Make America Great Again

[pamak]

The issue is not "Trump is playing with fire by not supporting it (NATO)", but rather it is Trump calling for the NATO membership to meet their agreed fiscal commitment as members. And, if one watched real news, the US ambassador to NATO observed membership is responding to his complaint.

From what I recall, there is not a specific GDP percentage that each member has agreed to spend for its defense. So, here we have a judgement call regarding what percentage expresses fiscal commitment or not. Trump may think that the current spending level is not enough while some EU countries may think that their current spending level is quite adequate in expressing their fiscal commitment and any increase of military spending is a waste of money.

Personally, I do not see the point of increasing military spending. Compare the current level of EU quantity and quality of military equipment to that of Russia. Does the EU have a material and technological disadvantage In conventional weapons? Is there any qualitative or quantitative advantage in the conscript Russian army compared to the mostly conscript armies of the EU? Does Russia has a population advantage compared to the EU? I do not think so. So, what is the plan here? Having the EU increase its nuclear weapons power? Only two countries (Britain and France) can do this, since I have not heard any calls to the EU countries to leave the Nonproliferation Treaty. To my knowledge the US does not complain about the UK which is considered a dependable ally, and France has been historically more independent in its commitment to NATO compared to the other EU countries . So, what is the objective here? Having the continental EU countries pump more money to get more conventional weapons?

If the EU has a military problem against Russia, I do not see it as a problem of quantity of quality or military equipment and personnel. The problem for the EU, is that it does not have a unified command to use all its military resources efficiently in case of a crisis. But this problem is not solved by increasing military expenses.

[R.N. Armstrong]

According to NATO's own figures, only 5 of 28 alliance members meet the requirement agreed upon in 2006--at least 2% of their GDP on defense.

[pamak]

According to NATO's own figures, only 5 of 28 alliance members meet the requirement agreed upon in 2006--at least 2% of their GDP on defense.

This was not a hard commitment...

https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2006/s060608m.htm

Press Briefing

by NATO Spokesman, James Appathurai
after the meeting of the North Atlantic Council
at the level of Defence Ministers

...

Finally, I should add that Allies through the comprehensive political guidance have committed to endeavour, to meet the 2% target of GDP devoted to defence spending. Let me be clear, this is not a hard commitment that they will do it. But it is a commitment to work towards it.


If there should be any pressure, then this should be towards a reduction of the current military spending because as I explained there is no need for the EU to seek additional military equipment to confront Russia.

You see, I am more "Trumpist" than Trump and his supporters when it is about building better relations with Russia. There is no need to have such increases in EU military expenditures when the EU has already a military advantage in military material and population terms over Russia. Such increase of military expenditures is more like a provocation than anything else which will trigger an arms race. It seems that Trump just tries to pander to his base by scolding the "socialist" Europeans and by supporitng an increase of military expenditures in general

[T. A. Gardner]

Yea, and the reason the European countries aren't spending 2% on defense has more to do with the massive cost of their social-welfare states than anything else. As for military capacity... The EU states couldn't handle supporting the Libyan revolt. Sweden sent some aircraft to Italy only to find that the Italians couldn't even supply the correct grade of jet fuel for them. Then there was Bosnia. That took direct US intervention as the Europeans were completely incapable of dealing with that situation.

The EU certainly couldn't handle a major war right now, even on their own turf.

[Emtos]

Why spending money when you do ?

[pamak]

Yea, and the reason the European countries aren't spending 2% on defense has more to do with the massive cost of their social-welfare states than anything else. As for military capacity... The EU states couldn't handle supporting the Libyan revolt. Sweden sent some aircraft to Italy only to find that the Italians couldn't even supply the correct grade of jet fuel for them. Then there was Bosnia. That took direct US intervention as the Europeans were completely incapable of dealing with that situation.

The EU certainly couldn't handle a major war right now, even on their own turf.

Who cares about the reason they do not want to spend 2%. The point is if the current level of spending is enough to have the necessary military equipment and army to confront Russia in case of a crisis. And from what I recall, the EU does have a superior army in quantitative and qualitative terms because the EU is just way bigger compared to Russia. So why should not they spend more money for social healthcare instead of wasting it to boost the profits of the military industry?

[R.N. Armstrong]

Who cares? American tax payers who would like to see more money in our own defense force, improving the infrastructure, and improving our border control. I'm not sure how superior EU armies are, they seem to be having a lot of trouble dealing with refugees, let alone an armed invasion.

