Europe must not bow to U.S. spending demands on NATO - EU's Juncker

REUTERS

 

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker attends a debate on the priorities of the incoming Malta Presidency of the EU for the next six months at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France, January 18, 2017. REUTERS/Christian Hartmann

 

MUNICH, Germany (Reuters) - European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said on Thursday that Europe must not cave in to U.S demands to raise military spending, arguing that development and humanitarian aid could also count as security.

 

U.S. President Donald Trump has raised questions about his commitment to the NATO defence alliance if European countries do not raise defence spending to 2 percent of economic output. The United States puts up 70 percent of alliance funds.

 

U.S. Defence Secretary Jim Mattis warned North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies on Wednesday that they must honour military spending pledges to make sure the United States does not moderate its support.

 

"It has been the American message for many, many years. I am very much against letting ourselves be pushed into this," Juncker said in a speech on the sidelines of the international Munich Security Conference.

 

He said he knew that Germany would no longer have a budget surplus if it increased defence spending to 2 percent of GDP from 1.22 percent.

 

"I don't like our American friends narrowing down this concept of security to the military," he said, arguing it would be sensible to look at a "modern stability policy" made up of several components.

 

"If you look at what Europe is doing in defence, plus development aid, plus humanitarian aid, the comparison with the United States looks rather different. Modern politics cannot just be about raising defence spending," he said.

 

"Europeans must bundle their defence spending better and spend the money more efficiently," he added.

 

(Reporting by Andreas Rinke; Writing by Madeline Chambers; Editing by Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-02-17

Idiot! Foreign aid will not defend a country from Russian agression or terrorism.

It's Europe's funeral.  Maybe it really is time to cut the cord.  But I think this Juncker character is just playing a game of chicken.  But anyway, PLEASE, the UN first!

He's obviously an idiot. How do stupid people get into positions like that?

If Germany can't afford 2% to help pay for their own defence, perhaps they should stop inviting a lot of immigrants in that they have to support.

Nice to hear that Junckers is getting a taste of his own medicine.  He was the guy who wanted to dictate the terms of Brexit to the UK.  Fortunately he's leaving his EU job and will not be a part of any negotiations with NATO, Brexit, etc, etc. 

Edited February 17, 20179 yr by jpinx

  No let the Americans pay for everything---I think its called a "Free Lunch"..if you happen to live in a fantasy world.

----------------

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has also stated that he will not seek re-election at the end of this term..... Ship.......Rats....Jumping....A..Sinking..

.........................

While I'm not a fan of Trump, this isn't an issue of  Trump's demands but a condition of membership that they have already agreed to.

If you don't pay-The United Sates will "NOT PLAY!"

Like Lek the bar girl in Pattaya once Hans stops sending her money every month.... the US will find out quickly who their real friends are.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/

Edited February 17, 20179 yr by jpinx

More reasons the UN should be disbanded.

 

The western countries support it with money and the others do not. Yet they are given a voice

11 minutes ago, USPatriot said:

More reasons the UN should be disbanded.

 

The western countries support it with money and the others do not. Yet they are given a voice

This is about NATO -- do try to keep up

Why wouldn't this guy and any other in NATO want the USA to pick up the largest portion of NATO cost. When the day come that men die they will feel the same way.

He makes Trump look sane!

Canada? Strategically it's worth 1% GDP just having that huge landmass between the US and Russia in securing the Northwest Passage.

I agree with Junker that other security factors should count towards contribution of security and especially America's global security needs. But in the final analysis, NATO is about collective security (aka block) and not about individual security. It's more than about money. It's about the "synergy of the whole that is greater than the sum of its parts."

http://www.tewealth.com/the-whole-is-greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts/

 

Putin understands the value of security synergies as a KGB agent in the former USSR and now as PM as he seeks to rebuild the USSR. He knows the value of a security bloc and the security challenge Russia faces with a strong and united NATO. America should not help Putin weaken NATO.

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Canada? Strategically it's worth 1% GDP just having that huge landmass between the US and Russia in securing the Northwest Passage.

