Subj : NATO
To : Arelor
From : Kaelon
Date : Wed Aug 02 2023 01:09 pm
Re: NATO
By: Arelor to Kaelon on Wed Aug 02 2023 01:00 pm
> Your case is that it is beneficial for Europe and other satellite countries
> to pay protection to the USA so the rest of the countries can be
> Socialistic. In other words, the claim is that becoming a protectorate is
> good for the protectees.
The problem with legacy protectorate models is that contributing to these systems was done in a way that diminished the sovereignty (suzerainy?) of these protectorates. Taxation, for example, is an overt diminishment of the capital capacity of the government and this fiscal burden largely builds resentment among populations and alienates the ruling class.
NATO, and the Marshal Plan that (re-)built Europe after the War, is very different. Virtually none of the NATO member-states contribute the treaty-obligated 2% GDP to expenditures. That's not what funds the operation. Trade does. So thinking of NATO as some sort of classic protectorate model really belies its intended purpose: a trade union with defensive characteristics.
In the United States, significant deficit spending (and the world's largest defense budget) is actually directed to NATO countries for development of industries and technologies that both benefit local consumers (like GPS) and generate nearly ten-fold in military revenues for the U.S. military. The system works so long as it remains pay-to-play, not pay-for-protection. Europe has already decided, fundamentally, it is not interested in its own protection.
If NATO ceases to be a thing, or even worse, if the U.S. pulls out of the region (always a possibility given our xenophobic and aliberal tendencies every couple generations or so), then Europe will be left to smash its institutions, eliminate its social welfare states, and fund costly militaries to thwart Chinese, Russian, and Near-Eastern aggression. And no one wants that.
_____
-=: Kaelon :=-
---
� Synchronet � Vertrauen � Home of Synchronet � [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
