You shouldn't. If people are being frivilous, let them know, and if they continue, leave them. If Germany can't do this, not only should you not feel sorry for them, you should not afford them any respect.
Is this kind of stuff really necessary here? The angry patronising and overbearingness coming from emerging ideologies ruling the Anglosphere is the reason why the EU is having to rethink its future. It's you guys the ones that have changed.
Sounds to me like she's just saying Europe can no longer rely on the US (e.g. NATO), and because of the unpredictable nature of US domestic politics at this point, they need to plan as if Europe may not have reliable US backing.
Trump may very well get his wish to see some of the less rich NATO members spend more money on defense, but it may come at the cost of US leadership.
I don't think that's what is bothering NATO, it's Trump's failure to verbally affirm Article 5 of the NATO Treaty.
On the issue of defense spending, different members of NATO have different economic hardships. Do we really expect Greece to crank up defense spending while in a debt crisis and under heavy austerity already? These NATO guidelines have to be somewhat contextual based on reality of economics.
Gates said the same thing, in fact he said that the US basically cannot not afford another war unless it's attacked on its own soil and if NATO will not pick up the slack the US will be forced to reconsider its part in the partnership.
This was said in Brussels in front of all of NATO.
The EU have been skimping on its NATO commmitments since the end of the Cold War this isn't a recent development.
Greece is actually meeting it's goals (likely because of its sick waving contest with Turkey) while Germany, France, Italy and even the U.K. do not.
As for Article 5 there has been already blood in the water since Iraq.
France basically said that if the US uses Article 5 for Iraq it will ignore it, Germany and Italy were also signaling the same sentiments.
Well, in the case of Iraq though, it seems a slam dunk, since Iraq had not attacked any NATO member.
If the US wants other NATO members to step up, then they should reduce payments. Either NATO members will make the determination that the new budget constraints represents an unacceptable level of reduction in capability below which they think is required, or they'll think NATO doesn't need as large a budget.
Realistically, NATO's deterrence effect against Russia comes down to nuclear-MAD. The conventional forces don't matter as much, if NATO is attacked by Russia conventionally, and NATO goes to war, you have a direct hot war between two nuclear equipped entities which is a bit too much risk, so there's little chance of a Russian invasion of a NATO member regardless of NATO conventional defense capabilities.
I think it's likely any conflicts with non-NATO states on the Eurasian continents will likely be proxy conflicts, with NATO and Russia backing different factions, like with the Korean War, Vietnam, and Afghanistan.
I take it to mean Article 5 is no longer a guarantee in the near future / possible reduction of us bases in Germany and Europe while a eu army builds up
TBH it should have happened after the bush/iraq situation the united states is nuts no one wants to be in their sphere of influence anymore
Because for years, the US enjoyed having NATO as a power projection tool, made mostly for them, is now complaining that the countries willingly letting them set up military bases inside their borders are not paying enough? (Even though it is a target for the future and not right now.)
Because the US just decided that the most important environmental agreement of our generation isn't worth sacrificing _coal_ jobs?
Indeed, it's not surprising. We could have collaboration. Turns out, as usual, the US is fucking up. It's okay, we'll live.
Mentioning the Paris "agreement" in a thread about NATO is a red herring. Moreover, the "collaboration" you mention implies that everybody is contributing fairly, which is not what is happening with NATO (or even the UN) right now.
Assume European countries were all spending 2% of GDP for military capabilities within NATO.
What exactly would that buy them?
More military interventions with more refugees arriving at European borders?
There is basically no real threat to European countries atm. Russia is heckling a bit in Ukraine. Supplying Kalashnikovs to separatists and such. But in general, Russia is retreating. With Montenegro joining NATO and things going bad in Syria, Russia is losing access to the Mediterranean sea. And they run out of money quickly!
If things go wrong, special forces (a few hundred men) and French atomic missiles pose enough of a threat for rogue dictators. The large countries can't afford a war, because economic ties are too strong.
Military spending in Europe is exactly where it needs to be. Low.
Humanitarian help throughout the world and keeping the inner stability of society (social security, health-care, retirement, ...) gives a lot more bang for the buck. (pun intended)
Nah, NATO is required for that to work. It's like a group ticket. The more you are, the cheaper it gets for each individual. NATO only needs to collectively have more capability than the biggest external threat. More than that is overspending.
And the US are not paying $$ for anybodys army. And they know very well how to use their own capabilities outside of NATO and for their own interests.
Do you mean overspending as the US currently do, to compensate for European countries are not paying their fair share, while getting most of the outcome ?
Because this is the bottom of it. European countries want the protection, while not paying their share, and making fun on Uncle Sam spending so much on their military, and not enough on their social program.
