# US and NATO (and Trump, of course) + Mattis Gives Trump's Ultimatum To Europe **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 15, 2017, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-and-nato-and-trump-of-course-mattis-gives-trumps-ultimatum-to-europe/779915 "2017-02-15T16:56:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**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:** [February 16, 2017, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-and-nato-and-trump-of-course-mattis-gives-trumps-ultimatum-to-europe/779915/61 "2017-02-16T00:53:38Z")
> [@Snarky\_Kong](#): > > Isn’t the mandatory 2% spending actually a non-binding goal to shoot for for like a decade in the future? Non-mandatory in the sense that there’s no enforcement mechanism, yes. It had been talked about as a target for quite a while, after a history of post Cold War cuts by most in Europe that raised concerns about spending too little. The 2014 agreement that all members supported had a goal of correcting it within a decade, by 2024. It was first agreed to as a minimum goal in 2006 though and magically the issues remain. The 2014 agreement included some [other things](http://carnegieeurope.eu/2015/09/02/politics-of-2-percent-nato-and-security-vacuum-in-europe-pub-61139) for those not currently at that level: > [@](#): > > Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will: > > ``` > halt any decline in defence expenditure; > > aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows; > > aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO’s capability shortfalls. > > ``` If you take a look at “Graph 3” in this [pdf](http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160704_160704-pr2016-116.pdf)from NATO you can see that some are still going backwards. Big chunks of the alliance are either basically staying stable or are clearly not making changes that will hit the target two years into that decade. ---
**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:** [February 16, 2017, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-and-nato-and-trump-of-course-mattis-gives-trumps-ultimatum-to-europe/779915/62 "2017-02-16T02:48:21Z")
> [@Grim\_Render](#): > > NATO countries buy US equipment all the time. They buy European equipment more often, however. > [@](#): > > [And often for rather large sums of money.](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-lockheed-martin-canada-f35-orders-idUSKBN0EG2XD20140606)If NATO members increased their spending by 0,5 % of GDP and half went on orders from the US, that would be a massive surge in military industry. If European NATO countries bought 20% more F-35s than they currently plan to, that would probably total about 100 aircraft, which is about a 3% increase in the number of F-35s that Lockheed plans to build. Sorry, that isn’t “massive.” Besides which, as a general rule of thumb, equipping costs on a modern military is maybe like a third of defense spending. The bulk of any increased spending is primarily manpower and operations. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2017, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-and-nato-and-trump-of-course-mattis-gives-trumps-ultimatum-to-europe/779915/63 "2017-02-16T04:04:12Z")
> [@Snarky\_Kong](#): > > Isn’t the mandatory 2% spending actually a non-binding goal to shoot for for like a decade in the future? It was in the 90s when they came up with it, but we’re more than two decades in the future now. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2017, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-and-nato-and-trump-of-course-mattis-gives-trumps-ultimatum-to-europe/779915/64 "2017-02-16T09:49:05Z")
[AP:](https://apnews.com/512100f57ce44ec6acd59de2eed98207?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP_Politics) > [@](#): > > BRUSSELS (AP) — In an ultimatum to America’s allies, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told fellow NATO members Wednesday to increase military spending by year’s end or risk seeing the U.S. curtail its defense support — a stark threat given Europe’s deep unease already over U.S.-Russian relations. > > Echoing President Donald Trump’s demands for NATO countries to assume greater self-defense responsibility, Mattis said Washington will “moderate its commitment” to the alliance if countries fail to fall in line. He didn’t offer details, but the pressure is sure to be felt, particularly by governments in Europe’s eastern reaches that feel threatened by Russian expansionism. Shit just got very, **very** real. And to deliver this message now, with Russia being aggressive in Ukraine, and testing cruise missiles that may well be in violation of arms-control treaties…not good, not good _at all._ And so much for the hopes that Mattis could talk some sanity into Trump, or would at least have the integrity to resign if asked to deliver a message like this. I’m ready for President Pence, and the sooner the better. ---
