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.
There is also no way Russia a country of 140 million could invade Europe, a continent of 741 million people.
Hasn't Trump effectively said the same thing for years? He has said NATO as originally constituted is obsolete. In trying to attack Trump, you are echoing him. IN fact, Germany by entering into this gas deal with Russia effectively saying Russia is not a threat. Would France enter into a pipeline deal with Nazi Germany?
There is also no way Russia a country of 140 million could invade Europe, a continent of 741 million people.
Trump has said that the U.S. needs to spend much less on NATO than it currently does. So, this may be what's coming in the future. If European countries can eventually defend themselves and Russia is so weakened that they are no longer a credible military threat to Europe, then the U.S. presence should be diminished.
But Russia remains the world's biggest nuclear power, and I think most EU countries still see them as a threat.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 5 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,189 posts, read 13,477,157 times
Reputation: 19519
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyRider
Nice try for trying to confuse the issue. Th $87 billion figure you are throwing around is immaterial. There is no "NATO budget" for the Europeans to spend it on. Each country is required to spend 2% of their GDP on their OWN military so when they are called upon to serve, they don't run out of ammunition in a week, as they did in Libya a few years ago.
The issue is not confused
1. The US only contributes 5% of it's defence budget to NATO, the other 95% is spent elsewhere. So all talk of the US making up over 70% of NATO is complete nonsense.
2. There is indeed no NATO budget other than for the upkeep of a few buildings however European Allies already spend over $270 Billion which is three or four times more than Russia.
3. There is no requirement to spend 2% of GDP it's merely a guideline and not a stipulation, and it is a guideline that is meant for 2024.
4. The$ 87 Billion annual European increase in defence spending is the equivalent of almost three times the amount the US Spends on NATO which is around 5% of it's defence budget.
5. The US has very few forces left in Europe and they amount to less than 5% of active US Military Personnel and the bases that are left are increasingly in Southern Europe where they have a role in relation to the mediterranean, north africa and middle east.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 5 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,189 posts, read 13,477,157 times
Reputation: 19519
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer
Trump has said that the U.S. needs to spend much less on NATO than it currently does. So, this may be what's coming in the future. If European countries can eventually defend themselves and Russia is so weakened that they are no longer a credible military threat to Europe, then the U.S. presence should be diminished.
But Russia remains the world's biggest nuclear power, and I think most EU countries still see them as a threat.
As I have already explained a lot of the US Bases in Europe have nothing to do with NATO they are intelligence, medical, logistics, naval support etc and are there so that the US Military can project power to regions beyond Europe.
To this end since the end of the Cold War the US has shifted personnel to Italy, which is no where near Russia.
Last edited by Brave New World; 07-19-2018 at 10:52 AM..
Trump would be right if he pulled the USA out of NATO and left the Europeans to their own devices.
He’s absolutely NOT right to ask them to be as stupid as his nation is.
That works. Next time the USA is under attack (planes & towers), Canada will sit back and tell the USA to find some other place to park their planes. That's what you want, right?
As I have already explained a lot of the US Bases in Europe have nothing to do with NATO they are intelligence, medical, logistics, naval support etc and are there so that the US Military can project power to regions beyind Europe.
To this end since the end of the Cold War the US has shifted personnel to Italy, which is no where near Russia.
This is understandable. An EU country has not been attacked by Russia in many decades, right?
I would think that American military personnel at those bases would be bored to tears by now.
Nato's a good thing for everyone concerned and should be maintained.
I was looking into why Trump would try to undermine Europe by supporting Brexit and generally treating the EU as a foe ?
The reality is he wants the USA to continue to be the worlds major power but things are changing very quickly now.
Russia isn't a real threat to the US or Europe, but Trump see's Europe a possible threat not militarily but to the US standing on the world stage with a larger population and now larger GDP the US position is becoming less certain.
The worrying thing this is that the EU would never threaten the US militarily not because it can't or couldn't but because most Europeans see the US as family with most people literally having family in the US who have migrated from Germany, the UK, Italy or wherever.
At the end of the day with Nuclear weapons the days of who has the largest army is pretty much irrelevant and a waste of money.
Nato should be maintained to deal with the likes of ISIS or whoever follows them in the future for all of our security.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 5 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,189 posts, read 13,477,157 times
Reputation: 19519
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer
This is understandable. An EU country has not been attacked by Russia in many decades, right?
I would think that American military personnel at those bases would be bored to tears by now.
The US Personnel are often moved to the frontline leaving bases empty, US forces in Europe were constantly doing tours of Iraq and Afgahistan (this includes USAF squadrons as well), and those that weren't on tours were supporting US Forces in conflict zones through intelligence, logistics/supply, medical support etc.
There is a lot iof forward basing in terms of US Forces in Europe and a lot of force rotation.
As I have already explained a lot of the US Bases in Europe have nothing to do with NATO they are intelligence, medical, logistics, naval support etc and are there so that the US Military can project power to regions beyind Europe.
To this end since the end of the Cold War the US has shifted personnel to Italy, which is no where near Russia.
Thank God, someone else sees the true picture. If NATO closed up shop or it the US left NATO we would be screwed.
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.