The US spends more on military than the next 8 countries combined. A quarter of that would be enough for NATO, which is for defense only, now that the Cold War is over.
Europeans don't want the US playing global super power. They don't need it. And they ain't paying for it.
>here is basically no real threat to European countries atm.
The key word here is atm (at this moment, I guess). The problem with military capabilities is that they can't ramp up quickly -- it takes years. Relying on what's needed atm is shortsightedness at very least. Many countries in history paid a very painful price for it, or even ceased to exist. A very recent example is Ukraine. It had exactly the same attitude -- "we don't have enemies atm, why bother". Until suddenly it had.
Please take note that general elections (for the "Bundestag") will be held in the end of September 2017. Everything that will be published now and in the next months by the German media may very well be part of a campaign scheme.
28 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 71.0 ms ] threadTrump may very well get his wish to see some of the less rich NATO members spend more money on defense, but it may come at the cost of US leadership.
Trump's remarks are not new these are the same remarks that have been thrown around since Busb senior was in office.
Heck Under Obama Sec Def Gates used much harsher words than Trump.
On the issue of defense spending, different members of NATO have different economic hardships. Do we really expect Greece to crank up defense spending while in a debt crisis and under heavy austerity already? These NATO guidelines have to be somewhat contextual based on reality of economics.
This was said in Brussels in front of all of NATO.
The EU have been skimping on its NATO commmitments since the end of the Cold War this isn't a recent development.
Greece is actually meeting it's goals (likely because of its sick waving contest with Turkey) while Germany, France, Italy and even the U.K. do not.
As for Article 5 there has been already blood in the water since Iraq. France basically said that if the US uses Article 5 for Iraq it will ignore it, Germany and Italy were also signaling the same sentiments.
If the US wants other NATO members to step up, then they should reduce payments. Either NATO members will make the determination that the new budget constraints represents an unacceptable level of reduction in capability below which they think is required, or they'll think NATO doesn't need as large a budget.
Realistically, NATO's deterrence effect against Russia comes down to nuclear-MAD. The conventional forces don't matter as much, if NATO is attacked by Russia conventionally, and NATO goes to war, you have a direct hot war between two nuclear equipped entities which is a bit too much risk, so there's little chance of a Russian invasion of a NATO member regardless of NATO conventional defense capabilities.
I think it's likely any conflicts with non-NATO states on the Eurasian continents will likely be proxy conflicts, with NATO and Russia backing different factions, like with the Korean War, Vietnam, and Afghanistan.
I worked as a federal contractor during his time as President. To move data from one base to another.
European countries all claim to be sovereign countries, but surprisingly, not when it's time to pull the credit card out.
TBH it should have happened after the bush/iraq situation the united states is nuts no one wants to be in their sphere of influence anymore
It's clear the age war is coming
Because the US just decided that the most important environmental agreement of our generation isn't worth sacrificing _coal_ jobs?
Indeed, it's not surprising. We could have collaboration. Turns out, as usual, the US is fucking up. It's okay, we'll live.
More military interventions with more refugees arriving at European borders?
There is basically no real threat to European countries atm. Russia is heckling a bit in Ukraine. Supplying Kalashnikovs to separatists and such. But in general, Russia is retreating. With Montenegro joining NATO and things going bad in Syria, Russia is losing access to the Mediterranean sea. And they run out of money quickly!
If things go wrong, special forces (a few hundred men) and French atomic missiles pose enough of a threat for rogue dictators. The large countries can't afford a war, because economic ties are too strong.
Military spending in Europe is exactly where it needs to be. Low. Humanitarian help throughout the world and keeping the inner stability of society (social security, health-care, retirement, ...) gives a lot more bang for the buck. (pun intended)
And the US are not paying $$ for anybodys army. And they know very well how to use their own capabilities outside of NATO and for their own interests.
Because this is the bottom of it. European countries want the protection, while not paying their share, and making fun on Uncle Sam spending so much on their military, and not enough on their social program.
Europeans don't want the US playing global super power. They don't need it. And they ain't paying for it.
[the answer to this question is of course "no", European countries still want the US to be paying for their "protection".]
The key word here is atm (at this moment, I guess). The problem with military capabilities is that they can't ramp up quickly -- it takes years. Relying on what's needed atm is shortsightedness at very least. Many countries in history paid a very painful price for it, or even ceased to exist. A very recent example is Ukraine. It had exactly the same attitude -- "we don't have enemies atm, why bother". Until suddenly it had.
Please take note that general elections (for the "Bundestag") will be held in the end of September 2017. Everything that will be published now and in the next months by the German media may very well be part of a campaign scheme.