After summits with Trump, Merkel says Europe must take fate into own hands

[Andaman Al]

38 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Apologies for being late on parade

 

Im actually quite horrified about how little people know about NATO and European history generally. Shameful actually. I will not explain the NATO members' defence spend agreement as it should be common knowledge.

 

I a quite pro Germany for multiple reasons. However the idea of them spending 2% of their large GDP, backdated, seems, er, unwise.

 

I think Europe should look at a post America defence system. Trump has made a laughing stock of himself because of his ignorance. Sadly, we can not rely upon our cousins.

I could not agree more. I am genuinely shocked that Western 'adults' no so little. The number of posts on here that should be consigned to the bin as absolute rubbish is amazing. From the total lack of understanding of how NATO works to the reasons for the Great War. I can forgive people a lack of knowledge as it depends on schooling , background, experiences etc, but those people lacking the knowledge should not be spouting off as if they are PhD historians or experts on global current affairs when it is plain for anyone with a brain in their head to see that they are not.

[Andaman Al]

4 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

i don't think you will understand…..your mind is too clouded with using google to discredit the president.

 

this is how he deals…. instead of letting people walk all over the usa…no more nonsense….pay up or pay the price.

I paid great attention when I was posted to NATO HQ for 2 years, but thanks for your concern anyway.

[dunroaming]

Merkel is right.  The USA and Britain can no longer be relied on.  However it's not the USA that is the problem it is Trump and Trumps days are numbered and the bridges can be rebuilt.  I think Merkel knows that.  Britain is not so easy with May in charge of Brexit.  She is screwing up big time with this election's manifesto and hopefully people will stop voting for the Conservatives in the numbers that were expected.  You cannot stop the Tories from winning but you can erode their majority making them more accountable.  The way things are going for the Conservatives there may actually be a chance of a coalition which would probably end up as a disaster.  Even with a bad result for the Conservatives I doubt that May would do the right thing and stand aside.  Time will tell but I won't hold my breath.

[metisdead]

Inflammatory posts and  replies have been removed.  

[smedly]

I think the US should totally withdraw its military presence in Europe/EU (except for the UK, and just let them fend for themselves - we all know what happens when Europe is left to its own devices, some roles may be reversed but the result will be the same

 

and for those accusing other posters on this topic as not knowing and needing a history lesson - lets start with the Ukraine who's history with Russia especially Stalin is quite a shocker and then lets move onto WW1 and how that one all started in Austria and why, can Europe really be left to its own devices ?  history says no

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, JHolmesJr said:

i don't think you will understand…..your mind is too clouded with using google to discredit the president.

 

this is how he deals…. instead of letting people walk all over the usa…no more nonsense….pay up or pay the price.

You mean his mind is too clouded with facts. Like the fact that there's an agreement in place for these countries to devote 2 percent of their GDP to military spending by 2024.  There's also is an agreement that an attack on one Nato member is an attack on all Nato members. Or there was until Trump came to Europe.

[Flustered]

1 hour ago, Andaman Al said:

I paid great attention when I was posted to NATO HQ for 2 years, but thanks for your concern anyway.

You are not the only one who spent time at NATO. Many of us were posted to various NATO locations and sub organisations that required very close co-operation between the various nations.

 

As a person who was posted to NATO you will be fully aware of how the USA and the UK carried out the lions share of the work and funded it. Even at our NATO sssshs Italian base, it was the UK that funded it. And, don't forget that France pulled out of NATO in 1966 and did not rejoin until 2009.

 

The US and the UK have carried NATO for far too long. It's time for the rest to cough up and shut up.

 

 

[Thongkorn]

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

Nonsense, the UK received much more from the Marshall Plan.

 

Tell us, who was responsible for WW1? ( tee hee)

 

What about Versailles?

 

What role did the Soviets play in WW2 ?

 

Which NAZI said to Churchill "it should have been you and us against the Americans to protect civilisation?

 

Now, what was your point?

