Germany says boosting defence spending, demands clear U.S. agenda

[webfact]

Germany says boosting defence spending, demands clear U.S. agenda

REUTERS

 

German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen briefs the media as she arrives at a European defence ministers meeting in Brussels, Belgium, November 15, 2016. REUTERS/Francois Lenoir

 

BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany, under fire from U.S. President-elect Donald Trump for not meeting NATO's defence spending goal, is boosting military budgets, but also wants Trump to map out a consistent foreign policy agenda, Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen said.

 

Trump sparked concern among NATO and EU foreign ministers on Monday when he said NATO was obsolete and criticised NATO members that failed to meet the alliance's target of spending two percent of national output on defence.

 

A key Trump adviser on Tuesday said only parts of NATO were obsolete, while Nikki Haley, his nominee for ambassador to the United Nations, said NATO was an important alliance and she did not believe it was obsolete.

 

"We want the Americans to be clear, 'What is your agenda,'" German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen told German broadcaster NTV. "The most important thing ... is reliability."

 

Von der Leyen said Germany was boosting military spending by nearly 2 billion euros in 2017 to 37 billion euros, or 1.22 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). It is due to reach 39.2 billion euros by 2020.

 

"We're moving in the right direction, but we can't do it in one year," she told NTV.

 

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in November she did not expect Germany to meet its NATO defence spending target in the near future.

 

Von der Leyen welcomed support for NATO voiced by Trump's defence secretary nominee, James Mattis, during his Senate confirmation hearing.

 

"He's very reliable," she said, adding that the Trump administration still had to resolve some issues internally.

 

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told German newspaper Die Welt in an interview published on Thursday that Trump had assured him in a telephone call that the United States continued "to feel committed to NATO."

 

"I am absolutely certain the United States will continue to fully live up to its security guarantees for NATO," he said.

 

Asked about Trump's criticism that NATO had failed to prevent terror attacks in Europe, Stoltenberg said the alliance was already engaged in counter-terrorism efforts and talks were under way about how to expand that work.

 

A defence ministry spokesman said the German military's spending on weapons, munitions and other equipment rose by nearly 11 percent in 2016 to 5.1 billion euros and would increase even more sharply to 6 billion euros this year.

 

Procurement spending would account for 16.2 percent of the overall military budget in 2017, up from 14.5 percent in 2016 and 13.5 percent in 2015, the spokesman said.

 

(Reporting by Sabine Siebold, Andreas Rinke, Reinhard Becker and Andrea Shalal; editing by Gareth Jones and Jonathan Oatis)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-01-19

[craigt3365]

I'm not sure "consistency" is part of Trump's vocabulary.  LOL

[ocddave]

12 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

I'm not sure "consistency" is part of Trump's vocabulary.  LOL

 Nor is Germany's payment into NATO, when the heck are they going to pay their bills? They like to shoot their mouth off, but they can't seem to open their wallets, they aren't exactly poor either. Maybe since they are only paying half the bill, the US should also pay half their own bill from NATO, then we can keep this up until NATO is actually completely obsolete.

[Srikcir]

On 1/19/2017 at 9:14 AM, webfact said:

 

"We want the Americans to be clear, 'What is your agenda,'"

To be clear, what is President Trump's agenda because so far it's been contradictory, convoluted and simplistic (perhaps childish?).

Hopefully, Trump will forego his vast knowledge of all things and follow the lead of his Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and US NATO representative. Trump is the Command-in-Chief afterall and can claim credit for his cabinet's success.

[WhamBam]

About time Germany, France, Italy and others stumped up their 2% GDP.

She can whine all she likes to try and cover up the fact they have not been paying their share but cannot really hide the fact it has been reported in MSM for a while now and also that Trump is not happy about the lack of payments from Germany and the others.

