NATO warned to start paying its bills


Locutus
#1
Hm, only Slovenia,Spain,Belgium,and Luxembourg spend less than Little Canader,(0.99%) no wonder the U.S. is pissed off at it's NATO "partners".

We are a Nation of smug freeloaders when it comes to our military commitment.

One would think Belgium, given recent events there,would spend a bit more on their military, but then that might offend someone.




Of all Trump’s policy unorthodoxies, demanding that Europe boost defense spending is the most justifiable. Among 28 members, just five — five (external - login to view) — complied with the NATO guideline last year of devoting two percent of GDP to defense.



Now here’s Mattis earlier today in Brussels with a message (external - login to view) that came straight from the boss:
“I owe it to you all to give you clarity on the political reality in the United States and to state the fair demand from my country’s people in concrete terms,” Mattis said. “America will meet its responsibilities, but if your nations do not want to see America moderate its commitment to the alliance, each of your capitals needs to show its support for our common defense.”…

Mattis, a retired Marine general, recalled Wednesday that when he was NATO’s supreme allied commander of transformation from November 2007 to September 2009, he watched as then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned NATO nations that Congress and the American people “would lose their patience for carrying a disproportionate burden” of the defense of allies.

That impatience, Mattis said, is now a “governmental reality.”

“No longer can the American taxpayer carry a disproportionate share of the defense of Western values,” Mattis said. “Americans cannot care more for your children’s security than you do. Disregard for military readiness demonstrates a lack of respect for ourselves, for the alliance and for the freedoms we inherited, which are now clearly threatened.”
The criticism of that position is predictable and understandable, but so is the response:
The timing of this could hardly be worse. The US threatens to retreat from most important alliance that checks Russian aggression? Today? https://t.co/28N0ymWD

— Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) February 15, 2017 (external - login to view)
Okay, but if not now, when? What better time could there be to concentrate Europe’s minds on defense spending than with Putin looking west to Ukraine and beyond, installing intermediate-range missiles aimed at Europe (external - login to view) inside Russia in violation of a treaty, and engaging in petty provocations against the U.S. (external - login to view) to test Trump’s resolve? If you want to squeeze NATO members to pony up, choosing a moment to do so when they’re more worried about Russia than they’ve been in years seems opportune.

On the other hand, there’s a reason (well, two reasons) that the U.S. has traditionally let Europe slide in missing its target on NATO spending. One, of course, is the fear of re-militarization. WaPo noted in passing in its story about Mattis’s speech that if an economic powerhouse like Germany were to boost defense spending to two percent of GDP, its military would suddenly be better funded than Great Britain’s, historically not a harbinger of lasting peace and perhaps especially dangerous with nationalist movements gaining traction across the continent right now. In theory a militarily muscular Europe is bad for Russia; in practice, European nationalists tend to be Putin sympathizers and may encounter more antagonism among themselves than with Russia. Reducing the risk of war in eastern Europe with Moscow needs to be weighed against increasing the risk of war long-term between European countries.

The other reason the U.S. has traditionally let Europe slide is that there’s never really a good time to have this standoff. Trump has now made an ultimatum, with which NATO members will hopefully comply. If they don’t, though, and end up calling Trump’s bluff, the U.S. will be in a jam in which Trump will either have to lose face by maintaining America’s NATO commitment despite the defiance on spending from fellow members or he’ll have to show he means business by ratcheting down America’s contributions to NATO, which is sure to tempt Russia westward. Meanwhile, some members are destined to complain that they “can’t” meet the two-percent guideline, or at least not yet; their money’s tied up in welfare-state obligations at the moment, and while they’re happy to undertake the process of re-budgeting, that’ll take time. Is Trump willing to accept a promise to meet the guideline down the road as fulfillment of each member’s obligation or do they need to pony up ASAP? Can they “pay” their obligation to NATO in the form of indebtedness to the United States? It’s fine to shrug here and say “if they can’t or won’t pay, let ’em enjoy Russian occupation,” but Russian expansionism westward comes with costs for the United States too. That’s … why NATO exists in the first place.

