Trump scolds NATO allies on defense spending

Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by Blinda Vaganto, May 25, 2017.

  1. Blinda Vaganto

    Blinda Vaganto Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2014
    Messages:
    1,777
    Likes Received:
    270
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/335120-trump-scolds-nato-allies-on-defense-spending

    What is to say here other than he is correct? US has spent 611 $bn on defense while Germany for example just 41 $bn or 14 times less. This indeed makes article 5 look unfair.
     
    Dutch, Injeun and Merwen like this.
  2. Texas Republican

    Texas Republican Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2015
    Messages:
    28,121
    Likes Received:
    19,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The U.S. taxpayer supports the world. We're the biggest fools on the planet. At least Trump is trying to do something about it.

    If that makes some people cry, so be it.
     
  3. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,241
    Trophy Points:
    113
    SMART DIPLOMACY! Trump has done what Obama didn’t: Scare NATO into closer tracking of defense spending.

    “He wasn’t the first to raise concerns: President Barack Obama had frequently lamented NATO members’ failure to spend enough on defense. But it was Trump’s undiplomatic rhetoric that got the issue to the top of the group’s agenda this week, when NATO’s members are expected to accept the idea of public report cards to make sure everyone’s meeting the requirements of the alliance.”

    Effective diplomacy sometimes calls for undiplomatic rhetoric.
     
    ChemEngineer and Merwen like this.
  4. Cal-Pak

    Cal-Pak Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    243
    Trophy Points:
    43
    This just provides more evidence to a Trump/Russia collusion.
    Putin wants NATO to be weak or nonexistent, also.

    I think by now, Congress could remove Trump on the grounds that
    he is a threat to National Security.

    EDIT: Russia made Trump President, to do the Russians bidding.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2017
  5. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    NATO has kept peace in Europe for about seven decades. It has parried war in a continent deluged by war for centuries on end. Measuring the effectiveness or value of that long-term peace by focusing on the trivial amounts of money not paid by smaller participants is a very narrow-minded and poor way to judge the value of NATO. Sure, we've paid more than the other members, but we are the richest of all the members, and can afford it, while some of them can't. But the real value of NATO isn't wrapped up in money. It's the seven decades of peace. And Trump's inability to see that, along with the same blindness by his supporters, is a real travesty, for that blindness places us all at risk of losing our children or grandchildren, or even ourselves in renewed senseless but avoidable conflict.
     
    Woolley and Caligula like this.
  6. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump is blind to everything of value not connected to a dollar sign. Supporting the world through NATO is a direct way of supporting world peace. If you think that's expensive, wait until you have to support a new war. NATO is a cheap way to prevent war, and has been successful since the end of WWII. Don't knock success.
     
  7. Caligula

    Caligula Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,874
    Likes Received:
    804
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nobody forced Washington to increase its military budget ('defence' is a rather unfitting word here) the way it has over the past years.
    There are studies that say the Iraq war cost 720 million dollars every day. If Washington is insane enough to burn money in the Iraqi desert, so be it. I would like to see the exact number that the US spends on other NATO countries' security which should be provided by said countries.
    And what is that "should" based upon? Was there a written contract in the past that clearly stated how much every partner has to spend.
    The Wales summit declarartion of 2014 clearly states something different than what the 'world according to Trump' claims.
     
  8. truth and justice

    truth and justice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    25,730
    Likes Received:
    8,772
    Trophy Points:
    113
  9. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    25,530
    Likes Received:
    5,363
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Apparently some have been swinging the lead on payments for years on the presumption 'the 2% GNP contribution is only a guideline', and they've been paying only about half a percent. You could tell who they were by the 'caught in the act' looks on their complacent faces whilst Trump was issuing the warning. The fact that past US presidents have been letting them get away with it for decades speaks volumes in Trumps favour. He's no cnut.
     
    chalkoutline likes this.
  10. Blinda Vaganto

    Blinda Vaganto Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2014
    Messages:
    1,777
    Likes Received:
    270
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    What about a war in Ukraine which is geographical center of the Europe?

    The richest nation in the Nato alliance is actually Luxemburg. They have gdp per capita twice as high as America does. But their spending on defence as percentage of GDP is 6 times lower than America's. Norway is also richer than US but doesn't spend what it should.

    In view of this the idea of common defence indeed seems to be unfair.
     
    chalkoutline and Diamond like this.
  11. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    S T O P !!!

    Before anyone here starts to talk about giddy like Trump, these are the facts!