**Author:** ![madmonk28](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madmonk28/32/20811_2.png) [@madmonk28](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madmonk28)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2017, 10:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-and-nato-and-trump-of-course-mattis-gives-trumps-ultimatum-to-europe/779915/65 "2017-02-16T10:04:04Z")
This administration has repeatedly tried to undermine NATO. If you recall, Flynn had been looking in to non-existent evidence that there had been Polish incursions into Belarus ([Deeply Disturbing - TPM – Talking Points Memo](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/deeply-disturbing--2)) > [@](#): > > Senior officials have been soliciting guidance from national security agencies on how to improve relations with Russia, asking what Washington could offer Moscow and what Trump should seek from Russian President Vladimir Putin. Tillerson requested a briefing on moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, one of Trump’s campaign promises. > According to one U.S. official, national security aides have sought information about Polish incursions in Belarus, an eyebrow-raising request because little evidence of such activities appears to exist. Poland is among the Eastern European nations worried about Trump’s friendlier tone on Russia. ---
**Author:** ![lisiate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f05b48/32.png) [@lisiate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lisiate)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2017, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-and-nato-and-trump-of-course-mattis-gives-trumps-ultimatum-to-europe/779915/66 "2017-02-16T10:09:58Z")
It’s pretty staggering for a senior partner in an alliance to openly coerce the junior partners isn’t it? Either you write some spending commitments into the alliance (perhaps as a secret protocol)\*, or you make your demands behind closed doors. Publicly demanding increased risks has so many downsides, and makes it clear you believe your alliance partners are vassals rather than independent states. \*NATO does have a “guideline” that each nation should spend 2% of GDP on defence with 20% of that to spent on Equipment - NATO helpfully provides tables and graphs of each [nation’s expenditure in this pdf!](http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160704_160704-pr2016-116.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2017, 10:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-and-nato-and-trump-of-course-mattis-gives-trumps-ultimatum-to-europe/779915/67 "2017-02-16T10:10:12Z")
Given the year-long pause before they have to do this - i.e., a reasonable time frame - I don’t see any problem. The other countries should be paying the money that they had agreed to, and certainly (at this particular moment in time) it makes sense for European states to start boning up their military capabilities. Mattis probably approves of the message. Minus the Russia Connection and any US President complaining about NATO spending would probably be ignored so, bizarrely, this sort of works out. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Sanchez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e19adc/32.png) [@Rick\_Sanchez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Sanchez)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2017, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-and-nato-and-trump-of-course-mattis-gives-trumps-ultimatum-to-europe/779915/68 "2017-02-16T10:19:45Z")
Forgive my ignorance, but what, in principle, is wrong with this request? NATO countries are, to the best of my understanding, strongly encouraged to spend no less than 2% of GDP on defence. The chart **lisiate** linked to indicates that very few countries - countries that could easily afford it - are meeting that target. Meanwhile the US is spending far more than required, presumably to make up the shortfall. Trump stated throughout the campaign that he felt this was unfair and that he would seek to change it. I agree that doing it publicly is a _terrible_ strategy. However, I can’t see that it’s a particularly unreasonable request, nor is it out of line with Trump’s pre-election stance. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2017, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-and-nato-and-trump-of-course-mattis-gives-trumps-ultimatum-to-europe/779915/69 "2017-02-16T10:20:48Z")
Is this actually a terrible new OMG Trump thing? Hectoring the rest of NATO for not spending enough is a time-honored bipartisan tradition. It certainly doesn’t sound that different from what Robert Gates said in [2011:](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/world/europe/11nato.html) > [@](#): > > Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates sharply criticized NATO nations on Friday for what he said were shortages of military spending and political will, warning of “a dim if not dismal future” and “irrelevance” for the alliance unless more member nations contributed weapons, money and personnel. > > In his final policy speech before he steps down, Mr. Gates issued a dire and unusually direct warning that the United States, the traditional leader and patron of the alliance, was exhausted by a decade of war and its own mounting budget deficits and simply might not see NATO as worth supporting any longer. ---
