NATO

[JohnR]

Generally mixed on this. Trump is doing a good job to eff up a situation that both needs more stability, and needs more accountability by its member states. I really wish we had a better understanding on how beholden to VVP he is.

T has been pretty hard on NATO but in the big picture he is not wrong - though the delivery sucks in Trump fashion.

He is basically stating that NATO member nations should be paying their fair share of their own defense (absolutely correct) and instead are relying, at our expense, the USA to bail them out if the sh!t hits the fan.

Only a handful (4?) of NATO members are actually meeting the 2% GDP baseline. Germany is the most guilty as they are a little over 1% (1.1%) yet have one of the strongest economies in the world. They are also the most resistant to growth. German tanks now cannot fight, their planes not fly, and their ships not sail.

Promising to meet 2% by 2025 is a chuckle. This was always the unofficial baseline and dipped below that in the mid 90s. At the height of the Cold War the percentages were 3-4% of GDP spending to hopefully hold the Fulda Gap. The repeated hounding by the US for member nations to pull their weight is not new.

We do need a strong NATO but we also need NATO members to do their fair share and few of them are, particularly those with the means.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Generally mixed on this. Trump is doing a good job to eff up a situation that both needs more stability, and needs more accountability by its member states. I really wish we had a better understanding on how beholden to VVP he is.

T has been pretty hard on NATO but in the big picture he is not wrong - though the delivery sucks in Trump fashion.

He is basically stating that NATO member nations should be paying their fair share of their own defense (absolutely correct) and instead are relying, at our expense, the USA to bail them out if the sh!t hits the fan.

Only a handful (4?) of NATO members are actually meeting the 2% GDP baseline. Germany is the most guilty as they are a little over 1% (1.1%) yet have one of the strongest economies in the world. They are also the most resistant to growth. German tanks now cannot fight, their planes not fly, and their ships not sail.

Promising to meet 2% by 2025 is a chuckle. This was always the unofficial baseline and dipped below that in the mid 90s. At the height of the Cold War the percentages were 3-4% of GDP spending to hopefully hold the Fulda Gap. The repeated hounding by the US for member nations to pull their weight is not new.

We do need a strong NATO but we also need NATO members to do their fair share and few of them are, particularly those with the means.

The lack of serious effort to provide for their own defense may be an indication that they are not really worried about Russia. Maybe the next step is to actually engage Russia economically. Perhaps, good relations are better than defensive standoffs.

Europe has not yet been able to solidify a governmental unity. The EU is now as much a threat to its member states as it is a comfort. Eastern Europe wanted into membership as a protection against Russia. But it has a long memory of Western Europe dominating and pillaging it as it has of Russia doing it. And the Eastern Europeans didn't exactly get along with each other.

The European cultural divide may be stronger than any desire for unity. Everyone is a member of the UN. But there is no overall unity.

The progressive desire has long been for a unified world. Russia and China would be a huge portion of that world. To be unified requires satisfying self interests. If that is to be achieved, everyone's interests must be satisfied.

What would convince Russia and China and the West to harmoniously join in that One World? War or Trade?

As an aside, Trump asking NATO members to pay their share is referred to as "attacking" NATO. That seems, to me, like saying that parents attack their children when they scold them for misbehaving.

[Pete F.]

How much is enough military spending?
Total military spending in the world is more than $200 per person
We spend more than $1800 per person

Total military spending hit a new high in 2017, at $1.7 trillion—an increase of 1.1 percent on 2016. According to Jan Eliasson, Chair of the SIPRI Governing Board, “Continuing high world military expenditure is a cause for serious concern. It undermines the search for peaceful solutions to conflicts around the world.”

Perceived Russian aggression likely drove higher spending in NATO nations, especially the 12 percent increase among Central European countries. Total NATO spending in 2017 was $900 billion, accounting for 52 percent of all global spending.

Russia has now fallen to fourth in global military spending, leapfrogged by an increasingly outward-looking Saudi Arabia. The kingdom increased expenditure by 9.2 per cent last year, reaching a total of $69.4 billion.

