Trump's attack on NATO

[Bob_Church 7]

Phil1111

*********

Quote

I just watced that interview with him. And the reason he's not going to raise spending is because you're already meeting your obligations. And he had a lot of nice things to say about Trump and his leadership. And he supported his meeting with Putin coming up! Got you got to hate that don't you?

Well, it's nice that you decided to believe Trudeau's spin. Maybe Trump will too. Canada seems to have a leader who understands diplomacy.

Canada does not spend 2% of his GDP on military. Nor should it.

Why not? I don't mean that as an attack, I'm just curious.

There is no public support in Canada for more military spending. Every new weapons system is debated endlessly. Current spending is 1.23% of GDP and regardless of promises to increase it to 2%. Its not likely to happen. Canadians will have a free national drug program long before defense spending is 2% of GDP.

Canadians support peacekeeping and NATO operations like the current deployments to Latvia. Canada has additional training and support operations to Ukraine. Which is also supported.

The conservative party(like republicans)of the last government could not write the check for a new F-35 purchase. So the current liberal (like dems) Trudeau government bought the castoff F-18's of the Australian air force.

Part of that calculation was Boeing's trade dispute filing on the CS300 jet built by Bombardier.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/dec/13/canada-to-buy-fleet-of-30-year-old-fighter-jets-from-australia-in-snub-to-us

I'm still trying to figure out why we are. If the other NATO members don't want to, fine. But why sould the US, which arguably has the least to gain from NATO, keep paying the full 2%?

[Phil1111 905]

Bob_Church

************

Quote

I just watced that interview with him. And the reason he's not going to raise spending is because you're already meeting your obligations. And he had a lot of nice things to say about Trump and his leadership. And he supported his meeting with Putin coming up! Got you got to hate that don't you?

Well, it's nice that you decided to believe Trudeau's spin. Maybe Trump will too. Canada seems to have a leader who understands diplomacy.

Canada does not spend 2% of his GDP on military. Nor should it.

Why not? I don't mean that as an attack, I'm just curious.

There is no public support in Canada for more military spending. Every new weapons system is debated endlessly. Current spending is 1.23% of GDP and regardless of promises to increase it to 2%. Its not likely to happen. Canadians will have a free national drug program long before defense spending is 2% of GDP.

Canadians support peacekeeping and NATO operations like the current deployments to Latvia. Canada has additional training and support operations to Ukraine. Which is also supported.

The conservative party(like republicans)of the last government could not write the check for a new F-35 purchase. So the current liberal (like dems) Trudeau government bought the castoff F-18's of the Australian air force.

Part of that calculation was Boeing's trade dispute filing on the CS300 jet built by Bombardier.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/dec/13/canada-to-buy-fleet-of-30-year-old-fighter-jets-from-australia-in-snub-to-us

I'm still trying to figure out why we are. If the other NATO members don't want to, fine. But why sould the US, which arguably has the least to gain from NATO, keep paying the full 2%?

It doesn't, the US spends about 3.5% of GDP on defense.
Defense Expenditures Of NATO Members Visualized [Infographic]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/07/10/defense-expenditure-of-nato-members-visualized-infographic/#9f7da0114cff

[Bob_Church 7]

Phil1111

***************

Quote

I just watced that interview with him. And the reason he's not going to raise spending is because you're already meeting your obligations. And he had a lot of nice things to say about Trump and his leadership. And he supported his meeting with Putin coming up! Got you got to hate that don't you?

Well, it's nice that you decided to believe Trudeau's spin. Maybe Trump will too. Canada seems to have a leader who understands diplomacy.

Canada does not spend 2% of his GDP on military. Nor should it.

Why not? I don't mean that as an attack, I'm just curious.

There is no public support in Canada for more military spending. Every new weapons system is debated endlessly. Current spending is 1.23% of GDP and regardless of promises to increase it to 2%. Its not likely to happen. Canadians will have a free national drug program long before defense spending is 2% of GDP.

Canadians support peacekeeping and NATO operations like the current deployments to Latvia. Canada has additional training and support operations to Ukraine. Which is also supported.

The conservative party(like republicans)of the last government could not write the check for a new F-35 purchase. So the current liberal (like dems) Trudeau government bought the castoff F-18's of the Australian air force.

Part of that calculation was Boeing's trade dispute filing on the CS300 jet built by Bombardier.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/dec/13/canada-to-buy-fleet-of-30-year-old-fighter-jets-from-australia-in-snub-to-us

I'm still trying to figure out why we are. If the other NATO members don't want to, fine. But why sould the US, which arguably has the least to gain from NATO, keep paying the full 2%?

It doesn't, the US spends about 3.5% of GDP on defense.
Defense Expenditures Of NATO Members Visualized [Infographic]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/07/10/defense-expenditure-of-nato-members-visualized-infographic/#9f7da0114cff

We're still fighting an enemy that dissolved nearly thirty years ago.

[kallend 1,619]

Bob_Church

************

Quote

I just watced that interview with him. And the reason he's not going to raise spending is because you're already meeting your obligations. And he had a lot of nice things to say about Trump and his leadership. And he supported his meeting with Putin coming up! Got you got to hate that don't you?

Well, it's nice that you decided to believe Trudeau's spin. Maybe Trump will too. Canada seems to have a leader who understands diplomacy.

Canada does not spend 2% of his GDP on military. Nor should it.

Why not? I don't mean that as an attack, I'm just curious.

There is no public support in Canada for more military spending. Every new weapons system is debated endlessly. Current spending is 1.23% of GDP and regardless of promises to increase it to 2%. Its not likely to happen. Canadians will have a free national drug program long before defense spending is 2% of GDP.

Canadians support peacekeeping and NATO operations like the current deployments to Latvia. Canada has additional training and support operations to Ukraine. Which is also supported.

The conservative party(like republicans)of the last government could not write the check for a new F-35 purchase. So the current liberal (like dems) Trudeau government bought the castoff F-18's of the Australian air force.

Part of that calculation was Boeing's trade dispute filing on the CS300 jet built by Bombardier.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/dec/13/canada-to-buy-fleet-of-30-year-old-fighter-jets-from-australia-in-snub-to-us

I'm still trying to figure out why we are. If the other NATO members don't want to, fine. But why sould the US, which arguably has the least to gain from NATO, keep paying the full 2%?

You need to reread Eisenhower's message on the military/industrial complex. Or "follow the money".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Bob_Church 7]

kallend

***************

Quote

I just watced that interview with him. And the reason he's not going to raise spending is because you're already meeting your obligations. And he had a lot of nice things to say about Trump and his leadership. And he supported his meeting with Putin coming up! Got you got to hate that don't you?

Well, it's nice that you decided to believe Trudeau's spin. Maybe Trump will too. Canada seems to have a leader who understands diplomacy.

Canada does not spend 2% of his GDP on military. Nor should it.

Why not? I don't mean that as an attack, I'm just curious.

There is no public support in Canada for more military spending. Every new weapons system is debated endlessly. Current spending is 1.23% of GDP and regardless of promises to increase it to 2%. Its not likely to happen. Canadians will have a free national drug program long before defense spending is 2% of GDP.

Canadians support peacekeeping and NATO operations like the current deployments to Latvia. Canada has additional training and support operations to Ukraine. Which is also supported.

The conservative party(like republicans)of the last government could not write the check for a new F-35 purchase. So the current liberal (like dems) Trudeau government bought the castoff F-18's of the Australian air force.

Part of that calculation was Boeing's trade dispute filing on the CS300 jet built by Bombardier.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/dec/13/canada-to-buy-fleet-of-30-year-old-fighter-jets-from-australia-in-snub-to-us

I'm still trying to figure out why we are. If the other NATO members don't want to, fine. But why sould the US, which arguably has the least to gain from NATO, keep paying the full 2%?

You need to reread Eisenhower's message on the military/industrial complex. Or "follow the money".

I know about when he coined the term military industrial complex and how prescient he was.

[jakee 1,254]

Bob_Church

I'm still trying to figure out why we are. If the other NATO members don't want to, fine. But why sould the US, which arguably has the least to gain from NATO, keep paying the full 2%?

You shouldn’t, but you will anyway and it has absolutely nothing to do with Nato. The US fetishises its military to a frankly quite unhealthy degree that no one else in the world really understands.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[melch 0]

Quote

I'm still trying to figure out why we are. If the other NATO members don't want to, fine. But why sould the US, which arguably has the least to gain from NATO, keep paying the full 2%?

I do not think you understand fully what that 2% spending GOAL looks like in actuality. There is no NATO bank account or funding line that exists where countries deposit 2% of their GDP to be used at the discretion of NATO. Each nation has set a spending GOAL, again I use the word goal because there is no forcing mechanism to ensure each country spends 2%. During the Cold War, countries were spending 3% or more and that has naturally subsided following the dissolution of the USSR in favor of other domestic priorities. Anyway, the 2% spending goal is intended to support national military power to then be contributed to NATO in the event of an Article 4 or Article 5 event. Different nations contribute to NATO in different ways; basing, intelligence, etc. The US spends 3.6% because we feel the need to maintain 11 nuclear carrier groups and project global power where as other members concern themselves with regional focuses.

Fun factoids about that 2% spending:
Greece spends roughly 2.6% of its GDP meeting the goal but most of its military forces is directed towards another NATO member...Turkey.
If Germany increased the pay of its entire force by 2(ish)%, it would also meet the 2% spending goal without ever contributing "more" to NATO.

As I alluded to before, members contribute in different ways to the alliance which have farther reaching strategic implications that spending 2% of their GDP.

[Bob_Church 7]

"As I alluded to before, members contribute in different ways to the alliance which have farther reaching strategic implications that spending 2% of their GDP. "

It would be interesting to break down US defense spending in ways that showed us how much of it applied to NATO and how much didn't. I doubt it's possible, even if we had access to the numbers because it would be so hard to draw a line between spending to protect other NATO nations and moneys that we'd spend defending ourselves if NATO were to be dissolved.
And the other thing I'd be interested in knowing is which countries are spending less than 2% because they're at a point where further spending wouldn't make them any more secure or when it's just "someone will come to our rescue if we're invaded."
And as you point out it gets especially complicated when we're talking about a group of countries that vow to help each other when members are the ones they're worried about.
In your opinion, is NATO serving a purpose these days?

[Bob_Church 7]

"I do not think you understand fully what that 2% spending GOAL looks like in actuality. There is no NATO bank account or funding line that exists where countries deposit 2% of their GDP to be used at the discretion of NATO. "

I think you've stated the biggest problem when it comes to the politics of NATO. Too many people think that it's some standalone force with its own ships, planes and soldiers. If that were the case then why are we depositing our 2% into their swiss bank account but not other countries? But of course it isn't. It is a kind of unique situation, I think, in which to belong to an organization you don't pay money into the kitty, you vow to spend a certain minimum on certain things.
It seems more like a homeowners association than anything.

[jclalor 12]

Bob_Church

"As I alluded to before, members contribute in different ways to the alliance which have farther reaching strategic implications that spending 2% of their GDP. "

It would be interesting to break down US defense spending in ways that showed us how much of it applied to NATO and how much didn't. I doubt it's possible, even if we had access to the numbers because it would be so hard to draw a line between spending to protect other NATO nations and moneys that we'd spend defending ourselves if NATO were to be dissolved.
And the other thing I'd be interested in knowing is which countries are spending less than 2% because they're at a point where further spending wouldn't make them any more secure or when it's just "someone will come to our rescue if we're invaded."
And as you point out it gets especially complicated when we're talking about a group of countries that vow to help each other when members are the ones they're worried about.
In your opinion, is NATO serving a purpose these days?

