Which gets us back to the purpose of NATO and the stark realities this non-NATO conflict has exposed.
NATO is a defensive alliance for its members, not a governing body or private security force for the rest of the world.
Europe doesn’t, and hasn’t for a long time, have the ability to effectively contribute to the collective defense of the alliance.
The EU is scared.
They have lived under the protection of the US military since 1945. And they have been happy to let us shoulder that burden, at great benefit to them and their budgets.
Originally much like what we are doing now with Ukraine. Our treasure, their blood. Then a lot of our blood, followed by 78 more years of our treasury.
I understand that in principle. Part of the divide here appears to be re: the “national interest.” Namely, some believe that US national interests are bound up with the UK, France, Germany, and other more open, democratic countries in NATO. Others think that affinity (and that characterization) is false, illusory, hypocritical, or a function of propaganda.
Again, I’m honestly trying to game this out. Let’s say US policy shifts: “This is a European problem, not a US problem.” We stop assistance. Let’s say Ukraine ends up under Russian domination (not a forgone conclusion).
I’d imagine that (as a practical matter) degrades NATO, if not renders it meaningless thereafter. It certainly confirms years of Russian propaganda that the alliance was an aggressive but weak bully (true or not—hey, maybe they’re right). I think Ukraine as a Russian vassal state will allow Russia to further destabilize and corrupt the region.
It would seem to make the situation with Taiwan more problematic and tenuous—unless this same inward shift implies that Taiwan is now Asia’s problem.
But this is just one hypothetical. Is there another one that makes more sense?
If the EU had an actual military policy it has the population and economic power to easily contain Russia. But this would require a reduction of the welfare state to support the required military build-up. They have first-world aviation tech, first-world weapons tech and significant industrial, including shipbuilding to create the required military. They also have 2 nuclear powers capable of providing a real-world nuclear deterrent to Russia’s nuclear forces.
you think they would have if we didn’t?
“Democratic” is an illusion, incluing here.
The affinity is real. The basis is in question. Where do the black and Latino nations stand on The Great Ukraine Piss Away? Not pols, people.
The day the US does not follow the EU priority for NATO is the day NATO ends.
The only reason the US cares about “coalitions” in these goat raper countries is to preclude accusations of colonialism.
No, and that’s the whole point.
I have no problem of helping them, helping them…not doing all the heavy lifting.
If they need weapons to give Ukraine…I’m all for selling them to Europe and they can give em to Ukraine.
I ate the freedom fries hard after 9/11, and ended up helping to prop up the largest CIA opium cartel in human history (in the name of freedom). 
Yes it is, they did it because we asked them to help in our response under the auspices of NATO. They certainly did not do it because a few of their citizens happened to be in those buildings. We called, they answered.
Nothing new under the sun. I think you’re just pissed Putin cannot blackmail with impunity.
You believe in altruism. How cute.
Yes. Both of them.
Ah but he can.
I don’t understand or care how you even worked that one out. Both you and Margererums seem angry that I would simply remind of the reality of nuclear weapons.
I am curious, not angry.