I agree with Junker that other security factors should count towards contribution of security and especially America's global security needs. But in the final analysis, NATO is about collective security (aka block) and not about individual security. It's more than about money. It's about the "synergy of the whole that is greater than the sum of its parts."

http://www.tewealth.com/the-whole-is-greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts/

 

Putin understands the value of security synergies as a KGB agent in the former USSR and now as PM as he seeks to rebuild the USSR. He knows the value of a security bloc and the security challenge Russia faces with a strong and united NATO. America should not help Putin weaken NATO.

 

 

 

There's a huge difference.  Russia has not gone "abroad" to get new members of it's block.  They have traditionally relied on a solid landmass of russian interest.  NATO, otoh, is a disparate and sometimes argumentative group of independent countries only held together in NATO because of their mutual dislike of the russian block -- thought even that is fragile, given Turkey cosying up to Putin now....

Canada? Strategically it's worth 1% GDP just having that huge landmass between the US and Russia in securing the Northwest Passage.
I agree with Junker that other security factors should count towards contribution of security and especially America's global security needs. But in the final analysis, NATO is about collective security (aka block) and not about individual security. It's more than about money. It's about the "synergy of the whole that is greater than the sum of its parts."
http://www.tewealth.com/the-whole-is-greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts/
 
Putin understands the value of security synergies as a KGB agent in the former USSR and now as PM as he seeks to rebuild the USSR. He knows the value of a security bloc and the security challenge Russia faces with a strong and united NATO. America should not help Putin weaken NATO.
 
 
 

It's all meaningless if all the members fail to see the value of contributing their fair share. The same is true of the UN. Everyone else constantly belly-aching about "US leadership", but when the hat's getting passed they're all of a sudden afflicted with chronic followeritis... Putin's dreams of a resurrected Russian empire aren't going to be overcome by the US paying everyone else's bills. If Europe is determined to play the deadbeat, the US is going to have to cut the cord. Better sooner than later.

57 minutes ago, hawker9000 said:

It's all meaningless if all the members fail to see the value of contributing their fair share. The same is true of the UN. Everyone else constantly belly-aching about "US leadership", but when the hat's getting passed they're all of a sudden afflicted with chronic followeritis... Putin's dreams of a resurrected Russian empire aren't going to be overcome by the US paying everyone else's bills. If Europe is determined to play the deadbeat, the US is going to have to cut the cord. Better sooner than later.

Don't forget that USA relies on friendly European countries to park their first-line missiles pointing straight into the heart of Russia, with about 25% of the flight time of US based missiles.

Edited February 17, 20179 yr by jpinx

3 hours ago, jpinx said:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/

 

Looking at the article the USA is paying 3.61% of it's GDP. The recommended amount it seems to be 2%. So the USA over pays by 273,700,000,000 (1.61% of 17 trillion) every year. That is no small amount. The USA could effectively pay off it's the national debt in a decade with that kind of money. 

 

Even if everybody paid the recommended percentage the USA would still have the highest burden because it has by far the highest GDP. These numbers are disgraceful and I just can't imagine how anybody can justify this. If Trump could do one worthwhile thing correcting this immediately would be the one I would like to see. 

 

I hope my math was right as I am not used to dealing in billions and trillions. 

 

Edited: my math has to be off because 1.6% of 17 trillion wouldn't be able to pay off the national debt of around 19 trillion in a decade. Anyway it is still a lot of money. I must have got a zero out of line somewhere.

Edited February 17, 20179 yr by anotheruser

Protection racket ...pure and simple!

 

 

2 minutes ago, anotheruser said:

 

Looking at the article the USA is paying 3.61% of it's GDP. The recommended amount it seems to be 2%. So the USA over pays by 273,700,000,000 (1.61% of 17 trillion) every year. That is no small amount. The USA could effectively pay off it's the national debt in a decade with that kind of money. 

 

Even if everybody paid the recommended percentage the USA would still have the highest burden because it has by far the highest GDP. These numbers are disgraceful and I just can't imagine how anybody can justify this. If Trump could do one worthwhile thing correcting this immediately would be the one I would like to see. 

 

I hope my math was right as I am not used to dealing in billions and trillions. 

 USA now pays 650Billion and that represents 3.61%.  If they only paid their 2%, that would be

650 / 3.61 x 2 = 360 This gives the USA 290 billion to play with.

US national debt is quickly heading towards 20 trillion -  so it'd take 69 years to clear the current national debt......

