alt Hacker NewsI'd argue Russia has done more there by invading Ukraine.
Nope, nobody was talking about getting nukes after the invasion in 2022.
Everybody started talking about getting nukes after: (1) Trump has been threatening to leave NATO and casting doubt about upholding Article 5, so nobody is really sure if the nuclear umbrella extends to Europe anymore; and (2) Trump has threatened to invade Greenland.
Basically, nobody here trusts the US anymore, but politicians are keeping up appearances to race to scale up production capacity of arms, etc.
Trumpists will typically say "but why should the US provide the nuclear umbrella for Europe?" Which is woefully ignorant of history, the whole NATO nuclear sharing arrangement, etc. exists, because the US didn't want European countries like (West-)Germany to have their own nukes.
Isn't it embarrassing that all these idiots are the dominant force on the planet and you have to cry to them to help you against Russia and they make much more money than your citizens? If you're going to insult Americans like this you should at least have something worth insulting us over. I do think biking culture is way better than driving, but I'm not sure about much else.
Sorry, but the arrogance is perplexing. First, European countries contributed a lot more money to Ukraine than the US. Second, when the US, Ukraine, etc. signed the Budapest memorandum, they US implied that they would respond to a Russian attack.
However, when negotiating the security assurances, U.S. officials told their Ukrainian counterparts that, were Russia to violate them, the United States would take a strong interest and respond. [...] Washington did not promise unlimited support. The Budapest Memorandum contains security “assurances,” not “guarantees.” Guarantees would have implied a commitment of American military force, which NATO members have. U.S. officials made clear that was not on offer. Hence, assurances.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-care-about-ukraine-an...
And this is exactly one of the issues of the US now. It is completely reliable. Make a trade agreement and then on a whim Trump can decide to shred it again.
The funniest case was that Trump wanted to impose tariffs when Denmark wanted to send troops to Greenland... Which is an autonomous territory of Denmark.
> Nope, nobody was talking about getting nukes after the invasion in 2022.
That's not what I recall. And I also recall a lot of hand-wringing over how it was a shame that Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons (in a manner of speaking).
> Basically, nobody here trusts the US anymore, but politicians are keeping up appearances to race to scale up production capacity of arms, etc.
That's not true. Internet commentators don't trust the US, but they don't represent all peoples or governments. Even the Danes trusted us enough to sign an agreement giving us perpetual military access to Greenland even if the Greenlanders declare sovereignty.
> Trumpists will typically say "but why should the US provide the nuclear umbrella for Europe?" Which is woefully ignorant of history, the whole NATO nuclear sharing arrangement, etc. exists, because the US didn't want European countries like (West-)Germany to have their own nukes.
I think you are somewhat off the mark here. Nuclear weapons are of course important, but France and the United Kingdom have them too. I guess a question you want to ask Europe is the details and history about France and the United Kingdom's own nuclear umbrellas. If they have them, why do you need American nuclear weapons? Not that I'm personally opposed to also extending ours.
For Americans (and I have various levels of agreement and disagreement) it's less about the nuclear umbrella and more about the placement and utilization of conventional forces. As you can tell with the Iran war and the early days of the Ukraine war, the United States (thanks in part to Europe) has been brow-beaten so much about (what was it, 14 countries someone said we bombed this year?) how bad America is and how awful and racist and "colonizer" America is and all that stuff that many Americans are just fed up with utilizing our military for much of anything or dealing with the problems of other countries.
I'm not, personally, because I think it would be beneficial for us to stop Russia in Ukraine, stop Iran in the Middle East, and avoid a war with China while maintaining the status quo regarding Taiwan, but you know when someone like some posters in this thread want to spend all day talking about how your country is full of idiots eventually people say, well, maybe you guys should take care of your own problems, even if it ends up worse off for everyone.
> Sorry, but the arrogance is perplexing. First, European countries contributed a lot more money to Ukraine than the US. Second, when the US, Ukraine, etc. signed the Budapest memorandum, they US implied that they would respond to a Russian attack.
You say that like there should have been an expectation that the US contributed the same or more? This expectation you have, that you created for yourself, is of your own making.
Second, let's not forget the UK also signed that memorandum and while Europe was busy denying the US and UK's warnings of an imminent Russian invasion, the US and UK were running 24/7 airlift operations to get supplies to Ukraine, provided intelligence, and more. We did respond to the Russian attack. There's no requirement for US forces to respond.