Donald Trump invoices Germany with a £300bn bill for NATO (spokesman, millionaire)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I live in one of those countries that spends less than 2% on its military. I am not embarrassed but do get tired of Americans claim that the only reason we aren't speaking Russian, or German or Chinese is because the States decides to spend so much on its mikitary. A reminder that in Afghanistan, Canada had the same amount of trooos, per capita, and the same amount of casualties, per capital, as the US. Maybe if you spent less on your military you would use it wiser and not go into places like a Iraq with no planning on what to do after toppling the government.
But the 2% requirement is for the future. What right does Trump have to send an invoice to one of the parties? I am inclined to say that if he is going to treat your NATO partners like he owns us and the organization, let's drop it to 1% or 1.5% just to show that we might be free from being under Russian control but we are also all sovereign nations and being treated like this by your president is an insult to our sovereignty and our freedom, more so than Russia or China are right now.
Neither Trump or the US owns NATO nor its members. We work together whereas the US seems to think we all work for you. Closer cooperation and smarter policies or spending more money each. Those are your choices. Germany and France, combined, pay for more if NATO then does the US (nato s website) so you focus on total military spending as opposed to spending on NATO. It is Americans that should be embarrassed by this stunt of Trumps showing a lack of repect, diplomacy or of facts.
And it is Trump who thinks spending even more is more important than meals on wheels, science, health research or infrastructure. The rest of us are not asking or even expecting such a foolish move on your part. That is on him and yoy.
You know you're totally right, I think that the US spending should go to other programs, and the US should withdraw from it's current international commitments and NATO, with the US military only protecting emergent threats to the US and it's interests. Given that 2% commitment was given before the debacle of the Libya efforts where several EU and NATO members committed their support, but did not have the materiel to actually deliver on that commitment, if the US had not provided such materiel (and were not able to provide their own tactical intelligence), it would show the world exactly what a paper tiger NATO really is. I really think (as a natural born European), that NATO is obsolete anyway, the EU is the US largest international competition, and should be more than capable of meeting it's own defensive needs.
But until then, no I don't think that most countries should get away with failing to meet 2%, you've had a hard commitment for 11 years to achieve it, and a soft commitment since before Desert Storm. You want to "reward" non-payment with reduced bills? Try that with your power company, pay only 75% of the bill and then demand after 11 years (if you get there) for them to reduce your bill because you want to spend that other 25% on booze, broads, and blackjack.
Here's the thing, Germany hasn't been paying for all those things for the US. On the other hand, the US has paid a huge chunk of Germany's defense. Maybe we could afford to pay for healthcare for our citizens if we hadn't been paying their bills. I agree with Trump on this one. Western Europe needs to start paying their share, after all they benefit from NATO more than we do.
While I certainly agree that every country should meet the 2% criterion since it was agreed upon... where exactly has the US paid a "huge chunk" of Germany's defense? During the Cold War West Germany was officially occupied and used as a buffer zone to keep the Soviets as far away from America as possible. Furthermore West Germany was even prohibited to have a very strong army due to what happened during WW2. Can't blaim the Germans. Today's military bases in Germany (&Italy) serve America more than Germany and are the linchpin of most operations in the middle east. They are not there to defend Europe. There are approximately 30,000 Americans stationed in Germany right now, the majority of which are not soldiers but regular staff. That compares to more than 175,000 Bundeswehr soldiers. I am sure the Germans are capable of handling their own defense. If you think that the handful of American soldiers have a measurable impact on their national defense (even if they participated in it) you are deluded.
There are approximately 30,000 Americans stationed in Germany right now, the majority of which are not soldiers but regular staff. That compares to more than 175,000 Bundeswehr soldiers. I am sure the Germans are capable of handling their own defense. If you think that the handful of American soldiers have a measurable impact on their national defense (even if they participated in it) you are deluded.
Actually I'll betcha dollars to donuts they do.
Suppose there are 175,000 Bundeswehr servicemen (they're not all soldiers), and 30k Vatican priests, would those 30k Vatican priests increase the risk raising the anger of the Worlds largest and most technically advanced military in the world, if Germany was attacked?
Now reconsider with 30k US servicemen, is the risk the same?
Certainly there's little benefit from various non-nation state actors (i.e. terrorism, for example La Bella), but from nations, you bet there's a huge benefit, and it needn't be 30k, just sufficient numbers with wide enough distribution so that the risk of large numbers (high double or triple figures) of US casualties. In such an event you can bet that the majority of Americans would be baying for blood.
Here's the thing, Germany hasn't been paying for all those things for the US. On the other hand, the US has paid a huge chunk of Germany's defense. Maybe we could afford to pay for healthcare for our citizens if we hadn't been paying their bills. I agree with Trump on this one. Western Europe needs to start paying their share, after all they benefit from NATO more than we do.
Defend Germany from whom? Do you think that if the US withdrew from its bases in Germany another country would try to invade Germany? US bases in Europe aren't about defending Europe, they're about making it easier for the US to operate in the Middle East and keep an eye on Russia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom
Probability of this being fake news: 99.99%
Might be wrong but I'm more inclined to believe the German officials over the White House on this considering how many lies have come from the White House lately.
Defend Germany from whom? Do you think that if the US withdrew from its bases in Germany another country would try to invade Germany? US bases in Europe aren't about defending Europe, they're about making it easier for the US to operate in the Middle East and keep an eye on Russia.
Might be wrong but I'm more inclined to believe the German officials over the White House on this considering how many lies have come from the White House lately.
That's the issue. The WH denying this means nothing. They have zero credibility. Trump has talked about NATO and the 2% time after time, and he's also an *******. This is plausible.
