Having a strong-enough military establishment to defend your chair at the top table, when critical decisions are being made, is expensive and difficult. The US decided to do that after WWII. And again after the fall of the Berlin Wall. So it enjoys the occasional benefits.
Especially after the Berlin Wall fell, European countries decided on a different optimization - a far cheaper and easier one, which is overall better 99% of the time.
To be charitable - one could interpret all the European leaders' fussing over Ukraine as reminders to their citizens of the trade-offs they decided on. With maybe an occasional trial balloon for seriously revisiting those decisions.
bell-cot•3m ago
Having a strong-enough military establishment to defend your chair at the top table, when critical decisions are being made, is expensive and difficult. The US decided to do that after WWII. And again after the fall of the Berlin Wall. So it enjoys the occasional benefits.
Especially after the Berlin Wall fell, European countries decided on a different optimization - a far cheaper and easier one, which is overall better 99% of the time.
To be charitable - one could interpret all the European leaders' fussing over Ukraine as reminders to their citizens of the trade-offs they decided on. With maybe an occasional trial balloon for seriously revisiting those decisions.