Revealed: The NATO slackers

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,429
1,668
113
Data has revealed the NATO countries who are not spending enough on defence to warrant Donald Trump using US forces to protect them from an attack.

The President-elect caused alarm during his election campaign by suggesting Washington would think twice about coming to the aid of an endangered NATO ally if it had not paid its dues.

The alliance has set a target for its members of spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence - but the likes of France, Germany and Canada are among more than 20 members not meeting the objective, figures show.

Revealed, the NATO slackers: Why Trump is so infuriated by countries spending less than half their fare share on European defence (and we should be too)


NATO has set its members a target of spending 2% of GDP on defence

France, Germany, Canada and Latvia among countries not meeting target

Trump had earlier suggested US would think twice about coming to the aid of nations who do not meet the recommended spend


By Julian Robinson for MailOnline
14 November 2016

Data has revealed the NATO countries who are not spending enough on defence to warrant Donald Trump using US forces to protect them from an attack.

The President-elect caused alarm during his election campaign by suggesting Washington would think twice about coming to the aid of an endangered NATO ally if it had not paid its dues.

The alliance has set a target for its members of spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence - but the likes of France, Germany and Canada are among more than 20 members not meeting the objective, figures show.


Data has revealed the NATO countries not spending enough on defence to warrant Donald Trump using US forces to protect them from an attack


The alliance has set a target for its members of spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence - but the likes of France, Germany and Canada are among more than 20 members not meeting the objective, figures show

Even Eastern European NATO members Latvia - bordering Russia - and neighbouring Lithuania are projected to spend less than the target level in 2016.

Slovakia and Hungary - both bordering Ukraine - do not meet the 2 per cent recommendation either, according to defenseone.

Mr Trump provoked alarm earlier this year by saying that the military alliance was created to confront a threat - the Soviet Union - that no longer exists and has called the alliance 'obsolete' and a bad deal for America.

He argues that the US gets too little out of decades-old security partnerships like NATO, which is anchored in Europe but traditionally led by America.

In an interview earlier this year he said he would look to see whether countries had 'fulfilled their obligations to us' before deciding whether to come to their aid in the event of a Russian attack.


The President-elect caused alarm during his election campaign by suggesting Washington would think twice about coming to the aid of an endangered NATO ally if it had not paid its dues


In an interview earlier this year Trump said he would look to see whether countries had 'fulfilled their obligations to us' before deciding whether to come to their aid in the event of a Russian attack

The 70-year-old also hit out at EU countries who are not paying their share of the bill for NATO. America picks up more than 70 per cent of the cost.

Britain, Greece, Estonia and Poland are the only other four of the 28 members to have signed up to the spending target.

But the likes of France (1.8 per cent), Canada (1 per cent) and Germany (1.2 per cent) are not reaching the suggested level of expenditure.

Slovenia, Spain, Belgium and Luxembourg spend less than 1 per cent on defence, the statistics show.

Portugal, Bulgaria, Croatia, Albania, Denmark, Germany, Holland, Slovakia, Italy, Czech Republic, Hungary and Canada all spend between 1 per cent and 1.4 per cent.

Meanwhile, France, Turkey, Norway, Lithuania, Romania and Latvia spend between 1.5 and 1.9 per cent of GDP of defence.

Yesterday, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg issued a stark warning that 'going it alone is not an option' following Trump's stunning US election victory.


Mr Trump provoked alarm earlier this year by saying that the military alliance was created to confront a threat - the Soviet Union - that no longer exists and has called the alliance 'obsolete' and a bad deal for America. Soldiers are pictured during a NATO exercise in Poland this year


NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg issued a stark warning that 'going it alone is not an option' following Trump's stunning US election victory

'We face the greatest challenges to our security in a generation,' Stoltenberg wrote in The Observer as he outlined NATO's strengths, amid concerns over the president-elect's position on the US-led alliance.

'This is no time to question the partnership between Europe and the United States.'

Stoltenberg noted that the only time NATO's self-defence clause - 'an attack on one is an attack on all' - has been invoked was after the 9/11 terror attacks on the United States.

More than 1,000 European soldiers serving in Afghanistan 'paid the ultimate price' in an operation that was 'a direct response' to the attacks, he added.

He said NATO had made possible the 'integration of Europe' and ended the Cold War, adding: 'European leaders have always understood that going it alone is not an option.'

The alliance continues to play a key role in fighting terrorism and has responded in recent years to 'a more assertive Russia', Stoltenberg added.

He conceded, however, that European leaders must increase their financial contributions to the 28-nation alliance, a demand made by Trump during his campaign.

 

Murphy

Executive Branch Member
Apr 12, 2013
8,181
0
36
Ontario
Let me see if I can explain to you what has happened with regard to Europe. We haven't cared about you since the late 1960s. Europe began sinking into the abyss in the early to mid 1960s. It hasn't been of value for over 50 years. You're dead.