    #1
    How many billions a country is putting in the defense is uninteresting and NOT the subject!
    #2
    The NATO Treaty stipulated 2% of the gross domestic product and not specifically how many billion EUR / USD / GBP, etc.!
    #3
    Only 5 members of NATO meet this 2% for many years and at the moment ... and since my country was addressed: Germany invested 1.2% = 0.8% too little!
    #4
    Do I want that these 2% must be met? Yes, but with understanding and use of the brain! Any waste of tax money just to meet this 2% if no need is there, I will definitely not!
    #5
    Is there a need in my Country Germany? But yes, even fpr more than this 2% with regard to the facts ... e.g. as regards dedication and modernization!

    Major Point of Dispute is that:

    What are these 2% actually, ie what expenditure are recognized as part of this 2%?
    This issue goes in both directions ... in favor of the USA and also against the USA and its is core point!

    Many NATO members participate in NATO and UN foreign missions and these missions cost money. Are these costs included in the 2% or not? According to the US they are not and that is the cracking point of the whole.
    If they are taken into account, my country still does not fulfill the 2% full, but then we have already arrived at 1.9%!

    This American No to the cost of participating in NATO and UN missions is, unfortunately, a boomerang and then beats the Americans fully into their own face back!
    Why? Because the gentlemen in the USA then at least hace to take out the costs for the US bases in Asia and the Pacific and also take away the costs of their adventure raids like in Iraq, etc.!
    It is completely new to me that e.g. Japan and South Korea are members of NATO and that NATO is defended in the Yellow Sea!
    Then with the hundreds of billions of the US fpr its defense times something different ... is at best to 2/3 even only for the NATO ... und when the USA then takes off the costs for NATO and UN missions in foreign countries, again much smaler!!!

    I'm not against the fulfillment of the 2%, but this US American hypocrisy must also be called by the name!
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2017
    XploreR likes this.
  12. snakestretcher

    snakestretcher Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Messages:
    43,996
    Likes Received:
    1,706
    Trophy Points:
    113
    WTF? You support the world? No you don't, unless you can conjure up some substantiation for your claim. But you're right, Americans are the biggest fools on the planet, and electing that blithering idiot is all the proof you need.
     
    XploreR likes this.
  13. Blinda Vaganto

    Blinda Vaganto Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2014
    Messages:
    1,777
    Likes Received:
    270
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    The truth is that if ISIS commits a terrorist act in Germany that kills 200 or more people, than it is more than likely that majority of the population would like to invade Iraq and Sirya and defeat ISIS once and for all. But German army doesn't have this capability. They would need an American help. Now US demands for this kind of insurance 2% of GDP for millitar spending. This is their demand and it seems fair to me.
     
  14. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The truth is that ISIS exists only due to the criminal attack of the USA in 2003 on Iraq and raised only due to total US incompetence as usual in this Country!
    The truth is that Germany has and had troops in Afghanistan stationed too and not only few of them! Sure, no comparing in number to US troops, but the Germans agreed to follow the USA here after 9/11!
    The truth is that Germany is taking care of the fight against the ISIS long before the USA!
    While the US, along with Turkey, was only giving money and weapons to everyone who fights Assad, including the ISIS and other terrorist scum by evidence, scrambling for years and nothing else in Syria, and some air support in Iraq as the ISIS Almost Baghdad conquered ... yes, Germany sent Military advisors to the Kurds, even by the USA rated as designated as honorable allies, in northern Iraq and equipped and trained these people with the G3 assault guns, MG-3 machine guns, and MILAN AT weapons, to fight ISIS, which they also successfully did!
    The truth is that Germany does a Little bit more as that too! Who is in Moment in deep dispute with this bastard Erdogan to take out all troops from Incirlik Air Base in Turkey and to place them in Jordan to fight further against ISIS?

    The truth is that the US first has to take away its hypocrisy on the subject to be anyway believable anyway!
    The truth is, however, that I myself want that Germany at least this 2% met, because the Forces need the money!
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2017
    Sallyally likes this.
  15. Latherty

    Latherty Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    5,989
    Likes Received:
    489
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Europe prefers soft power. what has happened is that Europe spends big trying to avert conflict, and the USA spends big where they fail, and Europe spends big when US intervention creates catastrophe.

    Maybe foreign aid and defense should share the same budget?
     
  16. Latherty

    Latherty Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    5,989
    Likes Received:
    489
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I don't know where the 2% came from, so I couldn't comment on whether the rate is suitable.

    Further, actual conflicts cost a lot more. Peacetime 2% may not be sufficient to cover the additional costs of engagement. Plus why should military commitments increase with GDP?

