Hacker News Reader

> Europeans now expect America to fight Russia for them, not with them.

As an European: nobody has this expectation, unless you're using some strange subreddit comment as a source of information.

Compare the strength of the militaries of Europe with the United States and you'll see how that claim is believable.

That's changing, but for many years European nations did not spend very much on their militaries. A large part of why is the protection of NATO and US bases in various countries.

No, that's the logic of a 15 years old playing call of duty.

Europe has spent less on military because after the cold war and still today, it never had any realistic threat. Russia can't even take few miles off Ukraine.

The only realistic threat is the US, which is an ally, in theory. Now a threat.

That, and as the main theater for two world wars Europe is - and likely will remain - sick of war. We'd rather avoid it, unless it comes knocking on our door, and then, reluctantly, we'll do what needs to be done.

> Russia can't even take few miles off Ukraine

And yet Europe is unable to support Ukraine enough to change the course of war.

Which is the direct cause of the current situation. If Europe was so strong and ready, war in Ukraine would be over, Russia was defeated, and US wouldn't even think of doing what it is doing.

Everything else is copium.

The course of war has already changed.

I forgot how many times it was announced before.

>> Europe is unable to support Ukraine enough to change the course of war.

It's not unable. There is little political will in Europe and USA to support Ukraine with arms to the victory. They support Ukraine just enough to not loose. It's in their interest to grind russian meat and tanks in Ukraine as long as possible.

The US lacks political will to support Ukraine (mostly) because it's a conflict ten thousand miles away. Europe should have a much more immediate interest in Ukraine not losing.

Sadly, Europe isn't one entity and the interest wanes the further the countries are. Anyone neighboring Russia is, predictably, helping a lot while also arming themselves. Central Europe somewhat less, and the Mediterranean countries seem to concern themselves mostly with other topics. Seems like the threat should become more substantial before the whole continent awakens.

> Europe isn't one entity and the interest wanes the further the countries are.

I keep trying to make people here aware of that, but euro-enthusiasm is very good at hiding ugly and complex reality of European politics. And it is not even limited to Ukraine, but it shows itself with Greenland as well. If you really take a closer look, you'll see that different countries indeed made different reactions, even if they sent symbolic amounts of troops to Greenland.

And, above else, people tend to mistake words for action, and believe that a post made by some European leader on Twitter is somehow enough to bring things into reality.

> Seems like the threat should become more substantial before the whole continent awakens.

But Russia is not and won't be strong enough to pose a significant threat to German or French core territory, not to speak about Spain or Ireland. Moreover, as much as we in Europe like to equate Putin with some evil madman, for it makes the world simpler for us, Russian elite is rational, and invasion of Germany is nothing but stupid from their perspective. Of course there are broader interests that may motivate countries to act against Russia (for example French influence in Africa or Asia) but, at the same time, these interests may motivate them to throw Eastern Europe under the bus.

Therefore if anybody believes in some united European action, or a single European army that would actually be worth anything and won't be yet another initiative created mainly to come up with a nice catch-phrase (Steadfast Europe!), lives inside a fantasy.

The US needs greenland because Russia is that much of a threat but we don't need NATO even though it was created because of Russia(USSR) and we are hesitant to supply Ukraine with weapons even though they are actually fighting Russia because it's too expensive but we also are going to buy a country

> It's not unable. There is little political will in Europe

But that's the point - will is everything. No one denies that Europe has enough money. Thing is, it doesn't have much else.

> The only realistic threat is the US, which is an ally, in theory. Now a threat.

The realistic threat is Russia, which is currently winning a war in Ukraine through sheer attrition and will succeed unless Europe steps up big time.

I hate Trump and would much rather see the world keep on going the way it has been, but Europe's militaries grew around an American core after WWII. A few nations have serious armies (France, for one) but most of Europe is close enough to a US airbase for a small military to work fine.

This misses the point, which is that Europe and the US need each other. Without the US, Europe stands no chance against Chinese and Russian influence. Without Europe, the US cannot stand against China and Russia.

> Compare the strength of the militaries of Europe with the United States and you'll see how that claim is believable.

That's the wrong comparison - the comparison in this context is the size of the European military versus Russia.

Is it just me that finds it odd that the same people say that both Russian is an imminent threat to Europe - where its tanks could roll over the continent - and at the same time say just one more push to win in Ukraine?

If Russia attacked a united Europe it would lose - the slow defeat in Ukraine is purely a matter of will, not capability. ie it matters more to Russia than Europe.

Note most Europeans don't see the war in Ukraine as an attack on Europe by the Russians - despite what the hawks would like to paint - that's why the hawks can't bounce Europeans to put significant boots on the ground in Ukraine.

How is US military spending say that Europe was letting the US fight Russia?

The US spending could be the result of so many other factors.

This is essentially what happened in Libya when Cameron and Sarkozy badgered Obama into participating

> Today, US policymakers see China as the main adversary.

That is not evident at all in how any US policymaker acts these days. China is stronger than ever, precisely due to US actions. Every day, the US gives up power and throws it away, and China picks it up off the ground for free.

The supposed "China Hawks" are all chicken hawks without anything to back them up.

There is not one single person here. A number see China as the biggest problem and act that way. A number don't, and act that way. The combined looks like a 'chicken hawk' policy though

There is a US policy though, and none of the supposed China Hawks have even voiced a "kee-ahh" in response to US policy empowering and elevating Chinese power.

Way back in September last year, which feels like forever ago, there was this good summary from Politico:

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/05/pentagon-national-d...

> Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon’s policy chief, is leading the strategy. He played a key role in writing the 2018 version during Trump’s first term and has been a staunch supporter of a more isolationist American policy. Despite his long track record as a China hawk, Colby aligns with Vice President JD Vance on the desire to disentangle the U.S. from foreign commitments.

