Muffin1611
Banned
Not arguing against upping the spending of countries who need it, as Russia is becoming more of a threat. This 2% number is bullshit though.
-
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.
Mattis issues new ultimatum to NATO allies on defense spending
- Thread starter Phantast2k
- Start date
- Status
Not arguing against upping the spending of countries who need it, as Russia is becoming more of a threat. This 2% number is bullshit though.
Genuinely sad reading this thread. Most people seem to agree we should spend more resources making weapons. The distrust and fear for people in other parts of the world is worrying to say the least. How about discussing ways to reduce spending on stuff meant to obliterate other human beings?
Now, I'm sure people will think I'm naive and don't understand basic human behaviour. But, hey, remember when people thought slavery was normal and "the natural order of things"? Apparently it's possible for us to wisen up and hopefully it wasn't the last time humanity evolved morally.
Now, I'm sure people will think I'm naive and don't understand basic human behaviour. But, hey, remember when people thought slavery was normal and "the natural order of things"? Apparently it's possible for us to wisen up and hopefully it wasn't the last time humanity evolved morally.
You're assuming the US has benign intent behind Mattis's demands.
The Trump-led US wants to increase their spending on the military, while decreasing their obligations to their allies. If NATO countries bend to Trump's demands, Europe is basically ripe for the taking for some good ol' 16th century conquering by Russia. And Trump is gonna let Russia do whatever it wants as long as he's president.
The reason why US has such a large footprint in NATO, is because all but 2 of those NATO countries can adequately defend themselves against a Kremlin onslaught. And even those two countries and their nukes would still fall victim to an expanded Russia by proxy.
If Canada wanted to, it could meet the target number without touching its capabilities. Just hand out some nice consultant contracts and Voila!
eot
Banned
Did you miss the Iraq war(s)? Also, you obviously want something in between nukes and nothing, because when do you escalate to nuclear war? After a border dispute, after you lose a town, a whole region? Then what, you have nuclear war and even more people die?
Yes, thankfully we were smart enough to not get ourselves killed for american oil interests.
The current standing army we have will be easily able to fight off any ukraine like incursion in our countries.
If a larger war breaks out it's gonna end in nuclear war anyway so why waste money on tanks if they get tactical nuked anyway?
Nukes have deterred russia from attacking us the last 70 years. Not sure why that should be anything else right now
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
The UK and France have Europe's most solid deterrents, which shows that whether or not France is spending to the guideline or not isn't the key point.
Russia is Europe's greatest existential threat, and they understand mutual assured destruction.
Russia is Europe's greatest existential threat, and they understand mutual assured destruction.
dsp
Member
Me too.
Hahaha, so a nation of 140 million with military spending of, what, 1/4:th of the EU:s (and 1/7:th of the US btw) will subjugate a population of more than 500 million?
The fear of the russians is illusional at best and a great example of the irrational thinking performed by the brainwashed populace.
Nothing personal by the way, I just used your post to illustrate the madness going on in this thread.
Extensive conventional forces are good, in this age, for one thing: Projecting power outside your borders.
Practically all EU countries aren't in the business of that, and the last little escapades (Lybia, Iraq, Afghanistan) started and ended so badly that there's definitely no desire to do any more of that.
Spending 25-30b more per major eu country to "Counter terrorism" is obscene. You could save two orders of magnitude more lives by spending in better healthcare.
"Russia's coming for ya!" is ridicolous. Russia has nowhere near the industrial base, population, or whatever. It'd be a Mongolia vs China thing, and China didn't have nuclear weapons.
Practically all EU countries aren't in the business of that, and the last little escapades (Lybia, Iraq, Afghanistan) started and ended so badly that there's definitely no desire to do any more of that.
Spending 25-30b more per major eu country to "Counter terrorism" is obscene. You could save two orders of magnitude more lives by spending in better healthcare.
