Donald Trump right on European defence spending, says NATO chief

[chilli42]

Does anyone remember why the US (and other European countries) have not wanted Germany to militarize?  If Russia were to open a can of whoop ass on Europe, who exactly would stop them ... the French?

[ilostmypassword]

 

42 minutes ago, chilli42 said:

Does anyone remember why the US (and other European countries) have not wanted Germany to militarize?  If Russia were to open a can of whoop ass on Europe, who exactly would stop them ... the French?

People who actually know something about the French know that they spend the same percentage of their GDP on defense as do the British. The highest in all of Europe. They also know that the French are fighting Islamic militants in many nations in Africa that were former French colonies. Of course, there are people who still hold a grudge against France for disbelieving the ironclad evidence George W. Bush provided to justify the USA waging war against Iraq. Are you one of them?

[jerojero]

Russia has already attacked, Crimea Ukraine. And Nato or Europe did nothing.

[Grouse]

There's a new novel just out:

 

War with Russia

 

Deals with all these matters and written by DSACEUR of NATO. 

 

Wake up call

 

BTW UK's 2% military spend has just dropped 20% in USD terms. ?

[Prbkk]

17 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.

 

I believe both Australia and India bought French subs..and some of the technical plans ended up on the internet. 

[derator01]

Several nonsense troll posts have been hidden from view.  Along with an appropriate reply.  Apologies to the member with the appropriate reply. 

 

Per forum rules:

 

9) You will not post inflammatory messages on the forum, or attempt to disrupt discussions to upset its participants, or trolling. Trolling can be defined as the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
 

[GOLDBUGGY]

Countries should keep a minimum Peace Keeping Force, but as far as NATO is concerned it should be disbanded. It was set up after WWII mostly to keep a rising Russian Power under control and it has since outgrown this need. NATO has served no active purpose since the war other than members not attaching each other. While this could be debated as far a Greece and Turkey are concerned.  

 

That is not to say that Friendly Countries can't still form there own treaties and alliances, and as they did in the past. The US did not need NATO to attack Libya in 1986. In fact many NATO Countries including France forbade them to even fly over their country.  Even in the Iraq War only USA, UK, Australia, Poland, and the Kurds were sending military troops there. 

 

In my view NATO sounds good on paper but has been nothing but a complete failure. Trying to get all these countries to agree and send forces is not possible. Even if another Hitler came around. So what is the point wasting money on it? Better use to put the money towards a Peace Keeping Force or your own forces, than that useless committee. Who have done nothing but sit around and talk and argue about it and then not put in there share of the pie in they eat.  

[craigt3365]

8 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

NATO has served no active purpose since the war other than members not attaching each other.

Isn't this what caused 2 world wars?  If so, I'd say if NATO did nothing other than this, it's an absolute success.

[NeverSure]

On 11/18/2016 at 6:59 PM, 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. 

 

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

 

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

 

So you do think it's fair that the US spends nearly half of the world's military budget and would come to your aid if you don't help with the spending? Do you think it's right that Germany has big US air and naval bases funded and stocked by the US and then acts like a big deal when it has next to nothing even compared to the UK?

 

The topic is Trump's comments about NATO spending. He's right. 

 

Cheers.

[Opl]

12 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

 

People who actually know something about the French know that they spend the same percentage of their GDP on defense as do the British. The highest in all of Europe. They also know that the French are fighting Islamic militants in many nations in Africa that were former French colonies. Of course, there are people who still hold a grudge against France for disbelieving the ironclad evidence George W. Bush provided to justify the USA waging war against Iraq. Are you one of them?

 

Thanks for your answer to  Chili42  (ID31) " Does anyone remember why the US (and other European countries) have not wanted Germany to militarize?  If Russia were to open a can of whoop ass on Europe, who exactly would stop them ... the French?"

 

By the way... does'nt  D. Trump - President-elect , claim ( sometimes) he opposed Irak war ... ?

We see the straw in the eyes of others and we do not see the beam in ours

Edited November 20, 2016 by Opl

[GOLDBUGGY]

8 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Isn't this what caused 2 world wars?  If so, I'd say if NATO did nothing other than this, it's an absolute success.

True if you can prove that NATO prevented another war with members, which you can't do. We had the Korean War after that, the Vietnam War, and hell knows what else we had in between an after. What did NATO do to stop any of this or even aid and assist in it?  

 

The October Crises in the 60's with Kennedy in Office was the closest we have even been to total Nuclear War and World Destruction. What good was NATO then in stopping this or even Russia? 

 

NATO serves no purpose at all other than a big gab session, which we already have with the United Nations. I can't think of one instance in almost 67 years when NATO stopped or prevented anything.  Especially when most of its own members don't even follow their own rules. Like a certain percentage of GDP going towards there Military Buildup.

