Trump Had a Point About NATO Free-Riding Off American Defense
It’s true that the U.S. pays too much of the continent’s defense bills even as it’s going broke.

European politicians are indignant that former and possibly future U.S. president Donald Trump threatened to deny protection to NATO allies that don't meet their defense spending obligations. Worse, he said he'd "encourage" Russia to do its worst if they didn't pay up, making the pact sound more like a protection racket than an alliance. But while Trump managed, typically, to frame the matter in the nastiest way possible, he's right that many European countries free-ride on American military might.
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
Nice Little Country You Got There…
At a weekend rally in Conway, South Carolina, Trump told of a supposed gathering during his presidency of NATO leaders discussing the alliance's target for members to spend 2 percent of GDP on defense:
One of the presidents of a big country stood up, said, "Well, sir, if we don't pay and we're attacked by Russia, will you protect us?" I said, "You didn't pay. You're delinquent?" He said, "Yes, let's say that happened."
"No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills."
The continent's prickly officials immediately flew into a frenzy over the threat.
"NATO cannot be an a la carte military alliance, it cannot be a military alliance that works depending on the humor of the president of the U.S.," huffed European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell.
The problem for Borrell and company is that Trump has a point. Even after Russia invaded Ukraine, many NATO members remain less allies than dependencies sheltering under the U.S. military umbrella.
European Countries, American Defense
"In 2022, seven Allies met the guideline of spending 2% of their Gross Domestic Product on defence," according to the most recent NATO Secretary General's Annual Report. "In 2014, only three Allies met the guideline. The United States accounted for 54% of the Allies' combined GDP and 70% of combined defence expenditure."
NATO currently has 31 member countries. The seven meeting their obligations in the report are: the U.S. (3.46 percent), Greece (3.54), Lithuania (2.47), Poland (2.42), the U.K. (2.16), Estonia (2.12), and Latvia (2.07). Germany, widely considered the economic powerhouse of Europe, came in at 1.49 percent of GDP and France spent 1.89 percent, though its nuclear armory, like that of the UK, is a next-level deterrent. In 2011, the Netherlands (1.64) actually eliminated its entire tank force to save money, only to partially backtrack after it became apparent that its forces were hobbled by the move.
"The British military—the leading U.S. military ally and Europe's biggest defense spender—has only around 150 deployable tanks and perhaps a dozen serviceable long-range artillery pieces," The Wall Street Journal reported in December. "France, the next biggest spender, has fewer than 90 heavy artillery pieces, equivalent to what Russia loses roughly every month on the Ukraine battlefield. Denmark has no heavy artillery, submarines or air-defense systems. Germany's army has enough ammunition for two days of battle."
What's remarkable is that NATO was formed to counter the old Soviet Union and its puppet-state allies but has since absorbed most of those now-democratic countries. This expanded alliance currently stands against Russia and (maybe?) Belarus. Russia possesses the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, but otherwise poses no particular threat to wealthy, industrialized countries—assuming they take their own defense seriously, which is not what they've been doing.
Europe Could Defend Itself
While a giant of geography, Russia's economy ranks as the sixth largest in the world, behind Germany, according to the CIA's World Factbook. Though Germany's 84 million people are less numerous than Russia's 142 million, the wealthier country could, all by itself, field a formidable military. Importantly, German troops are armed to German levels of precision and honesty, not with whatever products of sloppy Russian engineering survive a trip through that country's remarkably corrupt supply chain.
Germany doesn't exist in a vacuum and wouldn't have to burden itself with Russian levels of military spending if relatively prosperous neighbors such as France and Italy (1.51 percent of GDP spent on defense) also took their responsibilities seriously. Some of them seem to perceive a need to do so.
"We have to realize it's not a given that we are in peace. And that's why we are preparing for a conflict with Russia," Dutch Admiral Rob Bauer warned last month at a NATO gathering.
Fair enough. But why should 70 percent of those preparations be paid by the United States, which is across the Atlantic Ocean on another continent?
America Is Running Out of Money To Spend
That's an important question since the U.S. is in a financial hole of its own digging. As I write, U.S. national debt is officially $34.2 trillion. Two weeks ago, JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon warned the U.S. is maybe 10 years from a "rebellion" in global markets against its borrowing habits. That's even worse than the 20 years the Penn Wharton Budget Model gives the U.S. as a best-case scenario before the U.S. defaults with consequences "across the U.S. and world economies." Even Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell warns that debt is "unsustainable," which is bureaucratese for "looming disaster."
At some point, the U.S. government will have to cut way back on spending. A logical place for cuts is in the hundreds of billions of dollars spent for defense, much of which benefits other prosperous countries.
"The United States spends more on national defense than China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom, Germany, France, South Korea, Japan, and Ukraine—combined," the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which promotes fiscal discipline, noted last April.
The U.S. shouldn't abruptly abandon allies, let alone suggest, as Trump did, that they have nice little countries and it'd be a shame if something happened to them. But it's past time to put NATO members on notice that American taxpayers won't continue picking up the tab for European defense needs.
If Admiral Rob Bauer thinks Russia is a threat, maybe the Netherlands could buy a few tanks. And it could get him a fleet to go with his rank; right now he's admiraling over six frigates and four submarines.
Perhaps the message was received; European Parliament President Roberta Metsola now admits the continent needs to "get practical about our strategic autonomy."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This is classic POTUS Trump. Identify the problem (deadbeat NATO allies), up the ante dramatically with a 'verbal mean tweet' (hey, maybe we don't want to pay for deadbeats), and watch the Establishment go through a collective case of the vapors (more like, they are shitting their pants at the prospect of a second Trump term). How many times have we seen that pattern? LMFAO.
Then the NATO deadbeats make noises about paying more. They should.
I would say as an American that I appreciate the fact the Europe is currently housing a lot of Ukranians from the RUS/UKR war. That is a huge cost that Europe bears, and America does not. There are mitigating factors here.
There is little chance POTUS Trump would fail to honor a treaty obligation (meaning, a treaty ratified by the US Senate); which NATO is.
But we should fail to honor a treaty that the other parties are ALSO failing to honor.
They will never pay until they are forced to deal with the consequences of not paying
Let's look to ancient history, and peer through the mists of the past to the time before Biden, circa 2017. I know, an eternity. 🙂 POTUS Trump then said remarkably similar things at that time about deadbeat and erstwhile NATO allies. So did SecDef Mattis (somewhat more politely). The 'Establishment' all had a collective case of the vapors. The MSM here in the US went crazy.
Then these erstwhile allies began ponying up more money. To the tune of an extra 100B over 3 years. Well how about that.
I also note that Vlad The Impaler (Ooops, wrong Vlad. Meant to say Putin) did absolutely nothing in a military sense in eastern europe while Orange Man Bad was in office.
We are seeing the same pattern play out.
