• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Trump calls out NATO members not paying their share during speech

HellforLeather

HellforLeather

Member
I dont have any information on this provided the premise that some countries arent fulfilling their financial duties to maintain NATO is true, I dont see an issue here.
 
Sakura

Sakura

Member
cwmartin said:
What exactly is the grand strategy in picking a fight with the largest military alliance in the world?
Click to expand...

I mean, members agreed that they would meet the GDP spending target, but they haven't. I don't think it is wrong to tell them they should be doing what they agreed to.
 
NYR

NYR

Member
Real Hero said:
Is he wrong?
Click to expand...

Based on GDP and the 2% rule, no, but just stupid to pick a fight over something like this with your allies. It's kind of like standing up at a dinner with your friends and calling out the couple who owe you money. It is silly and he shouldn't be doing it, he is a horse's ass.

http://www.businessinsider.com/nato-share-breakdown-country-2017-2

United States, 3.61%.

Greece, 2.38%.

Britain, 2.21%.

Estonia, 2.16%.

Poland, 2%.

France, 1.78%.

Turkey, 1.56%.

Norway, 1.54%.

Lithuania, 1.49%.

Romania, 1.48%.

Latvia, 1.45%.

Portugal, 1.38%.

Bulgaria, 1.35%.

Croatia, 1.23%.

Albania, 1.21%.

Germany, 1.19%.

Denmark, 1.17%.

Netherlands, 1.17%.

Slovakia, 1.16%.

Italy, 1.11%.

Czech Republic, 1.04%.

Hungary, 1.01%.

Canada, 0.99%.

Slovenia, 0.94%.

Spain, 0.91%.

Belgium, 0.85%.

Luxembourg, 0.44%.
 
S

Shihon

Member
There is a time and place to discuss members GDP contributions. This was definitely not the place and not cool at all.
 
R

Random Painted HIghway

Member
I haven't watched this and likely won't, but this is a pretty bipartisan position on this issue. If nato members want not abide by their agreements then they need to formally vote and change them, not dodge their agreed to responsibilities.
 
T

theWB27

Member
He's using the public forum to try and get what he wants...instead of ya know...having a meeting like leaders do.

He's not wrong...just childish with the way he goes about things.

Slayven said:
Why don't they cut back on the US military budget?
Click to expand...

America
 
S

SliceSabre

Banned
Sakura said:
I mean, members agreed that they would meet the GDP spending target, but they haven't. I don't think it is wrong to tell them they should be doing what they agreed to.
Click to expand...
I agree they should, I don't agree that every time NATO comes up that is ALL he has to talk about because he's not smart enough to discuss well...anything of any real significance because he is a fool and has no idea what he's doing and his top adviser is a white supremacist who hates NATO on principal.
 
S

SKINNER!

Banned
NYR said:
http://www.businessinsider.com/nato-share-breakdown-country-2017-2

United States, 3.61%.

Greece, 2.38%.

Britain, 2.21%.

Estonia, 2.16%.

Poland, 2%.

France, 1.78%.

Turkey, 1.56%.

Norway, 1.54%.

Lithuania, 1.49%.

Romania, 1.48%.

Latvia, 1.45%.

Portugal, 1.38%.

Bulgaria, 1.35%.

Croatia, 1.23%.

Albania, 1.21%.

Germany, 1.19%.

Denmark, 1.17%.

Netherlands, 1.17%.

Slovakia, 1.16%.

Italy, 1.11%.

Czech Republic, 1.04%.

Hungary, 1.01%.

Canada, 0.99%.

Slovenia, 0.94%.

Spain, 0.91%.

Belgium, 0.85%.

Luxembourg, 0.44%.
Click to expand...

Yeah! Look at all those broke nations that aren't paying their fair share! Like CANA- wait a second. I mean BELGI- hang on a minute.. luxembour..no, Spain...no....SLOVENIA! There we go! Yeah Slovenia! Pay your share or we'll send back Melania!!
 
D

Deepwater

Member
Real Hero said:
Is he wrong?
Click to expand...

He's basically blaming the EU nations for not paying protection money from a turf war that the US has with Russia.

When you're a contributor to the conditions that require the necessity of the alliance, you really don't have much righteous leverage over smaller countries not putting in equal amounts in the pot.
 
P

PdotMichael

Banned
Slayven said:
Why don't they cut back on the US military budget?
Click to expand...

Only a small amount of the US military budget is for NATO and article 5 anyway.

The only reason why the USA is pushing for that silly 2% (which was agreed to happen in 2024 anyway) is to bring back some military deals for the US industry. A sloppy attempt.
 
