Jump to content

Nato increases defense spending


shalab
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

I agree!  The cost should be equally shared and Trump got the right response. 

 

To most it won't matter...but I just wonder if he could have achieved the same thing without the threats and withdrawal tactics?  Cheers! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NATO should have been disbanded decades ago..

 

Might sing a different tune if you lived in one of the Baltic states...

 

BTW - your question of the US role in NATO is probably worth asking - especially if the other members were to continue the free ride.

It certainly bothers me thinking that countries with budget surpluses just expect the US to continually foot the bill for their protection.

 

The Marshall plan ended long ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't think playing nice would have worked.

 

Germany is still not playing ball - while maintaining non-symmetric (in favor of german companies) tariff and non-tariff barriers.

 

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/437232-pence-targets-germany-on-nato-defense-spending

 

 

I agree!  The cost should be equally shared and Trump got the right response. 

 

To most it won't matter...but I just wonder if he could have achieved the same thing without the threats and withdrawal tactics?  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't think playing nice would have worked.

 

Germany is still not playing ball - while maintaining non-symmetric (in favor of german companies) tariff and non-tariff barriers.

 

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/437232-pence-targets-germany-on-nato-defense-spending

 

 

I agree!  The cost should be equally shared and Trump got the right response. 

 

To most it won't matter...but I just wonder if he could have achieved the same thing without the threats and withdrawal tactics?  Cheers!

 

Thanks for posting link.

 

The article from The Hill is such a good article. If members would read this instead of watching Fake News, they'd be better informed.

Particularly on the Russian Hoax.  For 2 years now, Trump has been hammering Germany to stop working with the Russian on the gas pipeline

to put pressure on the Russian economy.  Is that how you treat your collusion partner? Your good buddy Putin?

 

And no doubt - playing tough with Germany on NATO is the only way to get the other NATO members in line. Germany is the leader.

Trump, the disruptor, is not gutless like so many past politicians. Witness his immediate move of US Embassy to Jerusalem and recognition of

the Golan Heights - with our strongest ally in the Middle East. Meanwhile, the left tolerates Jew hating Congressional members with NO condemnation.

 

Dig deeper on foreign policy guys - and give credit where credit is due.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NATO should have been disbanded decades ago..

 

Might sing a different tune if you lived in one of the Baltic states...

 

BTW - your question of the US role in NATO is probably worth asking - especially if the other members were to continue the free ride.

It certainly bothers me thinking that countries with budget surpluses just expect the US to continually foot the bill for their protection.

 

The Marshall plan ended long ago.

 

Do you really think NATO will do anything other than talk if Russia annexes Baltic states? Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are the facts:

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2019_03/190314-pr2018-34-eng.pdf

 

Note that defense spending started to turn around in 2015, following the Ukraine invasion. I am not sure one can conclude from the data that Trump has to do with the higher spending.

Not directly related, but Germany’s defense ministre should have been fired a long time ago by Merkel. I think we will see a larger increase in Spending once Merkel is gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NATO should have been disbanded decades ago..

 

Might sing a different tune if you lived in one of the Baltic states...

 

BTW - your question of the US role in NATO is probably worth asking - especially if the other members were to continue the free ride.

It certainly bothers me thinking that countries with budget surpluses just expect the US to continually foot the bill for their protection.

 

The Marshall plan ended long ago.

 

Do you really think NATO will do anything other than talk if Russia annexes Baltic states? Really?

 

I don't think NATO will do anything other than talk, nor should they.  Starting WWIII wouldn't be worth it.  I agree with you that NATO should have died with the Soviet Union and the best case would be disbanding it completely now.  But if it is going to exist at all, then the 2nd best case would be the US pulling out completely now and letting the other members go it alone.  The 3rd best case would be other NATO member nations funding more of it than they have been and the US funding less of it than it has been.  So this is better than what has been going on, but no where near the best case.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NATO should have been disbanded decades ago..

 

Might sing a different tune if you lived in one of the Baltic states...

 

BTW - your question of the US role in NATO is probably worth asking - especially if the other members were to continue the free ride.

It certainly bothers me thinking that countries with budget surpluses just expect the US to continually foot the bill for their protection.