There is no way we fail to meet a treaty obligation. It is unthinkable. At that point, what the hell are we, as a people.
Not sure what leftist progressives consider more offensive: mean tweet style statements, or the idea that they have financial obligations. (See student loans.)
He talked bad about NATO, but miraculously, Ukraine or any other sovereign European country didn't get invaded while he was in office.
You’d think Putin would have invaded Ukraine after he installed his puppet. Weird.
It’s even better than that. This is him retelling the story of how he basically strong armed them into meeting their obligations.
“Trump told of a supposed gathering during his presidency of NATO leaders discussing the alliance's target for members to spend 2 percent of GDP on defense:”
So it wasn’t even him saying what he would do if elected, it was him saying what he already did 7 years ago. And the poor schlups can’t cry their tears, rend their garments, or make grave lamentations fast enough. Hahahahahaha
No country contributes or pays dues to NATO. Two percent of GDP just a recommendation, not a treaty requirement.
Yeah. It’s a stupid pointless treaty where we subsidize the euro social democracy of countries that hate us. Even any petro-dollar realpolitik it could garner us has been flubbed so fucking bad by the current administration that it’s untenable at this point to continue being hung with this albatross especially when they can’t be bothered to meet the basic “recommendations”.
The cost of Ukrainian refugees? Don't you mean the trillion dollar benefits?
Think of all the Ukrainian cuisine!
No Blood for Borscht!
Why fulfill a broken treaty? Why protect people that do not believe in protecting themselves? Josep Borrell is correct, NATO cannot be an ala carte alliance but that applies first and foremost to him and the parasitic nations of the EU.
Usually, as I understand these things, failure to abide by a contract's obligations either breaks the contract or invokes penalty clauses, or has some other consequences.
I wonder what would happen if Trump made more explicit noises about the treaty being null and void with those countries which do not honor their obligations.
That is a huge cost that Europe bears, and America does not.
^Clearly has not seen the Ukrainian Taco truck boom spreading across Europe.
Fuck your sympathizing. The Ukrainians blew up NS1 and 2. If the Polish and the Germans want to host the Azov Division because Ukraine did so, that’s on them, not NATO. NATO is not an immigration treaty and Ukraine is not a part of NATO any more than Iran or Yemen is no matter how retarded you try and make yourself out to be you fuckstick.
But while Trump managed, typically, to frame the matter in the nastiest way possible, he's right that many European countries free-ride on American military might.
This is a good thing. We want them free-riding on our might.
This is what makes America a global superpower. We don't want other countries having military might. WE want to have the military might. So that the greatest bastion of freedom and liberty in all of human history can say to the rest of the world, "Knock off your garbage or we'll kill you a million times over." And so that we can compel our willfully less free/liberated allies (and enemies) to support this, lest we turn said military might on them instead.
This is how we cow the Arabs from treating their women like property. This is how we shut down African warlords. This is how we subdue the sub-American cartels. This is how we stop Chinese slavery.
Peace. Through. Strength.
Not bullies, not tyrants - but sheepdogs. Moral people who won't shy away from violence against the amoral and immoral. This is what made America great in the first place.
Trump, like any other Democrat, doesn't get that. He wants a weak, globalist America.
I guess you missed the part about the 34T debt.
It's like the part in the Remy video where the guy living in a tent outside a homeless camp in Seattle or Portland is wiping the Cheetos dust off his hands onto his shirt saying, "... and that's how you run a global economy!".
Yes, well - let's not forget that debt is solely on account of entitlement spending. Which we should stop. Immediately. And not just turn off the spigot - weld it shut.
If you compare the federal taxes with federal spending, you'll see that we cover our burden with roughly 2/3s from taxes and another 1/3 from borrowing. Contrast that with federal spending, in which roughly 1/3s is legitimate government spending (yes, including the DOD/OCO) and 2/3s entitlements.
Do the math. You cut the entitlements, and A) you stop the borrowing; and B) in relatively short order we can all take a nice tax cut. (Faster if we cut some of the bloat from legitimate, but unnecessary, government spending.)
The $34T debt is a result of carrying a Life of Julia welfare society. Which is self-destructive. We can't say "knock off your garbage" to the rest of the world, from a position of strength, when we're openly supporting garbage on our own soil. And when we can't lead by example, we give room for dirtbags like Russia and China and Iran to fill the void. With something worse.
Worst of all, the entitlement programs don't make sense. On net (Medicare and Social Security are much larger than Medicaid), they transfer money from the relatively poor (the young) to the relatively rich (the old). This is batshit economics.
So you want the US to be cops and force our morality on the world.
This is how we cow the Arabs from treating their women like property. This is how we shut down African warlords. This is how we subdue the sub-American cartels. This is how we stop Chinese slavery.
When we stop butchering children's genitalia, we can have a global conversation. Meanwhile, we cannot clean up our own backyard.
Fuck yeah!
Even that would be better. We bankroll countries then let them drive our policies in a destructive direction
True, we need to dispose of our democrats first. We can’t project strength with Marxist traitors running things.
So you want the US to be cops and force our morality on the world.
Whose morality in this world is superior, from a Constitutional/Christian standpoint?
When we stop butchering children’s genitalia, we can have a global conversation. Meanwhile, we cannot clean up our own backyard.
Meanwhile we don't want to clean up our own backyard.
But we should, shouldn't we. Starting with the butchers of children.
Except that's not what is happening with respect to NATO. Europe free-riding on our defense budget is allowing them to spend all their money on socialized government programs, and in case you haven't noticed we aren't telling them to knock off their garbage (quite the opposite in fact, we are trying to import it here)
Peace. Through. Strength.
Giving off some real V for Vendetta vibes there.
Arbeit Macht Frei.
Projecting weakness encourages bad actors to do horrible things. Like invading Ukraine. This is why there can be no more democrats.
Imagine Hamass doing its attack while Trump was in office. He’d have murdered the fuck out of them,
Well I seem to remember rocket attacks resuming on an Israel like 5 seconds after Biden came in and started funding everybody again.
and in case you haven’t noticed we aren’t telling them to knock off their garbage
Yep. That's a problem with our electorate. Blue and Red.
Except the exact opposite has happened under both Ds and Rs. Why should we voters expect either party to change the policy of bend over and take it from Europe that has been going on since the end of WWII?
You said "except" - but I'm pretty sure you agree with me completely. And that you recognize that American military might isn't the problem, the American electorate is.
They seem to love castration, don't they.
We can be quite strong and let Europe fend for itself. In fact we can be quite a bit stronger if we don't have to expend our wealth on those who don't live up to their obligations in an alliance. And quite frankly most of the European nations spend an inordinate amount of time and energetic criticizing the USA.
Why should we defend the Europeans of they won’t even pay to defend themselves?
Because many Americans are stuck 80 years in the past.
