It came as a shock to me to read comments like “Europe is happy with us paying for their defense” or “There is global trade thanks to US navy”
An illustration of the perception gap is that you are helping Ukraine against Russia, hence helping Europe more than Europe helps itself (kindof links with the “Europe doesn’t pay for NATO” rethoric). In France we tend to think the conflict is out of our grasp and concerns the US more than it concerns us.
What is the dominant rethoric in American society ?
​
​
Edit:
Okay so it’s been a fun downvoting marathon for me!
Please understand this dear friends from the other side on the pond.: I understand this may come across as quite anti-american, but I really am not. Reaaaally not.
All in all, very cool to get all these feedbacks from all of you. Thanks for expressing yourselves, it was enriching at least for my own knowledge. Hopefully it is for all of you to to a certain extent.
31 comments
More than it benefits us? Not really.
Benefits others more than they realize? Absolutely.
Case in point.
>In France we tend to think the conflict is out of our grasp and concerns the US more than it concerns us.
How does it concerns us more than it does you?
Do you truly believe that if the guy who has openly stated he wants to return Russia to it’s Soviet era power and size were to annex Ukraine he would stop there? Or do you just think that he will leave you alone and who cares about the rest of the continent?
It should concern you as much as it concerns us. A stable and war free Europe benefits us both, and the world over.
Global trade being secure is beneficial to the world in general, but also hugely beneficial to the US. US foreign policy is a lot more self-serving than people realize, it’s just a lot better for power projection when people don’t hate your guts and actually want to work with you. See Russia and China’s foreign relations, most of the countries nearby absolutely hate them. While the US gets a lot of shit talked about it I don’t believe there’s the same kind of hate there a lot of countries have towards Russia and China.
The US Navy are the only ones protecting shipping lanes, mostly from pirates. Are you under the impression that France is doing their part for global trade?
Europe was complacent until Russia attacked a country in your own backyard. Now we have countries increasing spending on their military and two wanting to join NATO.
If you were doing your part, Ukraine would have received assistance right away from France and everyone else. Instead, your leaders looked to the US to make the first move — so much for Europe protecting its continent.
As a Frenchman I don’t see how you could think the conflict is out of your grasp and concerns USA more than you. The war is only a few hundred miles away, you are receiving tons of refugee immigrants, it’s impacting the economics, food supply, and energy policy on your continent.
I would have been more than happy if the USA just shrugged and didn’t do anything. Europe needs to stand up and take care of itself for once instead of constantly suckling off our teat while insulting us.
In a total sense, yes. The rest of the world benefits more than America, but only because there are more people outside of the US than in it.
Obviously Americans benefit from having a powerful and competent military.
The US military, despite its flaws, is a total net benefit to the world.
Europe thinking Europe isn’t Europe’s problem is nothing new, nor is the appeasement of authoritarianism.
There is global trade largely thanks to the US Navy. The USA benefits greatly from open sea lanes, but so does everyone else unless you guys are only shopping for stuff made in Belgium or Germany etc
I would say the US Military benefits US citizens and the world at large equally because we all benefit from the same things, such as free trade, free navigation, the petro dollar, keeping crazy regimes in check, etc.
Europe is, or was, happy with the US paying for defense. Many people had a problem with President Trump demanding that other NATO countries pay more. For example Germany is one of the top economies in the world and their defense is almost entirely based on the US. There is a joke in Germany that “if X invades, send the Fire Department” (because they are better funded, equipped and motivated). Funny enough, once it became undeniably apparent that massive land wars in Europe don’t only exist in history books, now Germany is committing to spend over what Trump suggested. Likewise a bunch of other countries. We will still outclass them by several orders of magnitude and always will but at least the relationship is more fair.
Recently “Top Gun: Maverick” came out. The original film from the 80s is based, loosely, on the Gulf of Sidra campaign between the US and Libya. Libya said this gulf is territorial waters due to its geographic design, in defiance of international norms regarding mileage from the coast. So the US Navy sailed an aircraft carrier through it and shot down anyone who challenged them. That is called a Freedom of Navigation mission (FON). If every country decided to make their own territorial waters whatever they wanted it would lead directly to armed conflict and a severe detriment to world trade. No one else is willing to deliberately, essentially go to war, over random sea routes than the US. But it has to be done.
The Russia Ukraine War affects France in many ways but different than the US. France seems to want Europe to be self reliant for defense in general, or less reliant on the US. This is a war at Europe’s door, with spillover into the EU proper. France is on the UN Security Counsel. To not spearhead a response to this war would go against everything the French have said for 50+ years about European self reliance and military autonomy. You can’t both want Europe to be less reliant on the US but then let the US lead a European response.
>In France we tend to think the conflict is out of our grasp and concerns the US more than it concerns us.
How could it possibly concern the US more than France? This seems like a geography question.
