# Trump handed Merkel an invoice for $ 300 billion for providing military protection **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [March 26, 2017, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-handed-merkel-an-invoice-for-300-billion-for-providing-military-protection/783087 "2017-03-26T18:58:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-handed-merkel-an-invoice-for-300-billion-for-providing-military-protection/783087/21 "2017-03-27T07:01:08Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > but you miss that WWII started because we tried to appease an expansionist Germany. Everyone always brings that up as if that proves anything. Totally different situation. There still is a civilization right now, and there would have been one whether we appeased Germany or not. A conflict that progresses to a billion people dying is not remotely on the same scale, and I strongly disagree with your assessment. Russia taking back a former possession of theirs does not make them a threat to everyone. If they use nuclear weapons or invade Germany, that’s what makes them a threat to everyone. Nothing less. ---
**Author:** ![Quint](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/76d3ee/32.png) [@Quint](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quint)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-handed-merkel-an-invoice-for-300-billion-for-providing-military-protection/783087/22 "2017-03-27T11:21:21Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > Everyone always brings that up as if that proves anything. Totally different situation. There still is a civilization right now, and there would have been one whether we appeased Germany or not. A conflict that progresses to a billion people dying is not remotely on the same scale, and I strongly disagree with your assessment. Russia taking back a former possession of theirs does not make them a threat to everyone. > > If they use nuclear weapons or invade Germany, that’s what makes them a threat to everyone. Nothing less. Wasn’t Eastern Germany “a former possession of theirs”? How is “taking back” Estonia different to “taking back” East Germany? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-handed-merkel-an-invoice-for-300-billion-for-providing-military-protection/783087/23 "2017-03-27T12:43:56Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > You can’t make it "well, if they come to my house or my immediate relatives house, \*that’s \*the line we care about. Estonia IS our house. This is what US law says. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-handed-merkel-an-invoice-for-300-billion-for-providing-military-protection/783087/24 "2017-03-27T14:16:06Z")
As the sole world-policing superpower, the US receives the benefits, and also pays the costs. Thems the breaks. But, we wouldn’t do it in the first place if it wasn’t worth it to us. We don’t have military bases in Europe for Europe’s sake. We do it for ourselves. ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Render](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@Grim\_Render](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Render)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-handed-merkel-an-invoice-for-300-billion-for-providing-military-protection/783087/25 "2017-03-27T14:51:46Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > So ignoring _how_ Trump has allegedly tried to conduct this bit of international diplomacy, there genuinely is a problem here. Either the U.S. is spending far too much on defense relative to the dangers in today’s world, or Germany isn’t paying it’s fair share. If the Russians did get around to invading, it would be Germany that lost territory, not the United States. The US has a number of military commitments Germany does not, in the Pacific and I believe elsewhere. Which does not involve NATO. The US has decided it needs to be able to meet more than one of those simultaneously. > [@SamuelA](#): > > Given the U.S. is such a key member of NATO, it doesn’t sound unreasonable to me for the U.S. to threaten to kick nations out who are not paying their dues. I personally think the world would be a safer place with less NATO members, because each one is a potential Casus belli for another World War. And historically, that’s worked splendidly, has it? It would mean peace in our time, that’s for sure. > [@SamuelA](#): > > It would be a shame if Russia took back Estonia, but is it really worth nuclear armageddon over it? Unlike WW2, there’s no takebacks. Appeasement may be the only alternative to a radioactive wasteland of most of civilization. If you don’t draw the line at your closest alliance, you don’t draw a line period. To be honest, the calculation that democracies don’t have the will to fight is not a new one, and is responsible for more war than expanding NATO. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-handed-merkel-an-invoice-for-300-billion-for-providing-military-protection/783087/26 "2017-03-27T17:25:59Z")
Unless there is verification I’m going to assume this is a honey pot. Perhaps the alt right is planting fake stories a so they can tell their base ‘you see, everything except fox and brietbart is fake news’ to further brainwash trumps followers. Controlling the flow of information is one of the cornerstone of a cult or dictatorship. Delegitimizing all media that Delegitimizes the core philosophy is also a major goal. So is there independent verification of this? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-handed-merkel-an-invoice-for-300-billion-for-providing-military-protection/783087/27 "2017-03-27T17:37:34Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > **Unless there is verification I’m going to assume this is a honey pot.** Perhaps the alt right is planting fake stories a so they can tell their base ‘you see, everything except fox and brietbart is fake news’ to further brainwash trumps followers. Honey pot? Are you saying that this alleged bill to Germany is meant to arouse sexual desires in some people? ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-handed-merkel-an-invoice-for-300-billion-for-providing-military-protection/783087/28 "2017-03-27T17:40:07Z")