I do not oppose having alliances but there must be something in it for the USA. When the so called alliance partners fail to make any serious attempts to live up to their part of the deal as far as I am concerned the deal is off.
Tell me how that has worked out over the past five decades? Is South Vietnam a thriving democracy? How about Iran? How much freedom do women in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have? Is Iraq a functioning, liberal democracy? How many genocidal civil wars currently going on in Africa? How is that democracy in Afghanistan going? How well do they treat their women? How afraid is Russia and China of us? Fucking just another chicken hawk who 'almost joined but I would have hit a drill sergeant' type who never served a day, but sure seems willing for other people to die so they can feel tough.
Here is my proposal. We fund our own defense, a strong Navy and strong Air Force, and allow to oceans to protect us. End foreign alliances, unless they carry their own weight and if they want US troops in country, they pay not us, to have our troops there. We don't pay a lease to South Korea, Germany, Poland, Italy, etc. instead, if they want our bases and posts in their country, they pay the fucking lease, not American tax payers. Why we pay to base our troops in foreign countries to offer protection to those countries is complete bullshit. I can see, paying for naval bases so we can resupply, repair etc, although it isn't as necessary as in the past, especially for our nuclear powered ships.
Tell me how that has worked out over the past five decades?
It hasn't. Because we're not serious about it. So nobody takes us seriously anymore. Iran, for example and in particular, has been watching us for over half a century and mapping out our increasing weakness, and learning how to fight us asymmetrically. And while their proxy nations butcher people left and right, they laugh as we wring our hands and lament the "rights" of their terrorist cannon fodder.
We weren't serious about Vietnam. We aren't serious about the Middle East. We barely pay attention to Africa (but we should). And we're all too happy to let the Sino-Russian alliance come to fruition for some reason.
That's not peace through strength. That's political showmanship. That's people in or seeking power for sake of their own gain, rather than in service of the nation. So they can spike a football to the cheering crowd, and give no consideration whatsoever to the score at the end of the game.
We didn't have that problem when it came to the Nazis and Japan. Because we approached them with the correct mindset: "Vanquish evil."
Now we don't use that mindset anymore. Now it's "There is no evil, just a spectrum of beautifully diverse lifestyles."
Which, of course, empowers evil.
This is how we cow the Arabs from treating their women like property. This is how we shut down African warlords. This is how we subdue the sub-American cartels. This is how we stop Chinese slavery.
Why should I have to participate in any of that?
^+1
Then don't. Expat to Somalia or wherever else you find ideal.
“…German levels of precision and honesty…” If my Mini Cooper (BMW) is any indication, this statement is obsolete.
Also: just 2 weeks ago, Porsche was busted for using chips sourced from Belarus. New cars arriving in the US are now embargoed at ports.
The myth of Germany's advanced military might is largely that, a myth. Yes, they did make some major advancements in small arms in the 19th century, with first the Dreyse Rifle, then the various Mauser designed rifles culminating in the K-98. But then for the next forty some years their rifle development basically stagnated. They introduced SMG, but they tended to be overly engineered, and more expensive to produce than their adversaries models (especially the Sten Gun and the M-3 'Grease Gun'). They introduced some major advancements in Light Machine guns during the second world war. Their advantage in armor design is vastly overstated. The Panzer IV was not much superior to the Sherman (in fact it can be argued that the Sherman, especially later models actually outclassed the Panzer IV and the kill ratio actually favors the Sherman, contrary to popular belief). The Panzer V and Tiger suffered from reliability issues, were expensive to produce and thus were never produced in large enough numbers to be combat effective and had almost no impact on the western front. The BF-109 was pretty advanced at the start of the war, but failed to keep up with Allied aircraft advancements. The FW-190 was probably their best designed prop driven fighter, but again, was outclassed by, especially, Allied aircraft evolution. The ME-262 suffered design and development issues and Hitler's meddling, and was plagued by engine problems even after entering service. Their U boat designs were not major improvements until late in the war when they had little to no impact, and the USN fleet submarines, especially the Gato class and subsequent classes, were equivalent to their U boat contemporaries (and largely more effective but this was more due to the IJN under investing in ASW, unlike the Allies). The Kriegsmarine did come up with some really innovative submarines late in the war, but far to late to do much good.
V1 and V2 rockets were designed and manufactured by Germans and used towards the end of the war. These two innovations have shaped course of warfare ever since, whether it's cruise missiles, drones or ICBMs. You need to brush up on your WWII history if you think tanks and rifles are at the acme of German technological innovation.
Here's a fun fictional account of Germany's rockets in Thomas Ruggles Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow.
http://library.lol/fiction/78310CB933814025653DCE09915E62F4
.
emphasis added
It's a novel. The V1 and V2 rockets themselves are non-fictional. German too.
You stupid shit, you should brush up on non-fictional WWII; you are an ignoramus.
As the good book says, Good night sweet prince.
The V1 and V2 had minimal to no impact on the war. Additionally, the technology wasn't exactly new. Rockets had been utilized by European powers since the early 19th century, and even earlier in Asia. The V1 pulse jet also wasn't new technology, America, England and USSR all had pulse jet technology under development, but felt it wasn't a priority, and could be developed after the war. It simply wasn't a priority. Yes, some like von Braun assisted the US to develop our ICBM technology but it wasn't ever critical, we would have easily developed the technology on our own. We had already developed tactical rockets. The V1 and V2 were a waste of resources and largely developed because the Germans failed to ever develop a long range heavy bomber so had to find other means to hit targets in England and Western France. They both were highly inaccurate, and while they did kill thousands of civilians they had no real strategic or tactical impact except hastening the end of Nazi Germany, as it did spur western political leaders to press their militaries to take the low countries faster to take away launch sites. If anything, the V1 and V2 programs reinforce my thesis, as they only were resorted to because Germany lacked the means to conduct long range strategic bombings, because they never developed them or understood their importance until bombs started falling around the clock by allied four engine bombers based in England and Italy. The B-29, which was introduced at around the same time as the V2 had a larger payload, greater range, was reusable and was more accurate. It also could carry atomic weapons, unlike the V2. Arguably the heavy bomber has had greater impact than strategic or tactical rockets and pulse jets since the end of WW2. Comparably speaking the B-29 was a far superior strategic weapon than both the V1 and V2 combined, and it is an apt comparison since they had similar aims, deep strategic strikes.
"The V1 and V2 had minimal to no impact on the war."
The V1 and V2 rockets were nonetheless innovations and represented advances in weapons technology. I don't know why you chose to ignore them, focusing instead on weapons like mausers and sub par tanks etc. I don't really care, I'm sure you had your reasons. My purpose is to show that the Germans weren't the innovative slouches that you'd have us believe. The V1 and V2 were forerunners to the weapons innovation we witness today. Cruise missiles, drones, and other unmanned aerial vehicles.