 

Who can blame the USA for wanting out after always getting stuck with the Bill all the time and being slipped the Tab all the time after another round of drinks? I don't blame them one bit! 

[craigt3365]

29 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

True if you can prove that NATO prevented another war with members, which you can't do. We had the Korean War after that, the Vietnam War, and hell knows what else we had in between an after. What did NATO do to stop any of this or even aid and assist in it?  

 

The October Crises in the 60's with Kennedy in Office was the closest we have even been to total Nuclear War and World Destruction. What good was NATO then in stopping this or even Russia? 

 

NATO serves no purpose at all other than a big gab session, which we already have with the United Nations. I can't think of one instance in almost 67 years when NATO stopped or prevented anything.  Especially when most of its own members don't even follow their own rules. Like a certain percentage of GDP going towards there Military Buildup.

 

Who can blame the USA for wanting out after always getting stuck with the Bill all the time and being slipped the Tab all the time after another round of drinks? I don't blame them one bit! 

NATO doesn't deal with Asia.  So no, they didn't get involved.

[Morch]

On 11/19/2016 at 3:32 PM, robblok said:

 

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. 

 

Eurofighter Typhoon

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

 

Dassault Rafale

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

 

Arms purchase deals with the US sometimes involve certain systems, components and maintenance services to provided by local companies. Same goes for specified reciprocal purchases by US manufacturers from local firms. The cost of developing such systems is very high, so often its more realistic to buy off-the-shelf.

[Morch]

On 11/19/2016 at 8:01 AM, NeverSure said:

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

 

 

Another sticking point is that Turkey, which is now a hardline Muslim dictatorship, is a member of NATO and "entitled" to protection.

 

Both Trump's and Flynn's companies got business connections with Turkey. Here's Bannon interviewing Trump on Breitbart, discussing Turkey (the relevant part is from about 1:00) - https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-news-daily-donald-trump-december-1-2015

 

 

[Morch]

On 11/19/2016 at 8:14 AM, 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.

 

Trouble is wars rarely involve one country against another, anymore. Seems to leak in all directions nowadays. So even if the claim was true (and no, I don't really think the UK would stand much of a chance), that's nothing more than a hypothetical war game.

[Chicog]

22 hours ago, jerojero said:

Russia has already attacked, Crimea Ukraine. And Nato or Europe did nothing.

 

Ukraine is not part of NATO.

Otherwise the Treaty would have required all other members to have come to Ukraine's defence.

 

Europe depends on Russian gas, so their hands, to a great extent, were and still are tied.

[Chicog]

2 hours ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Who can blame the USA for wanting out after always getting stuck with the Bill all the time and being slipped the Tab all the time after another round of drinks? I don't blame them one bit! 

 

Given that NATO's primary role is the defence of its members, I would tend to agree with you.

However, the fact that the US has maintained this habit of paying the bill is, IMHO, so that it can exert undue influence on NATO in its own interests.
 

 

Edited November 20, 2016 by Chicog

[Xircal]

On 11/19/2016 at 2:01 AM, NeverSure said:

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

 

The fact that Germany doesn't spend much on defence has nothing to do with the presence of US forces on its territory, but rather because of the restriction imposed on the country by the "Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany" imposed on them at the end of World War II.

 

Among other things, Germany's armed forces are restricted to a maximum 370,000 personnel of which 345,000 in the army.

 

Although the US maintains four air bases in Germany, it doesn't have any naval units stationed there according to the map in second link in Craigt3365 post.

[Xircal]

13 minutes ago, Chicog said:

 

Ukraine is not part of NATO.

Otherwise the Treaty would have required all other members to have come to Ukraine's defence.

 

Europe depends on Russian gas, so their hands, to a great extent, were and still are tied.

 

Europe gets 30% of its gas from the Netherlands, but is still reliant on Russian gas to a great degree.

 

Given that oil prices continue to hover well below a level which can be considered to be profitable for Russia, turning off the tap to its gas exports would mean cutting itself off from considerable proportion of its income.

[ilostmypassword]

 

56 minutes ago, Xircal said:

 

The fact that Germany doesn't spend much on defence has nothing to do with the presence of US forces on its territory, but rather because of the restriction imposed on the country by the "Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany" imposed on them at the end of World War II.

 

Among other things, Germany's armed forces are restricted to a maximum 370,000 personnel of which 345,000 in the army.

 

Although the US maintains four air bases in Germany, it doesn't have any naval units stationed there according to the map in second link in Craigt3365 post.