Everything started to change with the collapse of Communism in the 1960s. Yes, it was doomed to fall back then. It took twenty years for the USSR to completely fall apart, but NATO hasn't meant much since about 1968. Remember Czechoslovakia? They were the first big crack in Europe. The surge of the ME and China were the other big changes.

There was no point in being on that side of the Atlantic to defend anything. With the old USSR going, the new tech - satellites - meant not needing to be there to monitor. OPEC, flourished for a while, 15-20 years, but saw its control broken in the early 1970s. They still control much of Europe.

Since about 1974, we've put our oil and development money to work here, not into real estate destined to become foreign owned and controlled. Britain ceased to be of any value to the world over 50 years ago. Okay?

No one, not the US, not Canada, not Russia, not China, not India, not even Oz gives a rat's *** about you. OPEC money bought much of Europe and is sending their dregs to your shores. The ME is attempting to comeback. They seem to be winning in Europe, but we don't see a point in pouring money into you. You've been cast adrift. The "We" are the aforementioned countries above.

Over the next forty years, a new line will be drawn that doesn't include most of old Europe. It's gone.

The new world order is China, N. America and the ME. At this point, it is unclear which of the three will succeed in dominating the other two. One thing is certain, the UK will cease to exist shortly, becoming New Tarkministan or something like that.

That's why NATO spending has been a non event. Simply put, you're finished.
 

Danbones

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 23, 2015
24,505
2,197
113
greece has a GDP?

canada does not need nato
we are just a landing zone for russian missles that get shot down before they hit the US

Harper destroyed our peace keeping cred helping nato screw the countries that are supplying Britain with all the refugees they hate so much
so Britain doesn't need nato either..

well, the serfs don't...
 

Murphy

Executive Branch Member
Apr 12, 2013
8,181
0
36
Ontario
We are a landing place for Russian and Chinese missiles, but the country will be strategically targeted.

We probably will not see that in our lifetime. The biggest thing holding back hitting us is the water and resources that will be difficult or impossible to use should there be wholesale bombing. Hence, the targeted drops.
 

Danbones

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 23, 2015
24,505
2,197
113
chinese won't use missiles on us canadiennes like they didn't need missiles to take over vancouver
russians and canadians have as much or more in common then most countries share
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Well... if EU NATO members don't care enough for the NATO investment then why should we? T-72's and BMPs won't be crossing our beach head anytime soon.
 

10larry

Electoral Member
Apr 6, 2010
722
0
16
Niagara Falls
The eu were pulling for ms clinton to avoid this nasty chip in your share or no more beer for you showdown. Brussels spent plenty enticing countries to join their eu club so really appreciated the u.s. paying their nato dues. Now nasty no more free ride donald sez pay up or pop prozacs to calm your fear of attack from czars united... justin understands IOUs balance themselves so we're ok.
Oddly invasions of late have been courtesy of nato, a perry mason type could make a conflict of interest case out of this, starting wars to extract war insurance premiums is hardly kosher.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,429
1,668
113
EU bureaucrats have been talking about an EU Army. That'll be a laugh, especially when Britain won't be a part of it.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
chinese won't use missiles on us canadiennes like they didn't need missiles to take over vancouver
russians and canadians have as much or more in common then most countries share

One took over a part of my heart. Those dn Chinese, eh.

As for Canada, we should not increase military spending until we get our debt under control.
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
We are a landing place for Russian and Chinese missiles, but the country will be strategically targeted.

We probably will not see that in our lifetime. The biggest thing holding back hitting us is the water and resources that will be difficult or impossible to use should there be wholesale bombing. Hence, the targeted drops.

The Chinese do not, as yet, have an offensive nuclear capability. Their nuclear arsenal is quite small, in the low hundreds and around the same scale as the French and British nuclear forces. They are all "defensive" in nature or, more accurately, they are designed to bounce the rubble after the real war has finished.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Well... if EU NATO members don't care enough for the NATO investment then why should we? T-72's and BMPs won't be crossing our beach head anytime soon.

If the US really cares about Canada, the best way it can help us is to reduce its military spending and get its debt under control.

US debt is a far greater threat to Canada than Russia or China by a long shot.
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
If the US really cares about Canada, the best way it can help us is to reduce its military spending and get its debt under control.

US debt is a far greater threat to Canada than Russia or China by a long shot.

Yes, and please revamp your school system, as well. A couple of hundred million stupid people just over the border pose a major threat to Canadians.
 

Murphy

Executive Branch Member
Apr 12, 2013
8,181
0
36
Ontario
The Chinese do not, as yet, have an offensive nuclear capability. Their nuclear arsenal is quite small, in the low hundreds and around the same scale as the French and British nuclear forces. They are all "defensive" in nature or, more accurately, they are designed to bounce the rubble after the real war has finished.

The time frame was within the next 40 years.