• 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

P

PdotMichael

Banned
kmag said:
Germany is forbidden by it's post war constitution (for lack of a better term) from having any real force projection powers. Very very difficult to spend 2% of the GDP the size of Germany without force projection (i.e Blue water navy, long distance (i.e nuclear) subs, large scale logistics). Put it this way they'd have to spend something like 20% more a year than the UK but without Aircraft Carriers, Nuclear program etc).
Click to expand...

Bullshit
 
X

Xando

Member
PdotMichael said:
Bullshit
Click to expand...
It's not in the constitution but it's in the 2+4 treaty
Germany undertook to reduce its armed forces to no more than 370,000 personnel, no more than 345,000 of whom were to be in the Army and the Air Force. These limits would commence at the time that the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe would enter into force, and the treaty also took note that it was expected that the other participants in the negotiations would "render their contribution to enhancing security and stability in Europe, including measures to limit personnel strengths."[4] Germany also reaffirmed its renunciation of the manufacture, possession of, and control over nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and in particular, that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty would continue to apply in full to the unified Germany (the Federal Republic of Germany). No foreign armed forces, nuclear weapons, or the carriers for nuclear weapons would be stationed or deployed in six states (the area of Berlin and the former East Germany), making them a permanent Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone. The German Army could deploy conventional weapons systems with nonconventional capabilities, provided that they were equipped and designed for a purely conventional role. Germany also agreed to use military force only in accordance with the United Nations Charter.[1]
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement_with_Respect_to_Germany#Implementation
 
K

kswiston

Member
Tovarisc said:
I wonder if he believed it when Trump told him that he always rooted for Macron and didn't endorse Le Pen.

QPjY9nW.png

https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/867801970094034944

Trump expresses support for French candidate Le Pen
Click to expand...

Trump was the kid whose favourite sport team was whoever won the championship the year before.
 
P

PdotMichael

Banned
Xando said:
It's not in the constitution but it's in the 2+4 treaty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement_with_Respect_to_Germany#Implementation
Click to expand...

The quote doesn't support his claim at all.

In fact Germany had not just an own national nuclear weapon program (which also included nuclear powered submarines) barely a decade after WWII but is actual co-owner of nuclear weapons. There are no restriction in the Grundgesetz about the possible capacities of the Bundeswehr.
 
K

kmag

Member
PdotMichael said:
The quote doesn't support his claim at all.

In fact Germany had not just an own national nuclear weapon program (which also included nuclear powered submarines) barely a decade after WWII but is actual co-owner of nuclear weapons. There are no restriction in the Grundgesetz about the possible capacities of the Bundeswehr.
Click to expand...

That why I said for lack of a better term. The 2+4 agreement is more than a peace deal but is obviously not the constitution, but it is essentially the legal underpinning of the modern post war Germany. It's still in legal effect having being re-ratified by the Federal Republic in 1990.
 
P

PdotMichael

Banned
kmag said:
That why I said for lack of a better term. The 2+4 agreement is more than a peace deal but is obviously not the constitution, but it is essentially the legal underpinning of the modern post war Germany. It's still in legal effect having being re-ratified by the Federal Republic in 1990.
Click to expand...

And you would still be wrong.
 
C

Condom

Member
Go screw yourself. Having to both follow the US as little baby ducks AND substantially pay for it too? 'Please buy our overpriced weaponry to pay for unnecessary warfare'

All those rightwing politicians lying to the public about why we need to cut good working and needed services but waste money on this. Truly go screw yourself.
 
S

ShironRedshift

Member
godhandiscen said:
So is reminding people of their dues an issue now?
Click to expand...
There are no dues (because there is no separate NATO military or anything to give dues to to begin with:NATO is simply an alliance so the concept of US taxpayers having to pick up the other countries slack or whatever makes no sense since whatever the member states are spending on their respective armed forces would be what they're spending regardless--that's part of what makes Trump look so stupid here. There's a goal that all member states spend 2% of their GDP on their military by 2024 but: 1.) That's just a target and not a hard and fast rule and 2.) It's money they're spending on themselves, on their own military, not sending to NATO or the United States or however Trump mistakenly seems to think it works.

There simply aren't any dues to begin with and acting like countries are skipping out in payments to NATO or something just shows a complete lack of understanding of the topic. Which might be alright for you or me, but is completely unacceptable for the sitting US President, especially after this has no doubt been explained to him time and time again at this point.
 