Or is the French thinking that Russia would simply try to hit the US first? What if the US fails to stop them? When would France actually take the initiative in regards to global security?
Idk that I think about it in those exact terms.
I think that one of the big reasons we have so many allies because we offer protection, and in exchange we get rich off the trade we have with those allies. We provide an environment of peace without worry (for our allies) and that peace allows for prosperity for them and us. It’s mutually beneficial, if it weren’t, we wouldn’t do it because no country does anything that doesn’t benefit themselves
But if we didn’t do that, we’d still be allies with many countries, including France
Generally speaking Americans don’t have an issue with France and what they do in regards to the security of the European continent, because France and the UK are the two countries we go to first when we need help, militarily. We don’t have any issue with eastern European countries in NATO, because they pull their own weight. The issue is Germany. They weren’t paying what they agreed to and built nord stream II, ignoring the warnings from America. They seem to understand they done fucked up and seem to be rectifying the situation. And to a much much lesser extent, Italy and Spain weren’t doing what they promised they’d pay for defense BUT their economy isn’t what the German economy is so we give them more of a pass
As for Ukraine, I’d like to see every country giving them more, including the US. I’m fine with us giving them the most stuff, we’re the largest economy in NATO and we got all this military equipment just laying around, collecting dust. Might as well use it to fuck up Russia. But in terms of GDP, we’re not giving the most, eastern European NATO countries are giving a higher % of their GDP. Keep in mind that my opinions might not be the most common among Americans, regarding Ukraine, but it’s not uncommon either
>It came as a shock to me to read comments like “Europe is happy with us paying for their defense” or “There is global trade thanks to US navy”
>An illustration of the perception gap
I’m sorry, but this isn’t a “perception gap.” You’re just ignorant of the basic facts.
With very few exceptions European counries have not, for generations, fielded a full-spectrum, properly trained and equipped military. Those that do have comparably limited power projection. There’s a reason the Kosovo war in the 90s wasn’t primarily a European-military operation.
Likewise the US Navy is the only one consistently enforcing open sea trade. European navies will occasionally send *a* ship on *a* deployment to this or that pirate hotspot, but the US navy is consistently there. Basically the rest of the world, at best, works towards this goal in their region only. Often just their own territorial waters.
Who wins out on the benefit? Open global trade obviously benefits the whole world, the US included. However, effectively all that enforcement cost is borne by the US. So by that measure yes the “world” gets a better ROI than the US does. But its unclear what the gloabl economy would look like in an alternate universe with 80 more years of the pre-WWII US military policy.
There is not a lot of “dominant rhetoric” about this because outside of one or two big issues a year, most Americans don’t give a shit about foreign policy. This past year, the one big issue has been Ukraine, and the “dominant rhetoric” there has been that we will support them against invasion by Russia. Most Americans dislike Russia, outside of a far right contingent.
The dominant rhetoric concerning our military has for a long time been “we support our troops”. Since 9/11 (and almost certainly before that, but I was a kid) the military has been pretty sacrosanct. To recommend cutting the military budget is anti-American to a huge number of people. Most folks don’t think about the military’s activities outside of a nebulous “defending our freedoms” and “fighting bad guys”.
It comes as a shock to *me* that France thinks that a war happening a 29 hour drive from them doesn’t affect them as much as the US.
But to answer your question, having such a huge, well-funded military, and being relatively isolated (we only have two other countries bordering us) means that even in a post-9/11 world, I grew up never having to worry about military conflict on American soil. We absolutely do benefit from having such a big military. I don’t think that other countries benefit from it more than us, on the basis that it’s not *their* military and that they’re not guaranteed to have it.
On the other hand, robust military spending comes at the cost of spending less on other sectors, such as education and public transportation. I’m not educated enough on the subject to go into detail about this, though.
Lol a European thinking a European problem is not theirs. No surprise here
>In France we tend to think the conflict is out of our grasp and concerns the US more than it concerns us.
There’s a really petty part of me that wishes the US would just sit back and watch how you all would handle it by yourselves. But since global trade is a good thing, even for France, that won’t be happening.
> It came as a shock to me to read comments like “Europe is happy with us paying for their defense” or “There is global trade thanks to US navy”
Go on, why is this shocking?
Without NATO, which is largely just the United States, Russia could be in Poland right now. Are you unaware of Putin’s demonstrated goal for what he calls “reclaiming” territory? Do you think this would have any repercussions on France?
> What is the dominant rethoric in American society ?
>
There isn’t one. You’ll find many a redditor who thinks we should slash our military budget and spend that money on anything from health care to high speed trains. Nevermind that the global stability since 1945 has been facilitated largely by the US military.
The post-war world order is basically built upon America projecting its military power across the world to maintain global stability and protect shipping lanes. This means America is subsidizing the world’s military power, but in return, America gets things like the dollar being the de facto global currency and being able to import a lot of cheap goods.
