Does it bother you that Trump has attacked USA's most important ally since WW2?

Your point had nothing to do with "cost"
And, if a member's cost to the alliance should relate to the their contribution, the US should contribute nothing.

 

All I know is that all NATO countries agreed to 2%, so you are saying that their word can't be trusted? what a shock that they LIE! And in case you didn't know, THATis sarcasm. Time for a change...

 

heh, it's very ironic since the only time NATO's common defense article has actually been invoked was by the USA, when they were attacked on 9/11. that's rich, the only country who has actually "used" nato, and for which there is an on-going NATO mission in afghanistan, doesn't "cost" the alliance anything. very ironic..

in 2014 they agreed to reach the 2% goal within a decade. as far as I know, it's not yet 2024. and military spending is increasing in most countries.. Do think you can just go from 0.9% to 2% over-night? seems to me there's a lot of whining going on, without knowing what is actually happening..

 

Your words:
In fact, most countries are like spain in that sense, that they don't "cost" anything for the alliance. There is no military threat to western europe, so none of them brings a cost to the alliance
And so, your response, above, is another attempt to shift the goalpost.

 

So you are saying that the only country which has invoked article 5, and which is the sinlge reason there is an expensive NATO-mission in afghanistan, doesn't cost the alliance anything??? That there's no threat to it? well gee, you were attacked, so obviously there was!

 

Sorry you do not like the fact you were -twice- caught moving the goalposts, but there's not a lot I can do about it.

I thought US defense spending in the ME has nothing to do with NATO?
Guess you need to walk that one back.

 

I completely agree with what you say here. But there is one other major factor at play, and that is that Uncle Sam is currently $20 trillion in debt, and in no mood to be financing the protection of others -- least of all countries which are on solid footing economically, who can afford to pick up a bigger share of the price tag for such activities. I realize it's not a particularly popular reality, but it's nevertheless where we currently are.

 

no we didn't. We just let it slide, because until now we needed the bases more than needed you to pay your way. The agreed upon amount was 2.5%. The fact that some NATO members won't even do that miniscule amount speaks volumes about how weak and pathetic Europe is today

 

nonsense, and it would be a waste of time to argue about how we argue... So I won't.

it doesn't. unless it's part of a NATO mission, such as in afghanistan, and obviously I wasn't referring to afghanistan..

 

You're making a mistake in talking about "europe" as if it was one country or entity. It's not. The countries which you say are "on solid footing economically" are not at all the same countries which need protection. it's completely different countries. The rich european countries: france, UK, germany, italy.. are not threatened by anyone. It's the small and poor eastern european countries which need help. These are not rich countries, and even if they spent a great % on defense, would not be able to stand up to russia anyways because they are so small.

To think about "europe" in this way is wrong. There are individual countries, in completely different situations with regards to their economics and security.

Europe today is as weak and pathetic as the USA was prior to wwi or wwii.. In other words, not very pathetic at all, since it's perfectly normal for countries which are not at war nor threatened, to not spend tons of money on their militaries.

 

The simple fact that the US spends more money on its military than all other NATO countries, China and Russia combined means that the US automatically protects Europe? That military budget is pure insanity to me and just shows how mad some people in Washington really are. Wouldn't it be much more accurate to look at details as to where that US money is actually spent. Is it all spent on Europe's defense? Hardly. I've read studies from 2008 that said the Iraq war cost 400 million Dollars every day. That has nothing to do with protecting Europe in my book.

Again, the numbers do not show how much exactly the US pays for Europe's defense, just because Washington spends almost 1,8 billion Dollars on its military every day doesn't mean it spends 90% or more on Europe's defense.



I live in Germany, so let me give you a slighty more detailed view instead of "we spend more money, therefore we pay for the others".
As we probably all know there are US troops (roughly 43,000) permanently stationed in southern Germany, e.g. airbase Ramstein which is extremely important for Washington's drone war.
Military bases provide jobs and the local economy benefits to a certain degree.
Some numbers from the 90s and early 2000s (related to Germany).

