Trump criticises NATO members for not paying their way.

Nessie

Penultimate Amazing
Nessie
Joined
Jun 16, 2012
Messages
16,148
Trump at NATO today, in a speech in front of the other member leaders, was critical of the states which have not paid 2% of GDP as agreed. Indeed only 5 make that commitment;

http://uk.businessinsider.com/nato-share-breakdown-country-2017-2

United States, 3.61%.
Greece, 2.38%.
Britain, 2.21%.
Estonia, 2.16%.
Poland, 2%.
France, 1.78%.
Turkey, 1.56%.
Norway, 1.54%.
Lithuania, 1.49%.
Romania, 1.48%.
Latvia, 1.45%.
Portugal, 1.38%.
Bulgaria, 1.35%.
Croatia, 1.23%.
Albania, 1.21%.
Germany, 1.19%.
Denmark, 1.17%.
Netherlands, 1.17%.
Slovakia, 1.16%.
Italy, 1.11%.
Czech Republic, 1.04%.
Hungary, 1.01%.
Canada, 0.99%.
Slovenia, 0.94%.
Spain, 0.91%.
Belgium, 0.85%.
Luxembourg, 0.44%.

He went on to point out that the USA spends more on defence than the rest put together. Well, sorry, but that is the USA's decision to spend so much.

I think there is a problem which Trump does not get. Defence, or attack?

Much of the USA's spending is is not really about defence at all, it is about the ability to go anywhere in the world and attack. Only the UK, Italy and France also have that ability because of their nuclear option, their bases around the world and/or aircraft carriers. Then, it is nothing like teh ability the USA has.

The rest are only geared up to defend and are so small that the most likely aggressor, Russia, is always going to win a one on one.

No wonder the President of Luxembourg make a comment behind his hand which made others leaders smirk. What could Luxembourg realistically add to the defence of Europe, let alone anything else?
 
Doesn't the additional 1.61% spent by the US, over and above their Nato requirement more than make up for shortfalls everywhere else? I haven't done the maths, but it might well do.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
The agreement was that NATO members spend 2% of GDP on defense by 2024. None of them are in arrears.
Click to expand...

I should have known better than to believe him!

Germany and France alone are actually quite capable of dealing with a Russian aggression towards NATO as long as it stays non-nuclear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCFkSvR1_1c
Click to expand...

Capable of eventually bringing the Russians to a halt, after they have got a long way into Europe, which has always been the case.
 
Nessie said:
The rest are only geared up to defend and are so small that the most likely aggressor, Russia, is always going to win a one on one.
Click to expand...
I admit Trump gets weird hate-boners at the most random things, but at this point I'm not willing to write off anything involving Russia as a coincidence. He's doing a great job of pissing in the pot and giving the impression that America might be an unreliable NATO ally.
 
I never thought of it as being a reliable one. It has always been last in when there is conflict in Europe and first in elsewhere.
 
I'll chip in $100.00 to bring Luxembourg up to 2%. Should do it, right?
 
Hmmm, I'm not sure I'd want Turkey to increase their military spending.
 
Nessie said:
...it is about the ability to go anywhere in the world and attack. Only the UK, Italy and France also have that ability because of their nuclear option, their bases around the world and/or aircraft carriers. ...
Click to expand...

*cough*
*giggle*

You might wanna review that ^^
 
Trump's wording - that members ought to "pay" more - sounds awkward to me. It sounds as if he expects the Europeans to somehow pay to the USA. Does he believe arms deals must go to US manufacturers?
It's a matter of military budgets. The correct word would be "to spend".
 
Oystein said:
Trump's wording - that members ought to "pay" more - sounds awkward to me. It sounds as if he expects the Europeans to somehow pay to the USA. Does he believe arms deals must go to US manufacturers?
It's a matter of military budgets. The correct word would be "to spend".
Click to expand...


That bit in bold wouldn't surprise me in the least.

And that's another aspect that makes a direct comparison unworkable.

We maintain an enormous military (too much so, to some degree) in order to, not "attack" per se, but to project force around the globe without delay, to defend our and our allies' interests... and yes, to occasionally pre-emptively attack.

First, that's far outside the needs, or wildest desires, of the majority of NATO members.

But we also have that tremendously incestuous MIC, so the bulk of that US spending stays "in house". It's incredibly "small picture" thinking for Trump to badger NATO over this (especially given his mistaken representation of their agreed upon commitments).

I should just make a "what a tool :rolleyes: " macro. :p
 
Oystein said:
Trump's wording - that members ought to "pay" more - sounds awkward to me. It sounds as if he expects the Europeans to somehow pay to the USA. Does he believe arms deals must go to US manufacturers?
It's a matter of military budgets. The correct word would be "to spend".
Click to expand...