The U.S. retains the top spot by a significant distance at $610 billion, and accounts for 35 percent of all global military expenditure—more than the next seven highest-spending nations combined. America’s defense budget stayed largely static in 2016 and 2017, but is expected to jump in 2018 as President Donald Trump’s new budget plan goes into force.

Second-place China has continued to up its military investment. Beijing’s expenditure of $228 billion represented 13 percent of total world spending, up from 5.8 percent in 2008. China is currently pursuing a comprehensive modernization of its forces as it seeks to establish itself as a top-tier global power capable of force projection. This in itself has encouraged higher spending by its Asian rivals.

Unsurprisingly, seven of the 10 countries bearing the highest military burden are located in the ever-tense Middle East. Oman was the highest at 12 percent of GDP, Saudi Arabia 10 percent, Kuwait 5.8 percent, Jordan 4.8 percent, Israel 4.7 percent, Lebanon 4.5 percent and Bahrain 4.1 percent.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

How much is enough military spending?
Total military spending in the world is more than $200 per person
We spend more than $1800 per person

Total military spending hit a new high in 2017, at $1.7 trillion—an increase of 1.1 percent on 2016. According to Jan Eliasson, Chair of the SIPRI Governing Board, “Continuing high world military expenditure is a cause for serious concern. It undermines the search for peaceful solutions to conflicts around the world.”

Perceived Russian aggression likely drove higher spending in NATO nations, especially the 12 percent increase among Central European countries. Total NATO spending in 2017 was $900 billion, accounting for 52 percent of all global spending.

Russia has now fallen to fourth in global military spending, leapfrogged by an increasingly outward-looking Saudi Arabia. The kingdom increased expenditure by 9.2 per cent last year, reaching a total of $69.4 billion.

The U.S. retains the top spot by a significant distance at $610 billion, and accounts for 35 percent of all global military expenditure—more than the next seven highest-spending nations combined. America’s defense budget stayed largely static in 2016 and 2017, but is expected to jump in 2018 as President Donald Trump’s new budget plan goes into force.

Second-place China has continued to up its military investment. Beijing’s expenditure of $228 billion represented 13 percent of total world spending, up from 5.8 percent in 2008. China is currently pursuing a comprehensive modernization of its forces as it seeks to establish itself as a top-tier global power capable of force projection. This in itself has encouraged higher spending by its Asian rivals.

Unsurprisingly, seven of the 10 countries bearing the highest military burden are located in the ever-tense Middle East. Oman was the highest at 12 percent of GDP, Saudi Arabia 10 percent, Kuwait 5.8 percent, Jordan 4.8 percent, Israel 4.7 percent, Lebanon 4.5 percent and Bahrain 4.1 percent.

How much is the cost of Global Peace? Yes there have been wars and yes there have been far, far too many dead. Terrible costs in both blood and treasure.

But there has not been a global Hot War in nearly 80 years because of this nation. Yes there have been some spectacular eff ups along the way but no other country has done more to maker the peace than the one with the largest mil budget.

Now with that said, our budget is probably least efficient because we spend more personnel cost than anyone (ohh, and stupid / broken procurement).

[Fishpart]

My guess is the Germans don't see a need to spend because now there is a much wider buffer between them and the Russians. I guess their position is that if and when the Russians actually make it to the German border they will be pretty tired of fighting their way across the former Soviet Republics who will likely put up some serious resistance.

[Pete F.]

Others might have a different viewpoint of war
In WW2 of the more than 60 million people who died in the war
20 million russians died
5 million germans died
less than half a million Americans died

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Fishpart

My guess is the Germans don't see a need to spend because now there is a much wider buffer between them and the Russians. I guess their position is that if and when the Russians actually make it to the German border they will be pretty tired of fighting their way across the former Soviet Republics who will likely put up some serious resistance.

Oh soooooo absolutely agree, but that is not supporting NATO.