Year Earnings Expenses (million in Deutsch Mark)
1998 ---- 70,9 ---- 286,5
1999 ---- 75,3 ---- 263,2
2000 ---- 49,5 ---- 222,2
2001 ---- 49,9 ---- 208,0

Year Earnings Expenses (this is in million Euros)
2002 ---- 27,5 -- 132,8
2003 ---- 26,9 -- 127,6
2004 ---- 24,9 -- 123,5

These are official numbers from the German government and the ones for recent years have increased. One can see they are not particularly high, but the tendency is crystal clear - the German taxpayers pay considerably more (between 4 - 5 times more) than they gain from US military presence. However, this is not the whole story. German governments - the current one, and past ones - always have "hidden" costs in their annual budget. This annual budget is usually 3,000 pages strong and has numerous cases that are directly connected to the US military stationed in the country. This topic is not debated in public very often and one has to do some research to gather information.
Examples:
Every piece of land used by US troops is free, the US military doesn't pay for it. In a highly densly populated country like Germany, land is worth many millions.
Buildings are a major cost factor. In recent years, the German government has paid 600 million Euros for US buildings, e.g airplane hangars, administration buildings, even kindergarten or school buildings. Plus 327 million Euros for damages to the local infastructure caused by US troops, payments for moving facilities and moving the air force from Frankfurt to Ramstein and Spangdahlem (including the building of runways and noise protection measures), as well as tax privileges.

This is all part of a contract from 1975 called Auftragsbautengrundsätze (ABG). I'm not making this stuff up, it's real.
http://www.abg-plus.de/abg2/ebuecher/abg_us/index.html
This contract determines what kind of buildings and facilities the US military is allowed to build, and also that building costs have to be taken care of by the US, unfortunately, that is not the case and the German taxpayers have to open their wallet.
One crucial point is the planning costs, this includes for instance architects and construction engineers. The US military pays only a fraction of the real costs despite the contract.
Example: an American military hospital in the city of Weilerbach, which the US wants to complete by 2018 and which is to replace the hospital in Landstuhl. 43 million Euros are paid by the US, the real costs, however, are much higher, so the German taxpayer has to pay the rest of 127 million (for an American hospital).
When US troops leave a military basis and the buildings (largely built with German money) are still worth something, the German government pays the present value to the US, simplified, one could say that Germany pays twice for the same buildings.
US personnel doesn't pay VAT in Germany, whether we like that or not is not the point, good for them, they can save money, bad for Germany which again loses money.
German language skills needed.
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/...nd-zahlt-millionen-fuer-us-militaer-1.1820318


Regarding the current situation in Eastern Europe.
Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia asked for NATO assistance, that's four European countries part of NATO.
It doesn't hurt to be at least a little bit more precise. Poland and the baltic states got what they wanted (more NATO troops, US, France, Germany, Belgium, Croatia, GB, Canada) and as usual the biggest part is made up of US troops. NATO troops in Estonia will be lead by Great Britain, Latvia by Canada, and Lithuania by Germany.
That freeloader nonsense is exactly that: nonsense. It can't be too complicated to look at facts and details. However, if someone desperately wants to simplify things until they are highly inaccuate or simply wrong, then be it.

In November last year, RT claimed that NATO is sending 300,000 troops to the East. OMG.

 

Afraid? No, Russia would never attack Europe the main reason being that would almost certainly provoke a nuclear war, remember France and the UK are nuclear powers, would they use them? Yes bet your sweet life on them doing so and no one wants that, the escalation would probably destroy much of the planet.

However placing troops in Poland is far more worrying, it’s not wise to prod the Russian bear, it’s got a nasty bite. The thousand American troops there would be overrun in days if things got out of hand.

 

If russia invaded Poland, which contained american troops, that would also trigger this horrible nuclear war you speak of. It's called tripwire forces. A nuclear-armed country, like the US, but also UK or france, deploys troops to vulnerable NATO states like poland. And if the Russians invade, they will come into direct contact with a nuclear-armed country. Nuclear war would be the inevitable result. Thus, Russia would never try something that stupid.

the alternative, to not have US/UK/french troops in eastern europe, is actually more dangerous because it creates uncertainty. Everyone is very sure that if american troops are attacked, the USA will respond. same with france and with uk. But everyone is not equally sure that if e.g. estonia is attacked, that USA will respond. This means that there is a chance that Russia can attack estonia without the rest of NATO doing anything. What if russia tries this, but it turns out that they were wrong, and that they have now unintentionally started a nuclear war? See, those are the dangers that stem from uncertainty.

You know, wars tend not to start when both sides are 100% certain that it will result in huge losses for them. Therefore it is important to get rid of any uncertainty. Therefore it's important that nuclear-armed countries have troops in the baltic states and poland. wierdly enough, it's actually more stable that way.

 

You make no sense whatsoever. What possible reason to we have to war over the Baltic states or Poland? Not our country. Not our responsibility. If they are not self-viable countries, they are not viable.

