Donald Trump right on European defence spending, says NATO chief

[rooster59]

Donald Trump right on European defence spending, says NATO chief

Euronews

 

 

US President-elect Donald Trump is right to call on Europeans to spend more on defence, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said on Friday.

 

Stoltenberg made his remarks in an interview with euronews at an event organised by the German Marshall Fund of the United States in Brussels.

 

“(Trump’s) main message was on defence spending, burden sharing, between Europe and the United States. And there I absolutely agree with him. We need a more balanced burden sharing between the United States and Europe. It’s not viable in the long run that the United States pays 70 percent of the total defence spending of NATO,” the former Norwegian prime minister said.

 

Trump called the 70-year-old alliance “obsolete” during his election campaign and said the US might only stand by the principle of collective defence if those members who had been attacked had paid their NATO dues.

 

It left some members from eastern Europe and the Baltic states worried that the United States would not intervene if they were attacked.

 

Stoltenberg also said that Turkish officers posted to NATO have sought asylum since July’s failed coup

 

But he declined to comment on which countries were concerned, or how many officers have requested protection.

 

Ankara launched a crackdown after the military-led coup, detaining and jailing thousands of people.

 

The former Norwegian prime minister is set to travel to the country on Sunday.

 

“We have seen some examples of some officers requesting asylum,” Stoltenberg said.

 

“My main focus is to make sure that we have officers filling the different posts in the NATO command structure. When it comes to the question of asylum that is something that the different nations where the officers are seeking have to address, assess and make decisions on,” he added.

 

Eight Turkish officers fled to Greece shortly after the coup.

 

They are all trying to seek asylum there and the legal process is ongoing.

 

Their lawyers argue they will not receive a fair trial back in Turkey.

 

 

-- © Copyright Euronews 2016-11-19

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, NovaBlue05 said:

"...It left some members from eastern Europe and the Baltic states worried that the United States would not intervene if they were attacked.."

 

Did they have a high confidence level of that happening over the last 8 years?

The possibility is low, but Russia has issued some statements saying they want the Baltics back.  And they now have bases in territory they've taken from Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia.

http://www.newsweek.com/putin-explores-legal-loopholes-take-back-baltic-nations-354379

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/nato-is-planning-its-biggest-military-build-up-in-eastern-europe-since-the-cold-war-2016-2

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-06/putin-s-military-buildup-in-the-baltic-stokes-invasion-fears
 

Quote

The Kremlin, which is spending 20 trillion rubles (about $313 billion) on an ambitious defense upgrade through 2020, argues that it’s just responding to NATO’s encroachment toward Russian borders. In May, Russia announced plans to put two new divisions in the Western region and another in the south. That could be about 30,000 troops, compared to 4,000 in NATO’s plan.

 

And some wonder why former USSR satellite states want to join NATO. LOL

[NeverSure]

The US has major naval and air bases in Germany with lots of personnel and hardware. Germany spends next to nothing on defense as a result. Kudos to the UK which does have a strong military but many NATO members don't and rely on the USA.

 

Trump got this one right. The US shouldn't be W. Europe's defense without being reimbursed. Another sticking point is that Turkey, which is now a hardline Muslim dictatorship, is a member of NATO and "entitled" to protection.

 

Cheers.

 

Country Budgets

 

[NeverSure]

7 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

The possibility is low, but Russia has issued some statements saying they want the Baltics back.  And they now have bases in territory they've taken from Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia.

http://www.newsweek.com/putin-explores-legal-loopholes-take-back-baltic-nations-354379

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/nato-is-planning-its-biggest-military-build-up-in-eastern-europe-since-the-cold-war-2016-2

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-06/putin-s-military-buildup-in-the-baltic-stokes-invasion-fears
 

 

And some wonder why former USSR satellite states want to join NATO. LOL

 

With all due respect I don't worry that much about Russia. Look at its comparative military budget. It's more like that of the UK which I've stated repeatedly could kick Russia's butt due to advanced technology. Of course in a nuclear war all bets are off but the UK is a member of "The Gang of Five" which are the five countries in the world that have all of the ways of delivering a nuke. That includes from deep under water from a sub, from space, etc. etc.

 

Short of using nukes, Russia is a paper tiger that does a good job of bullying small, backward countries.

 

Cheers.

[craigt3365]

5 minutes ago, NeverSure said:

 

With all due respect I don't worry that much about Russia. Look at its comparative military budget. It's more like that of the UK which I've stated repeatedly could kick Russia's butt due to advanced technology. Of course in a nuclear war all bets are off but the UK is a member of "The Gang of Five" which are the five countries in the world that have all of the ways of delivering a nuke. That includes from deep under water from a sub, from space, etc. etc.

 

Short of using nukes, Russia is a paper tiger that does a good job of bullying small, backward countries.

 

Cheers.

But Russia has already invaded, occupied sovereign territory and installed military bases in Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova.  They weren't part of NATO, and the Baltics are.  Huge difference for sure.  Interesting comment from Rand:

http://www.rand.org/blog/2015/07/the-baltic-balance-how-to-reduce-the-chances-of-war.html

Quote

To be sure, the chances of a Russian attack on the Baltics are low, and the costs of war with NATO would be enormous for Moscow. But Moscow's calculus and future trajectory are highly uncertain, and its recent saber-rattling along NATO's eastern flank—including military exercises, bellicose language, and provocative air and naval maneuvers—has raised concerns and heightened tensions throughout the region. Even Sweden, traditionally non-aligned, has begun to seriously consider joining NATO. Given the Kremlin's behavior, NATO has no choice but to take the risk of conflict seriously.

 

[robblok]

Just let the nato go bust.. I would not care less. All that military spending for nothing. Let the US fight China if they want or invade some other countries as they have done in the past. No wonder they spend so much on military. If they were to spend less their the arms lobby would go crazy.

 

All Thrump is doing is asking Nato to buy more weapons (guess from what country). You can't fight terrorists with conventional armies anyway so no need for big armies. So just give up on Nato no wars have been fought in Europe in ages while the US has invaded more then a few countries. 

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

Just let the nato go bust.. I would not care less. All that military spending for nothing. Let the US fight China if they want or invade some other countries as they have done in the past. No wonder they spend so much on military. If they were to spend less their the arms lobby would go crazy.

 

All Thrump is doing is asking Nato to buy more weapons (guess from what country). You can't fight terrorists with conventional armies anyway so no need for big armies. So just give up on Nato no wars have been fought in Europe in ages while the US has invaded more then a few countries. 

Not sure some people in Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, etc, etc, would agree with your statements....

[robblok]

23 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Not sure some people in Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, etc, etc, would agree with your statements....

I don't really care about those people over there.. they certainly are not European.. its the USA that wanted them as a buffer. These people over there are also not really democratic and are just different kind of Putin.. but they are for us because we help them. I don't see Putin as a problem. The missile shield and the Nato getting closer and closer to his doorstep have made him defensive. Its the US who has done the most invading, Russia only invaded a bit and only after those countries turned pro Europe. 

 

Just look at what happened when the Russia got missiles in cuba.. they went to defend themselves.. now you expect Russia to act different when threat comes tot hem ?

Edited November 19, 2016 by robblok

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

I don't really care about those people over there.. they certainly are not European.. its the USA that wanted them as a buffer. These people over there are also not really democratic and are just different kind of Putin.. but they are for us because we help them. I don't see Putin as a problem. The missile shield and the Nato getting closer and closer to his doorstep have made him defensive. Its the US who has done the most invading, Russia only invaded a bit and only after those countries turned pro Europe. 

Wow.  I think there are a whole bunch of people who won't agree with you! LOL

 

Where has the US invaded and installed military bases without the approval of the local government?  Russia only invaded a bit?  Wasn't that same thing they said of Hitler initially? LOL

[derator01]

Let's stick to the topic of European defense and NATO.

[robblok]

I used to be pro USA.. still am, just am against all the wars and stuff. Many are just to help business interests. Now the USA is certainly not going to cut back on military spending (their whole weapons industry would colapse). So its only about more military spending .. to be bought from the USA of course. So why do it.. I bet if those weapons were not bought from the USA they could not care less about the military spending. Its an economical thing. 

 

Also by watching all those movies and TV series / documentaries about the US it is as if the army is holy there and there is no greater thing then to serve in the army. To me its real alien, i love peace and in my country people almost laugh at you if you join the army. Certainly in the past the army was a place fo losers (we did not have a professional army but draftee's) . So I doubt we will see eye to eye.. I come from a country that believes in neutrality and non aggression and sees the military as a necessary evil that should not be over-funded. 

[ilostmypassword]

 

21 minutes ago, robblok said:

I used to be pro USA.. still am, just am against all the wars and stuff. Many are just to help business interests. Now the USA is certainly not going to cut back on military spending (their whole weapons industry would colapse). So its only about more military spending .. to be bought from the USA of course. So why do it.. I bet if those weapons were not bought from the USA they could not care less about the military spending. Its an economical thing. 

 

 

Wrong.  There are plenty of European high tech defense contractors who would certainly get the bulk of any increased European defense spending. It would be politically impossible for European nations to do otherwise

[robblok]

10 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

 

Wrong.  There are plenty of European high tech defense contractors who would certainly get the bulk of any increased European defense spending. It would be politically impossible for European nations to do otherwise

That shows my wrong.. I always thought that the USA was the main armament supplier for Nato.. given that all aircraft are usually F (somethings) and so on. 

 

I still doubt that the US will decrease its weapons spending. So I don't get why we should increase.

Edited November 19, 2016 by robblok

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, robblok said:

That shows my wrong.. I always thought that the USA was the main armament supplier for Nato.. given that all aircraft are usually F (somethings) and so on. 

Well, since the US Airforce is by far the largest contingent in Nato, most of the jets will be F somethings.  But France and Sweden manufacture their own fighter jets which they sell around the world.

[craigt3365]

41 minutes ago, robblok said:

I used to be pro USA.. still am, just am against all the wars and stuff. Many are just to help business interests. Now the USA is certainly not going to cut back on military spending (their whole weapons industry would colapse). So its only about more military spending .. to be bought from the USA of course. So why do it.. I bet if those weapons were not bought from the USA they could not care less about the military spending. Its an economical thing. 

 

Also by watching all those movies and TV series / documentaries about the US it is as if the army is holy there and there is no greater thing then to serve in the army. To me its real alien, i love peace and in my country people almost laugh at you if you join the army. Certainly in the past the army was a place fo losers (we did not have a professional army but draftee's) . So I doubt we will see eye to eye.. I come from a country that believes in neutrality and non aggression and sees the military as a necessary evil that should not be over-funded. 

You might do some research on military purchases.  Russia supplies NATO with a fair amount of stuff.  According to this report, US only supplies 30%.  Can't blame the US for all the worlds problems.

 

http://natowatch.org/node/327

Quote

Four NATO nations among the top five suppliers – US, Russia, Germany, France and UK – of major conventional weapons in the period 2005–2009
 
Over the last five years, NATO Member States have continued, alongside Russia, to be the main suppliers of arms exports, according to figures released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) this week.
 
The volume of international transfers of major conventional weapons for the period 2005–2009 is 22% higher than for the period 2000–2004. The USA and Russia remained by far the largest exporters, accounting for 30% and 23% of all exports, respectively.

It's a huge problem. 