 

Not so.  Germany's current troop levels are way below the 370,000 ceiliingg. Active personnel total 180,000.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=germany

 

 

And it spends way too little on maintaining its equipment.

." A parliamentary report leaked to the German press last month and obtained by the Washington Post detailed the shocking state of disrepair of Germany’s military hardware. Only one of its four submarines is operational. Only 70 out of its 180 GTK Boxer tanks are fit for deployment. ...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/07/germany-military-hardware-disrepair-exposure

 

[GOLDBUGGY]

11 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

NATO doesn't deal with Asia.  So no, they didn't get involved.

So the question becomes why not? Article 1 of there treaty gives them the right to get involved. Especially when it has to do with the spreading of Communism.

 

The big question really is: "Why was NATO even formed?". 

 

One might say to protect NATO Members from being attacked. As an attack on one member is the same as an attack on all members. Sounds good don't it? But attacked from whom? Since most of the world powers were in NATO when it was formed, who was left to attack them? Russia? 

 

Well Russia was certainly part of that. But other more important issues were happening elsewhere after WWII as well. The Chinese Revolution, for one, was well underway and by October 1949, the same year NATO was formed, China became Communists. So now with 2 world powers as in Russian and China, both being Communists, concerns started to grow.

 

So the real threat to NATO was not each other, or Germany or Japan. The real threat to NATO was in fact the spreading of Communism. This is why the USA got involved with the Korean War in 1950, and the Vietnam War in the 1960's although officially the Vietnam War started in 1955.

 

 In 1954 NATO allowed West Germany to join which resulted in the Warsaw Pact of 1955 and in which other Communist Countries signed a Treaty and Military Alliance with each other. So on one side you had NATO, and on the other side you had the Warsaw Pact Members plus China. This resulted in the Cold War, and the build up of Nuclear Arms on both sides. Why the Communists wanted to send Nuclear Missiles to Cuba and why Kennedy wouldn't allow this, and why the October Crises happened in the first place. 

 

So you just need to question if the same threats are here today that was there in 1949 and when NATO was formed? To look back in history and ask if the Build up of Military and Arms is the correct solution to world problems now, as NATO Members are required to spend 2% of there GDP towards this?

 

Personally I think we live in a different time and place now and that we have outgrown NATO. .  

 

 

 

 

[craigt3365]

26 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Personally I think we live in a different time and place now and that we have outgrown NATO. . 

Those in Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova don't agree with you.  Nor do the Baltics and Poland.  If Russia wasn't so aggressive, I'd 100% agree with you.  It'd be great to get rid of NATO.  Sadly, that's not currently possible.

[Naam]

23 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Those in Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova don't agree with you. 

they have not only reasons but are clearly entitled to protection by NATO like all countries located at the North Atlantic  

[GOLDBUGGY]

7 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Those in Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova don't agree with you.  Nor do the Baltics and Poland.  If Russia wasn't so aggressive, I'd 100% agree with you.  It'd be great to get rid of NATO.  Sadly, that's not currently possible.

 

7 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Those in Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova don't agree with you.  Nor do the Baltics and Poland.  If Russia wasn't so aggressive, I'd 100% agree with you.  It'd be great to get rid of NATO.  Sadly, that's not currently possible.

I do agree that Poland is still very nervous about Russia being so close, and where very happy to join NATO. So I give you points there. But it still doesn't prove that NATO kept Russia out of Poland. The invasion of Poland in 1939 by Germany was the start of WWII and they didn't have, or need, NATO then to try and stop further aggression. . 

 

It is also not a far comparison to say Poland and the Ukraine are the same when it comes to Russia. Both have different associations and histories with Russia. Russia doesn't want the Ukraine! Russia wants its Naval Base back in the Crimea which technically belonged to Russia since 1783 and until they gave it to the Ukraine in 1954 as a form of friendship between them. 

 

Things changed a little bit again in 1991 when Ukraine became independent to Russia, so the Crimea became an independent to and had its own government. In 1997 a Peace and Friendship Treaty was signed by Ukraine and Russia and in 2010 a 25 year lease agreement was signed between these two parties for Russia to have the rights to its huge Naval Base in exchange for low priced gas. However after the election in Ukraine in 2014 all these rules had changed and Ukraine wanted the Crimea back or renegotiate a better bargaining deal, which Russia refused.

 

Since the Crimea originally belonged to Russia and was a gift to Ukraine, and was a independent state until the new elections in Ukraine, the local government held a referendum on whether the citizens wanted to join Russia or stay with Ukraine. A large majority voted to go with Russia, sine most are Russian Citizens to begin with. Ukraine refused! Russia moved in! And there you have it!