A supposed "China Hawk" is the one writing the policy that hands power to China! Calling them "frauds" is fully appropriate, and even though the author admits he dashed this off in a single day, I find it quite convincing:

https://secretaryrofdefenserock.substack.com/p/the-final-evo...

The ODNI Threat Assesment is the only official stance and is apolitical. China has been top of the list for nation-state threats for more than a decade.

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/...

The intelligence community are not US policy makers, and that threat assessment is not policy.

The US intelligence community is correct in its assessment, but US policy is not acting in any way consistent with both the US being the dominant world power and taking that ODNI assessment seriously.

Current US policy makers are instead trying to hide in their shell like a turtle, and greatly restrict US power so that it must not confront or deal with the threat from China.

I'm coming back to this a few days later because the official new Pentagon policy deprioritizes China:

> The National Defense Strategy — a dramatic shift from even the first Trump administration — no longer focuses primarily on countering China. Instead, it blames past administrations for ignoring American interests and jeopardizing the U.S. military’s access to the Panama Canal and Greenland.

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/23/pentagon-national-d...

Edit: big news day for China Hawks proving to be frauds, this is from the WSJ

Trump Administration Pushes Out Key Officials Focused on China Tech Threat Departing staffers worked for a Commerce Department office charged with protecting the U.S. from Chinese technological advances

https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/trump-adminis...

We've moved from defensive posture to active "grey zone" warfare...

https://www.aei.org/op-eds/economic-defense-unit-how-the-u-s...

>Europeans now expect America to fight Russia for them, not with them

I note in the current Europe/Ukraine vs Russia fighting there are no US troops, although they did send weapons for which we are grateful

>China as the main adversary

neither China nor Russia are about to bomb the US but in terms of threats to US interests and hybrid warfare we have the full scale war in Ukraine vs only some threats over Taiwan and on the hybrid front I hear rumors the the Russians cultivated a US property developer code name Krasnov and he went on to cause some havoc back in the US.

Looking at it in terms of the direct near-term military benefit of NATO in a conflict with China is focusing on the wrong thing. The real question isn't how strongly NATO membership would directly benefit the US military in a conflict with China; it's how strongly the act of blowing up the NATO relationship would negatively impact the US ability to deal with China in a future conflict. And those are two extremely different questions.

Are the French going to be parking the Charles de Gaulle alongside American aircraft carriers in the Taiwan Strait if push comes to shove in the Pacific? I wouldn't entirely discount it. But maybe more importantly, even if they're not, does making an enemy of the EU negatively impact the ability of the US to park American aircraft carriers there? Certainly damage to the Atlantic trade relationship is unlikely to do the US any favors economically, which is important if the US wants to keep funding the Navy. And a potential loss of European controlled military bases has the potential to negative effect the US military's logistics, which is where the real superpower status comes from. Maybe most significantly, how would such a shift in alliances impact the willingness of Pacific allies to support the US, which obviously does have a direct impact on any conflict with China.

Don't be ridiculous. The US alone cannot stand up to China. We can't even build ships anymore. Parity is only possible with an alliance comprising the full economic and manufacturing might of the "free" developed world, which includes Europe and the rest of Asia. Losing Europe as a close military and trading ally is suicidal all by itself, but it has knock-on effects: once you've abandoned Europe, do you think the rest of your allies are going to believe you're there for them? Why should South Korea risk its security building ships for a US military alliance, once we've signaled that the US values its military alliances at zero?

France have tactical nukes. If Russia ever tried to really invade, a warning shot will be fired, and then no invasion.

> stop relying on America to fight the Russians for them,

That's a very uncharitable take. Europe relies on NATO to fight the Russians. Of course it does. There is no alternative, and the US would never allow other credible alliances to form. Because why would they? It's certainly not in their interest.

It's good that Europe spends more in security, and it's good that Europe seems to be serious about Ukraine. However western Europe is something else. If push really would come to shove, there is zero chance Russia could take and hold continental Europe.

The population is larger, the economy is larger by a ridicolous amount, and there are French and British nukes positioned all over. What Europe is mainly lacking military projection in the Pacific and the Middle East, and that's not likely to change.

Indeed. And every initiative in the past to create a 'European army' was strenuously opposed by previous US administrations, who wanted their alliances fragmented. US policymakers have said that any European military integration must avoid the '3 D's: Decoupling (from NATO), Duplication (of NATO command/legistic structures), and Discrimination (against US and Israeli arms vendors).

This has been policy from at least the Clinton administration, and it has worked great to ensure that the US remains the biggest fish in the NATO pond, even if it is not bigger than all the others put together. Now that the current administration is tearing NATO in real time and the President is saying that his 'personal morality' trumps international law and treaties (never mind that ratified treaties stand on the same level as the Constitution, per the Constitution itself), I would imagine that the other members are working around the clock to implement their contingency plans and ramp up domestic military production and other avenues of procurement.

Until recently, most NATO members were not meeting their commitment to spending 2% minimum GDP on defense. They were demonstrably externalizing their defense costs onto the US.

Well yes, since the commitment was to spend 2% by 2025.

The only country that ever actually asked for help as NATO member was USA. And they helped. And now, the biggest threat is USA, who is trying to cast itself as a victim.

This is not the case of Europe externalizing the cost. It is the case of USA using other countries for own benefit, then starting aggression against them while trying to cast itself as victim.

I set your house on fire, so maybe now you will take fire insurance more seriously?

This, but with the US owning the penthouse suite above the apartments it set on fire...

Except for the Europeans that are literally fighting Russia.

Unfortunately Ukraine is not a NATO member, despite the US's attempts to bring them into the alliance. You can thank France and Germany for that: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/nato-allies-reject-u-s-push-fo...