And yet, there’s a yearly budget that’s wrangled and decided every year in this nation, with wide swings in policy funding.
It’s true that I don’t know about other nations, but I suspect that if the US has been able to pull it off every year for as long as I’ve lived, then the other NATO powers could figure out how to plan a yearly budget.
Where France is concerned, for example, our yearly budget is prepared well over a year in advance. The year’s budget is presented in september or october for approval and vote in dec/jan/feb after which point it’s in effect until next february.
We literally cannot change it now, legally speaking.
Cheeto has balls all right and Putin has a tight grip on 'em.
What we’re seeing here is Trump’s negotiating style in action: bully, bluster and threaten. While these are useful tools to have at hand, they are much less effective when used against our supposed allies. I’m also not convinced this administration’s toolbox contains any other tools, to be frank.
I agree that NATO members should meet the terms to which they have agreed, but then I also think the US ought to pay its UN dues and that Trump ought to pay all those people he stiffed the money he owes them. None of which is likely to happen any time soon.
Nice poisoning of the well there.
Anyway, as a Briton, I think Trump’s on the mark, and on the money.
True, but I’m pretty sure that within the next 365 days, there will be a new budget drawn up, and that the information will be public knowledge.
…in addressing a legitimate issue in a hamhanded, unreasonable way which will only serve to undermine NATO, a situation which would (entirely coincidentally) strengthen Russia’s hand?
Russia’s hand has been strengthened by more than two decades of European countries failing to do their part for their own defense. That one speech with some sterner words is a bigger problem than the underlying problem, is just not credible.
“Sure, I’ve been sleeping with your wife; but by pointing it out, you’ve jeopardized your marriage!”
What exactly was ham-handed or unreasonable? It was blunt, but I have no problem with that. Much of NATO has been riding on America’s largesse and NATO should make a proper contribution to its own defence.
Really? Has it? Which NATO countries has Russia invaded?
Russia does not have the conventional military capability to defeat NATO in a full scale war. In any case, the war would go nuclear - and NATO has enough nuclear weapons to incinerate Russia quite thoroughly, even without the United States.
I think it’s a great time to deliver the message, because it means that it’s not just some easily ignored, abstract threat that Europe expects the US to pay to deal with for them, it’s a real threat. Like I said, I’d much rather a president deliver the message in a more normal, diplomatic fashion, but I am glad to see the US willing to call the rest of NATO out on their decades long freeloading. And when would be a good time, exactly? Should we wait for Russia to get more aggressive?
It’s been discussed for more than twenty years, and Europe’s position has been ‘oh yes, we’ll do that… one day. But for now, you do the work and we’ll sit back and condescendingly criticize you’. As people have pointed out, various more conventional approaches have been tried, and fall on deaf ears consistently. Calling it a ‘tantrum’ is probably the worst response Europe can have, since it just reinforces that pattern of ‘you pay the money and do the hard work, we’ll sneer at you for doing it’.
I take electioneering promises seriously, and especially so when it comes to Trump. If you haven’t been following the news, he’s doing most of the stuff he said he would even though people dismissed it as pure bluster. If he promised to do something and it worries you, you should count on him following through with the promise because he certainly doesn’t have any of the traditional restraint.
Pardon me, Mr. Hyperbole, when exactly did I say that Russia has invaded NATO countries?
Unwillingness to spend the money required to have the capability means… lack of ability. I have no idea why you think that ‘Europe infrastructure’ is relevant here - the problem is not whether they could put some guys on a train and others on a highway and have them drive to the area. In order to project power, you need units trained in forward deployment, large stocks of spares and munitions, stockpiled munitions in the area or the ability to rapidly create a stockpile, troops trained in resupplying units during action, and a lot of other expensive stuff that doesn’t show up in ‘we have X tanks’ comparisons. Non-US NATO (other than the UK, who is really a special case) just doesn’t have those capabilities at all, and the fact that a civilian airport exists nearby doesn’t magically create missiles and replacement parts and repair depots.
The Libya campaign highlights just how little capability NATO outside of the US actually has - the US came in and cracked the air defenses, then eight other nations were going to take over (which IMO is a perfectly reasonable way for things to run). But they simply didn’t have the capability to sustain operations with their existing force. I see no reason to believe that they have the ability to sustain operations against Russia, a much more capable foe, and I’m sure Putin can see the same facts as I do.
I disagree with this. There are two problems with doing it in private, both related to the fact that the goal is not to abandon NATO but rather to have them bear more of the load. 1) It’s more likely to be ignored by the European leadership. Saying it in public is a sign that the US is taking it more seriously. 2) It’s helps the European public see the necessity of it. and thus helps the political leadership do it. Presumably having the Europeans bear more of the cost of their defense will mean cuts elsewhere or higher taxes, and these are not going to be a winning political position unless the electorate is convinced that it really needs to be done. Going public with this ultimatum is helpful is forcing the electorate to appreciate that they have a choice to make, and to make an informed choice in choosing leadership’s decision in the matter.
So this is American Democrats being stupid. Again. Folks, Trump doesn’t need your help.
Exactly. Trump’s grating rhetoric manages to alienate allies and embolden enemies. In the case of NATO funding commitments, his apparent goal is a good one. And yet his approach will make it nearly impossible for our NATO allies to actually increase funding.
He’s either incompetent at negotiating or his goal is not what he claims.
Except that naming a percentage of the EU’s GDP is irrelevant to what was being discussed. We are talking about NATO, not the EU, and you have to look at which countries are below their targets and by how much then look at what they currently spend to get a feel for how much we are talking about. Just looking at the largest country who is also the one who is only doing 1.2% of their GDP, Germany, they currently have a military budget of $30 billion, give or take. .8% more of that is only going to be $27 billion or so. And they are the largest country on the list. The rest aren’t going to be nearly that much. France, for instance, has only recently dropped below the 2% target and only down to 1.8%…they spend, currently, around $50 billion but .2% is only going to bring up $20 billion. And the rest of the countries have much lower GDPs (Canada, the other large economy on the list will come up only $10-15 billion). I think all told you are talking less than $100 billion dollars…probably less than $75 billion. Like I said, billions are billions, and the key here isn’t that it’s a massive amount of money, but if they commit to spending it from now on, over time it will be a decisive amount to keep NATO up to date and capable.
Missed the edit window:
As to the wider point being discussed, I think that European military contractors are as likely to get the lions share of that as the US is. France and Germany, as noted already, have very complex and advanced industrial military complexes, as does the UK. Most of those countries don’t buy tanks from the US, for instance…nore APCs. Most don’t buy artillery from the US either. A few do buy planes, but the Eurofighter planes also sell pretty well. France, in particular, has it’s own home grown fighter program and I doubt they will be buying F-35, which I presume is what you are talking about with all this stuff about buying from the US. I don’t think Germany is scheduled to buy any, either, though this is from memory.
Are you under the impression that Obama did not attempt to address this issue in a nicer way? This was raised numerous times, both nicely and sometimes less delicately, from 2009 on.
What was the result? Most NATO countries, with the exception of the Baltics, made substantial cuts in defense expenditures. In 2009, European NATO partners spent 1.7% of their collective GDP on defense. In 2016, that figure is estimated to be 1.46%.
How can you possibly say that playing nice would have better results, when it’s been proven that the problem got worse while the US was pursuing this issue in the manner that you suggest?
If NATO partners were to all raise their GDP expenditures to 2% they’d probably want to do it in as domestically beneficial a way as possible, which wouldn’t entail buying much more stuff from the US.
Probably things like: