What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

NATO (2 Viewers)

msommer said:
I read today that 13 NATO countries believe that the two percent were more of a guideline than a rule
Click to expand...
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?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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?
Click to expand...
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.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Kind of a handy summary of what we are confronting right now.
Click to expand...
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

 
msommer said:
I read today that 13 NATO countries believe that the two percent were more of a guideline than a rule
Click to expand...
Yes. It's a goal. They will "aim to" meet the goals.

For the countries that:

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. . . .
Click to expand...
- Every country in this category has met the goal.

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

- Trump is misrepresenting the commitment.

 
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.

 
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.

 
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
Click to expand...
:goodposting:  

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.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:  

The middle bit not quoted is a bit off topic.

 
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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
Click to expand...
Please explain what you mean by “pay their fair share” with examples of what they are not paying or should be paying for. 

 
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.
Click to expand...
Well if YOU think its stupid....

 
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.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.  
Click to expand...
*buffoon

 
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.  
Click to expand...
    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!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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!
Click to expand...
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.

 
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!
Click to expand...
He's just saying, "No, you're the puppet!"

 
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?
Click to expand...
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."

 
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."
Click to expand...
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%.

 
Matthias said:
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?
Click to expand...
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."
Click to expand...
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.

 
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. 
Click to expand...
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.

 
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. 
Click to expand...
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Well I hope you're right. But the rhetoric alone justifies my outrage.
Click to expand...
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!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

rockaction
Weakness And Foreign Policy
Replies
8
Views
402
Dinsy Ejotuz
Dinsy Ejotuz
timschochet
The Joe Biden Thread- things are looking up
16 17 18
Replies
880
Views
16K
DocHolliday
DocHolliday
E
I miss Mikhail Gorbachev
Replies
12
Views
409
CletiusMaximus
CletiusMaximus

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top