He's been saying that since early in the campaign. And I don't think it's about contracts; he really appears to believe they should just pay us for "protecting" them. Do you think any of the yes-men he surrounds himself with are going to correct him on it; or that he'd believe them if they do?
 
Jim_MDP said:
Originally Posted by Oystein
Trump's wording - that members ought to "pay" more - sounds awkward to me. It sounds as if he expects the Europeans to somehow pay to the USA. Does he believe arms deals must go to US manufacturers?
It's a matter of military budgets. The correct word would be "to spend".
Click to expand...


That bit in bold wouldn't surprise me in the least.

And that's another aspect that makes a direct comparison unworkable.

But we also have that tremendously incestuous MIC, so the bulk of that US spending stays "in house". It's incredibly "small picture" thinking for Trump to badger NATO over this (especially given his mistaken representation of their agreed upon commitments).
Click to expand...

After consulting the tea leaves, I wish to make a prediction

Now the Boeing et.al. and Lockheed et.al. have withdrawn the missiles they were developing from the US Navy's Over-the-Horizon Weapon System competition. Congressional/White House pressure will halt the competition to redraw the requirements, then reopen the competition.

(There is still one remaining competitor, the Norwegian company Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace, who already have a missile fully developed and in service - not promiseware)
 
Trebuchet said:
He's been saying that since early in the campaign. And I don't think it's about contracts; he really appears to believe they should just pay us for "protecting" them. Do you think any of the yes-men he surrounds himself with are going to correct him on it; or that he'd believe them if they do?
Click to expand...

Although I disagree that they should pay us for 'protecting' them, would you agree that without us, their spending would increase above the 2%? Due to the current climate, a majority of NATO countries increased their military spending within the last 2 years. Those closest to the Russian border increasing at a much larger rate.

I dislike any position that feigns US backtracking on NATO commitments, but I don't necessarily disagree with expecting allied countries to increase their defense spending. Especially when they have already agree to the terms of those increases in the past. Call it 'guidelines' or whatever you want. We are subsidizing their defense spending. We could argue about the need and who it most benefits, but I don't think the position is really controversial.
 
rdwight said:
Although I disagree that they should pay us for 'protecting' them, would you agree that without us, their spending would increase above the 2%? Due to the current climate, a majority of NATO countries increased their military spending within the last 2 years. Those closest to the Russian border increasing at a much larger rate.

I dislike any position that feigns US backtracking on NATO commitments, but I don't necessarily disagree with expecting allied countries to increase their defense spending. Especially when they have already agree to the terms of those increases in the past. Call it 'guidelines' or whatever you want. We are subsidizing their defense spending. We could argue about the need and who it most benefits, but I don't think the position is really controversial.
Click to expand...

I disagree. From what i could read the various military and countries do not seem to be estimating russia a bigger threat than it was a decade ago to western europe. At worst it mostly is to nearby countries with majority russian ethnics , see ukraine, but even there it would be hard for russia to make a repeat

No the challenge to come are guerilla warfare and extremist terrorism, both of which the nato and defense spending are useless to stem, and intervention in foreign countries.

Basically the 2% requirement us a hold over from a past era if i am generous. If i am less generous it is just an attempt to have the mic get more contract.

One thing is sure the local politician will have to justify the rises and will not be able to lower the social benefit the population gets for what is felt is an anachronistic spending.
 
Aepervius said:
I disagree. From what i could read the various military and countries do not seem to be estimating russia a bigger threat than it was a decade ago to western europe. At worst it mostly is to nearby countries with majority russian ethnics , see ukraine, but even there it would be hard for russia to make a repeat

No the challenge to come are guerilla warfare and extremist terrorism, both of which the nato and defense spending are useless to stem, and intervention in foreign countries.

Basically the 2% requirement us a hold over from a past era if i am generous. If i am less generous it is just an attempt to have the mic get more contract.

One thing is sure the local politician will have to justify the rises and will not be able to lower the social benefit the population gets for what is felt is an anachronistic spending.
Click to expand...

Good. So there should be an overwhelming cry to end NATO. It is a relic from a long gone era. Feel free to cite any Euro countries pushing for that. As opposed to more looking to join NATO.

The fact those farther away from Russia feel safe not to increase their spending is due to relied upon US intervention should the threat arise. The further away, the sooner US involvement would negate the need for their defense. Remove the US from the equation. Does their military expenditure rise?

Again, we could argue if that is a good thing of course, but it is not something that I believe is a controversial argument.
 
Aepervius said:
I disagree. From what i could read the various military and countries do not seem to be estimating russia a bigger threat than it was a decade ago to western europe. At worst it mostly is to nearby countries with majority russian ethnics , see ukraine, but even there it would be hard for russia to make a repeat
Click to expand...