Yes America turned around the lease lend ships on the last day of the war, Britain paid of world war 2 debit to America about 5 years ago,  the rest cannot be bothered to answer, But who was prepared to let Britain fall to the Germans, i think the name begins with A

[Grouse]

32 minutes ago, smedly said:

I think the US should totally withdraw its military presence in Europe/EU (except for the UK, and just let them fend for themselves - we all know what happens when Europe is left to its own devices, some roles may be reversed but the result will be the same

 

and for those accusing other posters on this topic as not knowing and needing a history lesson - lets start with the Ukraine who's history with Russia especially Stalin is quite a shocker and then lets move onto WW1 and how that one all started in Austria and why, can Europe really be left to its own devices ?  history says no

It didn't start in Austria

[Andaman Al]

16 minutes ago, smedly said:

I think the US should totally withdraw its military presence in Europe/EU

Where are you going to put all the troops that you pull out? There are probably (including families) 170-200K in Europe. In Italy and Germany alone the US has around 230-240 bases and military installations. Not all are active but all are there to be used as forward deployment areas when it suits US needs, and believe me it does NOT suit US interests to have Europe invaded by Russia, that would be the beginning of the end of the US (if Trump has not already started that beginning of the end). The real estate that the US holds on to is worth billions of dollars, so by all means clear off out.  Further across Europe and moving into Korea and Japan which also seems to gripe Trump supporters as they cannot comprehend why the US projects power in these areas, we are probably pushing 500-600 000 people including families. Where exactly are these people going to be housed and schooled if you dump them all back in the USA? Do you think there are houses and barracks for all these folks just sitting there? Don't forget to take ALL your hardware with you.

 

It would be IMPOSSIBLE for the US to operate in the Middle East as it does without forward deployment bases such as Ramstein in Germany and even Fairford in the UK. If the US gave it all up it would become impotent. Anytime it needed to deploy it would somehow have to get all the hardware out from the USA that it currently conveniently stores around the world. Everything from vehicles, hummers, kitchens, field surgeries, fast jets helicopters, would have to be deployed from the US EVERY TIME and don't forget all those personnel. How long would it take just to move 100K combat troops back to Europe for forward staging to the Middle East WITH Equipment. And lets not forget you would not actually be able to stage them through Europe (you pulled out on Europe), or refuel aircraft or transport weapons through. So tell me HOW you would get all the troops and hardware anywhere if you had to route from the USA.

 

All of you calling for the measures in the post by smedly and for other countries to 'pay their way' are as ignorant as Trump when it comes to Military strategy and economies. The US is currently getting a bargain of a deal for the use of the other countries it holds bases in and if I were a head of state in NATO right now after Trumps insults last week,  I would now be discussing with my counterparts about INCREASING the rental to US Military and lets see how smart the chump Trump would seem then. The USA military CANNOT operate without it's forward deployed bases in Europe, Asia and the Far East. Now just give it up with the school boy arguments and talking utter drivel. Just stop and THINK about it.

[mamypoko]

13 hours ago, DiamondKing said:

MAYBE SHE SHOULD PAY HER BILL as well as the other 22 nations welching on their responsibilities 

TRUMP was spot on to call them out why the <deleted> should the USA pay for all these loser countries that are not paying their bills

You're not American, are you            ?

[Retiredandhappyhere]

10 hours ago, OKF said:

Hi@all,

 

so how do you come to that conclusion? Where r u from that you can make such IMHO stupid and short sighted remark?

 

As a general remark I would like to add that this person Trump is a big chance for Europe to finally sharpen their profile and come to together more close. That is the only good thing about Trump that I can see from a european perspective. Naturally Merkel is the leader in europe whther I like her or not. She the only experinced player on the political stage in Europe now. So everybody has to rely on her a little bit. This one has to be clearly seen

 

And if Merkel's dream of a United States of Europe ever comes to fruition, which country do you think will be the leader?

[Thakkar]

A nuanced analysis:

 

A Trans-Atlantic Turning Point

 

What Was Merkel Thinking?

An historical turning point or mere campaign bluster? Chancellor Angela Merkel's Sunday speech on relations with Donald Trump's America has raised eyebrows the world over. What did she mean? 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/merkel-and-trump-a-trans-atlantic-turning-point-a-1149757.html#ref=nl-international

 

--

If the schism between America and Germany becomes serious, it will upend a 70 year arrangement that has kept the peace. One of the key purposes of NATO was to embed Germany in an international framework that would prevent it from becoming a threat to European peace as it had been in World War I and World War II. In the words of NATO’s first secretary general, NATO was supposed “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” Now, Merkel is suggesting that the Americans aren’t really in

[smedly]

1 hour ago, Andaman Al said:

Where are you going to put all the troops that you pull out? There are probably (including families) 170-200K in Europe. In Italy and Germany alone the US has around 230-240 bases and military installations. Not all are active but all are there to be used as forward deployment areas when it suits US needs, and believe me it does NOT suit US interests to have Europe invaded by Russia, that would be the beginning of the end of the US (if Trump has not already started that beginning of the end). The real estate that the US holds on to is worth billions of dollars, so by all means clear off out.  Further across Europe and moving into Korea and Japan which also seems to gripe Trump supporters as they cannot comprehend why the US projects power in these areas, we are probably pushing 500-600 000 people including families. Where exactly are these people going to be housed and schooled if you dump them all back in the USA? Do you think there are houses and barracks for all these folks just sitting there? Don't forget to take ALL your hardware with you.