"Russia's coming for ya!" is ridicolous. Russia has nowhere near the industrial base, population, or whatever. It'd be a Mongolia vs China thing, and China didn't have nuclear weapons.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
Rödskägg;230379064 said:
Without nukes, yes they would. Russia is a perennial expansionist bully.
It's not brainwashing, it's objective fact we've seen countless times with how they've treated Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova.
GameAddict411
Member
The only thing so far from the Trump administration that doesn't outrageous. I think the US has every right to demand more participation of other states in the NATO.
Tranqueris
Banned
For the people saying, "this is totally reasonable though!" Trump doesn't know a damn thing about foreign policy. But he's being going at NATO since the election even though he knows fuck all about Europe and the middle east. So if Trump is issuing this ultimatum it's probably because he knows it's what Putin would want and if Putin wants something...
CertifiedFP
Member
Amazing, it only took 14 posts for the "NATO aggression" card to be put in play.
What other nuggets of Kremlin wisdom can you impart on us?
GameAddict411
Member
Rödskägg;230377138 said:
That sounds great and all, but when you see Russia shadow over Europe you soon realize that countries in Europe should have the capabilities to defend themselves. Putin wants NATO to be gone so that the European union is greatly weakened. He can then move his influence over. Stronger defense would actually keep peace.
gutter_trash
Banned
why don't some countries just cook their books then?
include healthcare to veterans in the spending,
include private contractors in the spending,
include healthcare to veterans in the spending,
include private contractors in the spending,
Without nukes, yes they would. Russia is a perennial expansionist bully.
It's not brainwashing, it's objective fact we've seen countless times with how they've treated Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova.
But Russia is obviously just defending itself from NATO aggression from every side! That's why they send soldiers to annex parts of foreign countries and stay there forever.
superdeluxe
Member
From Natosource in 2013:
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/201...1/?oref=d-skybox?oref=d-interstitial-continue
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/201...1/?oref=d-skybox?oref=d-interstitial-continue
superdeluxe
Member
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blog...s-demand-for-more-nato-burden-sharing-is-fair
Germany's DefMin Von der Leyen:
Germany's DefMin Von der Leyen:
I agree, but for all their intent, even without nukes, they don't have the capability of engulfing a large part of Europe, even without taking into account nukes (and if that went to nukes, I don't want to do the maths, it would be a slaughter everywhere...)
I mean, even Ukraine dispute hasn't went well at all in Europe, and you could argue that a majority of people in the disputed region were somehow more russian than ukranian.
You're making two mistakes: the first is that a few countries using obsolescent hardware is much cause for concern, and the other is that Russia is spending far more on its military than Europe does. In the latter, Russia is massively dwarfed by the spending of the UK, France, Germany, and Italy.
A Tank Army consumes a vast amount of fuel, ammunition, and other supplies. Without a huge logistical train, there's no way to supply such a formation beyond a few dozen kilometers away from a supply depot. The Soviet Union used to have such a logistical train, but Russia has not kept up that kind of spending. Realistically, they're not capable of attacking anyone who's not an immediate neighbor, so that rules out almost all of NATO.
Canada's military needs are primarily in acquisition, to replace a lot of really old equipment, and to assert sovereignty in the Far North as global warming has made the Northwest Passage navigable. Neither of these needs have anything to do with a 2% GDP quota though, so that part is nonsense.
Sounds like the US if you ask me. If I didn't happen to live in a western country I would be far more worried about the US military than the russians. I'm not defending Russias actions but to imply that they're a great threat to the EU at this point in time is ludicrous.
Yes, these military superpowers sure made Russia think twice before going there. Again, if I rate the risk of war by looking at foreign interventions during the last twenty years the US is by far the greatest threat for more wars.
I don't mean to offend americans, we love you guys, but sometimes bad decisions are being made, with catastrophic results.
I'm pretty sure we need to have a blue-water navy before we can say we're not underspending
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
Oh boy... Objectively false in Eastern Ukraine, by the way. Many Ukrainians speak Russian, that doesn't mean they are Russian, especially outside of Crimea. Regardless, Russia promised to respect Ukraine's 1991 borders, and as usual that didn't happen, just like with Georgia.
