Compared to the US military spending for example? For a country that's geographically so remote and already so powerful that no other country even thinks of ever attacking?
That power stems from military spending, though. Not only that, America spends so much on its military to compensate for the fact that most of its allies spend significantly less on theirs; without the so-called pax Americana the world would look very different.
>Not only that, America spends so much on its military to compensate for the fact that most of its allies spend significantly less on theirs; without the so-called pax Americana the world would look very different.
That's a myth that Americans seem to believe firmly.
Like they're like parent figures to the world or something, exceptionalism at its worst, and the 21st century analogue to the "White Man's Burden".
As if any country would attack the EU for example, or even e.g. Germany alone.
In fact, most of the mess the planet is in (the middle east for example) is because of US intervention and fucking things up. In the past 2 decades, new training grounds for terrorists created in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Syria, all thanks to breaking up stable regimes there.
>I strongly suspect that Europe would be spending more money on defense particularly against Russia and maybe China if America weren't backing them.
And I strongly suspect that Europe has absolutely nothing to fear from both Russia and China.
>And really, you can't think of countries with more moral responsibility for the planet's current state? Not China, not the Soviet Union, none?
China absolutely none at all. USSR a little, but that ended in 1991 (so close to 3 decades now), and most of it was a piss match with the US in the first place.
> And I strongly suspect that Europe has absolutely nothing to fear from both Russia and China.
This is most certainly not True, as the Russian annexation of Crimea and the Troubles in Ukraine have so clearly demonstrated. Even if Russian might not want to annex more territory, without the backing of NATO, Russia could bully Western European countries more easily.
>This is most certainly not True, as the Russian annexation of Crimea and the Troubles in Ukraine have so clearly demonstrated.
You mean the Russian annexation of a part of Ukraine (a country in their border), namely the part with a majority of ethnic Russian citizens, who had a referendum in favor of it, and that only happened when the democratically elected government of Ukraine was overthrown by a sketchy coalition including bona fide Nazi sympathizers? I'm sure this proves that France, and Romania, Germany, Portugal, Malta, Albania, Greece, Italy, and all have a lot to fear from Russia...
It's especially funny considering US as some protector of Europe from Russia, considering that unlike the above very tame example, the US has occupied 2 countries in the past 2 decades, bombed in Eastern Europe, helped form a protectorate there, and helped destabilize a few more (e.g. Syria, Libya), taking Europeans in the NATO to along for the ride and boosting terrorism support in those areas (including against Europe).
>Even if Russian might not want to annex more territory, without the backing of NATO, Russia could bully Western European countries more easily.
Ever past the Cold War it has been the opposite: the NATO (a Cold War formation if there ever was one) instead of dismantling, got into expanding ever more into Eastern Europe and Russia's neighbors, and forever bully Russia into submission with sanctions, diplomatic pressure, etc.
Compared to the US military spending for example? For a country that's geographically so remote and already so powerful that no other country even thinks of ever attacking?