Here’s Mattis today with NATO leader Jens Stoltenberg emphasizing again that member nations need to pay up. Russia seems increasingly sour towards Trump (external - login to view), especially now that Mike Flynn is gone (external - login to view), but the prospect of a rupture in NATO over spending should brighten their day a bit.


httpwwwyoutubecomwatchvizdyurmxYvQ




Mattis warns NATO: Start paying your fair share on defense or the U.S. will “moderate its commitment” « Hot Air (external - login to view)
 
tay
+3
#2
Harper never wanted to pay for NATO.......
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
+3
#3
He planning a war? If Trump's worried about paying to keep an army in Europe, bring them home. Europe doesn't want to be the US anyhow
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
+2
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

He planning a war? If Trump's worried about paying to keep an army in Europe, bring them home. Europe doesn't want to be the US anyhow

He wants an excuse to leave NATO, maybe. He's run up a tab with the Russians and they have a shopping list for him?
 
Remington1
+1
#5
Ottawa needs to stop spending and set their priorities. Pay your share.
 
Ludlow
No Party Affiliation
#6
Pay up deadbeats
 
Johnnny
No Party Affiliation
+3
#7
Anyone look at that chart and become a little confused at Greeces spot? Couldnt the money they spend on their military be put towards their debt? Given the fiasco their government had with Elderado Mines you figure every cent counts. No one wants to see a second default.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
+1
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by LudlowView Post

Pay up deadbeats

We are deadbeats. It is a constant source of disgust to me that we have pretty much stood down all of our forces and left it to another country to ensure our borders. What a dreadful mistake that is.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#9
We can't spend our way out of this one. We'll have to THINK of somethingelse. I know doing nothing works. Try to avoid the squishy parts. You only live till you get it right.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

We can't spend our way out of this one. We'll have to THINK of somethingelse. I know doing nothing works. Try to avoid the squishy parts. You only live till you get it right.

We're still deadbeats.
 
Mowich
Conservative
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by LocutusView Post

Hm, only Slovenia,Spain,Belgium,and Luxembourg spend less than Little Canader,(0.99%) no wonder the U.S. is pissed off at it's NATO "partners".

We are a Nation of smug freeloaders when it comes to our military commitment.

One would think Belgium, given recent events there,would spend a bit more on their military, but then that might offend someone.




Of all Trump’s policy unorthodoxies, demanding that Europe boost defense spending is the most justifiable. Among 28 members, just five — five (external - login to view) — complied with the NATO guideline last year of devoting two percent of GDP to defense.



Now here’s Mattis earlier today in Brussels with a message (external - login to view) that came straight from the boss:

“I owe it to you all to give you clarity on the political reality in the United States and to state the fair demand from my country’s people in concrete terms,” Mattis said. “America will meet its responsibilities, but if your nations do not want to see America moderate its commitment to the alliance, each of your capitals needs to show its support for our common defense.”…

Mattis, a retired Marine general, recalled Wednesday that when he was NATO’s supreme allied commander of transformation from November 2007 to September 2009, he watched as then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned NATO nations that Congress and the American people “would lose their patience for carrying a disproportionate burden” of the defense of allies.

That impatience, Mattis said, is now a “governmental reality.”

“No longer can the American taxpayer carry a disproportionate share of the defense of Western values,” Mattis said. “Americans cannot care more for your children’s security than you do. Disregard for military readiness demonstrates a lack of respect for ourselves, for the alliance and for the freedoms we inherited, which are now clearly threatened.”
The criticism of that position is predictable and understandable, but so is the response:
The timing of this could hardly be worse. The US threatens to retreat from most important alliance that checks Russian aggression? Today? https://t.co/28N0ymWD

— Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) February 15, 2017 (external - login to view)
Okay, but if not now, when? What better time could there be to concentrate Europe’s minds on defense spending than with Putin looking west to Ukraine and beyond, installing intermediate-range missiles aimed at Europe (external - login to view) inside Russia in violation of a treaty, and engaging in petty provocations against the U.S. (external - login to view) to test Trump’s resolve? If you want to squeeze NATO members to pony up, choosing a moment to do so when they’re more worried about Russia than they’ve been in years seems opportune.

On the other hand, there’s a reason (well, two reasons) that the U.S. has traditionally let Europe slide in missing its target on NATO spending. One, of course, is the fear of re-militarization. WaPo noted in passing in its story about Mattis’s speech that if an economic powerhouse like Germany were to boost defense spending to two percent of GDP, its military would suddenly be better funded than Great Britain’s, historically not a harbinger of lasting peace and perhaps especially dangerous with nationalist movements gaining traction across the continent right now. In theory a militarily muscular Europe is bad for Russia; in practice, European nationalists tend to be Putin sympathizers and may encounter more antagonism among themselves than with Russia. Reducing the risk of war in eastern Europe with Moscow needs to be weighed against increasing the risk of war long-term between European countries.