K

kmag

Member
PdotMichael said:
And you would still be wrong.
Click to expand...

Show me where the agreement was voided?

Here's Genscher and de Maiziere signing it in September 1990.

18570540_401.jpg


Must have missed the announcement where it no longer applies.

Germany is legally prohibited from breaking the terms of the 2+4 agreement. In practical terms other that some court action at the Hague (probably by Russia, fun times) which Germany could ignore if it really wanted to it wouldn't matter, but the agreement is still in legal effect. The federal republic signing it was a prerequisite of there being a Federal Republic, and that Federal Republic being a member of NATO. You can argue that it no longer has teeth, but the agreement unless I've missed a major geopolitical event is still valid.

https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/pcw/108224.htm
 
P

PdotMichael

Banned
Armaros said:
So are you going to put forward arguments besides meaningless 'you are wrong'?
Click to expand...

First the guy would need to provide something that support his very first claims.

I could of course link the Grundgesetz and the 2+4 treaty and ask him to pinpoint where he got the idea that Germany is forbidden of anything. But of course he couldn't find anything that would forbid Germany of building aircraft carriers or owning and even deploying nuclear weapons (a capacity which is still trained within the German army).
 
I

IdreamofHIME

Member
Condom said:
Go screw yourself. Having to both follow the US as little baby ducks AND substantially pay for it too? 'Please buy our overpriced weaponry to pay for unnecessary warfare'

All those rightwing politicians lying to the public about why we need to cut good working and needed services but waste money on this. Truly go screw yourself.
Click to expand...

Nobody forcing these countries to be in NATO. Maybe make their own organisation?
 
D

DrSlek

Member
nature boy said:
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.
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly from a previous thread, Germany would have to start spending another 70 billion euro on its military to meet that target as well, due to the enormity of their GDP. Thats an incredibly unreasonable amount.
 
X

Xando

Member
DrSlek said:
If I recall correctly from a previous thread, Germany would have to start spending another 70 billion euro on its military to meet that target as well, due to the enormity of their GDP. Thats an incredibly unreasonable amount.
Click to expand...

Correct.

They would actually have larger military spending than Russia if they'd go to 2%.
 
S

Shiggy

Member
kmag said:
Show me where the agreement was voided?

Here's Genscher and de Maiziere signing it in September 1990.

18570540_401.jpg


Must have missed the announcement where it no longer applies.

Germany is legally prohibited from breaking the terms of the 2+4 agreement. In practical terms other that some court action at the Hague (probably by Russia, fun times) which Germany could ignore if it really wanted to it wouldn't matter, but the agreement is still in legal effect. The federal republic signing it was a prerequisite of there being a Federal Republic, and that Federal Republic being a member of NATO. You can argue that it no longer has teeth, but the agreement unless I've missed a major geopolitical event is still valid.

https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/pcw/108224.htm
Click to expand...

The treaty says:
Die Regierungen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik bekräftigen ihren Verzicht auf Herstellung und Besitz von und auf Verfügungsgewalt über atomare, biologische und chemische Waffen.
Click to expand...
http://www.bpb.de/nachschlagen/gesetze/zwei-plus-vier-vertrag/44115/artikel-3

The Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic
Republic reaffirm their renunciation of the manufacture and possession of and control over
nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.


That's not a prohibition.
 
X

Xando

Member
Shiggy said:
The treaty says:

http://www.bpb.de/nachschlagen/gesetze/zwei-plus-vier-vertrag/44115/artikel-3

The Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic
Republic reaffirm their renunciation of the manufacture and possession of and control over
nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.


That's not a prohibition.
Click to expand...

You forgot the important part

Sie erklären, daß auch das vereinte Deutschland sich an diese Verpflichtungen halten wird. Insbesondere gelten die Rechte und Verpflichtungen aus dem Vertrag über die Nichtverbreitung von Kernwaffen vom 1. Juli 1968 für das vereinte Deutschland fort.
Click to expand...

Germany had to join the NPT which prohibits them from acquiring them WMDs
 
P

PdotMichael

Banned
Xando said:
You forgot the important part



Germany had to join the NPT which prohibits them from acquiring them WMDs
Click to expand...

"Germany is forbidden by it's post war constitution" was the original claim.

