Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
timschochet

NATO

261 posts in this topic

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

I'm not officially diagnosing Putin as a psychopath, but one thing worth keeping in mind about psychopaths is that, for many of them, "long term" considerations mean just up to the end of their own lives. After that, who cares?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes 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.

Or else what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

Or else what?

Or else it falls apart.  They don’t have to get there tomorrow.  They just need to show a trend back up to the agreed upon amount.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes 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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump

Many countries in NATO, which we are expected to defend, are not only short of their current commitment of 2% (which is low), but are also delinquent for many years in payments that have not been made. Will they reimburse the U.S.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maurile Tremblay said:

Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump

Many countries in NATO, which we are expected to defend, are not only short of their current commitment of 2% (which is low), but are also delinquent for many years in payments that have not been made. Will they reimburse the U.S.?

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?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maurile Tremblay said:

Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump

Many countries in NATO, which we are expected to defend, are not only short of their current commitment of 2% (which is low), but are also delinquent for many years in payments that have not been made. Will they reimburse the U.S.?

Reimburse the US for what? Expenses incurred regardless of whether the rest of NATO spent 2% or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute 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?

I think he is being stupid by nature

3 people like this

Share this post


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

I think he is being stupid by nature

He's a know nothing know it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

1 person likes this

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

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

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.

3 people like this

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

Posted (edited)

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

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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
1 person likes this

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!?!?”

1 person likes this

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

Posted (edited)

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
7 people like this

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

Posted (edited)

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Looks like Tim had his Wheaties this morning.

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. 

1 person likes this

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.

2 people like this

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  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.