The other reason the U.S. has traditionally let Europe slide is that there’s never really a good time to have this standoff. Trump has now made an ultimatum, with which NATO members will hopefully comply. If they don’t, though, and end up calling Trump’s bluff, the U.S. will be in a jam in which Trump will either have to lose face by maintaining America’s NATO commitment despite the defiance on spending from fellow members or he’ll have to show he means business by ratcheting down America’s contributions to NATO, which is sure to tempt Russia westward. Meanwhile, some members are destined to complain that they “can’t” meet the two-percent guideline, or at least not yet; their money’s tied up in welfare-state obligations at the moment, and while they’re happy to undertake the process of re-budgeting, that’ll take time. Is Trump willing to accept a promise to meet the guideline down the road as fulfillment of each member’s obligation or do they need to pony up ASAP? Can they “pay” their obligation to NATO in the form of indebtedness to the United States? It’s fine to shrug here and say “if they can’t or won’t pay, let ’em enjoy Russian occupation,” but Russian expansionism westward comes with costs for the United States too. That’s … why NATO exists in the first place.

Here’s Mattis today with NATO leader Jens Stoltenberg emphasizing again that member nations need to pay up. Russia seems increasingly sour towards Trump (external - login to view), especially now that Mike Flynn is gone (external - login to view), but the prospect of a rupture in NATO over spending should brighten their day a bit.


httpwwwyoutubecomwatchvizdyurmxYvQ




Mattis warns NATO: Start paying your fair share on defense or the U.S. will “moderate its commitment” « Hot Air (external - login to view)

So far this is the only item on the administrations agenda that I agree with, Loc. I do think the US has been subsidizing other NATO countries. That said, considering that the US has a peculiar habit of starting or at least precipitating the wars that other member states are then duty bound to fight, I can see why so many might lag behind in their payments.

As for Canada's participation in NATO, I do not see the US pushing us too hard on increasing our monetary commitment. As has been well documented in the last few weeks, the US is more than happy to have us continue in our current role knowing that when push comes to shove we will be there for them. They have spoken highly of our technical expertise, excellent training abilities and dedication.

Quote: Originally Posted by Curious CdnView Post

We are deadbeats. It is a constant source of disgust to me that we have pretty much stood down all of our forces and left it to another country to ensure our borders. What a dreadful mistake that is.

I believe Canada holds up its end of the NATO bargain pretty darn well and the US thinks so too. As for ensuring our borders, the government should consider expanding the Canadian Rangers. They would do a fine job.
 
Danbones
Free Thinker
#12
what exactly are we defending ourselves from?
debt enslavement by bankers?
other countries the bankers have enslaved, or countries we have attacked first because the bankers would like to enslave them?
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
+3
#13
NATO has always been a bit of a con game so far as the US is concerned. During the Cold War the US constantly bullied NATO members into spending more on defense than was really necessary. The result was the most massively armed alliance in world history. The less spent on the military the better. Military spending certainly does not help the economy unless foreigners can be duped into buying military equipment.
 
tay
+2
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

NATO has always been a bit of a con game so far as the US is concerned. During the Cold War the US constantly bullied NATO members into spending more on defense than was really necessary. The result was the most massively armed alliance in world history. The less spent on the military the better. Military spending certainly does not help the economy unless foreigners can be duped into buying military equipment.

I was just going to add, has anyone considered that the US spends too much on NATO as opposed to other spending too little......
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
+1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by DanbonesView Post

what exactly are we defending ourselves from?
debt enslavement by bankers?
other countries the bankers have enslaved, or countries we have attacked first because the bankers would like to enslave them?

Grown-up countries defend their own borders. Colonies have someone else do it for them.
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
+3
#16
I'd suggest if the US wants other member nations to spend, spend, spend, those member nations boycott US suppliers as much as possible to support home industry
 
Decapoda
+1
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Remington1View Post

Ottawa needs to stop spending and set their priorities. Pay your share.

With junior in charge of the credit card, I wouldn't hold my breath. All the guy knows how to do is spend money we don't have and drive us further into the abyss.

But, but......infrastructure!!
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by DanbonesView Post

what exactly are we defending ourselves from?
debt enslavement by bankers?
other countries the bankers have enslaved, or countries we have attacked first because the bankers would like to enslave them?

Lowlifes from Murica that think they have to escape Trump. Not the kind of people we want here.

Quote: Originally Posted by DecapodaView Post

With junior in charge of the credit card, I wouldn't hold my breath. All the guy knows how to do is spend money we don't have and drive us further into the abyss.

But, but......infrastructure!!