There’s still a lot of Americans who believe in maintaining this deal, but many Americans are beginning to reject it. It appears that we’re entering an era of deglobalization, and I expect a lot of the international deals will be renegotiated where America’s allies will be expected to help out more with military matters. I see this era as more of renegotiating contracts as global conditions have changed.
Wtf are you on that you and others think the war concerns the US more then France?
> the “Europe doesn’t pay for NATO” rethoric
Interesting how you rephrased that so you could present that as a lie, as if the speaker is claiming Europe spends nothing at all. The actual phrasing is that “Europe doesn’t pay **their fair share** for NATO.”
Take a look at [this BBC article](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-44717074), and [especially this graphic](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/584A/production/_118920622_nato_running_costs.png.webp) from the article, which shows contributions in 2021 *after* Trump made it an issue.
> For the period from 2021-2024, the biggest two contributors to this will be the US and Germany, each paying just over 16%.
> The UK is to pay just over 11% and France about 10.5%.
> **The US used to pay more than 22% of these running costs.**
> But a new payment formula was agreed in 2019 to address complaints by the Trump administration about the burden to the US of supporting the alliance.
I’d say the claim is factual, not rhetoric.
Classic French
I think that there is a bit of a communication gap here. Obviously the U.S. military primarily benefits the U.S. The U.S. Navy isn’t helping to ensure global trade out of charity. Maintaining the current world order, with U.S. leadership, is good for the U.S. That, however, does not preclude other countries, particularly our allies, from benefiting from this leadership.
And, yes, the U.S. military has allows other countries to budget differently and not prioritize defense spending. This tends to be one of those annoyances for Americans because a lot of Europeans will attack Americans’ domestic social spending and taxation while being in countries that haven’t adequately planned or budgeted for military spending. Like, the U.S. needs to make major domestic changes, but it can feel like a lot of Europeans don’t realize that they need to figure out how to spend more on the military. If/when the U.S. enters into a conflict in Asia, Europe will need to be in a position where it could fend off Russian aggression on its own.
Importantly: France is a major military, world, and European power. These criticisms, by and large, are not directed at France (they’re more frequently directed at Germany, to be specific).
I think that your post annoyed Americans because it’s obvious to you that the U.S.‘s defense of Ukraine benefits the U.S.-led world order and Putin clearly views this war through the lens of America v. Russia. The thing is that a lot of your description about the war not impacting daily life in France applies even more so to the United States. The war in Ukraine has zero daily impact here, and we’re not located on the same continent as Russia. Plus, France benefits from Russia being caught up in Ukraine and being unable to keep aggressively expanding in Europe. A Russia that could take Ukraine is a Russia that can and would keep expanding eastward and threaten France’s status as a (the) leading power in Europe. Both the U.S. and France benefit in a world powers sense from the fight to defend Ukraine.
Another missing element here is that, unlike Iraq, this isn’t a war that the U.S. misled people into fighting (American intelligence was correct), and isn’t a conflict on which the U.S. wants to be involved really. The Biden Administration was supposed to be focused on a pivot to Asia and preparing long-term for conflict generally in the South China Sea and a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Supplying a European country military due to a Russian invasion in Europe really wasn’t in the plans. It is important that we did and do so, but it cycles back to the concerns about whether Europe can hold down its own fort if the U.S. has to bring its attention elsewhere. The American military prepares to fight wars on two fronts, but obviously no country wants to do that.
We definitely think we are helping Ukraine against Russia, and by doing so helping Europe. That’s certainly what your European colleagues closer to Russia believe. For French or other Europeans who don’t see this, that is unfortunate.
There is also support for the idea that the dominance of the US navy (with the help of others) helps to enforce an international rules based order that allows for a more smoothly functioning global economy, similar to how Pax Britannica did the same in the 20th Century. Or the Roman Empire in the ancient world.
As for paying for your defense, that of course is an overstatement. However it’s absolutely true that the strength of the NATO alliance, which is primarily underwritten by the USA, has allowed many European countries to neglect their militaries in favor of increased social spending. This doesn’t really include France, which has maintained a credible military for the most part post WW II, but most definitely includes Germany, whose military would not have been allowed to degrade to such an extent without the assurance of US protection.
What sparks the comments you mentioned in your OP often is the profound lack of gratitude and cognitive dissonance we sometimes hear from some Europeans online. It’s astonishing how many times I’d seen Europeans comparing the US to Russia, with Russia being viewed more favorably, right up until the Ukraine war. And then overnight the sentiment was, “The US needs to do something!”
It gives the United States an describable amount of hard power. This hard power grants the USA favorable returns on investments absurd and a lot of pressure when exerting our influence.
