US wants other NATO members to spend more on Defence

[Jolly_Penguin]

I found this item interesting. Trump is demanding other NATO countries spend at least 4% on national defence. Trudeau says Canada will stay at 2%, which it has committed to.

It is an odd request from the USA that others spend more on their militaries. Why can't the US cut back its spending without others increasing it? Has Trump even suggested that the US cut back its spending on its war machine?

I understand that the USA takes pride in thinking it is the defender of all countries everywhere, but why not let those other countries fend for themselves militarily? Pull out of that ridiculously high number of military bases all around the world.

What's the fear here? Is it Russian aggression? Chinese?

 

[laughing dog]

First, all NATO members are supposed to spend 2% of GDP on defense, and most do not and have not for a long time. Second, because of the lack of spending on military equipment, etc..., many NATO members have antiquated or dysfunctional equipment. Bring that up to standards will require spending more than 2%.

NATO is an alliance where everyone has agreed on paper to certain conditions. At the time of its inception, the US was the largest economy and military in the free world.

Trump is an ass. But asking our allies to live up to their agreements is reasonable. And, I think our European allies do not view Russia with the same equinamity as they used to.

 

[Jayjay]

US is spending 3.5% of its GDP on defense. So even America isn't meeting Trump's 4% goal, and NATO has never agreed to it. The goal that was agreed in 2014 was 2% by 2024 (though some countries have been slacking off and are not looking like they will meet the goal). The main reason why Trump's throwing a fit over it is because increasing defense spending mostly means buying more shit from the US. Even at current spending, non-US NATO defense budgets are greater than Russia's or China's.

 

[repoman]

With all of the technological sophistication of these weapons, buying them from one country seems insane.

Stuxnet seems like a good reason to only buy dumb moving part equipment and add your own brains to the weapons. The US could just fry some EU weapons in a fit of rage through a hardware level exploit that is not even listed in the chip schematics.

 

[Jayjay]

With all of the technological sophistication of these weapons, buying them from one country seems insane.

Stuxnet seems like a good reason to only buy dumb moving part equipment and add your own brains to the weapons. The US could just fry some EU weapons in a fit of rage through a hardware level exploit that is not even listed in the chip schematics.

Well they're not buying all their weapons from one place. But increased military spending means a bigger cake for everybody.

 

[Underseer]

Gosh, it's almost as if Trump is trying to piss off all of America's allies in order to increase the relative international influence of Russia.

Not that working for the Russians is a bad thing. I would never say that treason is a bad thing, because I don't want to offend our more fragile forum members.

 

[Jayjay]

It should be noted that the meeting on wednesday where Trump made his tantrum against NATO allies spending, was supposed to be a discussion of Ukraine's and Georgia's prospects of cooperating with NATO. Thanks to Trump, Ukrainian and Georgian representatives were kicked out and I'm not sure if they were ever invited back in. And the budget discussion didn't lead anywhere, the other NATO countries just reaffirmed what they had already agreed to in 2014.

If I was a cynical person, I'd say this was a ploy to divert attention away from Ukraine and Georgia because Russia doesn't want them talking to NATO, but surely Trump wouldn't do such a thing...

 

[barbos]

It should be noted that the meeting on wednesday where Trump made his tantrum against NATO allies spending, was supposed to be a discussion of Ukraine's and Georgia's prospects of cooperating with NATO. Thanks to Trump, Ukrainian and Georgian representatives were kicked out and I'm not sure if they were ever invited back in. And the budget discussion didn't lead anywhere, the other NATO countries just reaffirmed what they had already agreed to in 2014.

If I was a cynical person, I'd say this was a ploy to divert attention away from Ukraine and Georgia because Russia doesn't want them talking to NATO, but surely Trump wouldn't do such a thing...

It's not as if the rest of NATO members were wanting to talk about Ukraine and Georgia.

 

[phands]

I think it's more likely that what the tangerine traitor wants is for NATO countries to spend more with US arms makers, further enriching his pals. And, of course, if America supplies all the weapons, then I'm sure there's a back door off-switch that Putin could order to be used when he invades Finland or other Baltic country.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I found this item interesting. Trump is demanding other NATO countries spend at least 4% on national defence. Trudeau says Canada will stay at 2%, which it has committed to.

It is an odd request from the USA that others spend more on their militaries. Why can't the US cut back its spending without others increasing it? Has Trump even suggested that the US cut back its spending on its war machine?

It is called dissent for dissent's sake. Putin wants NATO to disappear, so Trump is creating a fake problem at a magnitude where it won't disappear.

 

[Underseer]

If our NATO allies are expected to spend more on defense, then why should they put up with foreign troops on their soil?

I thought the whole point of NATO was not just to keep Russia out, but to keep Europe from plunging into war again. We spent more on our military and plunked military bases on their soil so that they didn't need to keep such robust militaries themselves, which allowed them to spend more money on their own prosperity and for them to be successful liberal democracies that we could use as an advertisement for liberal democracy around the world.

It's almost as if Republicans want to undermine the basis of America's power that we spent most of the Cold War building. Huh.

 

[repoman]

I think it's more likely that what the tangerine traitor wants is for NATO countries to spend more with US arms makers, further enriching his pals. And, of course, if America supplies all the weapons, then I'm sure there's a back door off-switch that Putin could order to be used when he invades Finland or other Baltic country.

