Reached for comment, Putin said:
(*Actually A Confederacy of Dunces. I keep imagining Putin as Jones, dropping the fat, insane Ignatius on us, only to have the sabotage succeed beyond his wildest imagination. Of course, Ignatius is about 1000% smarter than Trump.)
I’d love to ask Donald this hypothetical:
The Baltic states, formerly part of the Soviet Union, are now NATO members, and as such are entitled to defense under Article 5. If Putin decided that he wanted to build Soviet Union 2.0 and sent his tanks into Lithuania…would Trump commit US troops to Lithuania’s defense?
We would soon see where his true loyalties lie.
Yeah. A couple months ago I wrote a GD topic on “what does Putin get out of propping Trump ?!”. Now I now. He gets the fucking Balkans. All of it.
Trump wouldn’t understand that question. He’d have no idea what you were talking about.
Yeah, let them be russia’s problem, right?
OK, so how much is the US “overpaying” each year to finance NATO operations, and how much should it be paying? I presume anyone who professes to be concerned about this issue will have the figures readily to hand. I’ll hang up and listen.
The scary Russian boogeyman! How about they spend more on defense as agreed?
They have until 2024 based on the prior agreements to boost their military spending to 2%. They’re not violating any agreements. And despite the US being many, many times bigger than Germany, France, or the UK, in both economy and military strength, those countries pay a relatively larger part of NATO’s budget in relation to their size than we do (we pay about 22%, Germany about 15%, and France/UK pay about 10%, IIRC).
The freeloader stuff is bullshit. Europe pays for most of NATO.
Your post isn’t very truthful.
http://www.nato.int/cps/ro/natohq/topics_67655.htm
And nice goal post moving. The obligation is percentage of GDP spent on defense. Not dollars or euros sent to an organization titled NATO. C’mon iiandyiiii I thought you had integrity.
Unless you honestly think that the 100s of billions that the US spends on missiles, troops, carriers, subs, jets, etc won’t be used in a NATO operation.
Not scary, it’s your side of the aisle that is terrified and overreacts to everything, but working against our interests, absolutely.
Well, we could insist that these small countries spend more of their GDP on military spending rather than things that will improve their economy, to bring them up to an agreement whose timeline does not put them behind, which would actually make very little effect. Do you really think that russia is going to be concerned that a country with a GDP of 40 billion dollars is now spending a whole 800 million a year on its military?
We can ask these countries to bankrupt themselves in trying futilely to protect themselves form the superpower next door, or we can use the excess military that we have chosen to have to help to cover them. This works out to our benefit as well. A peaceful europe is a good trading partner.
We could very easily cut our military spending drastically, and use that money to either pay down the debt or work on social programs, and leave europe and even the pacific to fend for themselves. Tell me how you think that will end up working out for us in the long (or even medium) term.
Spending an agreed upon fixed percentage of GDP won’t lead to bankruptcy.
Which part of my post isn’t truthful? Why throw around accusations about integrity that trivially?
Petty of me I suppose, but the short-fingered vulgarian shouldering the Montenegrin PM aside so he can STAND IN THE FRONT ME ME ME really pisses me off.
So, in my petty way, I sincerely enjoyed watching the expression of agony as President Macron crushed his tiny orange paw during the Official Handshake.
Because the complaint is understood to be the overall spending on national defense at 2%. Bringing up the fact that Europe pays more for the direct cost of running NATO is disingenuous. Really, the millions spent for NATO are trivial in comparison to the 100s of billions for actual defense hardware, training, and personnel. Therefore it’s not bullshit, as you claim, that a lot of Europe is freeloading by not meeting their 2% obligations.
Yes it is bullshit. We agreed, and Europe agreed, that 2% is the target, by 2024 - so they are indeed meeting their obligation. And considering how rare major NATO operations are, the direct budget costs are indeed relevant. Yes, our military plays the largest role, but that doesn’t mean other countries are freeloading. You can buy into Trump’s bullshit if you want, but I’m still gonna call it bullshit.
The direct budget costs aren’t relevant. Aircraft carriers, B2 bombers, air and sea lift capability, logistical capability, A10s, etc are relevant. And these items aren’t picked off the keep the scary Russians out of our front yard tree.
They agreed in 2006. The average in the 90s for Europe was ~2%. Where are you getting this number 2024 from?
Furthermore, when nations are cutting their percentages while expecting the USA to cover for them if Russia starts peeping at them it is freeloading. Countries need to meet their obligations if they expect the USA to.
Anyways, I’m thrilled Europe can scrounge up the 78% of the less than 2 billion for direct NATO costs. http://www.nato.int/cps/ro/natohq/topics_67655.htm Have a cookie Europe.
Then maybe y’all should have put that in the treaty ?
Your own link: "At the Wales Summit in 2014, NATO leaders agreed to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets and decided:
-Allies currently meeting the 2% guideline on defence spending will aim to continue to do so;
-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."
Europe is meeting their obligations. Trump is full of shit on this (and most other things), and you should be smart enough to see it too.
(but of course, back then the US would have obstructed European nations getting any of that shit, because NATO was a way to enforce US hegemony over Europeans, with US C&C in complete control because “shut up we’re the ones doing all of the things !”. You can’t have it both ways.)
Where is the year 2024 mentioned? I didn’t see it.
How would the US obstruct the Europeans from building defense?