductionist narrative that ignores why NATO exists, forgets the U.S. benefits (forward bases, arms sales, influence), and erases the fact that Europe did gradually ramp up spending - until Trump turned alliance politics into a shakedown operation.

Trump's behaviour - threatening Article 5, calling NATO obsolete, encouraging Russia to do "whatever the hell they want" to non-payers - isn't tough love. It's textbook Kremlin strategy: undermine trust, fracture alliances, weaken deterrence, then pretend it's just "common sense".

The "unity" you're applauding is what happens when your supposed ally holds a lit match over the fuel tank and everyone else finally realises they're on their own. This isn't thanks to Trump - it's a survival reflex against him.

Undermining NATO's core guarantee, parroting Russian talking points, and daring Moscow to test the alliance wasn't tough negotiation - it was sabotage.

Only on the surface (promising a rise to 5% in 10 years is meaningless in this climate), and only because Trump is a lunatic.

This week’s NATO summit will be all about placating Donald Trump https://www.economist.com/europe/2025/06/19/this-weeks-nato-...

At a tricky NATO summit, a Trumpian meltdown is averted https://www.economist.com/europe/2025/06/25/at-a-tricky-nato...

> This assumes the US will be still in NATO and on our side. Given that the US is now governed by Russian assets

Such /r/redditmoment comments are unworthy of HN.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com