Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
timschochet

NATO

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 1

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
  • Like 1

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. 

  • Like 1

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.

  • Like 1

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?

 

  • Like 2

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
3 minutes ago, urbanhack said:

What are we negotiating?

 

Trump's ability to act like a combative Richard apparently.

Share this post


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

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. 

Maybe its in your best interest to step away from this stuff awhile, you take it way too seriously

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Weebs210 said:

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

Maybe I’m missing your logic. Are you arguing that someone who thinks the KGB, FSB and Putin are fine, fresh off criticizing NATO, will be negotiating for American interests? How so? His ideology is antithetical to American interests.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

What are we negotiating?

Life, man.

Share this post


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

Maybe its in your best interest to step away from this stuff awhile, you take it way too seriously

I take NATO pretty seriously. I take our national security and position as leader of the free world pretty seriously, particularly as friends and family members have given their lives for this. 

But thank you for your concern. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Maybe I’m missing your logic. Are you arguing that someone who thinks the KGB, FSB and Putin are fine, fresh off criticizing NATO, will be negotiating in American interests? How do? His ideology is antithetical to American interests.

You sure are stretching here to make a connection. 

Share this post


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

You sure are stretching here to make a connection. 

No, I think I asked you to make the connection. You can’t think the KGB & FSB are five and believe in American principles, it’s logically impossible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SaintsInDome2006 said:

No, I think I asked you to make the connection. You can’t think the KGB & FSB are five and believe in American principles, it’s logically impossible.

I'm not seeing the connection. Maybe you could enlighten me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, urbanhack said:

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

As mentioned yday 13 NATO countries sees that as a guideline. An aim. And this NATO meeting was about tryin go acknowledge that stance while nudging the spend higher. 

Do you want to venture a guess on whether Trump assisted in acheiving that goal for this meeting? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump's comments at the breakfast this morning were cringeworthy and an embarrassment for the United States.   

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Trump's comments at the breakfast this morning were cringeworthy and an embarrassment for the United States.   

so Wednesday?

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Trump's comments at the breakfast this morning were cringeworthy and an embarrassment for the United States.   

of course they were, but LOOK AT ALL THE LIBS GOING CRAZY!!!  Hilarious!   MAGA!!!!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

As mentioned yday 13 NATO countries sees that as a guideline. An aim. And this NATO meeting was about tryin go acknowledge that stance while nudging the spend higher. 

Do you want to venture a guess on whether Trump assisted in acheiving that goal for this meeting? 

Without US support Russia could walk right into any neighboring country without much problem.  I’m not a fan of Trump’s tactics, but being left to Russia’s military whims would make me rethink self preservation.  Domestic investment doesn’t mean much if you lose your country.

Share this post


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

Without US support Russia could walk right into any neighboring country without much problem.  I’m not a fan of Trump’s tactics, but being left to Russia’s military whims would make me rethink self preservation.  Domestic investment doesn’t mean much if you lose your country.

So, who's actually threatened to cut off US support?

And do comment on my post up thread re practical standpoint of a NATO member government

Share this post


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

So, who's actually threatened to cut off US support?

And do comment on my post up thread re practical standpoint of a NATO member government

Trump has certainly alluded to it.

Share this post


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

Trump has certainly alluded to it.

So, again he creates the problem, stirs up a lot of bruhaha and the only winner is Putin.

Good job negotiating!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Trump thinks that his bullying approach will work on European leaders he is sorely mistaken.  The electorate in those countries won't stand for capitulation to a bully's demands.  That kind of crap only plays in flyover America.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

So, again he creates the problem, stirs up a lot of bruhaha and the only winner is Putin.

Good job negotiating!

He’s a terrible negotiator from what I can tell.  Way too short-sighted and simplistic in his views.

If his primary goal it to get these nations to ramp up defense spending though his tactics make sense.  Without US support the Baltic and Scandinavian countries are sitting ducks.

Share this post


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

He’s a terrible negotiator from what I can tell.  Way too short-sighted and simplistic in his views.

If his primary goal it to get these nations to ramp up defense spending though his tactics make sense.  Without US support the Baltic and Scandinavian countries are sitting ducks.

The only thing he said right today was that Nordstream 2 was a bad idea

Share this post


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

He’s a terrible negotiator from what I can tell.  Way too short-sighted and simplistic in his views.

If his primary goal it to get these nations to ramp up defense spending though his tactics make sense.  Without US support the Baltic and Scandinavian countries are sitting ducks.

It is all smoke, though.  The West (and the US) would not let Russia invade the Baltic states regardless of whether NATO member states were meeting their targets for defence spending.  And, everyone knows it.

Share this post


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

Without US support Russia could walk right into any neighboring country without much problem.  I’m not a fan of Trump’s tactics, but being left to Russia’s military whims would make me rethink self preservation.  Domestic investment doesn’t mean much if you lose your country.

That’s BS...Russia spends 66 billion a year.  Germany spend 44, the UK 47, France 58, etc.  To think Europe would be left to Russia’s whims is the height of US-centric Trump think.

Share this post


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

It is all smoke, though.  The West (and the US) would not let Russia invade the Baltic states regardless of whether NATO member states were meeting their targets for defence spending.  And, everyone knows it.

With a sane US president that is how it would work.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald J. Trump  @realDonaldTrump

What good is NATO if Germany is paying Russia billions of dollars for gas and energy? Why are their only 5 out of 29 countries that have met their commitment? The U.S. is paying for Europe’s protection, then loses billions on Trade. Must pay 2% of GDP IMMEDIATELY, not by 2025.

---

Once again, he misstates both the US's costs for their own military and what happens in trade.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, zoonation said:

It is all smoke, though.  The West (and the US) would not let Russia invade the Baltic states regardless of whether NATO member states were meeting their targets for defence spending.  And, everyone knows it.

Really? Do we know that? Do we really think Donald Trump would stop Russia from invading the Baltics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bucky86 said:

So...we're going to exit NATO aren't we?

Can the President unilaterally exit NATO?

Share this post


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

Can the President unilaterally exit NATO?

Nah, Congress would have to approve and we all know how principled those guys are!

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

What are we negotiating?

 

Huevos?

Share this post


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

Nah, Congress would have to approve and we all know how principled those guys are!

Can Trump do what they're doing with the ACA and force it to fall apart without Congress?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, whoknew said:

Can the President unilaterally exit NATO?

I’m sure he thinks he can, whether it’s true or not. Punch the allies and spoon the foes seems to be his motto. 

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.