With nukes (which Ukraine had returned as part of agreements to respect Ukraine's borders), Russia is able to bully smaller states. That's why mutual assured destruction is still so important. It stops Russia from punching above their weight quite so much.
If Estonia wasn't in NATO, guaranteed that Russia would be aggressive there once more.
Rödskägg;230381558 said:
I'm not American, I'm just in touch with reality. Putin's Russia is a gigantic bully to outside nations.
It was directed at potential americans reading my post. Russia is far from innocent but I still don't see them as a major threat to the EU, like, at all.
Sarcasm, yes, but not far from the truth. Someone posted a picture of natos and russias military drills and nato has been conducting quite a few of them just outside russias borders. Now, imagine russia doing this close to the US borders. They'd probably freak out. No wonder russia feel threatened by the west.
What shadow though? There is no shadow. The UK and France alone spend more than russia on their military.
France has Europe's most effective military full stop
ForsakenLotus
Member
One of the few Trump stances that I agree with.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
Probably still the UK, far more experience (1982-present) also.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/United-Kingdom/Military
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Putin hates the EU. This is not even a possibility. He hates it. It's a huge trade power with the ability to fend itself by economic means (such as sanctions) and it can't be bullied into signing one-sided agreements like solitary nations. It's also dangerous to Russia's expansionist philosophy because its former vassal states may prefer joining the EU instead of remaining under its toe, as it happened with so many Warsaw Pact nations.Rödskägg;230382656 said:
Putin hates the EU enough to interfere in France's presidential elections to support Le Pen and promotes pretty much every single eurosceptic party under the sun.
The real danger would be Putin trying to break both NATO and the EU by sending little green men to the Baltics and pulling another stunt like he did in Crimea. If NATO or the EU don't rush to help them, both entities would fall apart. It's a risky move, but not something that should be dismissed.
So, let me get this straight. I'm giving you objective reasons as to why Russia is clearly not a threat to the EU, i.e, the huge gap between the miltary spending and population for these entities. While your argument is...Putin hates the EU?
I'm not even going to ask for sources because I definitely believe they try to influence western policies in their favour as much as possible. Will you accept that the west are doing the same to them?
I...well...uh...what on earth are you talking about man? Even if what you say would come true, I'm pretty confident this would only ensure even stronger ties between western countries.
Muffin1611
Banned
Rödskägg;230386338 said:
Let ME get this straight. The fact that Russia annexed a part of eastern europe and is still fighting in other parts of eastern europe is no objective proof for Russia being a threat to the EU?
Rödskägg;230386338 said:
Last time I checked Russian elections were so undemocratic that no "influencing" whatsoever would make a difference. Also, two evils make it right? You better believe that the majority here would criticize their own countries if it came out that they influenced a foreign election.
superdeluxe
Member
Rödskägg;230382656 said:
You have no concerns that Russia is supporting either directly or indirectly Far Right Nationalist parties across Europe? Whose goal is to leave the EU? You Don't find that as a cause for concern?
Russia may be a threat to the EU in some ways, but it's not realistically a military threat. It'll be many many years before they can build up their armed forces before they become that threat, and they have enough strategic challenges that it seems unlikely to happen any time in the next 50 years.
Well, I was talking specifically of Crimea. The situation is actually complex there. Had the "referendum" been done in perfect conditions, I'm not sure the result would have been different.
Beside this, I agree they're really shady in the area, and I have no doubt they're strongly supporting pro-russia separatists there. I don't trust them at all.
But I can't see them acting like this that much farther. The talk about Russia eating all Europe till french border is fantasy. Western european countries still dislike it, and the only reason that gets half a pass is that it's non-EEC, non-NATO, and a melting pot of different ethnies, and with the situation in Syria, it's not the best time to actively battle Russia.
It only works if you're ready to use it, and I really wonder who would take the responsability of triggering it (well, except some totalitarist states, and maybe Trump).