 

It would be IMPOSSIBLE for the US to operate in the Middle East as it does without forward deployment bases such as Ramstein in Germany and even Fairford in the UK. If the US gave it all up it would become impotent. Anytime it needed to deploy it would somehow have to get all the hardware out from the USA that it currently conveniently stores around the world. Everything from vehicles, hummers, kitchens, field surgeries, fast jets helicopters, would have to be deployed from the US EVERY TIME and don't forget all those personnel. How long would it take just to move 100K combat troops back to Europe for forward staging to the Middle East WITH Equipment. And lets not forget you would not actually be able to stage them through Europe (you pulled out on Europe), or refuel aircraft or transport weapons through. So tell me HOW you would get all the troops and hardware anywhere if you had to route from the USA.

 

All of you calling for the measures in the post by smedly and for other countries to 'pay their way' are as ignorant as Trump when it comes to Military strategy and economies. The US is currently getting a bargain of a deal for the use of the other countries it holds bases in and if I were a head of state in NATO right now after Trumps insults last week,  I would now be discussing with my counterparts about INCREASING the rental to US Military and lets see how smart the chump Trump would seem then. The USA military CANNOT operate without it's forward deployed bases in Europe, Asia and the Far East. Now just give it up with the school boy arguments and talking utter drivel. Just stop and THINK about it.

I wish you would make your mind up, the US is in Europe because Europe cannot defend itself - that means  they took the US and their defence spending and deployment for granted and contributed little themselves, isn't that exactly Trumps point and exactly what this topic is about.

 

As for the US needing a strategic presence in Europe as the reason they are there - that quite frankly is nonsense. - you do realise how close the US and Russia are on the planet, what happens if Russia moves further into the Ukraine - what exactly will Merkel be saying then  ? what interest has the US got in the Ukraine ?

 

AS most people posting here have tried their best to educate the still as yet uneducated - it is time for the EU to step up as the reliance on the US and the UK may not be the same going forward - exactly what the OP says, and not wanting to cloud the issue but what influence could the mighty EU have on China - N Korea - Iran and Russia apart from a pointless verbal comment from the mighty Merkel and her mighty EU, for such a collection of some 27 united countries they have little to no influence on anything - and why is that, well read the OP and ask yourself why the US tax payer should be bothered  to support any of them.  

[Scott]

A number of inflammatory posts and replies have been remove.   Continue and suspensions will be given and they will not be short suspensions.  

[simple1]

20 hours ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

Exactly. Donald Trump got elected on an Anerica First platform. Germany is a rich country. They need tanks, fighter jets and German boys to face off the Russians. The Americans can sell the gear to them. Trade deficit gone. 

 

Well done President Trump.

 

Next up Japan. 

Guess you're unaware Germany military deploys EU designed and manufactured fighter jets, tanks and weapons, not just US weapons. In fact Germany is the world's third largest weapons exporter, including supplying the US military.

 

One wonders the massive damage to the US economy should the EU falter. Seems to me too many people are very blinked to the fact of absolute reliance on international trade for the stability of Western countries and one of the primary purposes of the military is to protect trade, especially the US.

Edited May 29, 2017 by simple1

[chrissables]

22 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

No country owes billions to Nato.  Or even millions. I thought Trump was the only person ignorant enough to believe that.

All countries agreed to spend 2% of gpd, most don't. I can't be bothered to cross reference every county's gdp. But for sure it will add up to millions.

 

Here's a breakdown of each country's contribution, based on 2016 figures provided by NATO:

United States, 3.61%.

Greece, 2.38%.

Britain, 2.21%.

Estonia, 2.16%.

Poland, 2%.

France, 1.78%.

Turkey, 1.56%.

Norway, 1.54%.

Lithuania, 1.49%.

Romania, 1.48%.

Latvia, 1.45%.

Portugal, 1.38%.

Bulgaria, 1.35%.

Croatia, 1.23%.