A military that can basically destroy a nation anywhere on the planet with a month notice is a pretty useful benefit along with paying for advanced technology/research that doesn’t have an initial practical civilian application. It also provides world stability. We are living in one of the worlds most peaceful periods which is progressively getting less stable as climate change progresses forward. The military is going to be paying huge dividends once the world starts fighting over resources aka the USA will have good access while lesser military powers will not.
Russia is also an example how what countries used to do when there is no threat of coalition or retaliation mostly because they know USA can not intervene directly due to their nuclear weapons. Under normal circumstances, the USA could be the world police like they were in Iraq and Kuwait
Well, as a Swede I’m extremely happy America is the world superpower and not russia or China.
In my country you often hear people say “thank God America is the superpower in charge – imagine if it had been _them_”
We’re not even in NATO but we have been benefitting heavily from NATO. Thanks for the cooperation between us, Americans. I hope the future is full of cooperation and equal defense spending.
~~[Maybe we can sink a few more of your aircraft carriers. Just kidding. :3](https://www.businessinsider.com/how-swedish-sub-ran-rings-around-us-aircraft-carrier-escorts-2021-7?amp)~~
I think eastern europe tends to be a lot more clear eyed about these things. Countries like Poland, Ukraine, and Estonia know what is necessary to keep the EU project alive, united, free, and democratic, and they need a western europe that can rise to that occasion.
This op is being kinda weird in the comments
On the Europe doesn’t pay for NATO rhetoric. Up until recently most NATO member states weren’t contributing their agreed upon under treaty 2% of GDP funding. This includes both Germany and France. The only countries meeting the requirement were the UK Greece and some eastern European states. So yeah the 3.47% of the US GDP is/was paying for the bulk of NATO protections that Europe enjoys.
To the question as a whole yes the majority of the world does benefit from open sea lanes. In addition the US global power projection likely contributes greatly to reduction in global interstate wars.
But if you don’t want US defense more power too you. You can support macron in his multi trillion euro European army idea and the US can pull out of europe and support the allies that enjoy our help.
Why exactly would a war in Ukraine, a country that the US has no meaningful trade, cultural, or political links with, concern the US more than it concerns Europe or the rest of the world? If we did absolutely nothing and let them fend for themselves, all food exports from Ukraine and a good chunk from Russia as well would end. That wouldn’t impact us hardly at all, it would mean famine and starvation for millions across the Middle East though. How is anything we’re doing there for us?
Likewise, yes, it is the global reach of the US navy that allowed for the age of global trade and the “Pax Americana”. I’m kinda of confused how this is a shock to anyone, it seems abundantly clear from learning about history that the US guaranteeing the security of the oceans has been responsible for the radical increase in international trade. Countries used to have to have colonies for this, now they can access resources and markets anywhere all across the globe. That’s a direct result of the American led system coming out of WWII.
This is where the unfortunate (but justified) disdain towards Europe among a lot of Americans comes from. Most of our foreign policy for the last 100 years has been geared toward keeping your continent out of war, rebuilding your countries after a war we didn’t start, and allowing your countries to prosper in a world where we used our military force to secure everyone access to global markets, which played a significant role in allowing for decolonization. Then, after all that, many Europeans (not all, I have met TONS of wonderful people from all over Europe) look down on us for some reason or another, want to lecture us about our policies (foreign and domestic), and treat us with utter disrespect.
There is no better example of this than when our previous president, who was almost as unpopular here as abroad, said at an international meeting that Germany was becoming too reliant on Russian gas and needed to find alternatives, only to be literally laughed at by the German politicians. Well, turns out he was right, and the German politicians are looking downright idiotic right now.
I’m in Ohio (red-leaning, perhaps former swing state).
There’s two schools of thought:
1. We are footing the bill for European security. This costs tax payer dollars that could be better spent back at home. They should be able to defend themselves.
2. We are preemptively avoiding a larger and greater conflict by attempting to stop it in Ukraine. Though Europe benefits greatly from American-provided security, we benefit even more so by moving the nuclear chess board there rather than our own backyard.
For me personally, having a stable Europe (where many of our allies are) is imperative and priceless. I do not see this as a transactional form of security as if we are the Europe’s hired gun, but rather this is inherently necessary for our own security, lest we have another 1930s again (which it often seems we are heading there).
OP is either a troll or a walking stereotype of a Frenchman
-“Europe doesn’t pay for NATO” rethoric
Isn’t really rhetoric because it’s fact. Last time I saw the numbers, not one single European member of NATO is fulfilling their GDP requirement for military spending. We really are defending Europe.
To answer your question, many of us think our military benefits the world as much as it benefits us, but I wouldn’t say it benefits them more. And as has already been said, the U.S. Navy (with some foreign help) is the reason unfettered trade exists to the level it does.
>In France we tend to think the conflict is out of our grasp and concerns the US more than it concerns us.
Eastern Europeans love seeing comments like this, I presume.