It's not true?
It says on the official NATO website:
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.
Like only Trump could.
I'm multiquoting myself here because I'm deadass tired of this "fair share" bullshit.
Is he wrong?
NATO is basically for the US projecting it's influence
attacking it is basically helpful to russia/china only
Holy shit. He should really start to behave like a president.
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.
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?
Funky Papa already did that job.
Like only Trump could.
I'm multiquoting myself here because I'm deadass tired of this "fair share" bullshit.
https://www.facebook.com/ABCNews/videos/10155808880448812/
Just watched it live. It's absolutely bonkers and cringe worthy watching the President of the United States giving a speech at the new NATO HQ with heads of state standing right there as he complains about them not paying their fair share of money for defense.
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.
As a Canadian I feel we should be paying our fair share.
Canada should be spending more.
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.
Nah.Canada should be spending more.
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.
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.
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.
”It has been the American message for many, many years. I am very much against letting ourselves be pushed into this," Juncker said in a speech on the sidelines of the international Munich Security Conference.
He said he knew that Germany would no longer have a budget surplus if it increased defence spending to 2% of GDP from 1.22%.
”I don't like our American friends narrowing down this concept of security to the military," he said, arguing it would be sensible to look at a ”modern stability policy" made up of several components.
”If you look at what Europe is doing in defence, plus development aid, plus humanitarian aid, the comparison with the United States looks rather different. Modern politics cannot just be about raising defence spending," he said.
”Europeans must bundle their defence spending better and spend the money more efficiently," he added.
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.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.
Doesn't America have the right to reduce theirs then as well?
Just reduce it to 1%, and say that you'll increase when everyone else does.
Problem solved?
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.
Repeat after me: guideline aiming to 2024.
We also agreed to halt any decline. We have not. Again, I am fully aware.Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will halt any decline; aim to increase defence expenditure as GDP grows; and will move toward the 2% guideline within a decade.
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).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.
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!!
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.
Is he wrong?
https://twitter.com/michaelbirnbaum/status/867762213372784640
Apparently everyone went to talk with Merkel.