That being said, I find interesting that one of the main reason France exited NATO in the 60s was because they wanted full control of nukes (and keeping the ability to use them if they wanted without referring to anyone), and when they joined NATO back recently, it was with an opt-out for nukes usage.
Probably.
Again, I don't disagree that Russia is using bullying and under-the-tables strategies to grab as much territory as they can. I'm just saying they won't eat a part of western Europe without response from european countries, and even if it would be far easier with USA, I don't think joined armies from Europe would be bested by russian army.
Does anyone here actually believe that the US would reduce their military spending if the rest of NATO increased theirs?
I get the idea behind it and agree to some degree (although 2% is far too much to spend on setting the world back a few decades) but if the end result is a NATO which has both the US continuing to overspend on military and also every other member overspending all it does is create a bigger waste of money spent on arming nations and creating/strengthening tensions across the world.
And even then, only Nukes really matter.
I get the idea behind it and agree to some degree (although 2% is far too much to spend on setting the world back a few decades) but if the end result is a NATO which has both the US continuing to overspend on military and also every other member overspending all it does is create a bigger waste of money spent on arming nations and creating/strengthening tensions across the world.
And even then, only Nukes really matter.
This "request" isn't that bad on its face (in fact, Obama has repeatedly expressed frustration over Europe's willingness to lean on American military might to achieve its own foreign policy goals), but remember that it's coming from the administration of a US President that has openly questioned the relevance of NATO and has demonstrated close ties to a newly belligerent Russia (which has taken steps towards reassembling its former empire).
This is your friendly reminder that Article 5 has been activated only once, and that was to the benefit of the United States of America.
This is your friendly reminder that Article 5 has been activated only once, and that was to the benefit of the United States of America.
Correct, I'm glad I'm making myself understood.
Firstly, neither of these countries are part of the EU.
Secondly, they are FAR smaller than the EU, both in military power and population.
Thirdly, just because Russia can bully weaker countries than themself does by no means imply that they would attack the EU which, again, is superior to the russians militarily, economically and by population.
You're right, two evils does not make a right. I heartily agree.
I sure hope, and do believe, that the vast majority would criticize such manipulation. I also feel confident that the russians would do the same.
However, in the current climate we seem more concerned of what "the others" are doing wrong while staying ignorant of our own misdealings. And that goes for pretty much the entire planet.
What a shame.
On the contrary. It's cause for great concern. I have not stated otherwise. But, as pointed out earlier, we seem more concerned of what our "enemies" are doing as opposed to looking at ourselves. This, of course, is true not only of the west but for every nation on earth.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Rödskägg;230386338 said:
If NATO doesn't respond with force to an armed incursion by Russian-affiliated paramilitary forces in their own member states, then the alliance crumbles. In order for a military alliance to be a plausible deterrent to aggression and guarantor of security, it needs to be believed that it will respond to aggression. If it fails to respond, then it is just a scrap of paper worth nothing. Who would want to join a security organization that has just proved it won't actually provide security? Countries that were worried about security would need to seek their own security arrangements separate to the useless organ that NATO would have proven to be.
The idea of little green men attacking the baltic states is attractive to Russian military planners because it provides them with a mechanism to test the resolve of NATO. If NATO fails to respond, then other Eastern European countries may flee the alliance, and Russia gets tiny buffer states on its border (or gets to outright annex parts of the Baltic states). If NATO does respond by sending military formations to put down rebellions, then Russia denies all involvement and attempts to position its propaganda efforts to the following effect:
"Russia is being bullied by the evil NATO making accusations against it!"
"NATO is persecuting ethnic russians who just fought for their freedom! NATO are fascists who will not tolerate dissent! They will kill you if you try to go against their will!"
The only risk from a Russian perspective is that they will suffer additional economic damage in the form of even harsher sanctions and potentially outright trade warfare. NATO cannot respond with a full blown military retaliation to this, because that will escalate the conflict from a shadow-war in Estonia to a full blown World War against a nuclear armed nation.