 

Personally and up until the new election I thing Ukraine had a sweet deal with Russia for the use of their very important and long standing Naval Base on the Black Sea. I think the Ukrainian Government handled Russia in a very bad and unprofessional way. You are going to hear both good and bad on both side, but all I know is that if you are a Mouse, and you kick an Elephant between the legs, expect to get stamped on.      

[craigt3365]

19 minutes ago, Naam said:

they have not only reasons but are clearly entitled to protection by NATO like all countries located at the North Atlantic  

I didn't think Georgia was entitled to NATO protection?  They are not part of NATO.  And were attacked not long ago with no intervention by NATO.

[Naam]

1 minute ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Since the Crimea originally belonged to Russia and was a gift to Ukraine, and was a independent state until the new elections in Ukraine, the local government held a referendum on whether the citizens wanted to join Russia or stay with Ukraine. A large majority voted to go with Russia, sine most are Russian Citizens to begin with. Ukraine refused! Russia moved in! And there you have it!

you forgot to mention the real reason, namely the endangered status of Sevastopol the port of the Russian Black Sea Fleet strategically important because of its proximity to the Mediterranean.

[GOLDBUGGY]

6 minutes ago, Naam said:

you forgot to mention the real reason, namely the endangered status of Sevastopol the port of the Russian Black Sea Fleet strategically important because of its proximity to the Mediterranean.

Well actually I did mention Sevastopol but only not by name. But it is the name of the important Russian Naval Base and Port I was talking about in the Crimea, as Sevastopol is in the Crimea.  

[craigt3365]

55 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

 

I do agree that Poland is still very nervous about Russia being so close, and where very happy to join NATO. So I give you points there. But it still doesn't prove that NATO kept Russia out of Poland. The invasion of Poland in 1939 by Germany was the start of WWII and they didn't have, or need, NATO then to try and stop further aggression. . 

 

It is also not a far comparison to say Poland and the Ukraine are the same when it comes to Russia. Both have different associations and histories with Russia. Russia doesn't want the Ukraine! Russia wants its Naval Base back in the Crimea which technically belonged to Russia since 1783 and until they gave it to the Ukraine in 1954 as a form of friendship between them. 

 

Things changed a little bit again in 1991 when Ukraine became independent to Russia, so the Crimea became an independent to and had its own government. In 1997 a Peace and Friendship Treaty was signed by Ukraine and Russia and in 2010 a 25 year lease agreement was signed between these two parties for Russia to have the rights to its huge Naval Base in exchange for low priced gas. However after the election in Ukraine in 2014 all these rules had changed and Ukraine wanted the Crimea back or renegotiate a better bargaining deal, which Russia refused.

 

Since the Crimea originally belonged to Russia and was a gift to Ukraine, and was a independent state until the new elections in Ukraine, the local government held a referendum on whether the citizens wanted to join Russia or stay with Ukraine. A large majority voted to go with Russia, sine most are Russian Citizens to begin with. Ukraine refused! Russia moved in! And there you have it!

 

Personally and up until the new election I thing Ukraine had a sweet deal with Russia for the use of their very important and long standing Naval Base on the Black Sea. I think the Ukrainian Government handled Russia in a very bad and unprofessional way. You are going to hear both good and bad on both side, but all I know is that if you are a Mouse, and you kick an Elephant between the legs, expect to get stamped on.      

I think the big stick NATO carries helps keep Russia at bay big time.  But, Putin can do what he wants.  Unlike leaders of Western countries who need approval from various government departments.  So, makes Russia a big question mark as to what will happen.

 

You are wrong about Crimea, it's was given to Ukraine.  Russia forcibly took it back.

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

Quote

In 1954, the Crimean Oblast was transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, by Nikita Khrushchev in order to bolster the "unity of Russians and Ukrainians" and the "great and indissoluble friendship" between the two peoples.^[3] It became the Autonomous Republic of Crimea within newly independent Ukraine in 1991, with Sevastopol having its own administration, within Ukraine but outside of the Autonomous Republic.

 

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

Quote

On 19 May, Crimea agreed to remain part of Ukraine and annulled its proclamation of self-government but Crimean Communists forced the Ukrainian government to expand on the already extensive autonomous status of Crimea.^[17]

 

The new elections in Ukraine did not allow Crimea to become independent.  That would require an action by the Ukraine government, not just Crimea.  The referendum that was held was bogus.  Done after Russia invaded.  Illegally.

[Scott]

A post using a questionable source has been removed along with replies.  

[Naam]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

The new elections in Ukraine did not allow Crimea to become independent.  That would require an action by the Ukraine government, not just Crimea.  The referendum that was held was bogus.  Done after Russia invaded.  Illegally.

that's an opinion without any evidence.