-
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
- Thread starter NR1
- Start date
PdotMichael
Banned
Funky Papa already did that job.
Man, fuck this guy.
Christ, the man can not not be the center of attention. Fucking disgrace.
nature boy
Member
THERE IS NO 2% rule, it's a guideline.
But using Trump logic, NATO members are being smart, just like Trump not paying his fair share of taxes.
But using Trump logic, NATO members are being smart, just like Trump not paying his fair share of taxes.
Sakura
Member
We aren't even trying. Our % of spending has been going down over the years. We're one of the worst countries in terms of spending in NATO.
I'm not saying that there is a contractual obligation, but when there is clearly no effort to even improve spending to meet agreed goals, I can't really get upset at being called out.
hey, he is the leader of the free world after all
Chmpocalypse
Blizzard
Thank you for schooling those here who don't understand this stuff.
Yoda
Member
In the sense that they don't spend the same % of GDP per average (averaging over all nations in europe) on military spending. There are a few caveats though, for example an enormous swath of our defense budget goes to defense contracts, not active duty military (the people who do the dying). Euro nations have defense contractors, but it's nothing like the gravy train of corruption we have here. Thus if we only counted the portion of $$ that goes towards the actual military, then we'd still be spending more than our "fair share" in NATO, but not nearly as much.
100% this. No other country in the alliance has the force necessary to successfully deter Russia.
If the US is no longer a factor, Eastern Europe is served up on a plate for Putin....and who is to say he stops there?
RoyalLaFlame
Banned
Holy shit. He should really start to behave like a president.
There's a time and place for these matters. This is not how you do it Trump.
The whole point of NATO is to expand US influence and have rapid response To Russia because we have all of thease allies.
Trying to protection racket them means we lose influence.
Especially since trump brushed off article 5 when the US is the only one to trigger it.
Trump did it first.
PdotMichael
Banned
Is that what they tell you in the USA?
https://twitter.com/michaelbirnbaum/status/867762213372784640
Apparently everyone went to talk with Merkel.
rokkerkory
Member
Should have been said behind closed doors lol
He pivoted from a moment of silence for the Manchester victims (which was a great thing to do) to this in just a few mins. Bleh
He pivoted from a moment of silence for the Manchester victims (which was a great thing to do) to this in just a few mins. Bleh
At that moment. he became a president.
Sakura
Member
Did what job? Nobody said it is a rule that you cannot break. The section I quoted from on the NATO site says in bold right above it that it is a guideline, I am fully aware. That doesn't mean I can't think we should do something we agreed to.
Trump looks uncomfortable as hell here.
But doesn't this play into Trump's politics? Trump doesn't like NATO and thinks it's broken without overhaul, and here you're posting that there are significant issues in attaining its goals and that those goals might be arbitrary in general. I'm sure there is plenty of cost-benefit analysis for how much the US is better off with or without it but this does not seem to challenge Trump's ideals.
Shaming your allies in public while they stand behind you: YUP! That is sooo going over well.
On top of that you want to INCREASE defence spending in the USA, Trumpaloompa... not cut it! So cut the bullshit about it being unfair if you wish to give more money to your lobby palls from Lockheed. The only reason you also bring this up, as you hope they buy more of these shitty JSF planes.
PdotMichael
Banned
Can't refer to an guideline for something which is supposed to happen in 7 years now to prove anything.
That's stupid even for the low standards of Trump and USAUSAUSAGAF.
It's not a fair share, we should look at the effectiveness of an army and how often they have been used in battle divided by capita. AKA, if a small nation did far more NATO missions and was effective in them while only spending 1.5% of their income? While this big nation that spends 2.3.. doesn't partake in anything? Then wouldn't you rather have the smaller one?
I agree. Of course, if Canada wanted to hit the target if little to no effort, they could just start handing out consultant contracts like candy and file it under 'defense spending'.
PdotMichael
Banned
The USA only pays like 30 billions for anything NATO related in Europe while the Europe bases are crucial for their adventures in the ME.
The USA pays a lot for their military but not for the NATO but for the own non NATO relevant goals.