I don't see how you can say this when NATO planning actually included using tactical nukes in Germany if the soviets ever invaded.
Don't think much has changed except it would be Polish instead of german soil now
The sheer mass of troops putin can have ready quickly would probably allow them to reach Warsaw, maybe the german border before any notable NATO response would be ready.
The United States is at 3.61% or around $600 Billion a year. NATO defense would be cut by around 40% if the U.S. followed the 2% guideline.
Yeah the 2% GDP is totally useless and stupid, as it stands right now even if the US would cut army expenditure to just the 2%, NATO countries combined would spend more than the rest of the world, even a 1% from all NATO would already be a massive amount of money for military spending in peace time.
The idea that Russia is in any shape for a front to front military encounter with Europe is laughable.
1) their economy is awful, Germany alone has almost double the Russian GPD, the EU has over 8 times the Russian GDP.
2) EU biggest trading partner is the US, Russia biggest trading Partner is the EU, countries at war don't tend to trade with each other, so there goes the already absurdly weak Russian economy down the drain
3) The EU combined military expenditure is already a few times bigger than Russia, and this expenditure would sky rocket in the event on an all out war, something wihich the EU can do, Russia not so much.
4) The EU has over 3x as many people as Russia.
5) Russia would be invading which has significant costs.
6) The EU has better allies for war period.
The real Russian threat lies in them potentially dividing the EU and or breaking NATO (or making NATO look totally useless). not in an all out assault which they would surely lose tremendously badly (not counting nuke usage, because humanity loses there).
The idea that Russia is in any shape for a front to front military encounter with Europe is laughable.
1) their economy is awful, Germany alone has almost double the Russian GPD, the EU has over 8 times the Russian GDP.
2) EU biggest trading partner is the US, Russia biggest trading Partner is the EU, countries at war don't tend to trade with each other, so there goes the already absurdly weak Russian economy down the drain
3) The EU combined military expenditure is already a few times bigger than Russia, and this expenditure would sky rocket in the event on an all out war, something wihich the EU can do, Russia not so much.
4) The EU has over 3x as many people as Russia.
5) Russia would be invading which has significant costs.
6) The EU has better allies for war period.
The real Russian threat lies in them potentially dividing the EU and or breaking NATO (or making NATO look totally useless). not in an all out assault which they would surely lose tremendously badly (not counting nuke usage, because humanity loses there).
Muffin1611
Banned
Um, yeah, that's exactly why it's a guideline. Not sure how the US spending more than the guideline says requires the rest to use the guideline as absolute minimum or the US to cut down spending to 2%?
The member states with lacking military and enough budget should higher their share, of course. But Mattis issuing an ultimatum on everyone to spend exactly at least 2% when country structures and conditions vary greatly is just idiotic. Especially when he frames it as the American taxpayer getting screwed over by the other members, when meanwhile it is the US government who wants to increase their already absurd defense spending and further burdens their own citizens.
Just responding to the statement "2% is neither feasible or needed" . If it isn't needed in NATO then the US should shift that money to where it is needed.
andythinkpad
Member
People wbo argue spending 2% is too high need to also agree to disband NATO and roll a new military organization.
You can't have it both ways.
Frankly, I don't see why Europe need NATO.
You can't have it both ways.
Frankly, I don't see why Europe need NATO.
superdeluxe
Member
In NATO? Absolutely, in general? No
The US military spending is in large part unrelated to NATO, the US doesn't spend around 3% of their GPD in military because the other members only put close to the Chinese army budget in, unless ofc the US army actually thinks NATO needs over 3x the military spending of China to keep NATO viable.
I think they risk far more than just economic sanctions.
Have you considered Russia not deliberating such plans simply because they don't want to give us an excuse to invade them?
And do you believe that they are more willing to start a world war, against three nuclear armed nations, than we are?
Muffin1611
Banned
The sentence is true for many member states. Didn't claim it was for every single one.
Yeah, this here is total bullshit. I already explained why.
- Status