Just now, jpinx said:

 USA now pays 650Billion and that represents 3.61%.  If they only paid their 2%, that would be

650 / 3.61 x 2 = 360 This gives the USA 290 billion to play with.

US national debt is quickly heading towards 20 trillion -  so it'd take 69 years to clear the current national debt......

Yeah that sounds more like it. thanks for the correction I couldn't be asked to go online to get a calculator that handles those numbers again. :)

3 hours ago, jpinx said:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/

 

Germany and some others have for very many years not met their NATO spend obligations. Now Merkel says they might. How nice of her, but of course no mention of all those missing spend amounts being paid up.

 

Germany economy - good when spending others money.

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

He's obviously an idiot. How do stupid people get into positions like that?

If Germany can't afford 2% to help pay for their own defence, perhaps they should stop inviting a lot of immigrants in that they have to support.

Its the same in the US. They just handed Israel 32 BILLION dollars while Flint Michigan has no clean pure water, roads are in disrepair, bridges falling apart and much more. Time to look within Donald when doling out the TAXPAYERS monies. 

 

Just now, elgordo38 said:

Its the same in the US. They just handed Israel 32 BILLION dollars while Flint Michigan has no clean pure water, roads are in disrepair, bridges falling apart and much more. Time to look within Donald when doling out the TAXPAYERS monies. 

Out of all the countries that don't really need NATO as well. We have the Pacific and the Atlantic to do our heavy lifting. All that money could do a lot of good back home.

1 minute ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Germany and some others have for very many years not met their NATO spend obligations. Now Merkel says they might. How nice of her, but of course no mention of all those missing spend amounts being paid up.

 

Germany economy - good when spending others money.

I truly have to give Trump credit on this one. Maybe like Japan Juncker could go hat in hand to the US and write a check for 3 billion dollars and remind the US of how much money Germany has invested there if any. Japan has invested over 150 billion in the US which bought them that "warm" long handshake from Trump. When you find a friend you hang onto him. 

2 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Germany and some others have for very many years not met their NATO spend obligations. Now Merkel says they might. How nice of her, but of course no mention of all those missing spend amounts being paid up.

 

Germany economy - good when spending others money.

So true.  Germany doesn't contribute it's weight in anything external.  Nato. UN, EUPol, etc etc all have a hole where the german contribution should be.  UK picks up the EU slack, US picks up NATO's slack, etc, etc  But Germany's economy is booming, excellent roads and rails-links, good social services, etc. 

 

 

Just now, elgordo38 said:

I truly have to give Trump credit on this one. Maybe like Japan Juncker could go hat in hand to the US and write a check for 3 billion dollars and remind the US of how much money Germany has invested there if any. Japan has invested over 150 billion in the US which bought them that "warm" long handshake from Trump. When you find a friend you hang onto him. 

 

 You get a return on investment. Like the USD 10 million the German government gave to the Clinton Foundation for Aftrica.

 

Germany has simply avoided spending on defense what it agreed to spend as part of its NATO membership,

 

Now Juncke, Mrs. Merkels tame EU bureaucrat, is suggesting we should redefine things to allow Germany off the hook.

 

Absolutely non if his business. EU is not a member of NATO. He should be told to mind his own business.  He is simply trying to save the German budget and his suggestion is of no merit. Weasely words from a weasel of a man.

 

Other countries, especially Canada, also need bringing to book. The problem will be if NATO insists past low spends are also included. 

 

All these free loaders can leave, once they pay what they owe. Perhaps Juncke and his federalist friends think an EU military could replace NATO. Good luck with that

 

 

6 minutes ago, jpinx said:

So true.  Germany doesn't contribute it's weight in anything external.  Nato. UN, EUPol, etc etc all have a hole where the german contribution should be.  UK picks up the EU slack, US picks up NATO's slack, etc, etc  But Germany's economy is booming, excellent roads and rails-links, good social services, etc. 

 

 

 

Indeed. And who paid for the re-building of Germany whilst absorbing the costs of the 2 world wars Germany instigated? Yep, the same countries who pick up the holes in German contributions.

 

And now, Germany wants to rule because of its strong economy. An economy built and funded on the backs of others.

How is perpetually bankrupt Greece managing to spend 2.38% of it's GDP on defence?!?