 

The Marshall plan ended long ago.

 

Do you really think NATO will do anything other than talk if Russia annexes Baltic states? Really?

 

It's a good question really. But deterrence is likely the best protection. Russia has 6000 nuclear weapons.

If you destroy NATO - do you really want every country in Europe trying to build nuclear arsenals?

Look forward to that happening if the US pulls out of NATO.

 

These are really difficult questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US nuclear missiles are stored all over Europe. No need to build our own.

 

Yes, I understand that. The NATO countries rely on American deterrence of Russia.

 

Just like Japan, Taiwan, South Korea rely on American deterrence of China.

 

You pull out of there agreements - and you will definitely have nuclear proliferation.

 

The question of alliances is difficult and not easily solved.

 

WWII was accelerated when the Prime Minister Chamberlain did not honor the alliance with Czechoslovakia.

He allowed Hitler and Germany to take the country. He did not want war.

 

Chamberlain emboldened Hitler - as Hitler KNEW Chamberlain would not act, so he then walk into Poland.

You know the rest.

 

Appeasment does not work with dictators or bad guys - strength (deterrence) is what Putin respects.

Putin laughed at Obama - but as he found out in Syria and Ukraine - it's much tougher to deal with Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I don't think NATO will do anything other than talk, nor should they.  Starting WWIII wouldn't be worth it. "

 

I guess that Russia could take over Alaska or California and that wouldn't be worth it either? As long as they don't take over a certain part of New Hampshire it is all good?

 

Cardboard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of these alliances will hold when push comes to shove. Just like Chamberlain and Czechoslovakia. Countries do not keep their word (just as the Soviet union was promised after WW2 the west would not expand to the east, and just as Ukraine was promised protection if they got rid of their nukes).

 

Let's do away with these fake military alliances so the is obvious to all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As does Britain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_Kingdom

 

Canada is also increasing its defense spending:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/07/canada-increase-military-spending-nato

 

 

France has its own nuclear warheads (force de frappe)- about 290 of them. Those warheads are not controlled by NATO; France can send them on their way as they please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I don't think NATO will do anything other than talk, nor should they.  Starting WWIII wouldn't be worth it. "

 

I guess that Russia could take over Alaska or California and that wouldn't be worth it either? As long as they don't take over a certain part of New Hampshire it is all good?

 

Cardboard

 

So if I think it isn't okay for Russia to invade Alaska I should pay to defend every nation on Earth from Russia?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“So if I think it isn't okay for Russia to invade Alaska I should pay to defend every nation on Earth from Russia?”

 

Ever heard the theory that...  “We can fight them over there, so we don’t have to fight them over here”?

 

It is your kind of isolationist thinking that kept the US out of WWII until the country was blind sided with the Pearl Harbor attack and lost a lot of good people early in the war because steps weren't taken sooner. 

 

Do you really think that any one country can simply crawl into a hole and be safe from the rest of the world today? It wasn’t true seventy or eighty years ago and is far less true today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“So if I think it isn't okay for Russia to invade Alaska I should pay to defend every nation on Earth from Russia?”

 

It is your kind of isolationist thinking that kept the US out of WWII until the country was blind sided with the Pearl Harbor attack and lost a lot of good people early in the war because steps weren't taken sooner. 

 

 

That is exactly right and the whole point of deterrence - have the biggest, baddest military and strong alliances and NOT be afraid to use it.

 

That is how you keep a Saddam, Iranian Mullahs, Stalin, Putin and Hitler contained - before they are emboldened by your weakness and it all

gets out of hand.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think about it, it’s pretty bullish for European defense stock,  especially Germany. If German spending goes from 1.23% to 2% in 5-10 years and the percentage spent on equipment goes up above 20% ( it is below that now), one can easily see the business doubling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All that screaming about Trump & NATO.....what nonsense...

 

From:

 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg:

 

Stoltenberg continued, "by the end of next year, NATO allies will add hundred – 100 billion extra U.S. dollars toward defense.

So we see some real money and some real results. And we see that the clear message from President Donald Trump is having an impact."

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nato-head-says-trumps-tough-talk-has-helped-alliance

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...