We agree on something. The receiving country itself needs to make its own circuitry for the weapon systems based on a purchased schematic. If not, fuck off. These chips are so complex it is probably impossible to find a backdoor even for a nation state.

 

[Tammuz]

If our NATO allies are expected to spend more on defense, then why should they put up with foreign troops on their soil?

I thought the whole point of NATO was not just to keep Russia out, but to keep Europe from plunging into war again. We spent more on our military and plunked military bases on their soil so that they didn't need to keep such robust militaries themselves, which allowed them to spend more money on their own prosperity and for them to be successful liberal democracies that we could use as an advertisement for liberal democracy around the world.

It's almost as if Republicans want to undermine the basis of America's power that we spent most of the Cold War building. Huh.

The NATO troops in NATO countries are not uninvited to be there, quite the contrary*. Also, NATO troops in Eastern European countries are far from only American, they are multi-national. In fact, part of the strategy to make it unattractive for Russia to invade is to have multi-national forces there, because if Russia invades, then it immediately enters into conflict with many countries, which is (or at least assumed to be, not unreasonably so IMO) more off-turning than just entering into war with one country.

*See for example: Poland offers US up to $2B for permanent military base

I think Trump is a dick about how he goes about it and pretty much everything else, but the basic request of allies to live up to their spending commitment of 2% (not 4%, that's Trump's fantasy) is not unreasonable at the bottom of it.

Many Eastern European NATO and EU members were until very recently under involuntary Russia influence, and Russia is always seeking to get back its power over them. What Russia is doing in Ukraine and did in Georgia really scares them, and it doesn't get better with a Russian statement that the Baltic countries will be "wiped out".

The Russian military threat is not really present in far-away North America, but Eastern Europe certainly feels it. We (Sweden) are also somewhat in the risk zone, but not nearly as badly as the Baltic countries.

 

[untermensche]

The alleged purpose of NATO was to stop the Russian hoard from taking Western Europe.

As we see that was a bunch of lies from the government.

The purpose of NATO is to allow the US to more easily meddle in Europe and the Middle East.

Europeans do not want the US in Europe.

Some of their so-called leaders do.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The alleged purpose of NATO was to stop the Russian hoard from taking Western Europe.

That was the purpose and it worked. NATO created a unified front that Russia would have to defeat in whole to expand, making a slow incursion impossible. It worked.

As we see that was a bunch of lies from the government.

The purpose of NATO is to allow the US to more easily meddle in Europe and the Middle East.

Europeans do not want the US in Europe.

Some of their so-called leaders do.

The US and Europe need to be united.

 

[untermensche]

The alleged purpose of NATO was to stop the Russian hoard from taking Western Europe.

That was the purpose and it worked. NATO created a unified front that Russia would have to defeat in whole to expand, making a slow incursion impossible. It worked.

There was never enough force to stop a Russian invasion.

And the Russian people had no desire for another war in Europe. They took what they could take without a war and then set about rebuilding.

The Americans had no desire for one either and they lost a tiny fraction compared to the Russians.

NATO was all about selling weapons and burning oil.

It was a permanent expenditure to the Military Industrial Complex.

Something that has not gone away since Eisenhower warned of it.

The US and Europe need to be united.

No.

Europe should be free to do things as they see fit without any US interference.

Europe should have as much control over the US as the US has over Europe.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There was never enough force to stop a Russian invasion.

And the Russian people had no desire for another war in Europe. They took what they could take without a war and then set about rebuilding.

The Americans had no desire for one either and they lost a tiny fraction compared to the Russians.

NATO was all about selling weapons and burning oil.

It was a permanent expenditure to the Military Industrial Complex.

Something that has not gone away since Eisenhower warned of it.

The US and Europe need to be united.

No.

Europe should be free to do things as they see fit without any US interference.

Europe should have as much control over the US as the US has over Europe.

Whatever dude. You can join in with RVonse and try to stuff globalization back in the tube.

 

[untermensche]

There was never enough force to stop a Russian invasion.

And the Russian people had no desire for another war in Europe. They took what they could take without a war and then set about rebuilding.

The Americans had no desire for one either and they lost a tiny fraction compared to the Russians.

NATO was all about selling weapons and burning oil.

It was a permanent expenditure to the Military Industrial Complex.

Something that has not gone away since Eisenhower warned of it.

The US and Europe need to be united.

No.

Europe should be free to do things as they see fit without any US interference.

Europe should have as much control over the US as the US has over Europe.

Whatever dude. You can join in with RVonse and try to stuff globalization back in the tube.

Globalization is not one thing.

The US plan to dominate they call globalization is the same old cold war crap with a different name.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The alleged purpose of NATO was to stop the Russian hoard from taking Western Europe.

As we see that was a bunch of lies from the government.

The purpose of NATO is to allow the US to more easily meddle in Europe and the Middle East.

Europeans do not want the US in Europe.

Some of their so-called leaders do.

Basically, NATO extended our nuclear umbrella to our friends that didn't have bombs of their own. By keeping Russia from going after only those who didn't have bombs it kept the peace.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There was never enough force to stop a Russian invasion.

1) It was to hold until reinforcements could arrive.

2) The secondary purpose was to force the conflict to become a showdown between the US and Russia. Russia couldn't just take one bite.

And the Russian people had no desire for another war in Europe. They took what they could take without a war and then set about rebuilding.

What the Russian people want is irrelevant. The Russian government was almost always trying to take over land.