 

Be careful with what you watch on TV.  The army is far from there! LOL 

 

 

[Calach]

Could be a good wake-up call for Europeans to start counting only on themselves for their own defence, buying European equipment, and perhaps having a more independent foreign policy, even more now that UK is out of EU. Raising their military spending is the easy part though, agreeing, that's going to be tough, especially with Eastern Europe countries being terrified by Russia, France having its own interests in Africa that don't concern the others, Italy also, Germany that no one wants to see too much militarized and relying on Russian gas, etc. Such a sum of individual not necessarily converging interests, that's going to be a nice geopolitical jigsaw to sort out. 

[SgtRock]

17 minutes ago, Calach said:

Could be a good wake-up call for Europeans to start counting only on themselves for their own defence, buying European equipment, and perhaps having a more independent foreign policy, even more now that UK is out of EU. Raising their military spending is the easy part though, agreeing, that's going to be tough, especially with Eastern Europe countries being terrified by Russia, France having its own interests in Africa that don't concern the others, Italy also, Germany that no one wants to see too much militarized and relying on Russian gas, etc. Such a sum of individual not necessarily converging interests, that's going to be a nice geopolitical jigsaw to sort out. 

 

Nice summation.

 

It is a jigsaw that not only has pieces missing and will never be complete, it has parts from completely different jigsaws.

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

You might do some research on military purchases.  Russia supplies NATO with a fair amount of stuff.  According to this report, US only supplies 30%.  Can't blame the US for all the worlds problems.

 

http://natowatch.org/node/327

It's a huge problem. 

 

Be careful with what you watch on TV.  The army is far from there! LOL 

 

 

What does a "fair amount of stuff" translate to in percentage of Nato's total purchases? My bet is at most 2 percent. But I can't find any statistics one way or the other.

Edited November 19, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[Usernames]

3 hours ago, robblok said:

So I doubt we will see eye to eye.. I come from a country that believes in neutrality and non aggression and sees the military as a necessary evil that should not be over-funded. 

 

You're Dutch?  Isn't the Netherlands a member of Nato??? If so, not neutral at all, is it?

[Baerboxer]

1 hour ago, Usernames said:

 

You're Dutch?  Isn't the Netherlands a member of Nato??? If so, not neutral at all, is it?

 

Indeed. The Netherlands remained neutral in WWI and so avoided that carnage. In WW11 the Germans ignored their neutrality and invaded anyway. Very naive to imagine that the Russians and their allies would respect a NATO member suddenly claiming to be neutral!

 

There are British military bases very close to the Dutch / German border. When I worked near there several Dutch, and interestingly young people, were moaning that they'd heard Britain was going to scale it down. They were actually more worried about a resurgent Germany than Russia! So much for NATO trust. But of course, they also though Britain should pay for all that base, personnel etc and keep a force in Germany. 

 

Trump is right. Countries need to stand by their contractual membership obligations. He's pointing out that some simply have not bothered paying were they originally agreed to. That is unacceptable free loading. Germany is different. It was occupied for obvious reasons. However West Germany, and then a unified Germany has enjoyed protection whilst its own economy grew, thanks to aid from the allies, and became strong again. Germany needs to pay for one.

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

What does a "fair amount of stuff" translate to in percentage of Nato's total purchases? My bet is at most 2 percent. But I can't find any statistics one way or the other.

It's mainly to the former Warsaw pact nations.  Now, seems to be mainly upgrades and maintenance.  Notice the comments about Russia buying from NATO countries.

 

http://www.sldinfo.com/will-russia-import-and-export-more-arms-to-nato/

 

[robblok]

5 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well, since the US Airforce is by far the largest contingent in Nato, most of the jets will be F somethings.  But France and Sweden manufacture their own fighter jets which they sell around the world.

 

Yes but I don't really think that adds up to much besides the French are always a bit crazy and want their own stuff. I think if you want good stuff you get US stuff. That is why I see an increased military spending as good for the US economy. I think the majority of weapons and such would be bought from the US. That is why I think its more an economical thing. 

