Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
timschochet

NATO

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, msommer said:

I read today that 13 NATO countries believe that the two percent were more of a guideline than a rule

This seems like a good summary. It looks like the 2% thing started in 2006 when it was proposed by the U.S. ambassador to NATO, but it wasn't officially agreed to by the other members until 2014. In 2014, it was agreed to and became an official guideline that is supposed to take effect in 2024. Even in 2024 it will be a non-binding guideline rather than a legally binding rule. But member nations are supposed to take it seriously. Between 2014 and 2024, countries that are already at 2% or higher are supposed to stay there. Countries that are below 2% are supposed to start increasing defense spending so that they reach 2% by 2024.

Does anybody else have any contrary information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

This seems like a good summary. It looks like the 2% thing started in 2006, but it was never officially approved by the member countries. It was an unofficial guideline proposed by the U.S. ambassador to NATO. In 2014, it was finally approved and became an official guideline -- as being supposed to take effect in 2024. Even in 2024 it will be a non-binding guideline rather than a legally binding rule. But member nations are supposed to take it seriously. Between now and 2024, countries that are already at 2% or higher are supposed to stay there. Countries that are below 2% are supposed to start increasing defense spending so that they reach 2% by 2024.

Does anybody else have any contrary information?

What I read between the lines in that (Danish) article was that the 13 countries really had no intention of going to 2% because of other priorities. What response that merits I do not know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Of everything in our current mess, every terrible decision, every destructive act, I think the potential destruction-or at least significant weakening of our alliances is the most worrisome to me. The potential consequences would be far reaching and negative. The chaos president is sowing chaos.

There are bad actors in the world. That's the reality. I don't understand what this guy is doing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ranethe said:

Of everything in our current mess, every terrible decision, every destructive act, I think the potential destruction-or at least significant weakening of our alliances is the most worrisome to me. The potential consequences would be far reaching and negative. The chaos president is sowing chaos.

There are bad actors in the world. That's the reality. I don't understand what this guy is doing

Not a puppet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, msommer said:

I read today that 13 NATO countries believe that the two percent were more of a guideline than a rule

Yes. It's a goal. They will "aim to" meet the goals.

For the countries that:

Quote

Allies currently meeting the NATO guideline to spend a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defence will aim to continue to do so. . . .

- Every country in this category has met the goal.

Quote

 

Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will:
 

halt any decline in defence expenditure;

aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows;

aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO’s capability shortfalls.

 

- Every single NATO nation besides Albania and Croatia has done this.

- Trump is misrepresenting the commitment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

As others have pointed out, the language Trump uses to describe NATO commitments is confused, and probably because he's confused himself. There's no, "NATO Army" that people contribute money into. It's not a golf club. It's countries spending money on their own armed forces which can then become available for the joint defense. 

For other nations to meet their commitments, it means they should spend more of their own money on their own armies. None of that is coming back to the US. Now, you could say, "Hey, if they spent more, we could spend less because we don't have to people over there." Ok. Except that's against Trump's other goal. Which is to spend more money and more money on our military. Nobody is saying, "If France spends $10bn more, then we'll reduce our costs by $10bn." Nobody. So the question is, what are we getting provided? And that's allies and staging areas. If there does arise a skirmish which is a threat to peace, and if God forbid, there's an all-out attack on one of the members, everyone's there and committed to a joint defense. Moreover, while the US has forces stationed in Europe, it can deploy them into the Middle East, Africa, and the Baltics when needed. Which it does, often for its own interests which don't necessarily align with Europe's. If we were upset about what was going on in Turkey or Israel at one point, which sounds more likely and desirable? Yelling at Germany to send troops over there? Or getting on the horn to our generals in Germany and saying, "Go get 'em."

