OK here is what I don’t get. Germany (among other countries) hasn’t met its treaty obligations and the diplomacy that previous presidencies have practiced has done nothing to solve this. So the solution all these anti-Trumpers have is what? Maintain the status quo?
I like all the itemizing on the bill.
NATO’s fiscal obligations should be re-assessed before anything else, here.
Good point.
It does seem unlikely that Trump would make the bill out for pounds.
Spicer must be happy that for once he gets to deny something that really is fake news.
Or maybe it will just confuse the poor man. Like a Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck routine.
“Rabbit season.”
“Duck season.”
“Rabbit season.”
“Rabbit season.”
“Duck season! Fire!”
Actually, in this purported picture of the invoice, the dollar sign ($) was used.
In Australia, at least, it’s not unusual for dollar amounts in a foreign currency to be given in AUD first, with the foreign currency in parenthesis following. For example, a new story might give the cost of a program as $152 Million ($75 million USD*) or similar. I suppose it’s to give the readership a more intuitive sense of the actual amount, relative to their own experience.
*or whatever the exchange rate may be… 
Germany does not owe the United States for their failure to fund NATO, they owe NATO. The United States has not paid one red cent more than our fair share.
Are you surprised? He has a long and documented history of stiffing everyone he possibly can. His “word” has never meant a damn thing.
Yep. And Trump’s stance on this is just one more item lending credence to my theory that he thinks the President of the United States has powers exactly like the Pharaoh of Egypt in The Ten Commandments. Of course, that’s also why he thinks executive orders is the main way of [del]ruling[/del] “presidenting”.
God has hardened his head.
So, can we write this off as “unsubstantiated rumor” yet? I hesitate to call it “fake news” since I think of “fake news” as being deliberately false, and I can’t see that The Times would be in the business of deliberately publishing falsehoods. As demands for deadlines and scoops become greater, though, the distinction between deliberately false and sloppy tends to blur. That is the danger in rushing stories to print.
Snopes has weighed in but they appear to be as confused as we are. Steffen Seibert, a spokesperson for the German government, was at a press conference yesterday in which he was asked about the supposed invoice and gave a non-answer:
Yarp.
This is a very charitable attitude.
If only the Press Secretary would hold out such an olive branch.
Wait for them to do it if they can.
None of the countries are failing to meet their obligations. The 2% that Trump claims our allies need to be punished for violating, was actually an aspirational goal, set in 2014 with a 10 year window. Germany is on track to meet that goal by 2024.
I haven’t heard anything about this from German media, either, just on Twitter, but I wouldn’t expect a big rection, either:
German media covered (along with English-speaking media) how when Trump talked about Germany owing the US the 2% GDP Nato Money was factually wrong every way. If Trump then adds a printed bill or not is unimportant, the Topic has been dealt with.
Similar, “Mom Angie” has generally reacted to Trump’s tantrums by coolly disregarding him (don’t feed the cheeto?), so once the Topic itself was dealt with, why would an official Statement be made by a German govt. official?
Because the “2% of GDP to pay for Military” applied to all NATO members is not part of the treaty, it’s a recommendation; it’s not met by a lot of NATO members; It’s not paid to the US (who doesn’t own the NATO, but is one member among others), it’s not paid to the NATO, but spent to buy weapons and similar.
Critics have noted that establishing an arbitrary number like 2% is useless, anyway. Spending smart is much better - that is, looking at what NATO Needs, what the Country has, and then supplementing it. Should the Money be spent on buying weapons (which helps the country’s internal industry) or on Training the soldiers better and common NATO exercises, for example?
In Addition, the German Military and its arms manufacturers have been embarrassing themselves over the last years with planes too rusted to fly, guns that get hot and bent out of shape when being used to fire while the sun is shining (it’s not like a lot of wars happens in hot countries at the Moment, maybe the manufacturers were thinking of the cold russian winters?) and similar Problems, so just spending more Money on things that don’t work is the opposite of smart or making sense. (I’m generally against weapons, but weapons that don’t work when we do Need them is worse).
There also used to Projects by several countries together (like the Eurofighter) that flopped rather badly, and with the trend of some countries to turn away from Democracy (Poland, Hungary, Russia, Turkey) and some countries Close to leaving (Brexit, France if Le Pen wins), These Projects look rather different. So everything has to be re-evaluted before Money can be spent again.
So who do they owe money to? Does NATO have a separate bank account somewhere? Whose responsibility is it to make sure they pay their bills?
If the difference between victory and defeat is Luxembourg paying 2% you’re probably hosed anyway. Plus there’s comparative advantage. America isn’t so hot at healthcare or economies not based on bubbles but we blow stuff up real good. Don’t take that from us.
Posterity. So we can all see what they spent.
Nobody.
No money is owed, for 2 reasons.
- It is not yet 2024, which is when that 2% guideline is supposed to be reached.
- It is a guideline, not a binding rule, therefor there is no enforcement, and won’t be even in 2024, unless an actual rule is made. (2a) The enforcement, in that case, will certainly NOT be ‘give money to the US’.)