It is symbolism and he is simply trying to make a point. The left has to make a big deal about it like they do everything Trump does. Trump could say the sky is blue and the left would find some angle to disagree with him.
Amazing that so many of the really intelligent people don't seem to get this.
The 2% target was initiated during the 2014 NATO meeting in Wales, and members were given a decade to meet the target.
Best not to give countries a decade to meet the 2% requirement if you don't mean it, and then try to charge them money for not meeting the target in the past.
It's in black and white or in this case highlighted in red -within a deacde.
Originally Posted by Wales Summit Declaration 2014 - NATO
14. We agree to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets, to make the most effective use of our funds and to further a more balanced sharing of costs and responsibilities. Our overall security and defence depend both on how much we spend and how we spend it. Increased investments should be directed towards meeting our capability priorities, and Allies also need to display the political will to provide required capabilities and deploy forces when they are needed.
A strong defence industry across the Alliance, including a stronger defence industry in Europe and greater defence industrial cooperation within Europe and across the Atlantic, remains essential for delivering the required capabilities. NATO and EU efforts to strengthen defence capabilities are complementary. Taking current commitments into account, we are guided by the following considerations:
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. Likewise, Allies spending more than 20% of their defence budgets on major equipment, including related Research & Development, will continue to do so.
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.
Allies who currently spend less than 20% of their annual defence spending on major new equipment, including related Research & Development, will aim, within a decade, to increase their annual investments to 20% or more of total defence expenditures.
All Allies will:
ensure that their land, air and maritime forces meet NATO agreed guidelines for deployability and sustainability and other agreed output metrics;
ensure that their armed forces can operate together effectively, including through the implementation of agreed NATO standards and doctrines.
While I certainly agree that every country should meet the 2% criterion since it was agreed upon... where exactly has the US paid a "huge chunk" of Germany's defense? During the Cold War West Germany was officially occupied and used as a buffer zone to keep the Soviets as far away from America as possible. Furthermore West Germany was even prohibited to have a very strong army due to what happened during WW2. Can't blaim the Germans. Today's military bases in Germany (&Italy) serve America more than Germany and are the linchpin of most operations in the middle east. They are not there to defend Europe. There are approximately 30,000 Americans stationed in Germany right now, the majority of which are not soldiers but regular staff. That compares to more than 175,000 Bundeswehr soldiers. I am sure the Germans are capable of handling their own defense. If you think that the handful of American soldiers have a measurable impact on their national defense (even if they participated in it) you are deluded.
Then why were Germany and other European countries so batcrap concerned when he talked about withdrawing from NATO during the campaign? I don't like the guy but I agree 100% with him on this. NATO's only advantage for us is that it stopped us from having to rescue Europe again. We can defend ourselves.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
You know you're totally right, I think that the US spending should go to other programs, and the US should withdraw from it's current international commitments and NATO, with the US military only protecting emergent threats to the US and it's interests. Given that 2% commitment was given before the debacle of the Libya efforts where several EU and NATO members committed their support, but did not have the materiel to actually deliver on that commitment, if the US had not provided such materiel (and were not able to provide their own tactical intelligence), it would show the world exactly what a paper tiger NATO really is. I really think (as a natural born European), that NATO is obsolete anyway, the EU is the US largest international competition, and should be more than capable of meeting it's own defensive needs.
But until then, no I don't think that most countries should get away with failing to meet 2%, you've had a hard commitment for 11 years to achieve it, and a soft commitment since before Desert Storm. You want to "reward" non-payment with reduced bills? Try that with your power company, pay only 75% of the bill and then demand after 11 years (if you get there) for them to reduce your bill because you want to spend that other 25% on booze, broads, and blackjack.
If someone you owed money to stated that next year the interest rate was going up would you immediately start paying the higher interest rate? Germany and others have until 2024 to get to the 2% level. Think of it, if you increased your military spending by 50% in a year what would you be able to spend money on? Not troops as you would not have housing, weapons or equipment for them. Not weapons as you would not have troops or facilities for them. No it would be mostly wasted if you increased spending drastically immediately. I worked for the military in infrastructure planning and it takes time to develop and build bases or even new buildings on bases.
Using your booze analogy you are saying that when you turn 12 years old the liquor store can start demanding you pay them because you will eventually be buying from them anyways. No, if Trump sent Germany an invoice he would be saying that because Germany agreed to increase their spending to a certain level by 2024, until they reach that level they need to give the US money.
In Libya the French flew the most missions if I understood and Obama took flack for allowing his troops to be under a non American commander as a Canadian was in charge of that mission if memory serves me right. Think about it, until that time no matter how much each NATO country contributed to a mission ,the Americans had to be in control.
Until the deadline in 2024 the NATO counties own no one as that is the deadline not 2014. I think having NATO pulls Iceland and Canada and soon to be the UK into the mix. I would prefer for the Americans to pull out than for it to disappear. Let the US pay for their own messes when they invade countries for made up reasons. Tony Blair was a fool sending in troops to a war that made no one safer, especially those who lived in Iraq.
You are splitting hairs. It was not part of the original treaty but was added in 2006 because countries like Germany were not spending enough on defense. 11 years and Germany can't get it right.
Since the alliance was formed in 1949, there has been an agreement on what constitutes collective defense, but no firm guidelines – because they weren’t necessary. Prior to the 1990’s, each country voluntarily contributed upwards of 3.3% of their GDP on defense. By 2000 that number had slipped below 2% (Not too hard to figure out why – the USSR ceased to exist). In 2006, for the first time, NATO came up with a standard for membership defense spending, and in a nutshell, it was that each country would spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense.
Although the US share varies over time, it usually assumes over 60 per cent of the alliance expenditure burden, measured by this metric.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