The threat from Russia in the past decade grew enormously. This is not because of military reasons - their upgrades were few and far between and to be honest barely counterbalanced the general decay and increasing obsolescence of most of their equipment. The training and service conditions for a large majority of their military are still pathetic, their battle-capable formations amount to a bare few battalions, anything other than that is good only for rearguard and defensive operations.

No, the threat increased due to political reasons. In 2007 Russia was riding high on the oil boom, the country was rapidly improving, stabilizing, strengthening. This continued up to 2014 when the oil price collapsed and took Russian economy down with it. The real story about the war in Ukraine was written in Moscow, the primary concern was keeping the public busy not questioning why they were suddenly poorer (real wages collapsed by almost 20% in the past three years) and why the corruption skyrocketed in the meantime. They even went as far as to create a paramilitary formation under the direct command of the president a year ago. Russia is unstable and if the survival of the Kremlin is threatened, the czar will do just about anything to survive. If he faced a revolution he might really try to go to war over Baltics. He knows NATO won't invade and conquer Russia to force him from power, the costs of the occupation would be too high to contemplate even if nuclear weapons were out of the picture. To Putin a war with NATO could be an acceptable gamble, preferable to being hanged from a gas station by an angry mob. Russians are suckers for his external policy and readily welcome hostility towards the West.

McHrozni
 
Last edited:
NATO is an important means to stop European countries fighting each other. The EU is the other.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
The agreement was that NATO members spend 2% of GDP on defense by 2024. None of them are in arrears.
Click to expand...
True, countries do have a few years to increase their commitments.

The problem is, many of these countries either 1) have actually decreased their spending recently, or 2) are increasing their spending so slowly as to make it difficult (if not impossible) to meet their commitments. For example, Canada's military spending has fallen off a cliff, and with our current government and a large deficit its unlikely the situation will improve in the next few years.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/02/daily-chart-11

The big problem is.... Trump is an idiot. But, there is a kernel of truth in the complaint that other countries are "not doing their share". If the complaint came from a competent leader it might have been taken more seriously.
 
Darat said:
Why 2%?
Click to expand...

Arbitrary number.


Germany is trying to make the case that it spends a lot on foreign aid and assistance (such as having its police train policemen in Iraq and Afghanistan). They argue that preventing the next wars is more cost effective than arming for it, so such projects should be included in the 2% mark.
Naturally, the USA is having none of it.
 
Aepervius said:
No the challenge to come are guerilla warfare and extremist terrorism, both of which the nato and defense spending are useless to stem, and intervention in foreign countries.
Click to expand...
The NATO website has a list of areas where NATO military forces have been involved, including: the Afghanistan war, disaster relief after the Pakistan earthquake, helping to stabilize Sudan, stopping the bombing of civilians in Kosovo, dealing with Somali pirates, etc. So there is more than just stopping terrorism and guerilla war.

http://www.nato.int/cps/bu/natohq/topics_52060.htm

Now, you could argue that "Many of those have nothing to do with the security of NATO countries directly". But NATO countries tend to be fairly well off compared to others in the world, and as such should be willing to provide assistance where needed.
Basically the 2% requirement us a hold over from a past era...
Click to expand...
Actually, if I remember correctly, military expenditures during the cold war (i.e. the 'past era') were much higher than even the 2% that's recommended today. Germany's fell from ~2.5% in 1998 to <~1.2% last year. Italy's fell from ~2.2% to 1.3% over the same time period.

So, the 2% commitment isn't an attempt to bring spending to cold war levels, since cold war levels were even higher than that.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Germany is trying to make the case that it spends a lot on foreign aid and assistance (such as having its police train policemen in Iraq and Afghanistan). They argue that preventing the next wars is more cost effective than arming for it, so such projects should be included in the 2% mark.
Click to expand...
I am not denying that foreign aid and similar assistance are not beneficial. The problem is, many (if not all) NATO countries also engage in such activities (even the U.S.)

If you want to include foreign aid, etc. then to be fair you would have to set the total commitments higher (like make the combined Military+aid=3-4%).

The other problem is that you get into complexities about "what is foreign aid?" Calculations are already tricky enough to try to figure out military expenditures; add foreign aid and assistance onto that and things get more complex.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Arbitrary number.


Germany is trying to make the case that it spends a lot on foreign aid and assistance (such as having its police train policemen in Iraq and Afghanistan). They argue that preventing the next wars is more cost effective than arming for it, so such projects should be included in the 2% mark.
Naturally, the USA is having none of it.
Click to expand...