"Yes, some like von Braun assisted the US to develop our ICBM technology but it wasn’t ever critical, we would have easily developed the technology on our own."
That maybe true, but it was the Soviets who developed the first ICBMs, thanks to, you guessed it, the German engineers who gave us the V1 and especially the V2. I understand you have your reasons for not wanting to acknowledge this, but facts are facts. The heavy bombers used by the allies of which you sing the praises are of little strategic value. They were used in the heaviest bombings of human history against North Korea, Vietnam, and Laos, all ignominious defeats for the American military. And during WWII the strategic bombers were in competition for the most notorious death traps in the allied arsenal.
For a fictional account you might like Len Deighton's Bomber. I haven't read it yet but it's on Anthony Burgess's list of 99 English language novels of the post war period and comes highly recommended.
https://libgen.is/fiction/64CFB569FA9FD6CF5656AF8918D40400
Say you know shit about modern military history without saying you know Jack shit about modern military history. Also, just FYI it's a well known fact that Germany tended to focus too much on the tactical and not enough on the strategic which is ultimately why they lost both worlds wars (if they had spent some time on strategic they'd avoided both wars). Additionally, look at how many resources Germany (and Japan) spent to defend against allied strategic bombings vs how much the allies spent against the V1/V2. Not even close. Additionally, look at how many resources the old Warsaw pact spent to prepare for the USAF strategic bombers. Fuck, you're a fucking moron who knows shit about the military, also, I don't look to fiction to inform me of history. I much prefer the plethora of great nonfiction authors who've actually addressed these issues and specialize in these fields. You know non-fiction, e.g. not made up bullshit?
"Say you know shit about modern military history without saying you know Jack shit about modern military history. "
I never claimed to be an expert on modern military history. It's enough to know more than someone who thinks the mauser and the tank are the signature advances from German innovation in weapons technology. I still say their V1 and V2 rockets were better candidates. None of your bluster and insults have managed to convince me otherwise.
Innovation is about new things. All your praising of strategic bombing comes from the past. WWII, the cold war, Vietnam, and so on. Today it's the rockets, missiles, drones etc that occupy pride of place in arsenals. And these weapons all have there roots in V1 and V2 rockets. Not mausers, not tanks.
Until the last few months of the war, the Germans held up quite well under heavy bombing. Industrial output was barely affected, as much of the work was done in death camps like Auschwitz, which was never bombed. As in Britain, the populace was never panicked and took the bombing in stride. In fact, Germany was on the way to losing the war before the bombing campaign started in earnest. Much the same could be said of Japan.
"You know non-fiction, e.g. not made up bullshit?"
Authors of fiction like Pynchon and Deighton are not historians, but they read historians and their work reflects it. They add narrative and colorful use of language. They have a sense of pace and drama lacking in the dry academic works of professional historians whom I often find repetitive and prone to dead horse beating.
"A logical place for cuts is in the hundreds of billions of dollars spent for defense . . . "
Of course we should start cutting with one of the few areas specifically assigned to the federal government by the US Constitution. Why not start with everything which is reserved to the states like the department of education, Commerce, HUD, CDC, etc?
Of course we should start cutting with one of the few areas specifically assigned to the federal government by the US Constitution.
Not exactly. The Constitution talks about actual defence, not maintaining forces across the globe. Further, while the US maintains the fiction of no standing army by passing regular appropriations bills, the point of that part of A1S8C12 was not to have one at all, and the FFs thought that a budget trick was the way to do it.
Per the article, I note that you can't directly compare US levels of defence expenditure with other NATO countries because the other countries don't maintain high military capabilities across the globe.
It's hard to see how nuclear attack submarines and aircraft carriers are defensive weapons.
Other than the Mexican border, it's also hard to see how anyone could actually invade the US.
And other than nuclear ICBMs, it's hard to see how anyone can even attack the US.
It reminds me of the fake panic over Japan invading California or even Hawaii itself after Pearl Harbor.
And other than nuclear ICBMs, it’s hard to see how anyone can even attack the US.
9/11 has entered the chat.
9/11 was a terrorist attack that the CIA and FBI should have known about, and would not have happened if the US had not been playing world cop. They shot their wad, same as Japan shot their wad attacking Pearl Harbor.
If you think 9/11 was any kind of precursor to an invasion, you win the idiot of the day award.
Nobody said 9/11 was a precursor to an invaison, this is sarc level goal post shifting. You said And other than nuclear ICBMs, it’s hard to see how anyone can even attack the US. Clearly it can be done without nukes.
Oh for Pete's sake! Did the German spies who were brought to the US by U-boat attack the US? You may as well say Jan 6 was an attack on the US.
Attack in the military sense, Jack. Did the shoe bomber or the underwear bomber attack the US?
9/11 has entered the chat.
Somewhere off in the distance a virus gains some function. Millions of personnel records in the OPM database get accessed by hostile foreign forces. A random weather balloon of unknown origin floats by.
Nope, only nukes count. Sorry.
Better start calling Jan 6 an attack if that's how you're going.
9/11 was an attack though?
It reminds me of the fake panic over Japan invading California or even Hawaii itself after Pearl Harbor.
They invaded the Phillippines, a US commonwealth at the time. Then landed troops in the Aleutian Islands.
Also, you were alive in 1941!?
Buddy, study some logistics. Hawaii was a long ways away compared to southeast Asia. The only way they would have had the shipping to invade Hawaii was to cancel every other invasion.
They had so many damaged aircraft from just two raids on Pearl Harbor that they could not have mounted a third wave. The idea that they could provide air support for an actual invasion over many days and weeks is a pathetic joke supported only by the ignorant.
And the Aleutian island chain was a stupid side show which hurt them more than the US.
Were you alive in 1776? Care to demonstrate any more ignorance?
Buddy, study some logistics. Hawaii was a long ways away compared to southeast Asia.
So far in fact Japan could never attack it.
Obviously you're more interested in changing the subject than learning anything.
Or maybe you consider the one midget sub sailor who was captured, and the one pilot who landed by parachute, as "invading" and "landing troops."
Stop playing sarc and changing the subject.
alephbet, I think Pearl Harbor was only 1/3rd of the overall mission that day. It was a three-part plan. The point is, in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, there was considerable discussion about the Japs moving on the mainland. People were afraid, legitimately so.
Some 80+ years later, it is easy to say: There was no real threat. Back then, one could not say that.
Buddy, study some logistics. Hawaii was a long ways away compared to southeast Asia. The only way they would have had the shipping to invade Hawaii was to cancel every other invasion.
Uh, excuse me, the real reason why they couldn't have invaded, captured, and held Hawaii against any sort of armed conflict? The Jones Act. Duh.
A military is a function assigned to the federal government.
How it is implemented, and how well, was left as an 'exercise for the reader'.
