International [NATO News] What Sweden brings to NATO as its Newest Member

[Arkain2K]

UK ex Defense Minister Michael Fallon:
"Trump’s NATO criticism is valid, Europe isn’t spending enough on defense"
By Holly Ellyatt, CNBC | July 10, 2018

​

President Donald Trump is pushing other countries within the NATO military alliance to contribute more to their defense spending — and the U.K.’s former defense minister has told CNBC that he agrees.

“Half the alliance — 16 of the 29 countries — don’t even spend 1.5 percent (of gross domestic product) let alone 2 percent that we all agreed on four years ago (at a NATO summit) in Wales,” Michael Fallon, who served as secretary of state for defense from 2014 to 2017, said Tuesday.

“Four years on, and not enough European countries are making progress towards it and they need to do that and the president’s criticisms are quite valid.”

Trump is due to attend a NATO summit in Brussels on Wednesday and the thorny issue of how much the alliance’s individual members spend on defense is certain to arise. On Tuesday, Trump was still tweeting his annoyance.

Number crunching

In 2014, NATO members agreed to target spending 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on defense, although the contributions remain voluntary. In 2017, only the U.S., U.K., Greece, Poland and Estonia reached the 2 percent target.

In 2017, the U.S. spent (at current exchange rates) an estimated $685.9 billion on defense , NATO data shows, the U.K. spent $55.3 billion and Germany $45 billion, compared to Canada’s $22.4 billion. The U.S. represented a 71.1 percent share of the alliance’s combined defense expenditure .

NATO collects defense expenditure data from each member’s defense ministry. The latest data from the organization, released Tuesday, estimated that for 2018 the U.S. will spend 3.5 percent of GDP on defense, while NATO Europe and Canada are expected to both spend 1.47 percent.

At a NATO summit in May 2017, Trump lambasted fellow member nations saying, "Twenty-three of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should… Many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years."

What makes Trump particularly cross is the fact that the U.S. pays so much “to protect Europe,” as Trump said last week at a rally in Montana, while Europe “kills us on trade” and the European Union had a 120 billion euro ($140 billion) trade surplus with the States in 2017 — a bone of contention for the president .

After several years of defense spending cutbacks, both France’s President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have pledged this year to increase defense spending — but both have signaled that the 2 percent target might not be reached for years. Berlin has only committed to 1.5 percent by 2024, but even NATO head Jens Stoltenberg has said that is not good enough .

NATO is based on the principle of collective defense, meaning that an attack against one ally is considered an attack against all allies and, consequently, members will come to each other’s aid. But Trump has repeatedly said that the U.S. is paying way more than its fair share.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-nato-criticism-valid-europe-052300195.html

 

[Rational Poster]

Let them stay weak, it makes us stronger.

 

[Sketch]

What I find odd with Trump's foreign policy is he's calling for NATO to increase military spending and then in Asia, he's backing out of the area to a degree cancelling exercises with South Korea but then the budget for military spending still needs to go up? Where is the good side of this if we are reducing our foothold globally but increasing our spending?

He is not in full control. no president is. The neocons and the ones at play for the military side of things have their hands in everything.

In terms of Nato and Germany, does he not have a point? Why does America have bases in Germany and all of Europe, and then they do deals with Russia on massive scales, while also crying about Russian 'influence' and encroaching Russian power?

 

[Lead]

He is not in full control. no president is. The neocons and the ones at play for the military side of things have their hands in everything.

In terms of Nato and Germany, does he not have a point? Why does America have bases in Germany and all of Europe, and then they do deals with Russia on massive scales, while also crying about Russian 'influence' and encroaching Russian power?

I'm saying he can play that point but I would normally think the whole reason to get other countries to defend themselves and back off of foreign affairs would be so we can save on our side. He didn't have to sign off on the spending bill though. That would be my point. I just don't see where the pros are here if we back off our presence globally but still spend massive amounts on our military. That becomes a lose-lose in my mind.

 

[Sketch]

I'm saying he can play that point but I would normally think the whole reason to get other countries to defend themselves and back off of foreign affairs would be so we can save on our side. He didn't have to sign off on the spending bill though. That would be my point. I just don't see where the pros are here if we back off our presence globally but still spend massive amounts on our military. That becomes a lose-lose in my mind.

We agree then. My point was he doesn't get to make these decisions fully and there is a very dark militaristic side to the United States that isn't spoken about and no one can really point a figure too.

 

[Lead]

We agree then. My point was he doesn't get to make these decisions fully and there is a very dark militaristic side to the United States that isn't spoken about and no one can really point a figure too.

High military spending was around before he was in office. I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying he's the sitting president of a party that controls the senate and house. If he called for trying to balance the budget and decreasing military spending, the party would have to somewhat follow. I actually thought that was a new angle he was going to bring to the party with that but it doesn't seem to be the case. His domestic and foreign policies don't align... He has more time to eventually do so but for now, all of this he's doing is a bit odd.

 

[Sketch]

High military spending was around before he was in office. I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying he's the sitting president of a party that controls the senate and house. If he called for trying to balance the budget and decreasing military spending, the party would have to somewhat follow. I actually thought that was a new angle he was going to bring to the party with that but it doesn't seem to be the case. His domestic and foreign policies don't align... He has more time to eventually do so but for now, all of this he's doing is a bit odd.

It's odd indeed, and again I'll stand by what I said. It's because he doesn't get the final say.

 

[Lead]

It's odd indeed, and again I'll stand by what I said. It's because he doesn't get the final say.