This. Canada's noted that "defence spending" for some members of NATO also includes their Coast Guard (US), national policing, and veteran's services, which for Canada the budget for National Defence does not. Including those in the mix and Canada's defence spending rises to nearly 2%. Practically, I do think that Canada should spend more on Defence proper (I may have a bit of conflict of interest there, but whatever), as there needs to be a large influx of logistical capability for the military overall (trucks) and the navy, new fighter jets and naval helicopters, plus we need to go into a major training phase for developing people to carry out the training necessary for just maintaining our strength and preparing for future growth.

Defence spending in Canada has ALWAYS been a low priority item (with the exception of WWI and WWII). It can be seen in the view that a part time militia (sturdy yeomen, ready to rally to the colours to drive off the dastardly foe) with as small a regular cadre as they can get away with (lazy bastards unwilling to do real work in favour of getting public money) is sufficient for our defence needs, and that "we'll just need to learn to do more with less." (the old saw of "Nothing is too good for the troops, and that is exactly what they shall get" is too often true)
 
I agree that foreign aid isn't defence spending, especially if it is its impact isn't quantifiable. Many European powers direct their aid at former colonies and not where aid is needed most or the risk of conflict is highest.

But buying weapons for the sake of buying weapons isn't the solution, either: Saudi Arabia might have placed an order for $100 billion, but its ability to wage war will not significantly increase.
 
rdwight said:
Good. So there should be an overwhelming cry to end NATO. It is a relic from a long gone era. Feel free to cite any Euro countries pushing for that. As opposed to more looking to join NATO.

The fact those farther away from Russia feel safe not to increase their spending is due to relied upon US intervention should the threat arise. The further away, the sooner US involvement would negate the need for their defense. Remove the US from the equation. Does their military expenditure rise?
Click to expand...


If the above holds, it does suggest an action the US can unilaterally take to practically force other NATO members to increase spending. Just decrease US military investment. Saves money for the US taxpayer too.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
But buying weapons for the sake of buying weapons isn't the solution, either: Saudi Arabia might have placed an order for $100 billion, but its ability to wage war will not significantly increase.
Click to expand...
But they aren't just buying weapons for the sake of buying weapons. Several NATO activities have required military involvement. That means active soldiers, equipment and supplies.

The fact that Saudi Arabia's military spending doesn't allow it to "wage war" is irrelevant... they don't have a history of doing so (unlike NATO) and even if they did they would probably make things worse.
 
There are a couple of things I find interesting about Trump's whining:

1) In his first meeting with Merkel, he demanded a check, so it's clear he doesn't understand the issue.

2) The 2% target is meant to be (a) deterrence for Russia and other countries thinking about fighting in Europe and (b) preparation in case it happens (France's capabilities at the outset of WWII being the warning). But, since there hasn't been a war and those defense budgets haven't been necessary to this point, it doesn't make any sense to look backward. It's like living without health insurance: if you made it this far, you got lucky. Probably a good idea to get it moving forward, but it wouldn't make any sense for BCBS to say, "Hey, you haven't had insurance for 10 years, you owe us the premiums for that period."

If you're from a sane country that doesn't handle healthcare like us, substitute any other form of insurance.

3) How much of our military budget is actually directed towards NATO priorities? I know NATO's mission has expanded since founding, but only a small fraction of our budget is aimed at defense and preparation in Europe. It seems odd to count the money we spend on our misadventures in the Middle East, for example, towards the NATO commitments. Not only is it money not spent towards safety and peace in Europe, it hampers our ability to react should Russia engage in some nonsense. We're deployed elsewhere.

Germany may only be spending 1.19%, but a much higher percent of that goes toward preparedness on the European continent than our 3.61%.
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
Plus it'd be a hard sell to Canadians to double our expenditure on anything related to the military.
Click to expand...

I think a huge expenditure in military Hardwear would be a good idea for Canada 🇨🇦 right now!

Im thinking a nuke powered Ford Class Carrier built in Montreal, a HUGE project, we have the technology, we've got the nuke power, finance it with a combination of federalland sales, some printed cash, gold sakes, and 10 years and "war style" bonds, advertised on CBC exclusively.

It would be glorious!!
 
Yeggster said:
I think a huge expenditure in military Hardwear would be a good idea for Canada &#55356;&#56808;&#55356;&#56806; right now!

Im thinking a nuke powered Ford Class Carrier built in Montreal, a HUGE project, we have the technology, we've got the nuke power, finance it with a combination of federal land sales, some printed cash, gold sales, and 10 years and "war style" bonds, advertised on CBC exclusively.

It would be glorious!!
Click to expand...


Depending on how badly the next couple of years go, we have a brand, spanking new one we might not be able to afford at all that you could just buy at a bargain price.

It's oil fired though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom