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

[tkotom]

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.

Making everyone pay fairly is "ridiculously stupid." Are you daft man?

 

[KnightTemplar]

The US is the hegemon and is projecting its power all over the world. It is basically paying the imperial premium.

Greece has a ridiculously expensive military given that the country is broke.

Estonia and Poland fear Russia.

Sure, Trump can revoke security guarantees for European NATO countries. And sure, that will increase military spending there. Only it will also be the end of NATO and the American empire.

Trump is an isolationist. He sees no profit in spending money on the Pax Americana.

 

[Pwent]

What do the women look like there? If they look decent, some sherdoggers should get a team together and ask the Estonian government for money to repopulate their country.

Estonia produces the most supermodels per capita than anywhere in the world

Tall thin and beautiful

 

[KnightTemplar]

Estonia is punking all those deadbeat countries

Only European nations left with any balls are Poland, Estonia and Hungary.

I've heard that some Germans who are sick of Merkle's determination to destroy her own country are moving to Hungary.

 

[JDragon]

Riiiiight. Until Europe needs the US to save their asses, AGAIN.

I don't think you understood my post well.

 

[JDragon]

Trump is an isolationist. He sees no profit in spending money on the Pax Americana.

No disagreement there

 

[JDragon]

lol


Grow some balls euro's


(does not include the British Poland Estonia and greece)

Greece is only there because its economy is fucked while military expenditure remained fairly stable iirc. It is not as if Greece has some kind of killer military. It is just another example of their ridiculously ineffective and bloated public sector.

If Trump succeeds at crushing imports from Germany, it will obviously hurt the German economy and assuming no cuts for the Bundeswehr, our spending as % of GDP will rise. Yaaay! Would accomplish nothing but look good on paper.

Again, I am not saying we should not increase military spending (we should and we already do), but blindly looking at the 2% figure just leads nowhere.

 

[Arkain2K]

Trump is an isolationist. He sees no profit in spending money on the Pax Americana.

I'm assuming everyone in this thread already know that multiple U.S Presidents have been trying to get other NATO members to pay their fair shares for YEARS now. Everyone from Clinton to Bush to Obama.

And guess what? The same freeloaders from those years are still freeloaders now, no matter who's currently resides in the White House.

It is not entirely only Germanys fault. If you don't stop telling people they are solely responsible for WW1 and WW2 and dismantle any kind of relation toward Prussia military honor and practices.
It is not exactly surprising when you end up with the outcome that the people are hesitant to spend money on their military.

It's not that Germany is trying to get out of paying for something. It pays more than its fair share to all other international organizations.
But it will take a generation or two to recover from the decades of effort to dismantle any German military structure.
Even if that effort might be justified. It is difficult to have it both ways.

This WW1-WW2 cop-out is complete hogwash, courtesy of the Cold War.

Being a German, you should know your own country's history, particularly the bit about NATO member West Germany spending well over 3% of its GDP on defense in the 1980s, and no one in their West had a problem with that whatsoever. The German people certainly didn't have a problem with rebuilding their military when the Soviets are right on the other side of the Berlin Wall, neither did any of the Western allies who once fought against Nazi Germany half a generation before that.

So I ask you, why would Germany still needs "a generation or two" to recover the "military structures" dismantled 70 years ago, when those things have already been rebuilt 35 years ago?

That information has been posted here 4 months ago, by the way. Which means you didn't read the thread, or simply being disingenuous in trying to find a new excuse as to why Germany, the biggest powerhouse of Europe, is currently not meeting the defense spending it pledged in 2006, despite its military is literally crumbling.

Germany is not failing on their NATO pledges because of Hitler's legacy.

Germany choose not to meet that 2% target right now (and save their once-proud Bundeswehr from becoming a joke) because the German government no longer feel the urgent needs to do so.

It is as simple as that.

the Bundeswehr is laughable tbh, and since they removed two of the remaining 4 IN Brigades in Germany (my unit the 170th in Baumholder and the uh 172nd /3rd in Graf, leaving 1/4 in Hohenfels and 2nd SCR in Vilseck if they're still there) germany would have serious issues if someone like Turkey or god forbid Russia actually stepped to them

we had these two monster hills our base that the Germans stopped trying to go up b/c their equipment was so old/outdated that it often couldn't make it....no hyperbole

Yeah no hyperbole, that was already showing when I did my military service almost 15 years ago. And it has only been getting worse.
You get what you pay for. I would like to see Germany military budget somewhere around 3% long term.

That, we have a mutual agreement on.

 

[Leroy Jenkins]

You guys know that a lot of countries pay in other ways , right?


For Example other countries, follow American commands..So when America decides to sanction Russia, by having Nato not buy shit from them or whatever...Guess who fucking pays the price for that? The Border Nato states.

 

[Arkain2K]

Again, I am not saying we should not increase military spending (we should and we already do), but blindly looking at the 2% figure just leads nowhere.

And I'm saying if Germany and Canada (or any other NATO members) disagree with that annual 2% target (a number that they actually exceeded voluntarily when the Soviet Union is still intact), why did they agree to it in the first place? If there's a change or heart between 2006 and now, why didn't they stand up and make the suggestion to lower that commitment target when the issue was once again brought up at the NATO meeting last month?

Or better yet, why not just suggest that the alliance do away with firm defense spending targets all together, if you truly think it doesn't matter and "other contributions" from everyone are already enough to sustain this alliance?

I hate to see other NATO members going Full Trudeau with lame excuses about "holistic contribution" in "other things", like delivering troops or participating in exercises. Those "other things" are something that you do on top of the 2% investments on your own military just to keep it functional.

Those "other things" plus only 1.2% of GDP in defense spending means German barracks are crumbling, German assault rifles can't shoots straight in hot weather, or the sobering fact that only 29 out of 93 German commissioned jet fighters are currently in combat-ready condition.

Let's not kid ourselves here: Germany would actually needs to spend MORE than 2% to turn the Bundeswehr into a functional military force again, instead of the joke it has become after the Cold War ended.

As of right now, there are still only 5 NATO members who do all those "other things" for our alliance each year, but not for one second do we ever think those costly activities should be deducted from our defense spending target. Because that is NOT what we collectively agreed on.

Making a clean-cut pledge to your allies and then actually keeping your word to keep the alliance strong is not "blind", it shows responsibility as a member.

What would happen to NATO as an alliance if those 5 responsible countries start using the same ridiculous logic and just do "other things" plus 1% like the 23 deadbeats?

 

[AviatorShades]

Do we really want the EU heavily militarized considering that its member-states are set to become third-world flashpoints within a generation? It's a controversial question, but it's still pertinent. Who is going to inherit these weapons?

On one hand, US taxpayers are footing the bill for European pseudo-socialism via its total reliance on the American military. On the other hand, that neglect could become a hidden blessing as western European countries cease to be worthwhile allies and turn into potential theaters.

Something more openly discussed/less controversial: NATO itself has become archaic. Eastern Europe (and Australia?) are set to become the new epicenters of "Western Civilization". NATO becomes a confusing cold-war relic designed to fight... Itself?

 

[Boost6]

Do we really want the EU heavily militarized considering that its member-states are set to become third-world flashpoints within a generation? It's a controversial question, but it's still pertinent. Who is going to inherit these weapons?

On one hand, US taxpayers are footing the bill for European pseudo-socialism via its total reliance on the American military. On the other hand, that neglect could become a hidden blessing as western European countries cease to be worthwhile allies and turn into potential theaters.

Uk and France have nukes, guess who's taking over them bud. So you might as well help arm the hell out of the eastern sates as its with them that Western civilization will prevail or fall.

Something more openly discussed/less controversial: NATO itself has become archaic. Eastern Europe (and Australia?) are set to become the new epicenters of "Western Civilization". NATO becomes a confusing cold-war relic designed to fight... Itself?