T

Tovarisc

Member
Bigger deal in his speech was not vouching that US stands by Article 5. Lecturing about defense spending and cost of new HQ was bad manners in opening remarks, but not mentioning Article 5 was huuuge.

Putin's day just go better.

W9DTj27.png

https://twitter.com/JimGoldgeier/status/867754746714705920

yHAdyj2.png

https://twitter.com/thomaswright08/status/867754665047404545
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
"Complaining about not paying fair share"

*Checks Trump's political affiliation*

Yep, checks out.
 
M

maabus1999

Member
Trump just does what he does, describe a problem completely incorrectly and unartfuly. There is no "fair share" of cost in NATO but the majority of the countries are not spending enough as the Treaty asks (2% GDP). Honestly with a resurgent Russia, those countries need to be back at 2%+ again but again Trump probably won't make that argument...
 
NYR

NYR

Member
Slayven said:
Why don't they cut back on the US military budget?
Click to expand...

Hey, the US has 10 active, in-service aircraft carriers.

The rest of the world combined have 8 in-service aircraft carriers. The rest of the world, combined that is, is catching up.

;)
 
S

Steejee

Member
US Presidents have been complaining about this issue since NATO was founded basically, but with more subtlety and tact than this man could ever muster. The *only* thing he should be doing is gently prodding them to stick to the commitments they made in 2014. Since he's incapable of being anything other than a loudmouth bully, I guess that's outside his range.
 
B

benicillin

Banned
NATO is waiting for Trump to get removed, just like more than half of America. It's kind of sad how many international leaders have to basically treat him like a toddler that can't be taken seriously but simultaneously is incredibly dangerous.
 
D

djplaeskool

Member
Once again, Trump exhibits zero nuance.
It's been brought up numerous times by past administrations, but past administrations have understood that nations need to attend to their priorities.
We can't throw hissy fits that other nations don't get a rise out of ridiculous military budgets.

eg. For Germany to "catch up" it would need to apportion something like an additional ~$30B in defense. I highly, HIGHLY, doubt the German people would approve of such a by and large meaningless boost to defense spending just to appease Trump.
 
S

scamander

Banned
Sakura said:
I mean, members agreed that they would meet the GDP spending target, but they haven't. I don't think it is wrong to tell them they should be doing what they agreed to.
Click to expand...

They agreed to try (!) getting to that target by 2024. It is not 2024 and even if it were, there is no contractual obligation to actually meet the GDP target.

Also, we are talking about each countries own defence spending here. There is no member fee in Nato and each sovereign state has to decide for themselves how much they want to spend for defence. It's NOT like the US has to increase its own defence spending, because other countries don't pay enough.
 
F

Funky Papa

FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Real Hero said:
Is he wrong?
Click to expand...

Like only Trump could.

Funky Papa said:
It is not going to happen because that random 2% is used as a political tool.

From Carnegie: The Politics of 2 Percent: NATO and the Security Vacuum in Europe

Despite its conceptual flaws, the 2 percent metric will remain the tool of choice in the debate over military spending in NATO. A smarter yardstick would produce a more sophisticated picture of reality but would not have the same political impact.

The real debate would focus less on spending and more on the widening transatlantic divide over security in Europe. The question of who will guarantee Europe's security in light of global strategic shifts remains unanswered.

Europe will be forced to step up its defense capabilities in the future if it wants to deal with the myriad threats in its neighborhood. This includes more and smarter defense spending, more defense cooperation, more shared threat assessments, and more leadership by hitherto reluctant nations.
Click to expand...

And for the folks coming in outraged because OMG THAT 2%, FREELOADERS!

The members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) pledged in 2014 to increase their defense spending to 2 percent of their gross domestic products by 2024.
Click to expand...

As of 2017, it's not a requirement. It's a long term goal. And it was clear from the get go that many countries wouldn't be able to met it. Because it's political.
Click to expand...
Funky Papa said:
Luxembourg must be thinking where they can store a new a fighter squadron.

Meanwhile, Spain may be pondering what's a bigger priority, if being able to barely pay the already meager pensions or buying a new aircraft carrier.
Click to expand...

I'm multiquoting myself here because I'm deadass tired of this "fair share" bullshit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ancient Roman figures brought to life via AI
Science 2 3
100
6K
Dirk Benedict replied
Eiyuden Chronicle: Hundred Heroes | Review Thread
Analysis Review 2 3
142
6K
Davevil replied
Helldivers II | Review Thread
Analysis Review 2 3
127
11K
DaleinCalgary replied
[Eurogamer] Here's how much power your consoles use, and how much that costs in the UK
2
57
4K
twilo99 replied
  • Locked
How The Last of Us became 'the greatest story' ever told in video games
Opinion Analysis 2 3 4 5
203
17K
Elysium44 replied
Top Bottom