Eastern German border is only 350 miles from Belarus which is really the westernmost extent of RUS army. 250 miles from the Sulwaki Gap (roughly analogous to the Fulda Gap of yesteryear). 600 from Russia proper (KGrad being a problem but not the main problem). So while the likelihood of something kicking off isn't high, it may be nearing as high as in the early 80s - which is significantly worse than 15 years ago.

Interesting Fun Fact, Poland has more operational German tanks than Germany - that is where we are. That is one example of the problem NATO has at the moment.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Others might have a different viewpoint of war
In WW2 of the more than 60 million people who died in the war
20 million russians died
5 million germans died
less than half a million Americans died

Absolutely, war is hell and should be avoided as much as absolutely possible. There has also not been a global, industrial scale hot war in 70+ years.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Absolutely, war is hell and should be avoided as much as absolutely possible. There has also not been a global, industrial scale hot war in 70+ years.

"The soldier above all others prays for peace, for it is the soldier who must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war."

Douglas MacArthur

[Pete F.]

The russian military budget is 47 Billion
The USA 647 Billion
Add the rest of NATO, another 300 Billion
from Global Firepower an interesting site
There is way more to it than just money

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The russian military budget is 47 Billion
The USA 647 Billion
Add the rest of NATO, another 300 Billion
from Global Firepower an interesting site
There is way more to it than just money

Yes, now look at expenditures as a percentage going towards equipment, not personnel, costs.

RUS is not buying a lot of new kit, but they are modernizing a lot of their old gear and have modernized a lot of that gear over the past 10 years. They broke a significant part of their funds to do it.

Why?

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Absolutely, war is hell and should be avoided as much as absolutely possible. There has also not been a global, industrial scale hot war in 70+ years.

As costly as war back then was in loss of life, can you imagine what the loss would be to life and the ecosystem if someone get's their finger on a nuclear button. One would think that after all the global conflicts resulting in so much loss of life, we would find a way to globally play nicely in the sandbox called earth. If we don't generations from now are going to be in deep crap and paying for our mishandling of their world.

[DZ]

I've worked at an institute of higher military learning for many years. The topic of NATO burden sharing is not a new one. Just about every president has addressed it.

Read this from 2014 and some of you may be surprised:

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs...-t-do-it-alone

Even militarization of space (Space Force) has been/is a serious topic of future concern.

Like most issues they are complex and we cannot oversimplify them.

[Pete F.]

A quote attributed to Alfred Einstein
"I don't know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought with, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones"
Unfortunately the world is always one fool away from war.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Yes, now look at expenditures as a percentage going towards equipment, not personnel, costs.

RUS is not buying a lot of new kit, but they are modernizing a lot of their old gear and have modernized a lot of that gear over the past 10 years. They broke a significant part of their funds to do it.

Why?

Because we are because china is because Nato is ??

Nato had already agreed to get to 2% by 2024 "But demands of 2% 'immediately; undermines US commitment to existing obligations."

then he suggested moving the goal post to 4%

this is a Trend for Trump then the Russian Gas thing he is just pissed they wont buy ours

and this comment

"Yesterday I let them know that I was extremely unhappy with what was happening," Trump said, adding that, in response, European countries agreed to up their spending.

"They have substantially upped their commitment and now we're very happy and have a very, very powerful, very, very strong NATO," he said.


Now he try's to make himself look he accomplished something

"I can you tell you that NATO now is a really a fine-tuned machine. People are paying money that they never paid before. They're happy to do it. And the United States is being treated much more fairly.

its so so used car salesman its sad...

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by DZ

I've worked at an institute of higher military learning for many years. The topic of NATO burden sharing is not a new one. Just about every president has addressed it.

Read this from 2014 and some of you may be surprised:

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs...-t-do-it-alone

Even militarization of space (Space Force) has been/is a serious topic of future concern.

Like most issues they are complex and we cannot oversimplify them.

yes many past POTUS have addressed this issue and we cannot oversimplify them but someone Forgot to tell Trump he huffed and puffed and still walked away with 2% by 2024 from Nato

but for his fan base at home he showed them who's large and in charge and how an alpha male gets things done MAGA .. facts details dont matter its all about the show ... And Trump is Fantastic at it...
I'll give him that

[Pete F.]