Russian and especially China are the obvious enemies.

 

[JDragon]

And I'm saying if Germany and Canada (or any other NATO members) disagree with that annual 2% target (a number that they actually exceeded voluntarily when the Soviet Union is still intact), why did they agree to it in the first place? If there's a change or heart between 2006 and now, why didn't they stand up and make the suggestion to lower that commitment target when the issue was once again brought up at the NATO meeting last month?

Or better yet, why not just suggest that the alliance do away with firm defense spending targets all together, if you truly think it doesn't matter and "other contributions" from everyone are already enough to sustain this alliance?

I hate to see other NATO members going Full Trudeau with lame excuses about "holistic contribution" in "other things", like delivering troops or participating in exercises. Those "other things" are something that you do on top of the 2% investments on your own military just to keep it functional.

Those "other things" doesn't actually replaces Germany's crumbling barracks, Germany's assault rifles that fail to shoots straight in hot weather, or the fact that only 29 out of 93 of Germany's commissioned jet fighters are combat-ready.

As of right now, there are still only 5 NATO members who do all those "other things" for our alliance each year, but not for one second do we ever think those costly activities should be deducted from our defense spending target. Because that is NOT what we collectively agreed on. What would happen to NATO forces if those 5 countries start using the same logic and just do "other things" as the other 23?

Making a clean-cut pledge to your allies and then actually keeping your word to keep the alliance strong is not "blind", it shows responsibility as a member.

Expecting everyone at the table to do something that they unanimously agreed to do is not being "isolationist" or "ridiculously stupid". It's actually something normal that grown-ups do quite regularly.

You wrote a lot with lots of furor without actually addressing my point. Sure, we will increase spending as we have committed to do so. Relative targets just simply do nothing to achieve anything.

What do we want to achieve? Which capabilities do which member states need to bring to the table? When do they have to do so? These are the questions we gotta answer. As you said, it is not acceptable that Germany's military is not combat ready in large parts. But the solution is not to pour in more money in relative terms. Again, Trump is preparing for a trade war with Europe and specifically Germany. If he manages to reduce the German GDP by slashing German exports to the US, German spending percentage as share of the GDP will rise. Like in the case of Greece.

Would that help anyone with regards to NATO? Of course not. My point is the metric is crap.

Adding more money in absolute terms is feasible and is being done. Germany increased its military budget by 10 percent last year. An increase to 2% is just not gonna happen overnight. What should it be spent on? And more, there's delays on the A400M, the helicopters Tiger and NH90, so there's a lot of stuff the Bundeswehr right now would like to spend money on but just can't (yet).

So getting to 2% is going to happen eventually, but a step change overnight is just neither necessary nor a particularly good idea. The better idea would be to agree to combat readiness and equipment quality targets.

 

[Supereem]

Greece is only there because its economy is fucked while military expenditure remained fairly stable iirc. It is not as if Greece has some kind of killer military. It is just another example of their ridiculously ineffective and bloated public sector.

If Trump succeeds at crushing imports from Germany, it will obviously hurt the German economy and assuming no cuts for the Bundeswehr, our spending as % of GDP will rise. Yaaay! Would accomplish nothing but look good on paper.

Again, I am not saying we should not increase military spending (we should and we already do), but blindly looking at the 2% figure just leads nowhere.

Greece has a shit load of tanks (I've heard more than Britain and France combined). It has compulsory military service and an exceptional navy. It has actually seen budget cuts. It's equipment ranges from state of the art to obsolete (but what armies doesn't these days?).

Greece has always poured a huge percent of its GDP into the military because of Turkey. They are one of the most reliable and ready forces in the EU, and won't be fucking around if war comes (unlike half of Europe).

 

[JDragon]

Greece has a shit load of tanks (I've heard more than Britain and France combined). It has compulsory military service and an exceptional navy. It has actually seen budget cuts. It's equipment ranges from state of the art to obsolete (but what armies doesn't these days?).