Exactly what Vladimir wants Americans asking themselves.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

it would be so hard to draw a line between spending to protect other NATO nations and moneys that we'd spend defending ourselves if NATO were to be dissolved.

All of it. You'd be spending all of it.

You'd be saving a few tens of millions on admin, but you'd just spend it elsewhere.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jcd11235 0]

Bob_Church

And the other thing I'd be interested in knowing is which countries are spending less than 2% because they're at a point where further spending wouldn't make them any more secure or when it's just "someone will come to our rescue if we're invaded."

Likely both for most countries.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

I think you've stated the biggest problem when it comes to the politics of NATO. Too many people think that it's some standalone force with its own ships, planes and soldiers. If that were the case then why are we depositing our 2% into their swiss bank account but not other countries?

Only the idiots who believe Trump. I don't remember it ever being an issue before Trump started banging the drum at his xenophobic base and feeding them this imaginary version of Nato.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[melch 0]

Quote

It would be interesting to break down US defense spending in ways that showed us how much of it applied to NATO and how much didn't. I doubt it's possible, even if we had access to the numbers because it would be so hard to draw a line between spending to protect other NATO nations and moneys that we'd spend defending ourselves if NATO were to be dissolved.

It would be incredibly difficult simply based on the way money is spent, how it's funded (appropriated funding vs mission funding, etc) and how one would classify that spending. For example, a multi-national exercise where NATO members and non NATO members participate on a US installation may incur a direct cost of $20 million, of which X amount is paid by each participant according to the number of personnel they spend but time and land use may be accepted rather than payment so that you can use a facility in the future without incurring cost. Sounds fairly straightforward but depending on the purpose of the exercise, you may be reaching into different pots of money to include the State Department based on the stated objectives. I can say, in general, US Army Europe spends money to enhance the lethality of its forces with thoughts of interoperability with NATO members to maximize total lethality, but the readiness of its forces comes first.

Quote

And the other thing I'd be interested in knowing is which countries are spending less than 2% because they're at a point where further spending wouldn't make them any more secure or when it's just "someone will come to our rescue if we're invaded."

Geographic location and distance from Russia plays a huge role in this. These are wave tops that I'm happy to discuss in depth if you want to talk more about any one in particular.

The Baltics. Estonia, for example with a population of only 1.2 million and a conscript army that has around 5k personnel active at any given time, no amount of spending increases are going to secure a single brigade without tanks from the multiple divisions of Russia's western military district.

Spain on the other hand, is not necessarily concerned about a Russian invasion because there is a lot of ground to cover to get to them. Their concerns are similar to those of Italy in regards to north African refugees crossing the Med. With concerns that are not necessarily focused on conventional ground combat, their budgets are not likely to increase.

Greece and Turkey we've already touched on. Turkey is massive, any increases in spending are likely to focus towards securing it's border with Syria and ongoing operations in northern Syria.

France, Germany, Austria have different priorities in the way of terrorism.

At the end of the day, NATO is a consensus based organization comprised of 29 countries with their own strategic and operational concerns

Quote

In your opinion, is NATO serving a purpose these days?

Absolutely. People often forget that it is a political alliance first, military alliance second. There is something to be said about the alliance serving as an undercurrent to the political stability of European political theater although I think it would be bold and assuming to say that it's holding it together. Furthermore, the collective defense aspect of NATO, the very thing that Trump is challenging right now has brought us one of the most peaceful periods in history (it may not seem like it, but it is). I would argue that Russia's number one strategic goal is to invalidate Article 5 (collective defense) of NATO. It is their number one strategic goal because it would serve to shift what they perceive as a mono-polar world lead by the US to a multi-polar world headed by regional powers that can act within their sphere of influence as they see fit.

Current operations and terminated opeartions: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52060.htm?