Look at Rick Perry here.
You're not wrong.
Politically speaking it's always safe to beat on the military. Social programs are sacrosanct.
Except for Ukraine.
Nothing more important than paying salaries and pensions of Ukrainian civil service employees, and giving tens of millions of dollars to high ranking Ukrainian government officials. Certainly not our own southern border.
Of course, he has a point. Sheesh.
But he said it in such a mean way which is the most important part.
It's the classic "Trump said" rebuttal. If he announced that the sun rises in the east, all the Good People, including 90% of media, would cry fake news and write poems and nature documentaries about the beautiful sunrises over the California coast.
"But he said it in such a mean way which is the most important part."
The adolescent shit Tuccillie does have a raging case of TDS.
People aren't complaining so much about him saying NATO should pay, but more about him inviting their enemies to attack.
And in their usual dishonest fashion, his defenders lie, lie and then lie some more by mendaciously accusing those critical of the latter of not wanting the former, even though they know exactly what they mean.
He didn’t exactly say that. I think he meant that IF Russia attacked, he would then encourage them to do whatever they want. And it isn’t unreasonable to be harsh to convince countries that they need to actually contribute to their own defense instead of outsourcing it to the USA.
He didn’t exactly say that. I think he meant that IF Russia attacked, he would then encourage them to do whatever they want.
I don't see a difference.
And it isn’t unreasonable to be harsh to convince countries that they need to actually contribute to their own defense instead of outsourcing it to the USA.
Encouraging enemies to attack is a step or two beyond harsh. In my opinion. Had he left the "do whatever you want" part out I doubt anyone would be complaining.
You don't get smack talk, do you?
Is this yet another one of those cases where he didn't really mean what he said, and one of His Faithful needs to translate what he said into what he really meant before anyone can comment on it?
No, it's another case where media at least spin if not doctor what Trump said, and then people take the most apocalyptic view of what he meant, because Trump.
So when Trump tells NATO enemies to "do whatever they want" in the context of military action, it's unfair to interpret that to mean "go ahead and attack, see if I care." That it's supposed to be interpreted as "go play with your kids in the park."?
No, you pedantic idiot. When Trump exaggerates a hypothetical in order to shake people up and get them to do what they promised but did not deliver, you can say "That was a bit over the top" but you can't say "Trump wants Russia to attack".
I didn’t say he wanted Russia to attack either. I said that saying “do whatever you want” is an invitation to attack. It’s an invitation to do whatever they want. So if they want to attack, then it’s an invitation to attack. It’s not saying “Putin, please attack NATO members who haven’t paid up. Here’s my number. Let’s talk strategy later" which is what you idiots are accusing me of claiming.
You seem to view our alliances as friendships.
They are not, nor should they be.
They should be, AT BEST, mercenary relations. If one of us brings nothing of worth to the table, what is the benefit of the alliance?
Next time try reading what you are responding to.
I did. You did not, apparently.
You're just proving my point, which is that Trump said two things. He said A that NATO should pay up, and B that he'd tell their enemies they can "do whatever they want" which includes invasion.
People are being critical of B, and you're attacking them for opposing A. Then even after they explicitly say they agree with A, but not B, you continue to attack them for opposing A.
You're being dishonest and stupid. Intentionally. Or, in other words, it's Wednesday.
So when Schumer was threatening to send American kids to Ukraine, do you give him the benefit of the doubt? Or is this a TDS exclusive?
Oddly you seem upset Trump won't engage in a foreign war. Something you've claimed was one of his only good points.
Had he left the “do whatever you want” part out I doubt anyone would be complaining.
Ha.
So you, as an honest commenter, still think he was talking about getting on the phone with Putin to plan attacks. Lol.
You're the only one who has ever said that.
This wasn't you?
Encouraging enemies to attack is a step or two beyond harsh. In my opinion.
Just above?
Encouraging enemies to attack is a step or two beyond harsh.
Your words, man. Explain what this means if it doesn’t involve getting on a phone with Putin.
I expect that kind of retardation from Jesse, but you're smarter than that.
Have you thought of taking a remedial English course to help with your reading and writing?
The statement "do whatever you want" is encouraging enemies to attack. It doesn't require sharing tactics over the telephone. That interpretation is so retarded I think it's rather embarrassing that you latched onto it.
The statement is not an encouragement to attack. It is a statement that we will not be involved. That if they are "mean", we are not going to suddenly ride into to save them.
Is there some program out there where you feed into it what Trump said and it spits out what really means, in the most positive light possible?
When Biden's cock is not in your mouth, it's not that hard to grasp.
But he didn’t say that to Putin, he said it to a Nato member nation. How is he encouraging Putin to attack when he’s not communicating to Putin?
So much fucking this^
How are so many people not getting that?
"...as an honest commenter..."
That's spelled "steaming pile of lying lefty shit"
But he didn’t do that (invite Russia to do anything).
Anyone with a third grade understanding of conversation and reading can see that he was retelling a story of what he said he did 7 years ago, in conversations with our NATO allies. It’s called strongarming. Jesus H Science.
He had a good point. Some NATO members don't have a large enough defence budget for their agreed commitment.
He had a malign and lunatic point, that he'd welcome Russia attacking a country which didn't meet that budget requirement.
He persisted with his ignorance about some imaginary pot that NATO members are supposed to contribute to.
And the Trumpsuckers here find themselves unable to criticise the second point or address his evident ignorance because, well, Trump.
There is nothing at all imaginary about the pot. The contribution is, in any mutual defense alliance, their ability to provide adequate military aid and capabilities. Since only a few even come close, the rest are not contributing to the collective pot, e.g. they cannot contribute military aid or capabilities in defense of their allies. Ergo, they are not contributing to the collective pot of mutual defense. It doesn’t have to be monetary to be a collective pot. It isn’t a paid membership but to belong to it, you do have to provide aid and capabilities that meaningfully contribute to mutual defense. When you don’t provide that which is treaty dictated you are not contributing to a collective pot of mutual defense. Then it is no longer a mutual defense treaty but a protective defense treaty, where a strong country guarantees the safety of a client/subservient country. This is what NATO has become largely, except all those client countries insist they are independent and not client countries, e.g. they are asking for their cake and eating it too. They want to remain fully independent without US influence while also insisting the US pay for their defense. To be a member of NATO per the treaty, they are supposed to spend 2% of GDP on defense spending, every member is required to spend this, such that no single member is incapable of providing meaningful military capabilities and aid to the mutual alliance. That is their membership costs. It isn’t paid and divided but it is still a collective pot called mutual defense. Those who aren’t spending this have failed to meet their treaty obligations and have also failed to provide for the collective goal of mutual defense. But but you say, there isn’t a mutual budget that people pay into. And I say, on the contrary their is, it just isn’t monetary, it is instead paid in service to the alliance, specifically the service of providing to the defense of your allies, the same as they provide for your defense. Yes, the US will always provide more than any of the rest, but combined, the other 30 members population and GDP is equivalent the US, therefore, the US should not be providing 70% of military capabilities and aid.