And in any case. If you have a gripe on their expenses, it's not a matter to completely withdraw from the alliance from. Unless your goal is to weaken the influence of the West. Which no American looking out for American interests should cheer along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I do think that we don't need nearly as large of an army as we do. But that is an entirely different discussion. That actually is talking to Germany and France and the UK and saying, "Hey. We've had people over there. We're looking to downsize our forces and some of that is going to come from troops in Europe. Let's talk about what needs to happen to maintain our constant power" not, "You guys need to send us cash." Especially in an age where human troops aren't the center of power. We maintain power by bombs that fly very far or planes that fly very fast or planes that fly very fast dropping bombs that fly very far. Not by sending 60,000 boots into a battle line. So the whole idea is pretty antiquated anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Matthias said:

As others have pointed out, the language Trump uses to describe NATO commitments is confused, and probably because he's confused himself. There's no, "NATO Army" that people contribute money into. It's not a golf club. It's countries spending money on their own armed forces which can then become available for the joint defense. 

For other nations to meet their commitments, it means they should spend more of their own money on their own armies. None of that is coming back to the US. Now, you could say, "Hey, if they spent more, we could spend less because we don't have to people over there." Ok. Except that's against Trump's other goal. Which is to spend more money and more money on our military. Nobody is saying, "If France spends $10bn more, then we'll reduce our costs by $10bn." Nobody. So the question is, what are we getting provided? And that's allies and staging areas. If there does arise a skirmish which is a threat to peace, and if God forbid, there's an all-out attack on one of the members, everyone's there and committed to a joint defense

:goodposting: 

15 minutes ago, Matthias said:

And in any case. If you have a gripe on their expenses, it's not a matter to completely withdraw from the alliance from. Unless your goal is to weaken the influence of the West. Which no American looking out for American interests should cheer along.

:goodposting: 

The middle bit not quoted is a bit off topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NATO was formed shortly after WW 2 to protect Western Europe from Soviet expansion.  That is basically the same today.  In the 1970s we were badly outnumbered by the WARSAW pact.  In tanks alone we were outnumbered by 10,000 tanks.  Our strategy then was just to try to hold on for 10 days until forces from the US could reinforce the NATO alliance.  WE felt we could do this because it was felt the Soviets had inferior equipment and that their soldiers could not think for themselves.  The Soviets were going to rely on sure overwhelming numbers to achieve their goals.  It is basically the same strategy they used when they invaded Georgia.

The thing is we probably don't need the same type of strategy now as we had then.  We don't need all the boots on the ground.  A lot of people don't realize we have already reduced significantly the amount of Soldiers we have stationed in Western Europe especially Germany.  The Bundeswehr is a great fighting force in it's own right.  We still need to participate in NATO  but the strategy is different now.  I would say we probably already spend less on NATO now in real dollars than we did in the 1970s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The President of the US amping up rhetoric against NATO is like a man shouting at his foot.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jonessed said:

I think all NATO countries should live up to their agreement to spend at least 2% of GDP on defense.  

This has only become an issue in the last 20 years or so.  A nudge or two is fine.  Time to get back on track.

 

They did agree on this in 2014. Each NATO member has 10 years to meet the defense spending goals. 

Results are in: Here's how much NATO allies spent on defense in 2017

Edited by Lutherman2112
add link
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, HellToupee said:

I’m sure you will agree that the wars waged by Bush & Obama have been very costly. At some point other nations in NATO need to pay more , pay their fair share. We can’t afford to keep subsidizing Europe’s defenses

Please explain what you mean by “pay their fair share” with examples of what they are not paying or should be paying for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lutherman2112 said:

They did agree on this in 2014. Each NATO member has 10 years to meet the defense spending goals. 

Results are in: Here's how much NATO allies spent on defense in 2017

Exactly. “We agree to make this happen in ten years” 

Everyone: “agreed!”

One very specific group of people: “Y U NOT PAY FAIR SHARE!?!?”

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, timschochet said:

Fair share of what? Their own defense spending? Frankly I don't care. It's a stupid issue. It was stupid when Obama brought it up, and it's much stupider now that Trump actually thinks its a big issue (and you agree with him.)

Our own defense spending has much less to do with our defense than it has to do with certain big corporations lobbying the government for handouts. The amount of money we spend on defense is obscene.

Well if YOU think its stupid....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

That's not, of course, how it works. What are the odds that he knows this and is being stupid on purpose versus just being stupid by accident?