Greece has always poured a huge percent of its GDP into the military because of Turkey. They are one of the most reliable and ready forces in the EU, and won't be fucking around if war comes (unlike half of Europe).

Glad I added a iirc in order not to come across too sure about that.

As a matter of fact, I was just plain wrong it turns out.

My general point stands, though. The 2% target only exists because we don't even agree what NATO is supposed to achieve or to be able to do. "Spend more money" is not a target. Germany is planning to increase its military spending by 10% each year, so we would achieve the 2% goal in 2024 or so.

 

[Supereem]

Glad I added a iirc in order not to come across too sure about that.

As a matter of fact, I was just plain wrong it turns out.

My general point stands, though. The 2% target only exists because we don't even agree what NATO is supposed to achieve or to be able to do. "Spend more money" is not a target. Germany is planning to increase its military spending by 10% each year, so we would achieve the 2% goal in 2024 or so.

And Greece doesn't do it for NATO, they do it incase of Turkish invasion (which in the context of this thread is hilarious because they are both NATO countries).

 

[HAWTRIDDUM]

Estonia produces the most supermodels per capita than anywhere in the world

Tall thin and beautiful

Operation repopulation shouldn't be an issue for sherdog then.

 

[snakedafunky]

This WW1-WW2 cop-out is complete hogwash, courtesy of the Cold War.

Being a German, you should know your own country's history, particularly the bit about NATO member West Germany spending well over 3% of its GDP on defense in the 1980s, and no one in their West had a problem with that whatsoever. The German people certainly didn't have a problem with rebuilding their military when the Soviets are right on the other side of the Berlin Wall, neither did any of the Western allies who once fought against Nazi Germany half a generation before that.

So I ask you, why would Germany still needs "a generation or two" to recover the "military structures" dismantled 70 years ago, when those things have already been rebuilt 35 years ago?

You have to understand the political situation Germany is in. I don't think you realize how controversial the Bundeswehr or specially German soldiers in foreign conflicts are in older generations.
A large percentage of Germans certainly had an issue with spending the money during the cold war. You need to check the "friedensbewegungen" from the 1980's in Germany.
It was just simply needed due to the cold war. As soon as the cold war ended Germany did something called "Friedensdividende".
After the cold war you also had 1/3 of the population that lived under foreign occupation. East Germans are even more against military spending compared to the West.

We did not rebuilt our military for years. We were a pawn for the Americans to be used as the first line of defense. That is why we have all those issues right now (besides the funding).
Because we did not rebuilt our military the way it would have been necessary with a strong Navy and airforce. We were basically a defensive Tank Army.
We need a Military that can stand on its own. We are the 4th richest country in the world we should have the 4th strongest millitray.
That what would be a rebuilding of the Military not lots of Tanks trying to hold a Soviet invasion at the Rhine before the Americans arrive.

That information has been posted here 4 months ago, by the way. Which means you didn't read the thread, or simply being disingenuous in trying to find a new excuse as to why Germany, the biggest powerhouse of Europe, is currently not meeting the defense spending it pledged in 2006, despite its military is literally crumbling.

Germany is not failing on their NATO pledges because of Hitler's legacy.

Germany choose not to meet that 2% target right now (and save their once-proud Bundeswehr from becoming a joke) because the German government no longer feel the urgent needs to do so.

No not solely because of the Fuhrer's legacy. But it is certainly part of it. No excuses from me I think we should pay the 2% I am just trying to offer reason why we don't.
The Bundeswehr was never proud. Because it is not based on German Military history.
But yeah I agree with your main point Germany is choosing not to pay it. But that has many reasons including the history.

 

[Goonerview]

NATO is out of date.

I wouldn't care if NATO disbanded

 

[Squarechoke]

Riiiiight. Until Europe needs the US to save their asses, AGAIN.

Or just have Russia do it, and just have the US try to take credit, like in WWII.