    If we all get richer, does that necessarily mean that the military needs to be bigger?

    I would refer a budget approach, with perhaps contributions based on GDP. The elephant in the room is spending on foreign aid.

    There is a genuine cross-over between military spending and foreign aid, especially since the majority of engagement costs are actually on law and order post conflict, rather than knocking off any particular enemy.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2017
  17. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And this unfair is also nonsense, because to tell only 611bn USD vs. 41bn USD is rubbish too! How much of these 611bn USD have something to do with NATO again? These 47,000 US soldiers in about 80 bases in Japan cost again how much and have to do what with NATO again?

    If the US is investing more as 2% in their defense, then it is their own decision! But they don't do so, because the Europeans do not fulfill the 2% ... this is a fairy tale!

    And as you wrote, what about the other things like costs for NATO and UN missions? Why do the US include them in their "bill" but deny to allow others to put them into their bill?
     
  18. Blinda Vaganto

    Blinda Vaganto Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2014
    Messages:
    1,777
    Likes Received:
    270
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    American demands are what they are. If most of the people in Europe think like you, than European countries will countinue to spend what they spend (or even less) and will not have American millitary assistance in the case they need. Baltic states have seen what happened to Ukraine and do not share your point of view as they are fully on a way to increase their millitary expenditure to the demanded level.
     
  19. Latherty

    Latherty Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    5,989
    Likes Received:
    489
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I think you misunderstand the German and European psyche. They are genuinely reluctant to take up invasions, mainly because of the ensuing chaos. Chaos is very un-German.

    Europeans appear all together more comfortable permitting tyrants to maintain stable environs, which they can manipulate towards liberalism. The USA seems to be much more confident, despite the evidence, that somehow a liberal democracy will emerge naturally from a post-conflict zone.

    Maybe its the US's own history of successful revolution that causes this misconception. The USA had some pretty amazing individuals, trained by the British in bureaucratic traditions, leading their revolution and they maintained all the bureaucracy in continuity.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2017
    AmericanNationalist likes this.
  20. Ninian

    Ninian Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2017
    Messages:
    3,902
    Likes Received:
    756
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then go and get me a sandwich, if your president supposed to be there for sake of my bidding.


    But if speaking seriously and ON topic - are not the defence spendings of NATO counties divided in spendings on THEIR own defence and COMMON needs of NATO, with majority of this summ going to the country's own defence? In that case obviously Germany needs less, considering they have much more compact military than USA, do not have it dispersed across half of globe, AND have smaller borders, smaller country - which means they literally need less military bases, equipment and personnel to effectively defend their country.
     
  21. Blinda Vaganto

    Blinda Vaganto Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2014
    Messages:
    1,777
    Likes Received:
    270
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    It came from the mouth of Donald Trump. This is what American protection costs. Now the Nato countries that don't meet this requirment should simply accept it or decline. Let's see what happens.
     
  22. Blinda Vaganto

    Blinda Vaganto Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2014
    Messages:
    1,777
    Likes Received:
    270
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm more than sure that 200 or more dead bodies in some public place where everybody could imagine himself to be would change this psyche dramaticaly. After terrorist act in Paris there already were talks about invasion. It didn't get enouph support but still.
     
  23. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    These 2% are stipulated in the NATO Treaty and are so far OK.

    Each military costs money and needs money constantly, and even though most of the armed forces ... inklusice of the United States ... have reduced after the end of the cold war, they have a further need all the time.

    I agree with you however completely, that these 2% must be fulfilled in any case, if there is an appropriate need, but not necessarily, if the need is not there. A waste of tax money just to get the hell out of these 2% is, of course, BS only!

    In the case of Germany, this requirement is simply given for even more than 2%! The readiness for action suffers because of money, e.g. As far as the number of operational Typhoon Jets is concerned!
    There is a considerable need for modernization, e.g. At the AFV tanks. The 40 year old AFV Marder (Marten) is still used, even in latest version not up to date! The successor "Puma" is already there, but he comes only slowly to the troop ... also because some problems this new AFV has in moment and needs to be solved.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2017
  24. Diamond

    Diamond Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,850
    Likes Received:
    376
    Trophy Points:
    83
  25. Blücher

    Blücher Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2016
    Messages:
    479
    Likes Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    The acceptance of military actions in Germany is very low and there would have to happen far drastic events to change the antimilitaristic and pacifistic public opinion.

    The 2017 budget is raised by 8%, correspondent rises would lead to the 2% in 2024.
     

Share This Page