The very fact it is called a MUTUAL defense pact implies that their is a collective pot, e.g. the defense of all members.
Fuck I thought SRG was supposed to be British and that the British were more sophisticated and precise in their use of the English language than Americans.
SRG is as sophomoric as trueman. And due the same 'respect'.
"they are supposed to spend 2% of GDP on defense spending"
This is obviously the problem. My solution: change 2% to 1% and presto all NATO nations pass the test and the US can cut the military budget in half. 1% is just as magical a number as 2%.
The point is that we can't afford to shoulder the burden of "World Police Men" anymore. At 34 trillion dollars in debt, the BRICS alliance challenging the dollar, it makes sense for Europe to take over more of their own defense.
Simply hoping that America will always be able to save the day and bare the burden no matter what state we're in is foolish and naive. Our Congress can't even put together a budget right now. The Europeans would be smart to take note and start investing more in their own militaries.
The Europeans would be smart to take note and start investing more in their own militaries.
Most EU countries are content insulting the US and bragging about their social programs. Easy to afford a bunch of welfare benefits when you don't have to finance a military.
One of the kids of a big family stood up, said, "Well, dad, if we don't do our chores and we're attacked by ogres, will you protect us?" I said, "You didn't do your chores. You're delinquent?" He said, "Yes, let's say that happened."
"No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to do your chores. You got to contribute to the family."
The family's whiny kids immediately flew into a frenzy over the threat.
We need sensible Ogre Control Legislation.
To those saying that Europe is financing social programs by not paying NATO, you should note that the requirement is 2% of GDP. That's it. 2%. They're not financing free medical for all with 2% of their GDP.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13082123/Trump-threat-rattles-NATO-alliance-scrambles-members-paying.html
This shows the actual numbers. Interesting. Canada is one of the shirkers. They're only paying 1.38% of GDP to NATO. Are they financing free healthcare with 0.62% of GDP? Doubt it.
Perhaps not (I'll stand corrected on that) but most aren't even meeting the 2% threshold, and some are moving to spend even less than they already do.
I also wonder how much more they'd have to spend on an effective defense if we weren't already spending 3% of our significantly larger GDP.
Feel free to provide an excuse for them shirking their responsibilities. Nobody has said that alone is what is paying for their goodies. However, having the largesse of the US protecting them (we shoulder the burden of costs to make globalization possible, and that seldom gets factored into these equations --- especially by libertarians) has given them the ability to be thororughly complacent.
I'm not providing an excuse. I'm simply stating that mathematically there's no way they're paying for their social programs with what they're not paying to NATO.
You're looking at just military spending and not how much of their entire livelihoods are based on the back of the USA.
Why should we have to shoulder the burden of the entire globalization system, for example?
Now the goalposts go whoosh.
Another term you fail to comprehend.
You: I’m simply stating that mathematically there’s no way they’re paying for their social programs with what they’re not paying to NATO.
Me: They ALSO live off us doing (assorted things, paying to maintain globalization in this case).
You: WHOA! MOVING GOALPOSTS!!!
They live off of our largesse. Defense is just ONE of the things they rely on us for.
Sarc had his smart little quip. How dare you point out the flaws?
So you're claiming that I'm wrong for pointing out that you're moving the goalposts, and your response is to define the new goalposts.
Sure buddy. By the way I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. But you've moved the goalposts so it would be a different conversation.
You invented, as per usual, an argument.
Nobody has said that non-spending on defense ALONE is why they have their absurd social "safety net". It is one of several factors.
YOU alone obsessed over it being defense spending alone.
Nobody said it was defense spending ALONE.
So I pointed out that your argument was wrong.
sarcasmic...Germany government spending is about 700B annually. Now 2% of that number is 14B. Germany cannot afford that?! Seems really lame.
It's equally lame to say that they're financing their social programs with that 14B. And it's not even 14B. According to the article I linked above they're paying 1.57% of their GDP to NATO.
It's 2% of GDP and not government spending but it's Germany so I can understand using one to approximate the other.
I’ve been assured that “civilized” countries spend less on their healthcare than the US, so it’s totes possible.
(Kidding aside, money is fungible so if they aren’t spending it on defense, it frees it up to be spent elsewhere, even if it doesn’t cover the whole healthcare pie.)
Fun facts. The NATO members of Europe have 4 times the population and 10 times the GDP of Russia.
Of course they also have 10 times the panty-twisting delusional panic about climate and DEI.
This is mostly a non-story.
First of all, it's old news. Trump was recounting what he said years ago while he was president. At the time, only 4 NATO allies met the 2% of GDP threshold. Today it is up to ten.
Second, the NATO allies bordering Russia and under threat if invasion already pay above that 2%. NATO allies like Spain, Italy, Portugal are not worried about Russia invading them.
Finally, most of Trump's critics agree that most NATO allies aren't spending on defense what they have agreed to spend. They just don't like the way he said it.
Finally, most of Trump’s critics agree that most NATO allies aren’t spending on defense what they have agreed to spend. They just don’t like the way he said it.
Yet Trump's dishonest defenders are accusing his critics of not wanting NATO members to pay up.
Except you are bitching that he made a demand that he should not HAVE to make (it is a treaty obligation) in a less than polite manner.
...mind you, after prior Presidents, including Obama, mentioned repeatedly in a polite manner.
At a certain point, they have to made to understand what they face to lose.
If Belgium got conquered, why should we do a damned thing for them?
Except you are bitching that he made a demand that he should not HAVE to make (it is a treaty obligation) in a less than polite manner.
Except I didn’t say that.
https://reason.com/2024/02/14/trump-had-a-point-about-nato-free-riding-off-american-defense/?comments=true#comment-10444697
Are his dishonest critics demanding that these NATO members pay their fair share in any sort of substantial way, or just acknowledging that it's an issue and willing to carry on with the status quo ante?
Wouldn’t change the fact that Trump’s dishonest defenders are making a dishonest defense.
If his critics and opponents are like, 'yeah, well, what are you going to do about it?' then it might be a valid thing to point out that they aren't willing to do anything about it.
The amount of projection and delusion you have is immeasurable.
I've told you this before, and I'm sure I'll say it again, but you're really good at accusing people of what you are doing while you are doing it. I've never seen someone so shameless. You're like a cartoon character.
I'll echo Jesse here, even regarding that last comment of yours: "The amount of projection and delusion you have is immeasurable."
Agree. The article says In 2022, seven Allies met the guideline of spending 2% of their Gross Domestic Product on defence,” according to the most recent NATO Secretary General’s Annual Report.