Confused. I thought Melania was the honey pot? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-handed-merkel-an-invoice-for-300-billion-for-providing-military-protection/783087/29 "2017-03-27T18:16:00Z")
No, Melania is in the Angela Lansbury role to Trump in the Laurence Harvey role. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-handed-merkel-an-invoice-for-300-billion-for-providing-military-protection/783087/30 "2017-03-27T20:08:06Z")
IIRC in the novel their relationship is definitely incestuous. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-handed-merkel-an-invoice-for-300-billion-for-providing-military-protection/783087/31 "2017-03-27T20:15:36Z")
Also in the movie. But not in the real-world Manchurian Candidate Donald J Trump and his control (on behalf of one Vladimir Putin) the former Melania Knavs. It’s not a coincidence that the president is married to a woman from the former Warsaw Pact; this has been planned for a very long time. ---
**Author:** ![Defensive\_Indifference](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/defensive_indifference/32/6502_2.png) [@Defensive\_Indifference](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Defensive_Indifference)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-handed-merkel-an-invoice-for-300-billion-for-providing-military-protection/783087/32 "2017-03-27T20:29:00Z")
As much as I hate Trump and find him to be an embarassment of the highest magnitude, I don’t buy this one either. My WAG is that some German official, speaking on background to a reporter, said something like, “So, Merkel comes over here and this guy not only refuses to shake her hand he literally\* gives her an invoice for the $300 billion he thinks we haven’t paid NATO, because he’s too stupid to understand that’s not how NATO works!” And that somehow evolved into this story. Not that I think Trump _wouldn’t_ do it, just that the evidence for it is ridiculously thin, and, as **JohnT** notes, if Trump had done that, he would have bragged about it. \*_literally_: adj. figuratively ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-handed-merkel-an-invoice-for-300-billion-for-providing-military-protection/783087/33 "2017-03-27T20:48:29Z")
> [@Bayard](#): > > My WAG is that some German official, speaking on background to a reporter, said something like, “So, Merkel comes over here and this guy not only refuses to shake her hand he literally\* gives her an invoice for the $300 billion he thinks we haven’t paid NATO, because he’s too stupid to understand that’s not how NATO works!” And that somehow evolved into this story. But, German government officials bullshitting like we have come to expect a “normal” Trump level of bullshit doesn’t sound plausible on the face of it. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-handed-merkel-an-invoice-for-300-billion-for-providing-military-protection/783087/34 "2017-03-27T22:07:56Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Honey pot? Are you saying that this alleged bill to Germany is meant to arouse sexual desires in some people? Honey pot can also mean a very easy target that is a setup like a bait car for car thieves. Perhaps this story is false, and the people who planted it hope the media run with it so the alt right can use it to denounce the news as ‘fake news’. Germany has said this hasn’t happened. Unless there is confirmation who knows what happened. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-handed-merkel-an-invoice-for-300-billion-for-providing-military-protection/783087/35 "2017-03-27T22:52:02Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > Also in the movie. But not in the real-world Manchurian Candidate Donald J Trump and his control (on behalf of one Vladimir Putin) the former Melania Knavs. It’s not a coincidence that the president is married to a woman from the former Warsaw Pact; this has been planned for a very long time. I have seen the movie a number of times (even run discussions about it) and do not remember incest being a thing. Remember where? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-handed-merkel-an-invoice-for-300-billion-for-providing-military-protection/783087/36 "2017-03-28T00:21:55Z")
Well, my mother never kissed me the way Angela Lansbury’s character kissed Laurence Harvey’s character. So while the incest wasn’t explicit, it was certainly implied that their relationship was weird. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-handed-merkel-an-invoice-for-300-billion-for-providing-military-protection/783087/37 "2017-03-28T00:32:41Z")
Sorry your family is so cold to each other! 😉 Yeah, that kiss was about the most they could show, but all references to incest between Raymond and his mother were excised from the script, so I have difficulty arguing it was in the movie. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-handed-merkel-an-invoice-for-300-billion-for-providing-military-protection/783087/38 "2017-03-28T01:22:26Z")