**Author:** ![madmonk28](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madmonk28/32/20811_2.png) [@madmonk28](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madmonk28)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2017, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-and-nato-and-trump-of-course-mattis-gives-trumps-ultimatum-to-europe/779915/70 "2017-02-16T10:22:51Z")
But you can’t ignore the Russian connection. It is a lens through which some of Trump’s more bizarre bluster makes sense. He seems ignorant of the fact that the first time the NATO allies mobilized their militaries in defense of a member was on 9/11. While asking NATO allies to pay their share is not necessarily unreasonable, doing so in an aggressive manner that might trigger the opposition is unreasonable, unless your goal is to undermine the alliance. ---
**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:** [February 16, 2017, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-and-nato-and-trump-of-course-mattis-gives-trumps-ultimatum-to-europe/779915/71 "2017-02-16T10:27:13Z")
Or maybe we finally have s leader with balls. Obama did nothing to counter Russian aggression in a way the Russians would respect. The Euros and the Canadians haven’t been paying their fair share. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2017, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-and-nato-and-trump-of-course-mattis-gives-trumps-ultimatum-to-europe/779915/72 "2017-02-16T10:35:39Z")
On a \*\*completely unrelated \*\*topic, what’s the current status of the USA’s debt to the UN? All paid up, are we? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2017, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-and-nato-and-trump-of-course-mattis-gives-trumps-ultimatum-to-europe/779915/73 "2017-02-16T10:51:54Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > On a \*\*completely unrelated \*\*topic, what’s the current status of the USA’s debt to the UN? All paid up, are we? Did we have a debt? Last I’d heard, I thought that the UN was almost completely financed by the US? The above are honest questions. It’s not a topic that I’m terribly conversant in. Maybe I got the UN and NATO confused. EDIT: It looks like the US was 22% of the UN’s funding last year, the highest of any nation. Japan looks to be the second at 10%. ---
**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:** [February 16, 2017, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-and-nato-and-trump-of-course-mattis-gives-trumps-ultimatum-to-europe/779915/74 "2017-02-16T11:12:46Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > If European NATO countries bought 20% more F-35s than they currently plan to, that would probably total about 100 aircraft, which is about a 3% increase in the number of F-35s that Lockheed plans to build. Sorry, that isn’t “massive.” You are getting things mixed up. If European NATO increased their military budgets up to 2 % of GDP, that would be a massive amount of money. They are not going to spend all of the on F-35s, sorry. The F-35s are an example of the US selling expensive military hardware to allies for large sums of money. While only a part of the military budget increase would end up as purchases of US hardware, we are still taking sums large enough that a fraction of them would be a very nice boost indeed. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2017, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-and-nato-and-trump-of-course-mattis-gives-trumps-ultimatum-to-europe/779915/75 "2017-02-16T11:24:26Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Given the year-long pause before they have to do this - i.e., a reasonable time frame - I don’t see any problem. It’s not reasonable. National economies don’t turn on a dime, and they especially don’t turn on a dime to answer foreign tantrums. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2017, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-and-nato-and-trump-of-course-mattis-gives-trumps-ultimatum-to-europe/779915/76 "2017-02-16T11:27:51Z")
> [@Rick\_Sanchez](#): > > Meanwhile the US is spending far more than required, presumably to make up the shortfall. That’s a flawed presumption. Congress isn’t going “Hey, NATO is short a lot of billions. We better increase military spending.” it’s going “We want a bigger military. Let’s spend more money.” They may also be going “Our military is doing most of the work in NATO, we wish the rest would build up theirs.”, but I doubt the US military would shrink significantly even if the rest of NATO upped their game. