Are you stupid enough to think there are what, unpaid invoices?

NATO allies gathered at the Wales Summit in 2014 and signed the Defense Investment Pledge.

The commitment was explicit: All allies spending less than 2% of their GDP on defense promised to "move toward" that 2% target within a decade (by 2024). They also committed to spending at least 20% of their defense budgets on major new equipment and research.

For the first seven years of that decade, Europe largely dragged its feet. The numbers tell a story of persistent shortfall:
- According to European Commission data, if EU member states had actually met the 2% threshold between 2006 and 2020, it would have injected an extra â1.1 trillion into European defense.
- By 2021â"just three years before the deadlineâ"only 7 out of the 21 EU countries that were NATO members at the time were actually meeting the 2% target. Major economies like Germany, Italy, and Spain were hovering between 1.2% and 1.4%

You're retarded, by the way.

Shall we ask where inflation came from?
We had well over a decade, nearly two with near-zero interest rates (which was partly government jiggering the numbers but it was low) that seemingly exploded a handful a years ago.

Right, it's PERFECTLY RATIONAL to base your spending models on the sole circumstance of not one, but two successive global wars that reduced every other competitive western industrial economy to ashes and decimated their working age populations for a generation but left the US nearly unscathed.

That's absolutely reasonable to assume that's "normal", of course. The change of economic context came from TAX POLICY. Perfectly sane answer.

European leaders good enough?
European leaders and officials have acknowledged or admitted shortfalls in meeting NATO's defense spending guidelines (the 2% of GDP target agreed in 2014).
Key Examples

Angela Merkel (former German Chancellor): In reflections tied to her memoir and discussions around Trump's criticisms, Merkel admitted that Germany's inability to meet the NATO defense spending targets set in 2014 was a "weak point" for Berlin. Germany long spent well below 2% (often around 1.3â"1.5%), and this was a recurring point of tension.
Broader European admissions and acknowledgments:
Multiple leaders and NATO officials have publicly recognized that many European allies fell short for years after the 2014 Wales Summit pledge. For instance, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg (and later Mark Rutte) repeatedly noted that European allies and Canada had under-invested, describing U.S. criticisms (including from Trump) as "fair" on this issue, while highlighting post-2022 increases due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Countries like Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and others were frequently cited as not meeting the target until recent years. By 2024, a record number (23 out of 32 members) reached or exceeded 2%, but this came after prolonged shortfalls that leaders implicitly or explicitly accepted.

Context from summits and statements: At various NATO meetings (e.g., under Trump pressure), European politicians admitted the need to "prove reliability" and increase spending, with some German officials in 2017 acknowledging underinvestment post-Cold War. Spain and others have openly discussed delays or stretched definitions of "defense spending" while committing to eventual compliance.

Somehow Europe REFUSING to pay its bills (let's remember that even Obama insisted they should - they simply ignored him) is the US's fault?

Yes, Trump destroyed the 'gentlemens agreement' that the US would pay for everything?

We apparently have different definitions of 'gentlemen'?

This is asinine. The US is $39 TRILLION in debt.
Every dollar the US spends is 20-25% borrowed from the future.
This is the wealthiest society that has ever existed, and we cannot pay for everything we want.

In fact, I agree with you; in the immediate aftermath of WW2 the US was *fantastically* wealthy and could afford to pay for everything. That's what happens when you have 2 global wars wreck every other competitive industrial economy - you kind of end up on top.
Yes, we could afford to buy everyone else's lunches. For 75 years. Not any more.
But the moment we started to say "hey, um, guys, remember how this is about COLLECTIVE defense? Maybe... maybe you could perhaps pitch in a LITTLE?" everyone shit themselves complaining.

What's hilarious is that now the first people to complain that the US threw its weight around, that the US acted like the global police, that the US always was sticking its nose where it didn't belong - THESE are the people bitching that the US isn't willing to continue to pay for everything.

It's sad when people have been paying for your lunch for 75 years decide to stop letting you free ride, isn't it?

That's a fantastic idea. Thanks!

"And itâ(TM)s probably easier to hike in a gallon or three of gas than the equivalent electricity. But having back up solar panels could solve that in some situations with an EV too."
Grok says about 2 days to charge up 10 miles of range from a 4m2 reasonably portable solar panel in decent days at 45n latitude.
Yeah, I think I'd rather just fetch some gas.

Thanks for the update, I was unaware of the project at all.
Fascinating stuff, I wish them the best & sincerely hope the Canadian government-as-it's-going doesn't see this as a potential source of funds that can be drained off for more norcan.

As he already said, haters gonna hate.
Despite being variously a know-nothing alt-right trans-denying fascist stupid head, he's worth a $trillion and running several successful businesses that individually would be massive, groundbreaking success stories.

That's gotta just burn, doesn't it?

I too felt that way about SGU. Aside from introducing me to Flogging Molly - in one of the best applications of popular music to a show ever - I enjoyed the story that SGU was telling.

ON THE OTHER HAND...nostalgia is a powerful drug.
A coworker and I have watched from SG movie, SG1 through Atlantis all the way into SGU; we're in SGU S02E10 and ... it's palpably running out of gas. Atlantis was absolutely an evolutionary step up from the monster-of-the-week very-1990s-feeling episodic SG1. It ended when it should have, while SG1 ran about 3-4 seasons too long.
SGU then was an *absolute* step up in writing depth and character building but already in season two it feels adrift. From episodes where basically nothing happens to utterly-contrived conflicts (let's be honest, the entire Lucian invasion plot was incredibly stupid from s2e1). Also a tiresome (to me) emphasis on personal dramas...blech. That's not what I'm watching the show for "Peyton Place in Spaaaaaace...."
I've read JM's reddit posts on 'what might have happened' which just reinforces that none of this was already-baked, just writer-room ideas basically. Which it very much feels like.
I don't recall precisely the last half of SGU season 2, I only generally recall it ended sort of abruptly. But right now, halfway through? I'm more looking forward to getting through it and us starting our Babylon 5 watchthrough more than the 2nd half of SGU.

In this usage "plots" implies something secretive or insidious. Why this usage?

This seems like a reasonable plan to review and address dangerous bottlenecks in services provided by external actors.

Honestly, if the bullshit around national dick-flexing shows countries generally that it's a stupid fucking idea to rely on multinationals (American or otherwise) generally for critical infrastructure (and in 2026, email is an example of critical infrastructure), then hey maybe there is a silver lining here.

Most of Russia's science reputation were Ukrainians, actually.

Surely.
The great example is phones - I'd love to see a data driven study on network quality/cost to users for cell phones in Africa. They largely skipped the whole "stringing wires all over the fucking place" step and jumped straight to cell phones. How has that worked for them compared to mature hardwire telephone systems in developed countries? Pros? Cons? Long term benefits/costs?