Nah.
What are they going to do, dismantle NWS, disband NORAD and go home? As far as canada is concerned, NATO is just about american force projection and we have no reason to humour it. We're more useful to them as a buffer state then they're useful to us.
so how much better of is the US without the sphere of influence being the primary miltary nation of NATO? Do you think we will get the military bases across Europe that project our military might across the globe without NATO?
It's a stupid guideline. Spending more in defence doesn't equal spending the money smart. If you are throwing money out of the window just to meet a target that isn't productive. Not to mention it is ridiculous we are supposed to spend more in defence than for education or social programs for example, when we are living in a world that has been highly destabilised by the US. We are fighting your wars and you are lecturing us, because we don't take a fair share? Really?
The 2% rule is dumb to begin with. Countries should pay for whatever military they feel is necessary for their needs; not based on some sort of silly quota that doesn't account for anything. And it gives the impression that countries like the US are paying more to pick up the slack when that isn't the case at all. The US spends what it does on its military for their own reasons, and these reasons mostly have nothing to do with NATO or NATO obligations.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Repeat after me: guideline aiming to 2024.
Then there's also the utter stupidity of putting that money towards military spenditures, as if there were no better ways to fend off potential menaces. Juncker is a bastard, but he made a pretty good point some weeks ago:
Trump's ideals are that Russia is no longer a menace and that Not Americans are freeloaders. NATO should reform (heck, I'd rather get out of it if circumstances allowed it), but Trump's idea of reform is not what NATO needs, but what Trump wants.
theechrisfox
Member
He's got that dirty diaper look down.
PdotMichael
Banned
Nothing stop the USA of paying 1% less. It would just not hurt their NATO responsibilities but other things like their Pacific presence which isn't NATO relevant. In fact it was common opinion that an attack on Hawaii wouldn't be covered by the NATO treaty.
Sakura
Member
It's not just getting to 2% by 2024. In 2014 NATO leaders who were below 2% also agreed to halt any decline, in addition to moving towards the goal. Canada's been declining since 2014. We're below even 1% now. Again, I never said it is a requirement and we have to do it. But it is something we agreed to do, and we aren't doing it. I don't think that's cool, you seem to be OK with it. To each their own I guess.
We also agreed to halt any decline. We have not. Again, I am fully aware.
jakonovski
Member
The lack of Article 5 shows clearly that Trump is a Russian stooge. Europe really does need to look into making their defense better. Because if Trumpism isn't kicked out, the US will eventually become hostile.
Except 1.) they didn't agree to meet the GDP requirement, and 2.) even the "Yeah, maybe we'll try (this is stupid we're not going to try)" goal they set was to take place over 10 years (2.5 years ago).
Luxembourg is also a very small nation, that has a large banking industry. For them to Pay 2 % is ludicrous. Where will they store all those tanks and air planes.
All it will do is make Luxembourg go "Oh fuck this, we'll leave NATO, we are in the EU anyway, Russia isn't going to attack us."
And Putin has his little propaganda victory.
Aaronology
Member
Rich. A guy who doesn't even pay taxes to his own country is complaining about NATO members not fulfilling financial obligations. Maybe they're just "smart"?
Skellig Gra
Member
Maybe don't agree to a dumb rule then.
I guess he should have continued to also threaten Europe with Russia right?
He's not wrong though, the US prints money after all.
excelsiorlef
Member
https://twitter.com/michaelbirnbaum/status/867762213372784640
Apparently everyone went to talk with Merkel.
This is the logical step... Even if trump only lasts 4 years (assuming no impeachment/resignation) this election should show the rest of the Western world that the US cannot be thought of as stable allies... At least working towards a way to rely on others over the US is a logical survival move at this point.
I don't see much of a problem in saying NATO members should pay a bit more, but Trump has essentially thrown NATO under the bus and allied with a Russian enemy and is chastising them for not paying more. It's that combination of things that's pretty insulting to me. Wanting NATO to be strong is good. Bitching about NATO spending while completely undermining it in every way you can is bad.