That Germany joined the NPT (something that happened because of the anti-nuclear movement within Germany) doesn't matter in that context. It just silly goalpost moving now.
 
X

Xando

Member
PdotMichael said:
"Germany is forbidden by it's post war constitution" was the original claim.

That Germany joined the NPT (something that happened because of the anti-nuclear movement within Germany) doesn't matter in that context. It just silly goalpost moving now.
Click to expand...

So you're still at the constitution part where Kmag and i've said it's not true and he was talking about the 2+4 treaty?

I thought we have moved on from that.
 
P

PdotMichael

Banned
Xando said:
So you're still at the constitution part where Kmag and i've said it's not true and he was talking about the 2+4 treaty?

I thought we have moved on from that.
Click to expand...

And the 2+4 treaty doesn't support all the stuff he claimed the "constitution " would forbid Germany.
 
C

ChryZ

Member
How about the USA takes their share of refugees in? Might also help to understand, that there's an aftermath when you play "world police" ... poorly.
 
4

4Tran

Member
IdreamofHIME said:
Nobody forcing these countries to be in NATO. Maybe make their own organisation?
Click to expand...
It would be terrible if NATO members started dropping out for the US. The US is by far the largest beneficiary of the alliance so pushing members out is the last thing they'd want to do.

Kill Your Masters said:
Oh wow, why is this such an issue then? Oh right, the US president is an dumbass, lacks basic logic and math skills.
Click to expand...
To be fair, this was Obama's position as well. The difference is that Obama probably understood the nuances of what was going on and what everything means whereas Trump seems to think that a dollar being withheld by a NATO member is a dollar extra that the US has to spend.
 
T

TatteredHat

Member
It's a bit surprising to see so many people buying into this "NATO is a club and you need to pay membership fees to stay in it" line of bullshit reasoning that Trump has been running along with, even on this forum.

I'm almost inclined to say that I hope Germany would actually start planning to spend 2% of its GDP on its military, we wouldn't even need the US in NATO anymore.
 
F

Funky Papa

FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Aselith said:
Why appoint when he can do the job so well himself?
Click to expand...
There's something worrying about the lack of proper ambassadors in that he can't get a feeling from their missions, so he has to rely on others when it comes to foreign policy.
This gives an absurd amount of sway to people who have no business providing that kind of information to Trump, specially given how easily manipulated he is.
 
F

Frankfurter

Member
PdotMichael said:
And the 2+4 treaty doesn't support all the stuff he claimed the "constitution " would forbid Germany.
Click to expand...

His point still stand, though:

kmag said:
Put it this way they'd have to spend something like 20% more a year than the UK but without Aircraft Carriers, Nuclear program etc).
Click to expand...

Constitution or not, Germany mustn't and doesn't want to develop nuclear weapons. And aircraft carriers, nuclear powered subs etc. wouldn't serve any purpose.
 
T

Tovarisc

Member
4Tran said:
To be fair, this was Obama's position as well. The difference is that Obama probably understood the nuances of what was going on and what everything means whereas Trump seems to think that a dollar being withheld by a NATO member is a dollar extra that the US has to spend.
Click to expand...

I think difference really is that Obama and Presidents before him wanted NATO countries reach for that 2% for greater individual safety and stronger total force where Trump keeps treating NATO as some military club where US collects entry fees yearly.
 
P

Palette Swap

Member
ChryZ said:
How about the USA takes their share of refugees in? Might also help to understand, that there's an aftermath when you play "world police" ... poorly.
Click to expand...
They do it abroad like at home: shoot the shit ouf of non-whites, wash your hands off of it and merrily prepare your next murdering spree.

America and policing in the same sentence aren't good news.
 
S

Shiggy

Member
Xando said:
You forgot the important part



Germany had to join the NPT which prohibits them from acquiring them WMDs
Click to expand...

You're right. The final sentence makes it impossible to find a way around. The obligations of the NPT continue to apply. What I wonder now, if Germany left the NPT, would these obligations cease to exist as Germany was no longer signee? Or would the 2+4 treaty imply that the obligations of the NPT continue to apply irregardless of Germany's stance on the NPT?

Completely hypothetical anyway.
 
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
7K
Davevil replied
Helldivers II | Review Thread
Analysis Review 2 3
127
12K
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
18K
Elysium44 replied
Top Bottom