[robblok]

5 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

You might do some research on military purchases.  Russia supplies NATO with a fair amount of stuff.  According to this report, US only supplies 30%.  Can't blame the US for all the worlds problems.

 

http://natowatch.org/node/327

It's a huge problem. 

 

Be careful with what you watch on TV.  The army is far from there! LOL 

 

 

Seems you are right and I am wrong... Seriously I did not know this thought it was really an almost totally US thing. 

 

And I don't blame the US for the worlds problems, the world makes enough problems of their own. Just blame them for the mistakes they made in the middle east and I do think that encroaching on Putin his influence sphere is creating tensions. 

[robblok]

2 hours ago, Usernames said:

 

You're Dutch?  Isn't the Netherlands a member of Nato??? If so, not neutral at all, is it?

We are a nato member, i just said we believe more in peace and neutrality then war. We are not a warlike nation we are more traders. 

[robblok]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Indeed. The Netherlands remained neutral in WWI and so avoided that carnage. In WW11 the Germans ignored their neutrality and invaded anyway. Very naive to imagine that the Russians and their allies would respect a NATO member suddenly claiming to be neutral!

 

There are British military bases very close to the Dutch / German border. When I worked near there several Dutch, and interestingly young people, were moaning that they'd heard Britain was going to scale it down. They were actually more worried about a resurgent Germany than Russia! So much for NATO trust. But of course, they also though Britain should pay for all that base, personnel etc and keep a force in Germany. 

 

Trump is right. Countries need to stand by their contractual membership obligations. He's pointing out that some simply have not bothered paying were they originally agreed to. That is unacceptable free loading. Germany is different. It was occupied for obvious reasons. However West Germany, and then a unified Germany has enjoyed protection whilst its own economy grew, thanks to aid from the allies, and became strong again. Germany needs to pay for one.

No of course now we are not neutral.. we are in nato. But we always tried to be neutral in the past. We are just not a warlike country. Unlike the UK and the US we don't have much military traditions and so on. Truth be told for a long time people int he army were considered fools. 

 

I am not sure the Germans want an big army, there was a lot to do about them fighting in the middle east. After the WW2 they really did not want to get armed again and you are right they enjoy the protection and should pay. 

 

But don't you guys think that putting missile bases close to Russia and constantly enlarging NATO at the expense of Russia is increasing tensions ?

 

By creating tensions that should not be there we have to increase spending because of a threat we created ourselves. 

[Baerboxer]

7 minutes ago, robblok said:

No of course now we are not neutral.. we are in nato. But we always tried to be neutral in the past. We are just not a warlike country. Unlike the UK and the US we don't have much military traditions and so on. Truth be told for a long time people int he army were considered fools. 

 

I am not sure the Germans want an big army, there was a lot to do about them fighting in the middle east. After the WW2 they really did not want to get armed again and you are right they enjoy the protection and should pay. 

 

But don't you guys think that putting missile bases close to Russia and constantly enlarging NATO at the expense of Russia is increasing tensions ?

 

By creating tensions that should not be there we have to increase spending because of a threat we created ourselves. 

 

Russia, currently, is expanding both it's physical and influential presence. Russia has a long, pre-communist, Soviet, and post-Soviet history of bullying anyone it perceives to be weak. 

The Baltic states and East European countries, including Ukraine, have a history of Russian aggression, dominance and occupation. Don't forget the Russians were happy to be allies of the Nazis and carve up East Europe with them. It was Hitler who broke that agreement. Then the Russians were happy to accept allied help and support, and then re-occupy more parts of Europe than they ever had. 

 

Obama is, I believe, viewed as week by Russia and China. Putin therefore feels he can push the boundaries far more. And look who Obama's closest EU ally is. None other than Mrs. Merkel, that bastion of pseudo liberal political correctness and former East German communist party official. 

 

IME, placating a bully who persistently bullies will never ever stop the bullying. In fact it actually increases it. Obama is not telling Trump to stand up to Putin as he never had the balls too himself.