[puck2]

16 hours ago, ocddave said:

 Nor is Germany's payment into NATO, when the heck are they going to pay their bills? They like to shoot their mouth off, but they can't seem to open their wallets, they aren't exactly poor either. Maybe since they are only paying half the bill, the US should also pay half their own bill from NATO, then we can keep this up until NATO is actually completely obsolete.

 

You forgot only a little bit:

Germany doesn't want to be world's policeman nr. 1

 

Leaving NATO,  no problem.  NATO ---> very useful for the weapon lobby and industry. Please tell me one positive NATO action ! 

Edited January 20, 2017 by puck2

[craigt3365]

4 hours ago, puck2 said:

 

You forgot only a little bit:

Germany doesn't want to be world's policeman nr. 1

 

Leaving NATO,  no problem.  NATO ---> very useful for the weapon lobby and industry. Please tell me one positive NATO action ! 

 

Piracy off the coast of Africa is down some 35% in the past 5 years and 75% down since 2011.  There are more accomplishments, but you just asked for one. LOL

 

[puck2]

15 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

 

Piracy off the coast of Africa is down some 35% in the past 5 years and 75% down since 2011.  There are more accomplishments, but you just asked for one. LOL

 

 

If you read the topics on the web page of NATO you'll get information about some „achievements“, including Afghanistan, Iraq. It's in general advertising and self-justification.

 

The USA and GB have been very angry that some European countries didn't like to be „NATO“-members in the fabricated Iraq war. That means some NATO-members tried to abuse it's rules, tried to abuse them for their own interests (in Iraq for OIL !!!). Among the rules:

„NATO is a crisis management organisation that has the capacity to undertake a wide range of military operations and missions.“

 

Surely, Iraq war was a „crisis management“ ??? But when the NATO was urgently needed in Syria it plunged like a duck into the water.

 

Concerning the Gulf of Eden, you are right, NATO did the job. But, do you need the extremely expensive NATO for actions like this? We have the UN. And if Trump would change his mind about NATO, don't you think that he wouldn't try to abuse the NATO (again)? The conservative German party (CDU) wouldn't mind. Defence minister von der Leyen shows already a poodle-like behavior.

[impulse]

As I understand it, nobody's asking them to pay more into NATO.  They're asking some countries to pay for their own defense, to the agreed tune of 2% of their GDP.  

 

Instead, several nations neglect funding their own defense, counting on others to protect them under the NATO umbrella.  Trump's saying the free ride's over.  Pay for your own defense- at least 2% of your GDP.  That was the agreement and the USA (and UK) aren't going to make up your shortfall any more.

 

I'm all for that.  We Americans would also like free health care, 24 hour work weeks, 60 days of paid vacation, guaranteed paternity leave, and retiring on full benefits at age 42.  I don't think we'll get there on this NATO funding debacle, but it's a good start. 

[impulse]

20 hours ago, puck2 said:

 

You forgot only a little bit:

Germany doesn't want to be world's policeman nr. 1

 

Leaving NATO,  no problem.  NATO ---> very useful for the weapon lobby and industry. Please tell me one positive NATO action ! 

 

That's the thing about preventive measures.  Stuff that doesn't happen doesn't make the headlines.

 

Like when the Russkie tanks didn't cross over into West Germany, then through France, stopping only when their feet got wet- when the only thing stopping them was NATO, and the American nuclear arsenal.    And more recently, when they stopped where they did in the Crimea and the Ukraine...

[ilostmypassword]

37 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

 

 We Americans would also like free health care, 24 hour work weeks, 60 days of paid vacation, guaranteed paternity leave, and retiring on full benefits at age 42.  I don't think we'll get there on this NATO funding debacle, but it's a good start. 

I see that you get your information from the same sources that Trump does.

[impulse]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

I see that you get your information from the same sources that Trump does.

 

He uses the anal extraction method, too?  Who'd have figured?

[ilostmypassword]

On most issues I think Trump is misguided at best, but mostly deranged. But on the issue of Europe paying for its defense, he has a good point. The Eu is the second richest region of the world on a per capita basis.  The members have plenty of money to completely defend themselves.  Russia is an economic midget compared to them. The USA shouldn't need to contribute anything to the defense of Europe.