Does it matter? The people who lap it up are about 70/30 in favor of accident. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may be the dumbest thing trump has done yet. He is coming off as a complete bafoon and eroding decades old alliances with his ignorant rhetoric that has no basis in fact or reality.  

But, guess what?  Fact and reality don’t matter in 2018 America.  He spouts off nonsense and his sycophantic base just laps it up like warm milk and parrots his bs back verbatim.  Just look at his supporters on this forum.  The biggest echo chamber ever.  

And, it appears tht none of them are at all capable of taking a macro view of the damage this idiot is causing to the world.   They are too busy cheering the micro victories against the liberals they detest so much in what is without question a fundamentally damaged civil society.  

Trump is abhorrent.   The worst of the worst.  And there are millions of Americans who worship him.  Barf.  

Edited by zoonation
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, timschochet said:

Putin's only in his 50s, right? I think I can say with a fair amount of confidence that he'll come to regret Trump's actions if they're carried to fruition.

Putin is almost 66. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, zoonation said:

This may be the dumbest thing trump has done yet. He is coming off as a complete bafoon and eroding decades old alliances with his ignorant rhetoric that has no basis in fact or reality.  

But, guess what?  Fact and reality don’t matter in 2018 America.  He spouts off nonsense and his sycophantic base just laps it up like warm milk and parrots his bs back verbatim.  Just look at his supporters on this forum.  The biggest echo chamber ever.  

And, it appears tht none of them are at all capable of taking a macro view of the damage this idiot is causing to the world.   They are too busy cheering the micro victories against the liberals they detest so much in what is without question a fundamentally damaged civil society.  

Trump is abhorrent.   The worst of the worst.  And there are millions of Americans who worship him.  Barf.  

*buffoon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, zoonation said:

This may be the dumbest thing trump has done yet. He is coming off as a complete bafoon and eroding decades old alliances with his ignorant rhetoric that has no basis in fact or reality.  

But, guess what?  Fact and reality don’t matter in 2018 America.  He spouts off nonsense and his sycophantic base just laps it up like warm milk and parrots his bs back verbatim.  Just look at his supporters on this forum.  The biggest echo chamber ever.  

And, it appears tht none of them are at all capable of taking a macro view of the damage this idiot is causing to the world.   They are too busy cheering the micro victories against the liberals they detest so much in what is without question a fundamentally damaged civil society.  

Trump is abhorrent.   The worst of the worst.  And there are millions of Americans who worship him.  Barf.  

    https://www-thestreet-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.thestreet.com/amp/markets/trump-hammers-nato-secretary-on-german-gas-deal-with-russia-14647529?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQECAE4AQ%3D%3D#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thestreet.com%2Fmarkets%2Ftrump-hammers-nato-secretary-on-german-gas-deal-with-russia-14647529.             Trump has no idea what the hell he is doing. Just weeks after he tried to suggest that the G7 group (an alliance of economic nations making trade agreements) admit Russia back into the group making it the G8 he criticizes NATO ally Germany for purchasing oil and gas from Russia!

Edited by lazyike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, lazyike said:

    https://www-thestreet-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.thestreet.com/amp/markets/trump-hammers-nato-secretary-on-german-gas-deal-with-russia-14647529?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQECAE4AQ%3D%3D#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thestreet.com%2Fmarkets%2Ftrump-hammers-nato-secretary-on-german-gas-deal-with-russia-14647529.             Trump has no idea what the hell he is doing. Just weeks after he tried to suggest that the G7 group (an alliance of economic nations making trade agreements) admit Russia back into the group making it the G8 he criticizes NATO ally Germany for purchasing oil and gas from Russia!

Nordstream 2 is an incredibly bad idea. It would allow Russia to turn off all gas supplies to Ukraine wiothout concern for downstream customers in Europe. EU should say no to it.

That said, it has very little to do with NATO.