[robblok]

10 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Russia, currently, is expanding both it's physical and influential presence. Russia has a long, pre-communist, Soviet, and post-Soviet history of bullying anyone it perceives to be weak. 

The Baltic states and East European countries, including Ukraine, have a history of Russian aggression, dominance and occupation. Don't forget the Russians were happy to be allies of the Nazis and carve up East Europe with them. It was Hitler who broke that agreement. Then the Russians were happy to accept allied help and support, and then re-occupy more parts of Europe than they ever had. 

 

Obama is, I believe, viewed as week by Russia and China. Putin therefore feels he can push the boundaries far more. And look who Obama's closest EU ally is. None other than Mrs. Merkel, that bastion of pseudo liberal political correctness and former East German communist party official. 

 

IME, placating a bully who persistently bullies will never ever stop the bullying. In fact it actually increases it. Obama is not telling Trump to stand up to Putin as he never had the balls too himself.

I would say that Russia its influence has been degrading and now its taking back some of it after being pushed back. Its a fact that NATO has expanded and pushed into Russian influence sphere. Its only natural that Putin responds. Now if you guys want to start WW3 then your dragging all of us with you. I don't see why the baltic states are so important. They are ruled by people that are not much better than Putin but only get our support because they are supposedly on our side (out of self interest but don't give their own people much freedom)

 

Can't we just stop at a certain area of influence.. why should be push on and increase the tensions ? 

Just look how the NATO has grown and grown. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO

[Wake Up]

8 hours ago, robblok said:

Just let the nato go bust.. I would not care less. All that military spending for nothing. Let the US fight China if they want or invade some other countries as they have done in the past. No wonder they spend so much on military. If they were to spend less their the arms lobby would go crazy.

 

All Thrump is doing is asking Nato to buy more weapons (guess from what country). You can't fight terrorists with conventional armies anyway so no need for big armies. So just give up on Nato no wars have been fought in Europe in ages while the US has invaded more then a few countries. 

Just wondering if you remember the last World War?? Must have been ages ago right ?

[craigt3365]

50 minutes ago, robblok said:

I would say that Russia its influence has been degrading and now its taking back some of it after being pushed back. Its a fact that NATO has expanded and pushed into Russian influence sphere. Its only natural that Putin responds. Now if you guys want to start WW3 then your dragging all of us with you. I don't see why the baltic states are so important. They are ruled by people that are not much better than Putin but only get our support because they are supposedly on our side (out of self interest but don't give their own people much freedom)

 

Can't we just stop at a certain area of influence.. why should be push on and increase the tensions ? 

Just look how the NATO has grown and grown. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO

Sadly, a good many of the former USSR satellite states/Warsaw Pact countries are ruled by less than desirable people.  Estonia is an exception.  They are doing very well.  Latvia is also well respected.  So not sure your comment that they are ruled by people not much better is correct.  Actually, 100% incorrect.

 

It takes two to reduce tensions.  How about Russia back down?  Reduce it's military spending?  Stop encroaching into others airspace?  I've posted this before, seems another time is good:

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-06/putin-s-military-buildup-in-the-baltic-stokes-invasion-fears

 

Quote

The Kremlin, which is spending 20 trillion rubles (about $313 billion) on an ambitious defense upgrade through 2020, argues that it’s just responding to NATO’s encroachment toward Russian borders. In May, Russia announced plans to put two new divisions in the Western region and another in the south. That could be about 30,000 troops, compared to 4,000 in NATO’s plan.

 

Now who's the aggressor?  Worth a read:

http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/11/russia-and-china-increase-defense-spending-while-us-continues-cutting/

[rijb]

43 minutes ago, Wake Up said:

Just wondering if you remember the last World War?? Must have been ages ago right ?

 

More and more of these "experts" can't be bothered with history or facts.  They scare me more than NATO.