Even the 10 was a mid-2023 estimate. That NATO Secy hasn’t written the 2023 report but he released the info a couple days ago. For year-end 2023, 18 NATO countries spent 2% on defense. Canada, Spain, and Italy are still heavily teat-sucking – the others are small – and by the end of this year, it will likely be 25+ or so.
Had?
Did circumstances change recently?
America has no allies. America has only enemies and dependencies. Part of our predicament is self-inflicted: throwing our money and our power around like the exceptionalists our “leaders” have claimed us to be, pretending to make the world safe for democracy. Meanwhile, Europe seems to have learned nothing from centuries of royal warfare followed by more centuries of imperialist warfare. Like Japan, Germany was destroyed in a failed attempt to conquer the world while the rest of the world, weary of centuries of endless warfare almost let them get away with it. Instead of exceptionalism and imperialism and pacifism, it would be nice if, one of these days, the nations and people of the world decided on a steady course of adequate military self-defense and nothing more.
" it would be nice if, one of these days, the nations and people of the world decided on a steady course of adequate military self-defense and nothing more."
You can't spend your way to adequate military self defense and security. The notion that spending 2% of GDP is a special number that will do the trick is magical thinking, the result of the revolving door between the military and the contractors. Our adventures in Afghanistan, where a militia of part time goat herders chased out the world's most lavishly funded military, show us that throwing money into a conflict isn't the path to victory. Look at the conflict in Israel. An RPG costing a couple hundred dollars using munitions salvaged from Israel's unexploded ordinance can destroy a tank costing 4 million $US and up, not to mention the crew inside. Israel's upping its military spending is not the way to go.
misconstrueman, the article is discussing POTUS Trump and NATO deadbeats.
You however, manage to find a way to drag the Jews into it.
Color me surprised. You and Misek, two peas in a pod.
"You however, manage to find a way to drag the Jews into it. "
Who said anything about Jews? Lacking any coherent response, you play the antisemite card. Shame on you. Like it or not, Israel is fighting an enemy far more determined and implacable than anything any NATO member is likely to face. You may think that Israel spending more money on her military is the key to their success, or that if only Trump had spent a little more on the Afghan fiasco, but you'll have to do better than bluster and insults to convince me.
misconstrueman...I identify disgusting anti-semites by their actions. Feel free to take a swan dive off any remaining building in gaza.
"I identify disgusting anti-semites by their actions."
You're a tiresome bore who has nothing substantive to add to the conversation. This idea that spending 2% of GDP as a guarantor of security is childish and foolish. Ignore America's ignominious performance in Afghanistan or Israel's genocidal crimes, but even you can't deny their problems don't stem from a reluctance to flush huge amounts of money down the toilet. I would never have expected a Libertarian magazine to tout more government spending as a solution to anything. Moron commenters such as yourself, that's not so surprising.
With compliments to Sevo, here is your new tag, misconstrueman. Better get used to it. You'll see it a lot.
misconstrueman, the ass-wipe of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. misconstrueman is a nasty-ass anti-semite, a pathological liar, and is also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a pathetic anti-semite.
misconstrueman lies; it’s what he does. misconstrueman is a lying antisemitic piece of shit.
If you're being paid for this drivel, you're being overpaid.
You can’t spend your way to adequate military self defense and security. The notion that spending 2% of GDP is a special number that will do the trick is magical thinking, the result of the revolving door between the military and the contractors.
Well, given the current state of the Eurpoean military and defense capabilities, we KNOW that you can't NOT spend your way to military self-defense and automagically have one...
"Well, given the current state of the Eurpoean military and defense capabilities,"
Their problems lie elsewhere. Their last two big efforts were in Libya, which saw the successful ouster of Qaddafi, and Syria, which failed to ouster Assad. So, militarily it's a wash. Both adventures led to millions of refugees entering Europe to escape the chaos they created, and increasing their military budgets to 2% isn't going to reverse these problems. The notion is so laughably ill conceived that I wonder why people take it seriously. Their military adventures and their consequences create the insecurity that no amount of extra spending on military is going to address. Americans will have to realize eventually that not all our problems can be solved by throwing money at them. (Or even having other people throw their money at them.)
misconstrueman, the ass-wipe of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. misconstrueman is a nasty-ass anti-semite, a pathological liar, and is also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a pathetic anti-semite.
misconstrueman lies; it’s what he does. misconstrueman is an antisemitic lying piece of shit.
My favorite parlor trick is to imagine this in exactly the opposite:
Seriously, I don't give two fucks about how bombastic and mean Trump came off in option one. Option two would literally disqualify him as President.
Except as a Democrat.
Democrat would never say that. They would argue more about the colors on the flags and if transgenders have enough inclusion in the meeting
"I don’t give two fucks about how bombastic and mean Trump came off in option one. "
Perhaps it wasn't bombastic enough. I don't think Russia has any intention of invading NATO countries, no matter what % of GDP they spend on their military budgets. So threatening to encourage a non existent Russian invasion is bombastic but still empty threat. With a proper protection racket, the real, non empty threat is implicit, that the 'protectors' are going to do 'whatever the hell they want.'
...then why is funding Ukraine so vital?
If there is no threat to NATO countries?
"…then why is funding Ukraine so vital?"
I don't think it's vital. It merely guarantees more suffering and death, without changing the inevitable outcome. You'd think after two years, that would be obvious.
"If there is no threat to NATO countries?"
The threat to NATO doesn't come from Russia. The threat to NATO is entirely self-inflicted. Over 5 million refugees in Europe after their ill conceived adventures in Libya and Syria. And you think upping their military spending to 2% is going to make them more secure? I can't believe I have to point this out to you. You're just as much a war mongering moron as the rest of the commenters here.
You do not achieve peace by not spending on defense. Spending on defense is paramount in maintaining peace.
And Europe should have never taken in all of the migrants, so it's not a NATO problem. It is a Europe problem.
"And Europe should have never taken in all of the migrants, so it’s not a NATO problem. It is a Europe problem."
Europe should never have meddled in Libya or Syria. Same with America, regardless what your neocon friends tell you. The refugees are blowback, unintended consequences. Increasing military spending to 2% isn't going to eliminate blowback. It can even be argued that the military spending is too high already if it's to be wasted on military fiascos in Africa and Asia resulting in 5 million refugees.
Europe and NATO are largely the same thing, at least as far as the refugees are concerned. The chaos was caused by NATO and the refugees headed for Europe where most countries are NATO members.
"And Europe should have never taken in all of the migrants"
Reap what ye sow is what the good book says. If not Europe, who would you have taken the refugees in? Some other nation outside Europe which played no part in setting the chaos in motion? How is Europe going to learn the lesson not to meddle if other nations not involved step in and bear the burden of Europe's blunders? Is Europe so special to you that they must be shielded from the consequences of their own actions?
