Calling European countries "freeloaders" is such a one dimensional way of looking at this. Europe "outsourced" most of its defense to the US because the US wanted it that way, for soft power, influence, access to military bases and probably many other reasons.
This will become undeniably obvious when Europe stops being "freeloaders" and the US will complain about that too.
When you outsource you make a payment for services. I would have no problem with such an arrangement, but in this case, no payment is made, which is why I say "freeloaders."
The payment is that the USA got to make the rules for the whole world, most importantly regarding trade, and we follow them. Now you have decided to elect someone who is destroying the very world order you built that you specifically designed to benefit you! It certainly wasn't out the kindness of your own hearts that you had such a disproportionately strong military, that must be clear to you.
I guess I feel sorry for you because the British Empire had to fight two extremely destructive world wars against militarism and fascism in order to lose its role as superpower. The USA on the other hand has decided to lose its role as global hegemon because, why exactly, trans people and abortion??? Quite pathetic! In the long list of empires the American one will be remembered as having the most pathetic and stupid collapse of all, and that's very sad!
No, you are the hegemon, and that costs money. It was the same when the British Empire ruled 1/4 of the Earth. You don't blame your colonies for costing you money or "freeloading", nobody is forcing to be the global superpower. Just retreat from the world into your small little world of domestic politics, which is admittedly what you're doing, but don't blame us for it.
Are State elections also badly affected by gerrymandering?
I have only ever seen examples of it at the Federal Election level, so wondering if your first point is actually completely accurate. (I believe the States themselves control the "maps" but forgive my ignorance if not)
The states control both maps, the district map which determines the population eligible to elect the US Rep for a given district, and a separate district map (with more and smaller districts) that determines the population eligible to elect the State Rep for a given district.
Both are a problem. The latter just means that the State Congress can be artificially heavily tilted vs one party or the other.
Most likely they are actually, every country will have a certain "% of GDP" threshold where once they go above that number, it makes more sense for them to spend the money in their own home grown defense industry vs buying US made weapons.
It has also certainly served US interests to keep certain European countries "down" and have them reliant on the US for their security for other reasons too.
The idea that the US decided to "subsidize" European defense for multiple decades, out of their own generosity is.... nothing short of completely laughable imo.
People struggle to wrap their head around logic like yours because it is essentially just being pedantic.
- Before the war the Taliban controlled Afghanistan.
- The US (+ Allies) invaded and conquered the country.
- 20 years later the US Military has left the county.
- The Taliban now controls the country again.
- At no point during that 20 years was the Taliban actually "defeated" like claimed.
Whether you like it or not "Money and patience ran out" = losing the war.
There are many other "lost wars" where they were lost for the same reason. The most obvious one in this context being the Vietnam war.... which is also a popular one for people to argue that the US Military didn't lose either.
> Sure, Russia gained some territory, resources, potential conscripts.
You just "hand wave away" gaining territory the size of the 2nd biggest country in Europe after Russia, Trillions in resources and 40 million people (a 30% increase in "Russian" population). I think you may be slightly undervaluing these things lol.
And then I just don't really understand your general point which seems to be that because you believe Russia could not successfully defeat Europe/Poland that they are not more threatening than they were 10 years ago?
- Russia will have gained a huge amount of combat experience.
- Russia will also have learned from fighting against a force using NATO equipment.
- Russia will have gained the immense wealth of Ukraine's natural resources.
- Russia will have increased their population by about 30% (+/- based on refugee point below)
- Russia will have basically doubled the size of their border with Poland (counting Belarus as part of Russia because why not)
- Russia will have added borders with 4 more European countries (Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Moldova)
- Russia has likely rooted out some of the corruption that plagued the military before/during this invasion as it would have become more apparent.
- Russia will have built up domestic production of weapons as much as they can (taking sanctions into account)
- Russia will have been emboldened by its "success" in conquering Ukraine.
- Russia will have seen how slow/scared the West was to respond to their invasion and encourage more "asymmetric" warfare in preparation for the next country (aka "the price of eggs are too high, we can't afford to save <insert country with Russian border here>)
- Russia will VERY likely have increased the amount of Ukrainian refugees to the rest of Europe by 100s of 1000s, possibly even millions. Further stretching the resources of those countries and feeding into the previous point in regards to the cost of intervening "next time".
All this, combined with a US President openly making disparaging remarks about NATO, but you think Europe should not be more worried about Russia than in 2015?
> And then I just don't really understand your general point which seems to be that because you believe Russia could not successfully defeat Europe/Poland that they are not more threatening than they were 10 years ago?
No. What I believe is that engaging the Ukraine cost them much more than they would gain even by a convincing victory tomorrow, leaving them less of a threat to Europe than 10 years ago. Could they overcome this and become a bigger threat in a decade or so, thanks to Ukrainian ressources? Certainly! But the whole thing could also just crumble on Putins death in that same timeframe, could only guess about outcomes so distant.
But even having conquered the Ukraine would not really give them military strength immediately, the opposite, really, because Russia would need to commit military just to keep order there (consider Chechnya for reference: that might have become a net-gain for Russia like 15 years after the first war, and it was like 20 times smaller i.e. easier to "digest").
Furthermore, a lot of "soft power" that Russia had was basically spent on the Ukraine (i.e. price of sanctions, gas-dependence etc.), and is getting less relevant and valuable with ever year.
> but you think Europe should not be more worried about Russia than in 2015?
This is not what I said. I said Russia is less of a threat, not that Europe should be less worried about it. It has become a bigger and bigger threat since 2000. European concern was basically zero (even after the Crimea affair) and is still arguably too low. European nations were basically treating Russia like an improving, slightly flawed democracy.
But it is an imperialistic kleptocracy instead, but that is now obvious which is also unhelpful for Russia.
I worked at a company with a process like that when I was an "Engineer" looking for a promotion to "Senior Engineer", at least for me it felt insulting that I had 3 years of performances reviews "exceeding expectations" and "already performing at the level of Senior Engineer" to then be told, ok now you have to do an interview and a presentation to say why you deserve to be promoted to Senior. I declined to go through the process and then left a few months later to become a Senior Engineer at a different company.
"Do they really though? That's really the owners getting paid that, not all the workers. And a lot of that is really valued on the potential rather than what was actually produced to that point."
I believe the OP is talking about the owners of the startups.
But in that case, the question still stands. Sure they started the company, but they didn't build it alone. There are usually people involved with little to no equity. It's similar to how there are CEOs making millions per year, when that money is really made through the sales of the products of the workers. So they aren't just being compensated for what they produced, but for what everyone in the company produced.
This will become undeniably obvious when Europe stops being "freeloaders" and the US will complain about that too.