 

*sigh* it's your responsibility because you signed a treaty which says so... I feel it's a waste of time arguing with someone who doesn't understand that...

 

That nonsense is how WW1 happened. Lots of countries signing treaties that don't need to be signed.

Anyway, those treaties weren't signed by Trump, so you'll just have to muddle through without us.

 

no, they were signed by the usa. if you don't like them, withdraw from them.

 

"Europe's fate is in our hands.":this was Angela Merkel's defiant reply to Trump.

The Guardian reports, "Angela Merkel and François Hollande have responded curtly but defiantly after Donald Trump cast further doubt on his commitment to Nato and gave strong hints that he would not support EU cohesion once in office."

In the Times of London interview, Trump complained that NATO had become “obsolete” because it “hadn’t taken care of terror” – a comment later welcomed by the Kremlin. He suggested that other European countries would follow in Britain’s footsteps and leave the EU.

“We Europeans have our fate in our own hands,” the German chancellor said after the publication of the US president-elect’s interviews with the Times and German tabloid Bild.

On the other hand, Trump is suggesting the U.S. and Russia should work together. He recently tweeted, "both countries will, perhaps, work together to solve some of the many great and pressing problems and issues of the WORLD!"

All this begs a question. The nations of Western Europe are our allies, and that has been true for over two centuries. Russia has been our avowed enemy ever since the end of WWII and the era of the Cold War. Russia's recent activity, including interference in our election, suggests nothing has changed. Everyone wants better relations with Russia, but a question should be asked because Russia is our enemy until she proves different and not before that time.

Why is Trump antagonizing our allies while befriending a dangerous, proven enemy for the past several decades?

 

I think it is because Trump imagines that he can be friends with Putin, because he thinks Putin is cool. However, Putin is no fool, and he knows that after four years there will undoubtedly be a democratic president who will reverse everything Trump has done. So there is no hope for a long-term alliance with the USA, but Putin will make use of Trump's naivity to weaken the position of the USA and the west vis-a-vis russia.

Trump is insulting all of USA's old allies. This is good for Putin. Ideally, Putin wants trump to get rid of NATO and EU, because those are the only things which can put any kind of pressure on russia. If trump does that, what could his democratic successor do to pressure russia? Nothing. Good luck putting any kind of miltary pressure without NATO, and good luck getting any sanctions to work if there's not a unified EU.

Russia will never be USA's friend.. All that's happening now is that Putin is breaking up the western alliance, making us all much weaker..

 

The EU was formally established in 1992, that's when the process of eliminating the various national currencies and implementing the euro was started. Anything before that was just talk with trade treatiess as cover, national mergers only become real when the economies are actually merged.

The EU failure was predicted decades ago when an economic disaster such as Greece was put on equal footing with an economic powerhouse such as Germany. Its actual failure is due to economic problems (as predicted), the excessive concentration of power in Brussels, rampant immigration.

The EU has failed all on its own, Trump is simply recognizing the writing on the wall. "progressivism" is failing all over the world, get used to it.

 

They were not signed by the USA, but rather by a President who is no longer the President.

You'll just have to deal with the fact that we don't keep the same people in power for decades. It's how we roll.

 

president signed on behalf of the US. the treaty applies to countries, not people, for christ sake...

 

Treaties are not immortal and unchangeable. Any party can withdraw or alter the commitment they are willing to make at anytime. They only need advise of this. That is what most people understand.

We had a Treaty with Tunis -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_with_Tunis_(1797)
and while we had that treaty we did a sneak military attack.

We also had a boundary treaty with Mexico, that we later fully violated - again using military force.

Do you equally advocate the USA must go back an honor all treaties with Native Americans? Given them the land back to USA agreed was their's by treaty?

Entering into alliances with countries that can not possibly defend themselves or us we was done with NATO is absurd. To agree to go to nuclear war on behalf of some micro-Eastern European country that can't even pay their own utilities bills is truly absurd. All you did was totally sidestep the issue.

 

List of US Treaties in the past:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_treaties

Explain the absolute permanent nature of treaties the US government has made in relation to Native Americans. Give it a try.

Treaties last only as long as the parties all agree to it. Any side can withdraw at any time - and the USA has canceled, ended and withdrawn from near countless treaties. So, sorry, declaring we have to spend our money and take the risks to go to war for anyone we ever had a treaty with doesn't work and is absurd on its face.

 

Well good luck getting a country minus any people to uphold them.