About that infrastructure. Anyone seen any of it yet? Or the replacements for the SeaKings? Or subs that can go both up and down?
 
Decapoda
+1
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

About that infrastructure. Anyone seen any of it yet? Or the replacements for the SeaKings? Or subs that can go both up and down?

He's committed $2,600,000,000.00 into infrastructure....in other countries. Of course, we won't see any of it.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

About that infrastructure. Anyone seen any of it yet?

Lots of it. We've done over 3 million in upgrades in the last here. Engineering is just about finalized for another 10 million dollar project.

Quote: Originally Posted by DecapodaView Post

Of course, we won't see any of it.

You're a silly twit
 
Machjo
+1
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by JohnnnyView Post

Anyone look at that chart and become a little confused at Greeces spot? Couldnt the money they spend on their military be put towards their debt? Given the fiasco their government had with Elderado Mines you figure every cent counts. No one wants to see a second default.

Bankruptcy is a small price to pay for a strong and proud military force capable of pillaging other states to pay its wages, reload its rifles and fill its gas tanks.
 
Murphy
Conservative
+1
#22
I think the answer is very clear. Canada, along with other nations, signed onto an agreement say says, short formed, we will stand together to deter aggression. Part of that agreement was a financial obligation. Canada and the others should cough up the cash they agreed to contribute.

If you do not wish to pay, opt out, but you should not expect a free ride.
 
EagleSmack
+5
#23  Top Rated Post
Hey peeps... if other NATO members do not feel they need to make the commitment then the US should not either.
 
Machjo
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Hey peeps... if other NATO members do not feel they need to make the commitment then the US should not either.

Exactly. The US debt is one of Canada's greatest threats right now anyway.
 
EagleSmack
+1
#25
The Russians are in no position to put boots on the ground on the west coast but they can surely roll across Europe.
 
Danbones
Free Thinker
+1
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

You're a silly twit

I thumbed up the post above yours as usual
you are always wrong anyway so you should be used to that by now
 
EagleSmack
#27
I don't know what was wrong about it. You need one heck of a navy and an amphibious force to conduct landing operations on a massive scale. Look at the size of the D-Day landing force and that was just crossing the English Channel.

Maybe I was exaggerating a bit about rolling across Europe. The Russians could certainly take the Baltic States.
 
Hoof Hearted
+3
#28
Canadians are peace keepers...

We pay for lesbians with binoculars to monitor genocide in other countries, while doing absolutely nothing to stop it.

 
Murphy
Conservative
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

The Russians are in no position to put boots on the ground on the west coast but they can surely roll across Europe.

A generation is considered 20 years. When one considers that 28 years have elapsed since the Wall fell, we have one generation (actually two) that don't remember much, if anything at all, about the cold war in Europe. To them, it's just dusty old history. The under 40 crowd thinks that what happened is old news. Some, like the Millennials, should understand the value of team work (like NATO team work), but I guess this is difficult to grasp outside of one's work environment. Aggression won't happen here. (And if it did, that would be unfair!)

Putin is more of a threat to world peace IMO simply because Russia is closer to the action. He is involved with politics the ME, with no plans to back out. There's oil to be had and he wants some. Russia is not as large as the old USSR, but they are by no means 'bit players' in the scheme of things.

North Americans, for the most part, are blissfully unaware of what is happening on the other side of the world. Some figure that if you ignore Russia, or the ME, the problems associated with immigration, there will be no ill effects. Sadly, many of these people feel the best way to deal with difficulties is to post something on FB, or start an online petition. That makes the problem will go away, don't you know!

That's not even poor planning. That's no planning.
Last edited by Murphy; Feb 16th, 2017 at 02:58 PM..
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Bankruptcy is a small price to pay for a strong and proud military force capable of pillaging other states to pay its wages, reload its rifles and fill its gas tanks.

Oh, PALEASE!

We're one of the very richest people's on the face of the Earth. Bankruptcy is nowhere near sight.

It's typical Canadian cheap-**** parsimony and most Canadians have felt more-or-less the way that you do for most of our history. We relied on the British to protect us, then on the Americans. In times of national emergency (we haven't been this close to one for some time, now) we scramble about, trying to reconstute our forces out of thin air. It between, our overtaxed servicepeople become experts at fixing and maintaining ancient gear with chewing gum and gun tape, all of the time risking life and limb because the tight-a55ed Canadians doesn't give a rat's petoot about what is done to keep them safe.

"We're on the verge of bankruptcy" What a load of crap. You should be ashamed of yourself.
 
no new posts