I suppose. Not like I expected someone to try to balance the budget anyway

 

[Sketch]

I suppose. Not like I expected someone to try to balance the budget anyway

Lol, that too.

 

[Rozko]

What I find odd with Trump's foreign policy is he's calling for NATO to increase military spending and then in Asia, he's backing out of the area to a degree cancelling exercises with South Korea but then the budget for military spending still needs to go up? Where is the good side of this if we are reducing our foothold globally but increasing our spending?

The military exercises were an act of diplomatic good faith to try and NK to play ball. If they don't expect more games in SK and the troops to remain in place. With China making moves in the South China Sea the US will not be leaving Asia.

 

[Bargey]

I love how every time trump,says something ridiculously stupid the nitwits come out to try to defend it.

Who needs a college education or knowledge when you got a big fucking mouth, no morals and no shame.

Yeah Trump holding countries to their commitments and threatening consequences when they choose not to.......so ridiculously stupid, right?

 

[Judge]

TRUMP WINNING AGAIN

https://www.dailywire.com/news/32955/trump-breaks-nato-leaders-pledge-unwavering-ryan-saavedra
TRUMP BREAKS NATO: Leaders Pledge 'Unwavering Commitment' To Boost Defense Spending
Leaders of member nations that belong to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) pledged their "unwavering commitment" to increasing their defense funding of the organization after President Donald Trump slammed the group for treating the United States unfairly.

The commitment from European leaders came after Trump publicly embarrassed NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg during a meeting early on Wednesday morning. Fox News reports:

The U.S. and European allies signed a declaration stating they are "committed to improving the balance of sharing the costs and responsibilities of alliance membership."

The declaration comes after confrontational and testy discussions between Trump and other NATO leaders.

"So, we're protecting Germany, we're protecting France, we're protecting all of these countries," Trump said. "And then numerous of the countries go out and make a pipeline deal with Russia where they're paying billions of dollars into the coffers of Russia. So, we are supposed to protect you against Russia."

"You tell me if that is appropriate." Trump continued. "This has been going on for decades. This has been brought up by other presidents, but other presidents never did anything about it."

"It's very unfair to our country, it's very unfair to our taxpayers," Trump told Stoltenberg. "And I think that these countries have to step it up not over a 10 year period— they have to step it up immediately."

A Tuesday report from Forbes revealed that the U.S. spends more than double in defense spending for NATO than all other NATO members spend combined.



Trump continued hammering NATO after the early morning meeting, tweeting:



National Review noted that Trump suggested that "a commitment of 4 percent would be required to achieve parity with U.S. defense expenditures."


YEAH BABY!!! Trump ain't bending over for anyone!

Obama is very skilled at assuming the position.

 

[Ruprecht]

It's odd indeed, and again I'll stand by what I said. It's because he doesn't get the final say.

His statements about NATO and military spending were self contradictory before he actually won the election though.

 

[Sketch]

His statements about NATO and military spending were self contradictory before he actually won the election though.

The American War Machine is worth Trillions. I don't think he gets to change that, he might get a small say but he's not changing that culture by himself. It's tricky ,because I'm not claiming a conspiracy or Illuminati etc but I think many parties (Dems, Republicans, Independent contractors, The courts etc all benefit like the roots of a tree conjoined) It's a widespread issue that no one president really has any control over. This has been going on for decades, the wars, the pointless wars. Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. Almost anyone can view these and go "Why?" "Ok, maybe it was someones good idea then but look at the outcome now"

It never stops. It's always in motion, some kind of arbitrary war that makes a lot of money in the long run for everybody except the attacked country and the taxpayers of the host nation.

 

[Ruprecht]

The American War Machine is worth Trillions. I don't think he gets to change that, he might get a small say but he's not changing that culture by himself. It's tricky ,because I'm not claiming a conspiracy or Illuminati etc but I think many parties (Dems, Republicans, Independent contractors, The courts etc all benefit like the roots of a tree co-joined) It's a widespread issue that no one president really has any control over. This has been going on for decades, the wars, the pointless wars. Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. Almost anyone can view these and go "Why?" "Ok, maybe it was someones good idea then but look at the outcome now"

It never stops. It's always in motion, some kind of arbitrary war that makes a lot of money in the long run for everybody except the attacked country and the taxpayers of the host nation.

During his campaign he made comments downplaying NATO and encouraging South Korea and Japan to arm themselves against China, while simultaneously commenting on increased military spending.

It shouldn't come as a shock to anyone, and you can hardly peg it on just the reality of the American War Machine or deep seated political institutions when it's something he actively campaigned on.

 

[Sketch]

During his campaign he made comments downplaying NATO and encouraging South Korea and Japan to arm themselves against China, while simultaneously commenting on increased military spending.

It shouldn't come as a shock to anyone, and you can hardly peg it on just the reality of the American War Machine or deep seated political institutions when it's something he actively campaigned on.

Because it probably helped him win. His supporter base see "They pay more" "We increase for ourselves"

Even thought that's not how it works in the long run or even in the short-term for that matter.

 

[superpunch]

nm

 

[Ruprecht]

wtf not one country other than the UK in NATO pays the required 2% of gdp for military?? lmao what were past presidents doing??

Poland, Greece and Estonia.

 

[jefferz]

Poland, Greece and Estonia.

to be fair, greece's contribution would be about $4.

 

[Ruprecht]

to be fair, greece's contribution would be about $4.

Hey, 2% of bugger all is still 2% !