Look at Germany’s commitment to renewables
Their goal is to need as little as possible from others
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by DZ

I've worked at an institute of higher military learning for many years. The topic of NATO burden sharing is not a new one. Just about every president has addressed it.

Read this from 2014 and some of you may be surprised:

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs...-t-do-it-alone

Even militarization of space (Space Force) has been/is a serious topic of future concern.

Like most issues they are complex and we cannot oversimplify them.

Yes - and it has been an issue addressed by Obama, and Bob Gates & Gen Craddock, all under previous admin. 2% by 2025, frankly, is almost a joke when compared to the seriousness of the situation.

Many of these countries that have the means yet are spending the least but are expecting the US to make up the difference. Few of the countries meeting existing obligations are the ones with the deep pockets.

Those countries with Deep Pockets can't sail, can't fly, and can't hold ground. The country most responsible for the political and economic engine of Europe cannot defend itself.

Originally Posted by wdmso

Because we are because china is because Nato is ??

Nato had already agreed to get to 2% by 2024 "But demands of 2% 'immediately; undermines US commitment to existing obligations."

then he suggested moving the goal post to 4%

this is a Trend for Trump then the Russian Gas thing he is just pissed they wont buy ours

and this comment

"Yesterday I let them know that I was extremely unhappy with what was happening," Trump said, adding that, in response, European countries agreed to up their spending.

"They have substantially upped their commitment and now we're very happy and have a very, very powerful, very, very strong NATO," he said.


Now he try's to make himself look he accomplished something

"I can you tell you that NATO now is a really a fine-tuned machine. People are paying money that they never paid before. They're happy to do it. And the United States is being treated much more fairly.

its so so used car salesman its sad...

Not sure what to make of this??

Originally Posted by wdmso

yes many past POTUS have addressed this issue and we cannot oversimplify them but someone Forgot to tell Trump he huffed and puffed and still walked away with 2% by 2024 from Nato

but for his fan base at home he showed them who's large and in charge and how an alpha male gets things done MAGA .. facts details dont matter its all about the show ... And Trump is Fantastic at it...
I'll give him that

Gee, sure hope 2024 is soon enough.

[PaulS]

I think both Japan and Germany are of similar mindset and they still remember their aggressive past. They've gotten better recently but still have a ways to go.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Trump did a great job at the summit as he said he got all of the participants to increase their allocations.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Same MO. Create chaos, accomplish little of value to the US or our allies and declare victory because it strokes his ego. Sure we have legit issues with NATO but the trust he undermined in just a few days isn’t a good thing at all for our national security. Putin is smiling.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I think both Japan and Germany are of similar mindset and they still remember their aggressive past. They've gotten better recently but still have a ways to go.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think they both have aged better but Japan understands that their neighbors across the straits do not want to be accommodating. Granted China has reasons to be pissed.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Same MO. Create chaos, accomplish little of value to the US or our allies and declare victory because it strokes his ego. Sure we have legit issues with NATO but the trust he undermined in just a few days isn’t a good thing at all for our national security. Putin is smiling.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

quit whining...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Same MO. Create chaos, accomplish little of value to the US or our allies and declare victory because it strokes his ego. Sure we have legit issues with NATO but the trust he undermined in just a few days isn’t a good thing at all for our national security. Putin is smiling.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your specificity, as usual, is so beautifully vague . . . you are the poet of floating words . . . grand notions fluttering like butterfly wings . . . touching here and there . . . occasionally close to ground.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Your specificity, as usual, is so beautifully vague . . . you are the poet of floating words . . . grand notions fluttering like butterfly wings . . . touching here and there . . . occasionally close to ground.