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2017, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-and-nato-and-trump-of-course-mattis-gives-trumps-ultimatum-to-europe/779915/77 "2017-02-16T11:31:25Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Did we have a debt? Last I’d heard, I thought that the UN was almost completely financed by the US? > > The above are honest questions. It’s not a topic that I’m terribly conversant in. Maybe I got the UN and NATO confused. > > EDIT: It looks like the US was 22% of the UN’s funding last year, the highest of any nation. Japan looks to be the second at 10%. Seems this is in need of an update, but: > **[United States and the United Nations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_United_Nations#The_U.S._arrears_issue)** > > The United States is a charter member of the United Nations and one of five permanent members of the UN Security Council. > The United States boasts the headquarters of the United Nations, which includes the usual meeting place of the General Assembly in New York City, in the north east coast of the country. The United States is the largest provider of financial contributions to the United Nations, providing 27.89 percent of the UN assessed peacekeeping budget of $6.38 billion for fiscal year 2... > [@](#): > > The UN has always had problems with members refusing to pay the assessment levied upon them under the United Nations Charter. But the most significant refusal in recent times has been that of the U.S. Since 1985 the U.S. Congress has refused to authorize payment of the U.S. dues, in order to force UN compliance with U.S. wishes, as well as a reduction in the U.S. assessment. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Sanchez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e19adc/32.png) [@Rick\_Sanchez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Sanchez)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2017, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-and-nato-and-trump-of-course-mattis-gives-trumps-ultimatum-to-europe/779915/78 "2017-02-16T11:36:29Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > It’s not reasonable. National economies don’t turn on a dime, and they especially don’t turn on a dime to answer foreign tantrums. Why classify it as a tantrum rather than a reasonable request? As has been established, the USA pays a disproportionate amount to fund NATO while other first world economies pay significantly less, even though meeting the 2% target is well within their means. Furthermore, given that Trump campaigned on this, leaders of affected NATO countries should already have been factoring in this possibility into their budget calculations for at least a year already. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2017, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-and-nato-and-trump-of-course-mattis-gives-trumps-ultimatum-to-europe/779915/79 "2017-02-16T11:48:22Z")
> [@Rick\_Sanchez](#): > > Why classify it as a tantrum rather than a reasonable request? Because it was unceremoniously dumped on our laps, without warning or previous discussion on the matter and going straight to the nuclear diplomatic option ? Given that the deadline will almost assuredly not be met, at least not by every member state, this is essentially what Bush the Lesser was doing with Saddam - “Let inspectors in !” “OK” “By monday !” “OK !” “And there has to be sponge cake !” “What’s sponge cake ?” “TOO LATE ASSHOLE, WAR IT IS !”. Trump has essentially decided to scrap NATO, the rest is window dressing. > [@](#): > > Furthermore, given that Trump campaigned on this, leaders of affected NATO countries should already have been factoring in this possibility into their budget calculations for at least a year already. Come, now. Nobody takes electioneering promises seriously in general, much less so when it comes to bloody Trump. ---
**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:** [February 16, 2017, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-and-nato-and-trump-of-course-mattis-gives-trumps-ultimatum-to-europe/779915/80 "2017-02-16T11:48:52Z")
> [@Grim\_Render](#): > > You are getting things mixed up. If European NATO increased their military budgets up to 2 % of GDP, that would be a massive amount of money. They are not going to spend all of the on F-35s, sorry. > > The F-35s are an example of the US selling expensive military hardware to allies for large sums of money. While only a part of the military budget increase would end up as purchases of US hardware, we are still taking sums large enough that a fraction of them would be a very nice boost indeed. Please recall your post that I was responding to: you said the increased spending would constitute a “massive surge for the military industry.” I am showing you a specific example of why you are wrong: a significant arms buy for a European country is of quite modest benefit to US defense companies because Europe would still be a small market of their market. Although I don’t know the European defense companies as well, if highly suspect that increased defense spending would be a much bigger benefit to them. Lockheed selling 50 more jets is a good day at the office for them; Saab selling 50 more jets is a huge deal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-and-nato-and-trump-of-course-mattis-gives-trumps-ultimatum-to-europe/779915.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-and-nato-and-trump-of-course-mattis-gives-trumps-ultimatum-to-europe/779915.md?page=5)