> [@Quint](#): > > Wasn’t Eastern Germany “a former possession of theirs”? How is “taking back” Estonia different to “taking back” East Germany? Well[no](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement_with_Respect_to_Germany) foreign troops or nuclear weapons are allowed to be stationed in former East German territory for starters. ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-handed-merkel-an-invoice-for-300-billion-for-providing-military-protection/783087/39 "2017-03-28T01:53:06Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > As you can see, all members who are not currently spending at 2% of their GDP have until 2024 before they are officially not in compliance. Even by the agreement you quote it’s possible to be out of compliance before 2024. If Germany was continuing to cut that would be a pretty clear violation of the agreement they’d made. Not showing movement or a plan to get there fails the test for those that started below the target. The history of the spending target dates back a little bit further, anyway. In 2006 the Alliance agreed to work towards that goal. The NATO spokesman [speaking](http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2006/s060608m.htm) after the Riga summit in 2006: > [@](#): > > Finally, I should add that Allies through the comprehensive political guidance have committed to endeavour, to meet the 2% target of GDP devoted to defence spending. Let me be clear, this is not a hard commitment that they will do it. **But it is a commitment to work towards it.** And that will be a first within the Alliance. It was a softer target. It still came up and off again during meetings held between 2006 and 2014. Generally the trend during that period was even further cuts. France, for example, went from above the target to below during that period. Germany started below the target and cut even more. Rather than working towards the goal the trend was towards even lower spending. In 2014, facing Russia’s Crimea intervention, they gathered and started over with a new ten year agreement to finally meet the 2006 goal. “This time we really mean it…because, shit, Russians!” It’s hard to view the new agreement through a lens that doesn’t include most allies ignoring their promises during the first attempt. Aside from being a showoff dick move on Trump’s part, if he really did it, it seems like he should at least look at what’s started to happen since 2014. It’s not just about what didn’t happen 2006-2014. Jens Stoltenberg NATO Secretary General’s annual report came out two weeks ago. His comments at the press conference are [here](http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_142141.htm) with some good quotes: > [@](#): > > In 2015, defence spending cuts among European Allies stopped. And 15 Allies increased their defence spending in real terms in 2015. In 2016, our figures show that 23 Allies increased their defence expenditure in real terms. By 3.8 %. Adding up to ten billion US dollars. So, there has been progress. But the job is far from done. We still do not have fair burden-sharing within our Alliance – as you can see in the Annual report. > [@](#): > > In fact, as you can see, European Allies together spent 2% of GDP on defence as recently as the year 2000. So meaning that after the Cold War we saw a decline in defence spending but we actually spent 2% of GDP on defence in Europe as late as in the year 2000, meaning that it’s possible to do it again Those joining the 2% club (currently five allies total which includes Poland and Estonia) this year or soon are mentioned. Not surprisingly being closer to Russia seems to provide extra motivation. 😛 > [@](#): > > And I am also encouraged that Romania plans to reach 2% this year. And both Latvia and Lithuania expect to do the same in 2018. The spend at least 20% of the budget on equipment target (to ensure maintaining modern capabilities) is going even better: > [@](#): > > The number of Allies reaching 20% or more on their defence budget on major equipment has increased to ten. There is positive news. There is a also lot of work left. Germany’s large economy and population makes it important for the European side of the alliance. Even the news there shows positive change: > [@](#): > > The important thing is that Germany has turned a corner. Because after years of decline in defence spending they have now stopped the cuts in defence spending and actually started to increase. For the second interation of the alliance spending target, Germany seems to be putting at least some money where their mouth was… “because, shit, Russians!” That is a big deal. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-handed-merkel-an-invoice-for-300-billion-for-providing-military-protection/783087/40 "2017-03-28T23:16:08Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > No. Taking over a country that is not yours is the line, and it’s the line for a good reason. It means you’ve become a threat to everyone. > > You talk about WWI, but you miss that WWII started because we tried to appease an expansionist Germany. > > If you don’t protect one member, then other members are at risk. Trying to act like a country taking over another country is a “sneeze” is silly. > > Plus, don’t forget. Russia also loses if we destroy the world. That’s the point of the the deterrent. We can’t trust the Evil to do what’s right, so we threaten their own wellbeing. WWII also started because we didnt appease expansionist Japan. Also, the USA wasnt part of any appeasement of Germany. That was strictly the fault of the Euro powers. But, in their defense, they would have also had to stand up to the Soviets who invaded Finland, the Baltic States, Poland and their seizing of Bessarabia. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-handed-merkel-an-invoice-for-300-billion-for-providing-military-protection/783087.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-handed-merkel-an-invoice-for-300-billion-for-providing-military-protection/783087.md?page=3)