Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
timschochet

NATO

259 posts in this topic

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
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. 

3 people like this

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%.

2 people like this

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. 

3 people like this

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
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.

1 person likes this

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
2 people like this

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!

1 person likes this

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
2 people like this

Share this post


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

It outrages me that this should even be a topic for political discussion, 

you get mad a lot

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

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.

I'm really glad you chimed in here. I think the bolded is it, but I think you mean Ukraine is not part of Nato (obviously true). My understanding of the problem with Nordstream is really about Eastern European nations that are in Nato, but not so much Germany. So for instance Russia can put pressure on the Baltics while continuing to feed Germany. The Baltics like Ukraine are bypassed by Nordstream but they are in Nato. I think it's pretty interesting that some of the nations that have ramped up their spending the most are in that category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I'm really glad you chimed in here. I think the bolded is it, but I think you mean Ukraine is not part of Nato (obviously true). My understanding of the problem with Nordstream is really about Eastern European nations that are in Nato, but not so much Germany. So for instance Russia can put pressure on the Baltics while continuing to feed Germany. The Baltics like Ukraine are bypassed by Nordstream but they are in Nato. I think it's pretty interesting that some of the nations that have ramped up their spending the most are in that category.

The Baltics and Poland would be squeezable as well, true. They really should choose a different way to heat their homes in the winter in the long run. Geothermal heating along with other renewable sources would be smart - and would reduce Russia's potential soft power.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one other point about Trump’s condo dues philosophy. These spending goals came into serious play as a roadmap in 2014, *after Russia invaded Ukraine. And energy was a big part of that. Trump bandies this pledge around without referencing the reason they exist - the threat from Russia. Because of that it has the effect of making it look like America is just cheap and obnoxious. There is no statement of common purpose or ideals behind the pledge. So the effect domestically in these countries, instead of being unifying in defense of national security, is to increase disgust with the US and also create internal domestic debates about why the need to just randomly spend that money versus using it on needed social purposes, which as we know works on both the far right and the far left.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, pantherclub said:

you get mad a lot

Lately that’s true. 

But I was cheered up this morning when the Senate repudiated Trump on this issue by a vote of 97-2. 

Share this post


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

Just one other point about Trump’s condo dues philosophy. These spending goals came into play in 2014, *after Russia invaded Ukraine. And energy was a big part of that. Trump bandies this pledge around without referencing the reason they exist - the threat from Russia. Because of that it has the effect of making it look like America is just cheap and obnoxious. There is no statement of common purpose or ideals behind the pledge. So the effect domestically in these countries, instead of being unifying in defense of national security, is to increase disgust with the US and also create internal domestic debates about why the need to just randomly spend that money versus using it on needed social purposes, which as we know works on both the far right and the far left.

From a practical perspective

The countries that are under the 2% but meet the operational budget and deployment objectives.

Any additional Euro or Krone that is spent will have to come from somewhere which means you can sacrifice welfare (not popular), infrastructure (short sighted), investment in renewable energy sources (stupid) or raise taxes (unpopular and likely to #### the economy up by dampening growth and job creation).

So why the #### should you? In rational terms as a government that would presumably like to be reelected.

Edited by msommer
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

From a practical perspective

The countries that are under the 2% but meet the operational budget and deployment objectives.

Any additional Euro or Krone that is spent will have to come from somewhere which means you can sacrifice welfare (not popular), infrastructure (short sighted), investment in renewable energy sources (stupid) or raise taxes (unpopular and likely to #### the economy up by dampening growth and job creation).

so why the #### should you? In rational terms as a government that would presumably like to be reelected.

Well precisely, and inching out another 0.5-1.0% of GDP is a big deal to some of these countries, some are small, some have variable economies. The obvious reason why is because of national security. Now people can have this discussion domestically, but it's obviously more legitimate with an explanation of why the pledge was adopted in the first place than it is without.

- eta - Any normal American president would know this btw. An American president who felt these goals were necessary would be aware of domestic pressures and would push for these goals quietly, diplomatically and behind the scenes. Trump's approach makes it a much more divisive issue and also possibly increases the chances of failure in specific countries.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Weebs210 said:

Trump turned NATO breakfast into the international house of snowflakes.

If you mean he was deliberately rude, confrontational, and bullying, while those around him strive to maintain diplomacy and dignity, then you are correct. 

Later this week when he meets Putin, Trump will no doubt grovel. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

If you mean he was deliberately rude, confrontational, and bullying, while those around him strive to maintain diplomacy and dignity, then you are correct. 

Later this week when he meets Putin, Trump will no doubt grovel. 

And bask in his master's glory.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let the guy negotiate 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Weebs210 said:

Uhh yeah what does that prove again?

It’s quoted. Trump sees no problem with the KGB, FSB and their former officer/director Putin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

Let the guy negotiate 

What are we negotiating?

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

It’s quoted. Trump sees no problem with the KGB, FSB and their former officer/director Putin.

You responded to my citation needed when I asked about Trump negotiating for Russian interest. You know this right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 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.

The agreement put forth was that everyone needs to get there by 2024.

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.