If Donald has in anyway thought about this (which I doubt) and aims to take a part of that oil an gas market from the US - he needs to start building ultra large LNG carriers by the hundreds, in yards that don't exist with steel he doesn't have. So there is that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
59 minutes ago, lazyike said:

    https://www-thestreet-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.thestreet.com/amp/markets/trump-hammers-nato-secretary-on-german-gas-deal-with-russia-14647529?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQECAE4AQ%3D%3D#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thestreet.com%2Fmarkets%2Ftrump-hammers-nato-secretary-on-german-gas-deal-with-russia-14647529.             Trump has no idea what the hell he is doing. Just weeks after he tried to suggest that the G7 group (an alliance of economic nations making trade agreements) admit Russia back into the group making it the G8 he criticizes NATO ally Germany for purchasing oil and gas from Russia!

He's just saying, "No, you're the puppet!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, identikit said:

Looks like Tim had his Wheaties this morning.

I don’t like Wheaties. Life, Cheerios, are my go tos. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I don’t like Wheaties. Life, Cheerios, are my go tos. 

That somehow makes sense.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

Great!  So we can now cut our defense spending, right?  That's what this hoopla is all about right, US cutting our defense spending?

Hopefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
8 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

Great!  So we can now cut our defense spending, right?  That's what this hoopla is all about right, US cutting our defense spending?

It might be about having other countries increase their spending to justify more US spending to, "remain the preeminent fighting force in the world. Other countries are catching up and we must respond."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Matthias said:

It might be about having other countries increase their spending to justify more US spending to, "remain the preeminent fighting force in the world. Other countries are catching up and we must respond."

Well that would be a terribly stupid argument. But then this whole thing is stupid. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Matthias said:

It might be about having other countries increase their spending to justify more US spending to, "remain the preeminent fighting force in the world. Other countries are catching up and we must respond."

Yeah well that was kinda my point - its never about DECREASING spending.  The GOP will NEVER agree to cut military spending.  Its just something to ##### about.  And the supporters lap it up.  Amazing how this is something the right complains about how much we're spending.  Ironic, isn't it?  "We're spending too much on defense spending!!1!"  as they just increased it 10%.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, the whole spending argument is just an excuse to bash NATO. If this was not an issue, Trump would simply find another way to bash NATO. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Matthias said:
15 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

Great!  So we can now cut our defense spending, right?  That's what this hoopla is all about right, US cutting our defense spending?

It might be about having other countries increase their spending to justify more US spending to, "remain the preeminent fighting force in the world. Other countries are catching up and we must respond."

This raises an interesting point because Trump's claim is that the US is spending an unfair proportion, and indeed even though the US is still way above its NATO share requirement the actual GDP%, Trump's favorite benchmark, has gone down nonetheless, from ~3.75% to 3.5%. Still, despite Trump's complaints US's defense spending is going up, not down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Again, the whole spending argument is just an excuse to bash NATO. If this was not an issue, Trump would simply find another way to bash NATO. 

Eh. I believe both W and Obama made a little noise about it. That's how we got the 2014 agreement for the 2% targets. They just never said stuff about, "getting paid back" or treated membership and the treaty as cavalierly as Trump has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Again, the whole spending argument is just an excuse to bash NATO. If this was not an issue, Trump would simply find another way to bash NATO. 

He did it anyway by making up a fake stat about Germany's dependence on Russian energy today. Nordstream II is a legitimate issue but making up numbers turns it into a joke.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, msommer said:

Dude - it's "The Republic of North Macedonia" if you want to keep your Greek friends from getting stabby

Sheesh, I see that, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, timschochet said:

Well I hope you're right. But the rhetoric alone justifies my outrage.

Anything...EVERYTHING that Trump says, does, implies, ignores, supports, opposes, agrees to, disagrees with, and looks at, is MORE than enough to justify outrage from the left.  It is just so ignorant and so obvious!  It passed, being boring, a long time ago...now, it's just silly.

Follow the blueprint baby!

Edited by Opie
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Opie said:

Everybody does. 

Last I heard, oil is sold on a world market.

Then don't criticize Germany for putting billions in  "Russia's coffers" by buying from them!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Opie said:

It is just so ignorant...

A good way to cut through ignorance is with facts. For example, NATO nations have sacrificed over a thousand lives in support of US action in Afghanistan. This is a statistic we have not heard from Trump.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.