Albania, 1.21%.

Germany, 1.19%.

Denmark, 1.17%.

Netherlands, 1.17%.

Slovakia, 1.16%.

Italy, 1.11%.

Czech Republic, 1.04%.

Hungary, 1.01%.

Canada, 0.99%.

Slovenia, 0.94%.

Spain, 0.91%.

Belgium, 0.85%.

Luxembourg, 0.44%.

[stevenl]

13 hours ago, Grouse said:

What debts?

Please read before writing.

 

I reacted to another post, where debts were mentioned. Your act of coming in here and reacting to as many posts as possible  without reading properly makes some of your posts nonsensical.

[Kiwiken]

I said right from the Start of Trump's victory in the US elections all of you who support his America first lets renegotiate all Trade and Military Agreements in the US's favour that such things work two ways. The Europeans will go back to (with Britain) developing their own Indigenous defence systems. The same will happen in Asia and Africa. Who will benefit . The Central European Nations, China and Russia. Backing away from NATO , and other Military Alliances. Backing away from Climate change agreements, And Trade Deals America will become still the biggest Kid on the block but no one to play with. Hell you can save the money by drawing down you overseas bases and deployments. Your Industry will become irrelevant to the World. Like Rome the USA will wither and die. Do not forget it was from the Marshal Plan that truly open Societies and the Global economy grew everyone benefitted , Most do from World Trade. Our Countries still Trade what will America do on its own?

[selftaopath]

16 hours ago, darksidedog said:

The 2% agreement does not come into play until 2024, so right now the percentages each country is spending is completely irrelevant. Only a complete retard (You know who!), would expect a country to go from 1.3% or 1.5% to 2% overnight, which would be completely impractical. If, after 2024 any member nation is failing to pay in the agreed upon amount, that would be the time to call them out on it. Donald talking about non existent, unpaid bills is the height of stupidity, but what we have come to expect from him.

Looking through the posts today, it is clear that many people have absolutely no understanding of how NATO operates or the fact it has no central funding, or individual "bills", or that there is nothing in place before 2024 to dictate what should be spent by NATO members. Anything Donald says on this subject is just fodder for the stupid, that keeps them occupied and not focusing on how badly he is doing.

Thank you DSD. Wouldn't it be a relief if Don and his defenders read a little? Just plain ignorance. Like him, they just say stuff/make stuff up/give opinion as fact. GEEZE  And I bet his defenders really believe manufacturing jobs are going to spring up b/c they have a "businessman" in the WH. lol lol I wonder if they how how much he buys from China? lol lol Ohhhhhhhhhhhh my.

[citybiker]

All countries agreed to spend 2% of gpd, most don't. I can't be bothered to cross reference every county's gdp. But for sure it will add up to millions.
 

Here's a breakdown of each country's contribution, based on 2016 figures provided by NATO:

United States, 3.61%.

Greece, 2.38%.

Britain, 2.21%.

Estonia, 2.16%.

Poland, 2%.

France, 1.78%.

Turkey, 1.56%.

Norway, 1.54%.

Lithuania, 1.49%.

Romania, 1.48%.

Latvia, 1.45%.

Portugal, 1.38%.

Bulgaria, 1.35%.

Croatia, 1.23%.

Albania, 1.21%.

Germany, 1.19%.

Denmark, 1.17%.

Netherlands, 1.17%.

Slovakia, 1.16%.

Italy, 1.11%.

Czech Republic, 1.04%.

Hungary, 1.01%.

Canada, 0.99%.

Slovenia, 0.94%.

Spain, 0.91%.

Belgium, 0.85%.

Luxembourg, 0.44%.

Fair play to Trump for highlighting the fact that 23 out of 29 (Montengro joint shortly) NATO members are not paying their way in relation to 2% of GDP.

If an uncomfortable summit was had then perhaps more actions than words is required.

N no
A action
T talk
O only

Most organisations have flaws, NATO is no different.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[simple1]

10 minutes ago, citybiker said:

 

Fair play to Trump for highlighting the fact that 23 out of 29 (Montengro joint shortly) NATO members are not paying their way in relation to 2% of GDP.

If an uncomfortable summit was had then perhaps more actions than words is required.

N no
A action
T talk
O only

Most organisations have flaws, NATO is no different.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

When will some members finally take notice of the numerous posts that talk to fact i.e. NATO members agreed to allocate 2% of their GDP by 2024 to fund NATO.

