This map is how pathetic NATO has become in one image
- Thread starter UCFKnight85
- Start date
It's because Angela Merkel and her EU counterparts are pathetic.
They want to pay welfare and lavish entitlements to anyone who steps foot into their countries but are totally unwilling to pay for their own defense. They want to spend domestically while kicking the can to the United States to provide for their defense.
I really think Trump should give them a 16 month window to be within 1.8% of GDP or drastically reduce the US's role in NATO. If these countries don't find NATO relevant enough to meet MINIMUM spending requirements, then he's right- it's Obsolete.
Germany is the primary reason for the EU struggles as well. They have a huge trade surplus with the other EU nations and it's led to all of the capital accumulating in Germany. In the past, this would have been managed with Tarifs and debasing currency to make domestic markets more competitive. But since the EU has a common currency and free trade, the countries have no real recourse. Germany prospers while the remaining countries implode. The UK pulling out of the EU is just the beginning and it's inevitable given the current structure of the EU.
LOL
holy shit, you are stupid. Hint: the 2% minimum requirement was established years ago, by NATO members themselves, as a basic requirement for being guaranteed a collective defense per Article 5.
The US has historically always spent at the 4% of GDP mark going back to the days when there was no evil Lockheed or Raytheon.
Maybe you're sympathetic to the majority of NATO not pulling their own weight since it reflects upon your own life?
So what? We are the outlier but that has nothing to do with the fact that 2% is required from NATO members.
I dont know why you see this as a bad thing. We are completely safe. We dont have to worry about any other nations attacking us and we are the top dog. No country would realistically threaten us. Id rather be in a position of power than be in the Ukraine's shoes.
You're throwing out a straw man, no one's discussing whether 2% is the right amount. It is the required amount per the current NATO charter. If they feel it shouldn't be 2%, perhaps they should amend the NATO charter.
No. You're a racist and a liar. The 2% marker was clearly established the CEOs of Lockheed and Raytheon. EVIL PEOPLE
1. You don't know what a "straw man" is.
2. You don't know anything about the "NATO Charter" or how/when/why the 2% figure was created or meant to be implemented.
3. You, and 85, are idiots.
You're either trolling, an idiot, or both.
Well the 2% rule was put in place in 2006 and member countries agreed to reverse the downward trend in 2014. If that trend is not reversing, we need to be willing to back up the threat with reduced NATO funding followed by complete exit if it still doesn't change course.
Chemmie worked for the EVIL LockMart for most of his life and afforded him his lifestyle but now it's one of the worst companies on the planet.
Tough to say, but 20% of the defense expenditure must be in major equipment spending. It's possible the militaries are hitting their major equipment spending but not the overall funding number. I'm not a defense expert so I can't say where the new funding should go.
As I think about this, what is the goal here? To get these countries to spend more on their own military, right? And where do they have to spend it? On what? Troops? Equipment? Nukes? And who do they buy from? US, primarily, right?
Now, given Trump's ham-handed G7 summit where EU leaders left rather perturbed at Donny, do they follow through? God, I hope so...but if they don't, then Donny threatens to tear apart NATO, something a certain Eurasian country has wanted for 70 years. So either NATO allies strengthen their own militaries by paying US defense contractors more money, or they possibly weaken an alliance and risk the threat of another country's influence.
Now, given Trump's ham-handed G7 summit where EU leaders left rather perturbed at Donny, do they follow through? God, I hope so...but if they don't, then Donny threatens to tear apart NATO, something a certain Eurasian country has wanted for 70 years. So either NATO allies strengthen their own militaries by paying US defense contractors more money, or they possibly weaken an alliance and risk the threat of another country's influence.
There's no rule l that to my knowledge. However these countries should be investing in new equipment and capabilities given how little they've done in the past. The frigging Dutch got rid of ALL of their tanks a few years ago and sent them to Canada on "loan".
Totally wrong. EU members typically buy from EU suppliers. There is not a single Abrams tank in Europe, only a handful of F16 markets, no Bradleys in service, and only a few small markets use the M4 rifle.
Most everything they use is made in Germany, Sweden, France, or the U.K.
US suppliers do business there no doubt but the big purchases were always going to benefit EU contractors the most
Good to know. So EU members would be helping their own companies by buying more equipment. Since that's the case, why aren't they doing just that? Have previous administrations been lax to enforce, hoping that they will rely on US military for actual needs? Is that necessarily a bad thing? Is it not in the best interest of the US to have other countries somewhat beholdened to us?
Riddle me this, what benefit is it to buy bomb that sits and rusts and then gets dismantled?
Sounds like hiring a hole digger and a person to fill in the hole wasted activity.
Honest question, are you comfortable with Trump's approach with his handling of our closest allies? Yes, they need to spend more on their own defense. No arguments there. But it's un comfortable to watch an almost century long alliance with our democratic bretheren being damaged because Trump goes into this like a bull in a China shop. Their disdain for him is apparent. And if he does pull out of the Paris agreement, I fear real damage with Europe for years.
Agreed. I guess the results remain to be seen, but I don't think the America-First (to the detriment of anyone else) attitude towards our allies is a good strategy, but who knows? Maybe they got too soft and taking off the kid gloves will work, but maybe they take it too personally and start to bail.
They need us more than we need them. It's time we start taking advantage of that. We don't need to kowtow to Europe.
I don't have a good answer apart from an overall long term strategy, but I can't say this is Trump's end goal. I'd like to see us withdraw from regional issues (like the Middle East) and carry the big stick on worldwide issues (like disputes between Russia and EU or other conflicts that could result in nuclear war). To do that, the regional powers need to be more involved in the regional affairs militarily before we can back off or we risk creating a big power vacuum.
NATO is the only way we have leverage over EU nations to bolster their military, either through the 2% rule or pulling out of NATO which removes the Article 5 U.S. safety net.
We just struck a deal with Saudi Arabia and there seems to be some cooperation (or appeasement) with Russia which may eventually lead to Iran-Saudi determining the path for the middle east with less outside intervention from US and Russia.
We've also had discussions with China in handling their regional problem child (North Korea). A lot of saber rattling on both sides but I think China reigns in the little fatty because it would be a huge economic/social problem for China if a war broke out in North Korea.
I don't think any past Admin has cared if EU NATO members buy US equipment. They just want them to invest in more capability, whether that's an F16 or a Typhoon or Gripen aircraft.
NATO has an interoperability qualification for armaments meaning a German soldier using a German made HK rifle will use the same ammo that can be used alongside a Us soldier using a Colt made M4 rifle.
If you remember in Libya, the coalition NATO forces ran out of air delivered munitions in less than a week and had to borrow from US stocks. This has happened routinely in Afghanistan. It's ridiculous.
isn't footing most of the bill worth it to avoid the scenario of a Russian(or Chinese) military presence in Western Europe in the future? bc if that happens you could argue it does make the U.S. less safe.
I'm with @Ace of Knights , Trump's approach seems very shortsided with no long term vision
I'm with @Ace of Knights , Trump's approach seems very shortsided with no long term vision
You see the irony here right? Germany is bitching that Trump is being hard on them in America First
Policy, yet Germany has damn near crippled Greece and Portugal for years since Merkel put German industry and taxpayers first. Southern EU members hate Germany for that reason.
Germany has the largest economy in Europe yet doesn't meet their NATO spending requirements. They single handedly created the EU migrant crisis. It's last due that the US tell them to pony up.
What exactly were to solving for Europe anyways?
That assumes no response by Western Europe to the US leaving NATO. Once Article 5 doesn't bring the US into a European war, Western Europe will care much more about their defense spending.
Similar threads