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

He uses the anal extraction method, too?  Who'd have figured?

But he doesn't wear gloves.

[impulse]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

But he doesn't wear gloves.

 

Gloves are for wusses.  Like me.

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Gloves are for wusses.  Like me.

The odd thing is that Trump apparently has a phobia about shaking other people's hands. Or maybe not so odd when you consider that he lives in Oppositeland.

[impulse]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

The odd thing is that Trump apparently has a phobia about shaking other people's hands. Or maybe not so odd when you consider that he lives in Oppositeland.

  

I've actually met quite a few successful germophobes over the years, a couple of them working here in Thailand.  

 

I don't get it.  But then, I've got my own quirks.

[CharlieK]

Won't a Euro army conflict with Nato, would both be needed? 

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, CharlieK said:

Won't a Euro army conflict with Nato, would both be needed? 

Who said anything about a Euro Army? The United States could still have a token number of troops in Europe. Nato could stay intact or expand.  Or even contract. Let the Europeans deal with that. If they really are alarmed about Russia, that should be incentive enough for them to come up with a credible counterforce. 

Edited January 21, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[Briggsy]

The Trump administration needs to be clear to its long-term strategic allies. What is the point of Trump tweeting one position and his Secretary of Defense stating a completely different position. How is that clever or effective?

[rijb]

On 1/20/2017 at 10:07 AM, Srikcir said:

To be clear, what is President Trump's agenda because so far it's been contradictory, convoluted and simplistic (perhaps childish?).

Hopefully, Trump will forego his vast knowledge of all things and follow the lead of his Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and US NATO representative. Trump is the Command-in-Chief afterall and can claim credit for his cabinet's success.

 

That's all part of his master plan to confuse the enemies.

------

Lt. Col. Charles R. Codman: You know General, sometimes the men don't know when you're acting. 

Patton: It's not important for them to know. It's only important for me to know.

 

[CharlieK]

6 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Who said anything about a Euro Army?

 

It is part of the Federalist EU plans. It will effect Nato in some way. If there was conflict who would take orders from who? Trump is right if they don't pay up don't expect the US to be there.  

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, rijb said:

 

That's all part of his master plan to confuse the enemies.

------

Lt. Col. Charles R. Codman: You know General, sometimes the men don't know when you're acting. 

Patton: It's not important for them to know. It's only important for me to know.

 

Which apparently includes most Americans.

[rijb]

So far, so good.

[impulse]

11 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

The Trump administration needs to be clear to its long-term strategic allies. What is the point of Trump tweeting one position and his Secretary of Defense stating a completely different position. How is that clever or effective?

 

I'm not speaking to the mixed messages they're sending.  Yours was just a convenient post about clarity of position to grab onto.

 

On the OP, I'd prefer Trump keep his plans vague until our $$$ delinquent NATO allies show him what they plan to do with their 2% spending, then work together to fill in the gaps. 

 

If Trump puts his plans out there, it gives the allies all kinds of wiggle room to keep reneging on their promises.  Or to tell him why his plans aren't going to work for them.  Then keep reneging.  They need to show us how they're going to defend themselves before we make any $$$ promises to backstop them.  Not how they're going to fill in the holes the USA leaves in defending Europe.

[mrwebb8825]

"We want the Americans to be clear, 'What is your agenda,'" German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen told German broadcaster NTV. "The most important thing ... is reliability."

 

You mean like the reliability of you people NOT paying your agreed upon share since the inception of NATO? What a freaking hypocrite.

 

I hope he dumps the whole lot of you freeloading bastards or, at the very least, withholds ALL further funding from the US until it balances out. We'll start adding our 2% again in about 50 years.

 

Edit To Add: Isn't Germany the reason NATO was formed in the 1st place?

Edited January 23, 2017 by mrwebb8825