 

With reference to the no action etc by NATO, say that to the dead & injured from NATO European member countries from prior and ongoing overseas deployments. 

Edited May 30, 2017 by simple1

[smedly]

3 hours ago, simple1 said:

Guess you're unaware Germany military deploys EU designed and manufactured fighter jets, tanks and weapons, not just US weapons. In fact Germany is the world's third largest weapons exporter, including supplying the US military.

 

One wonders the massive damage to the US economy should the EU falter. Seems to me too many people are very blinked to the fact of absolute reliance on international trade for the stability of Western countries and one of the primary purposes of the military is to protect trade, especially the US.

maybe you could write a letter to Merkel Junker and Tusk to remind them about how trade with the UK is also important, if the EU falters Germany and France will be looking after their own interests just as they have been doing  

[citybiker]

When will some members finally take notice of the numerous posts that talk to fact i.e. NATO members agreed to allocate 2% of their GDP by 2024 to fund NATO.
 
With reference to the no action etc by NATO, say that to the dead & injured from NATO European member countries from prior and ongoing overseas deployments. 

Speaking as a previously injured & recovered member of armed services on overseas deployment my view on NATO remains, the relevant countries failing to adhere to their economic obligations are and quite rightly should be named and shamed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[simple1]

4 minutes ago, smedly said:

maybe you could write a letter to Merkel Junker and Tusk to remind them about how trade with the UK is also important, if the EU falters Germany and France will be looking after their own interests just as they have been doing  

No need, May has already done so, as has Merkel naturally recognised the crucial  importance of trade with allies. Trump vacillates.

[simple1]

1 minute ago, citybiker said:

 

Speaking as a previously injured & recovered member of armed services on overseas deployment my view on NATO remains, the relevant countries failing to adhere to their economic obligations are and quite rightly should be named and shamed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Service acknowledged. Please advise which NATO countries have failed in 2024 agreed goals - somewhat impossible eh?

 

I do know HMG, initially failed to sufficiently  protect with appropriate equipment and resources for armed forces personnel deployed to Afghanistan - totally unacceptable. Don't know if applies to other deployments, but isn't that the ownership of HMG, not NATO?

[funandsuninbangkok]

3 hours ago, simple1 said:

Guess you're unaware Germany military deploys EU designed and manufactured fighter jets, tanks and weapons, not just US weapons. In fact Germany is the world's third largest weapons exporter, including supplying the US military.

 

One wonders the massive damage to the US economy should the EU falter. Seems to me too many people are very blinked to the fact of absolute reliance on international trade for the stability of Western countries and one of the primary purposes of the military is to protect trade, especially the US.

Well then, they better hope thier little Euro weapons work. That or start learning Russian. 

[Andaman Al]

7 minutes ago, citybiker said:

 

Speaking as a previously injured & recovered member of armed services on overseas deployment my view on NATO remains, the relevant countries failing to adhere to their economic obligations are and quite rightly should be named and shamed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

They have to work towards reaching 2% by 2024 is that really so difficult to grasp and understand. If you were told to take out an enemy position at 0553 hrs that is when you do it, you do not go in at 0547 hrs do you?  If you all pull your heads out of Trumps ass and see what's happening in reality it might help 2024, 2024, 2024  is it CLEAR? Those are the rules made by NATO and endorsed and ratified by the USA. You don't make a rule for 2024 and then bitch and moan 7 years early that people need to start paying 2%.  If the US want to spend more on defence than most other countries combined that is their issue, but when they are complaining (early) perhaps they need to remember that back home people are hungry, people are not receiving a good education and people are not getting healthcare.Y'all can come back and moan in 2024 if countries do not hit 2% so until then can you give it a rest. 

[Andaman Al]

1 minute ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

Well then, they better hope thier little Euro weapons work. That or start learning Russian. 

Someone else who should apply for membership of the "i've got a solid grip on World Affairs and how reality works -NOT!' Club.

[Srikcir]

15 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Merkel naturally recognised the crucial  importance of trade with allies.

If Trump gave the EU a favorable trade agreement, the European NATO countries could use the boost in the resulting at least 1% GDP growth rate to meet their NATO budget targets long before 2024. Such a favorable trade agreement shouldn't be a problem for Trump as he already projects a 3% growth in GDP for FY 2018 for the USA! Then Trump could claim credit for getting more NATO nations in early compliance with their NATO revenue targets.

The question though is whether Trump would trust his Wall Street cabinet to negotiate such a deal or let his own ego get in the way.