[Arnold J Rimmer]

Who cares? American tax payers who would like to see more money in our own defense force, improving the infrastructure, and improving our border control. I'm not sure how superior EU armies are, they seem to be having a lot of trouble dealing with refugees, let alone an armed invasion.

Their track record speaks for itself. Other than the Brits it is a long list of bloody defeats and even more costly victories.

[pamak]

Who cares? American tax payers who would like to see more money in our own defense force, improving the infrastructure, and improving our border control. I'm not sure how superior EU armies are, they seem to be having a lot of trouble dealing with refugees, let alone an armed invasion.

It is not the army's job to deal with the refugees. If I recall well, we have even removed the minefields in the borders to make sure that we do not have refugee casualties. If you are not sure about the superiority of the EU army, then it is better to check such things before asking people to give more money to the defense. because such money will be removed from somewhere else which is also valued by the EU tax payer.
I have not followed the armament statistics lately. Last time I checked these things the EU was quite comfortable ahead of Russia in almost every category from MBTs to airplanes. The EU is also probably superior in qualitative technological terms and certainly superior in manpower terms!

[pamak]

Their track record speaks for itself. Other than the Brits it is a long list of bloody defeats and even more costly victories.

This is an inflaming post . Moderators should notice the developing trend in a conversation which up until now goes smoothly...

[Emtos]

US already spents enormous amout of money on military, so the problem is rather on your side and not on the European one.

[ljadw]

It is not the army's job to deal with the refugees. If I recall well, we have even removed the minefields in the borders to make sure that we do not have refugee casualties. If you are not sure about the superiority of the EU army, then it is better to check such things before asking people to give more money to the defense. because such money will be removed from somewhere else which is also valued by the EU tax payer.
I have not followed the armament statistics lately. Last time I checked these things the EU was quite comfortable ahead of Russia in almost every category from MBTs to airplanes. The EU is also probably superior in qualitative technological terms and certainly superior in manpower terms!

There is no such thing as the EU Army .

[ljadw]

From what I recall, there is not a specific GDP percentage that each member has agreed to spend for its defense. So, here we have a judgement call regarding what percentage expresses fiscal commitment or not. Trump may think that the current spending level is not enough while some EU countries may think that their current spending level is quite adequate in expressing their fiscal commitment and any increase of military spending is a waste of money.

Personally, I do not see the point of increasing military spending. Compare the current level of EU quantity and quality of military equipment to that of Russia. Does the EU have a material and technological disadvantage In conventional weapons? Is there any qualitative or quantitative advantage in the conscript Russian army compared to the mostly conscript armies of the EU? Does Russia has a population advantage compared to the EU? I do not think so. So, what is the plan here? Having the EU increase its nuclear weapons power? Only two countries (Britain and France) can do this, since I have not heard any calls to the EU countries to leave the Nonproliferation Treaty. To my knowledge the US does not complain about the UK which is considered a dependable ally, and France has been historically more independent in its commitment to NATO compared to the other EU countries . So, what is the objective here? Having the continental EU countries pump more money to get more conventional weapons?

If the EU has a military problem against Russia, I do not see it as a problem of quantity of quality or military equipment and personnel. The problem for the EU, is that it does not have a unified command to use all its military resources efficiently in case of a crisis. But this problem is not solved by increasing military expenses.

If there is no problem, why does Nato still exist and why are the European states begging : Yankee come back .The Europeans are unwilling to pay for their defence.

[pamak]

If there is no problem, why does Nato still exist and why are the European states begging : Yankee come back .The Europeans are unwilling to pay for their defence.

I do not know where you saw the begging. In truth I come from the Southern part of NATO, so I am familiar with only the modern Greek perspective which was that the NATO was completely worthless for Greece because our adversary was actually Turkey and not Russia. And when Turkey invaded Cyprus, NATO proved that it was useless in supporting Greece to face such threats. The ONLY reason that Greece has to be a NATO member is because Turkey is a NATO member and since such membership gives access benefits to the US weapon systems it made sense for Greece to also be a participant and not let Turkey enjoy an advantage in military purchases. But if tomorrow NATO is withdrawn from Europe, the modern Greeks will not lose their sleep at all.

Ohh, and by the way, Greece was consistently among the countries with very high military expenses. Our GDP portion for our defense was always wayy above the 2%. I am not familiar about the situation now after the economic crisis, but in 1990's when I served in the Greek army, I think we were close to have a 4% share of GDP spent for the defense. If I recall well, it was the US, Turkey and Greece as the top spenders in NATO.

[Half Pint John]

If there is no problem, why does Nato still exist and why are the European states begging : Yankee come back .The Europeans are unwilling to pay for their defence.

Which ones?