Well be specific then
Do you believe we should be part of NATO
Is the USA an important part of the
current world order?
Should the USA be involved in issues outside our borders?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Well be specific then
Do you believe we should be part of NATO

I've been very specific about my basic beliefs regarding the USA. I answer a lot of questions directed at me. You mostly shy away from direct answers. You like to make suggestions. I have tried to discuss a few threads you started and you just went away. I tried to be specific in your threads re health care. You brought up various worldwide statistics as if that was supposed to suggest some kind of specificity. And had no direct opinion, for instance on the market based clinics that were far more affordable than most of the world wide state models of health care that you suggested, I guess, could be copied.

So I am not inclined to answer questions by you since it seems to be a one way exercise. You ask, but you don't answer.

But I'll give it a try here. If Europe was really united, it would not need the U.S. to be a partner in defense against Russia. The EU has far more wealth and research capability than Russia. A united Europe that had the will and desire, should be able to militarily crush Russia. If it doesn't have the will and desire to defend itself, why should we spend blood and treasure to do it.

Our federal government should spend only on those things it is given the power to do under the Constitution. Military defense of the country is one of the main constitutional duties of the federal government. We should quit nationally spending trillions of dollars on funding our European style administrative state, and revert to being American. We should be powerful enough to defend ourselves against any threat.

And if anyone wishes to freely trade with us on a mutually advantageous basis, welcome. And if they join us as freedom loving, free market people, it could well be in our interest to mutually join in defensive or offensive alliances against those who wish to do us harm. But let it be known that there is zero tolerance for those who illegitimately harm one American. That we are willing and able to assert all out military might against those who would wrongly cut off the head of one American.

Right now, Europe is a mess imploding on itself. And that's not because of Trump or the U.S. The notion that Trump is undermining some notion of trust by sticking our boot up Europe's lazy, selfish, socialist azz to stir it out of its self-indulgent stupor, is pathetic demagoguery. If we're to spend time, effort, money, and manpower to provide comfort against Russia, while we are becoming more like the Euros in this country, that does not make for a good alliance.

I don't think we should be a part of NATO if trade is not free and the Euros depend more on us than themselves.

Actually, an alliance with Eastern European countries who are fervent in their desire to participate against a Russian threat would be, in my estimation, a healthier alliance than NATO as it has become.

Is the USA an important part of the
current world order?

When I mentioned the world order on this forum, it was dismissed by "liberals" as right wing kookiness. I think the USA is important, so long as it maintains its unique society based on the Declaration and its Constitution, world order or not. If we become like the rest of the world, we are of no particular importance as a country.

Should the USA be involved in issues outside our borders?

See above.

[wdmso]

then off to England and says this

Trump

Europe as a whole was "losing its culture" because of immigration from the Middle East and Africa.


What a statement from the POTUS!! the Leader the American people from land of Immigrants .... making new friend where ever he goes

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Well be specific then
Do you believe we should be part of NATO
Is the USA an important part of the
current world order?
Should the USA be involved in issues outside our borders?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, we should be part of NATO and like all good partnerships, they only work when everyone pitches in - most of Europe needs to step in for THEIR protection.

Originally Posted by wdmso

then off to England and says this

Trump

Europe as a whole was "losing its culture" because of immigration from the Middle East and Africa.


What a statement from the POTUS!! the Leader the American people from land of Immigrants .... making new friend where ever he goes

Europe is losing its culture to a degree. Immigrants really need to assimilate, those that do tend to do well, those that don't assimilate tend be disruptive to themselves or the host nation.

For all of our problems, the USA has done a better job of assimilating than other countries. Though in recent decades the assimilation part seems not as strong (how much is the lens of history, how much the encouragement of identity politics)

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by wdmso

then off to England and says this

Trump

Europe as a whole was "losing its culture" because of immigration from the Middle East and Africa.


What a statement from the POTUS!! the Leader the American people from land of Immigrants .... making new friend where ever he goes

You know why we press 1 for English?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Your specificity, as usual, is so beautifully vague . . . you are the poet of floating words . . . grand notions fluttering like butterfly wings . . . touching here and there . . . occasionally close to ground.

Trying to summarize.