Are you arguing that the US should leave NATO? (I actually favor that approach.) If you are not proposing we leave NATO, but are saying it's okay for NATO member nations not to live up to the agreement of spending at least 2% of their GDP on military, you will wind up with even more NATO nations spending below 2% while the US would have to defend delinquent nations if invaded (by Russia, China, Iran, or even Mars). The less that the member nations spend on military, the more the US has to shoulder the burden if an attack does happen. So what exactly are you proposing?
I don't want the US getting involved in any of these non-defensive (on the part of the US) wars, be it Ukraine, Israel, or anywhere else.
misconstrueman, the ass-wipe of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. misconstrueman is a nasty-ass anti-semite, a pathological liar, and is also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a pathetic anti-semite.
misconstrueman lies; it’s what he does. misconstrueman is an antisemitic lying piece of shit.
my favorite part about T has been watching paid analysts get him so wrong.
It is pretty funny. Trump really isn't very hard to figure out. He says things in really simple terms and he uses aggressive hyperbole as a negotiating tactic.
I served 6th through 11th grade in New Jersey ... T speaks my language lol
Almost stopped reading after he said Trump was right. I mean this is like a parody article at Reason. I was expecting it to end "Trump wants to weaken NATO for his Russian buddies"
Trump was right. That doesn't mean he should be president.
I simply can't accept Trump or Biden.
Our War for NATO Expansion is the biggest American blunder since Iraq. Killing a million more people won't justify it.
Trump has been a lot more correct on foreign and domestic policy than Biden, Obama, Hillary, or Bush.
Compared to Newsom, Biden, Harris, or Michelle Obama, yes, Trump should be president.
Exactly. It's not about the choices we want, it's about the choices we have before us. You don't get to have perfect, just the best of a not-so-great bunch.
Trump is crass, but he is correct. We can't afford to protect the borders of other countries. Personally, I don't see the logic behind NATO or at least the need for NATO considering the original intent of NATO. If the other treaty members are not living up to their obligations then NATO should just have less money. The US should not contribute anything beyond our obligation. A clear message needs to be delivered to the NATO countries that if they don't meet their obligations that we will withdraw from the treaty. Although Trump is crass, he is correct and his delivery was probably necessary to grab the attention to shake the reality into the thick skulls of the NATO countries. The Free-Ride is over and we simply don't have the money. We can't simply print more money and not suffer the side effects. The insanity needs to stop.
It would likely have been best to end NATO after the USSR ended. I suspect relations with Russia would be a lot better today if that had happened. Make a new treaty that isn't based on opposition to an enemy that no longer exists if a mutual defense agreement still seems necessary.
NATO was needed post-WWII when Europe was in shambles and when the US derived some benefit from it. These days, it’s not needed anymore.
And given the level of anti-Americanism and arrogance of European elites, the message “you’re on your own” should be delivered with a big “f*ck you” and middle finger. Let’s also end visa-free travel from Europe.
Careful, I suggested that yesterday and got called a "Russian shill" by the usual suspects here.
"NATO was needed post-WWII when Europe was in shambles and when the US derived some benefit from it. "
It wasn't needed. The Soviets ceded half of Berlin to the Western allies, vacated Austria, and failed to press their advantage in Greece. Like most Americans, you have a very Eurocentric view of the world. The thrust of Soviet expansion was to the east and the south, not west. NATO did nothing to stop the communist takeover of China, the Korean war, the war in Vietnam, and other efforts in the middle east, Africa, South America and the Caribbean. The world is a changing place, and the Russians still understand this. Europe is no longer the center of the universe as so many Americans like yourself believe it to be.
misconstrueman, the ass-wipe of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. misconstrueman is a nasty-ass anti-semite, a pathological liar, and is also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a pathetic anti-semite.
misconstrueman lies; it’s what he does. misconstrueman is an antisemitic lying piece of shit.
"...The thrust of Soviet expansion was to the east and the south, not west..."
Bullshit. The Soviets expanded nowhere to the east, except the portion of what the Chinese claimed was theirs, as agreed by FDR and Churchill. The post-war aims were strictly to the west, you idiot.
misconstrueman, the ass-wipe of the commentariat, lies; (TY, C_XY)
"The Soviets expanded nowhere to the east"
Iturup. Kunashir. Shikotan. Habomai.
Let us not forget that NATO Article 5 has only been invoked once. That was after 9/11 when our allies supported our attack on Afghanistan. I don't believe any NATO member sent us a bill. Interestingly Ukraine, a non-member, deployed troops to Afghanistan as well. The United States didn't get a bill from them either.
" I don’t believe any NATO member sent us a bill. "
They got a slice of the heroin profits, I suspect. Heroin production in Afghanistan sky rocketed after the invasion. That money had to go somewhere.
Oh ok i guess it's all good then.
No, I was just pointing out that the Trump/MAGA perceptions of NATO and our relationship with it is not supportable. Trumps recent comments about not protecting members who "don't pay their bills" is actually harmful to national security. That is not even to mention that not responding would put the US, or any other member, in violation of treaty obligations.
It is time we ended our occupation of Europe, bring our boys home!!!
The trouble with a national economy "...cut[ting] way back on spending..." is that it is too much like an addict cutting back on heroin fixes.
It’s a one day long car ride from Moscow to Berlin. If Germany is spending less than 2 percent of gdp on defense then they aren’t worried about Russia and neither should we.
NATO should have been dissolved on Dec. 25, 1991 the day the Soviet Union passed out of existence. NATO's mission to prevent an attack on Western Europe was accomplished with the collapse of the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies. The Iron Law of Oligarchy states: "That an organization's existence is primary to its mission" and NATO is no exception to that rule. The U.S. is over 30 trillion in debt and we are still on the hook supporting this relic of the cold war 35 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Enough is enough already.
Well, yes. I'd accept a wind down period of a few years to give NATO members a chance to beef up their own defenses. Also it should be made clear that American interests will be protected, so just because America won't be _obligated_ to intervene if an invasion were to occur, that doesn't mean we won't if we feel our interests are at stake.
why doesnt EU have an integrated army it's because of the US that stops it by convincing the countries in EU that europe doesn't need it. US would loose billions in arms sale and lose influence over europe it's why it's against it.
It's imperative to acknowledge the complexities surrounding NATO and the burden-sharing debate. While Trump's criticisms highlighted legitimate concerns about disproportionate defense spending among member states, it's essential to approach the issue with nuance. NATO's collective defense framework has undeniably bolstered transatlantic security for decades, but recalibrating contributions is reasonable for ensuring fairness and sustainability. Yet, fostering constructive dialogue and cooperation remains paramount to fortify the alliance against emerging global threats while upholding shared democratic values. Visit us at " https://trackingbro.com/ksrtc-bus/ " for more.