Trump scolds NATO allies on defense spending

Well that would be a start to having a safer world

 

Yes? Well perhaps if you didn't encourage, support, arm and finance these dictators, it might help matters and you wouldn't have anything to whine about? Just throwing it out there...https://wais.stanford.edu/USA/us_supportforladictators8303.html

 

NATO had in fact, after the end of the cold war, a crisis which concerns its further concern. This has long since passed ...

The fact is that the US has largely withdrawn from Europe. Of course, after 1991, "REFORGER" was not necessary and that there are 2 army corps in Germany. But what is still today in Germany is only a shadow of that time!
Roughly speaking, it is the medical center in Landstuhl which is major important for the US in ME and Afghanistan, the Air Base in Ramstein (major important in general), the depot in Miesau, the 2nd ACR in Vilseck + various staff, etc. ... 35,000 men and women in total, mostly of them in Ramstein!

What I want to point out is that most of the tasks that the US had in Europe and also wanted to have before all was handed over to the Europeans. What is still in Europe has only secondarily something to do with NATO.
Due to the general reduction of the military forces, however, the withdrawal of most of the US troops has brought the Europeans themselves closer together and are now carrying out tasks jointly with mixed organizations under the umbrella of NATO .. and largely without direct US involvement.
This was formerly quite different in NATO, and NATO has already changed here as far as this close cooperation and common units are concerned. It may well be that Germany sends a Battalion Armored Infantry, the Dutch the Main battle tanks, the Danish the supply, the Belgian the scouts, the Polish the helicopters and everything under a British commander!

 

It's a totally non essential threat to any NATO country

 

And why should we play the puppet about US demand when you include costs for bases in Asia (for me new that Japan is NATO member!) in it but you does not allow that we include the costs for UN missions for example too? This is also crazy, eh?

 

Ehm ... WHAT??

2% of a negative gross domestic income as in Greece is again how much EUR or USD?
Or in other words: 2% of nothing is how much in USD?

 

There is a reason, and that is to keep Europe under control. I'm not saying that in a negative way, but the projection of power into and over Europe was strategically interesting.

Whether it remains interesting is a different matter.

If the EU steps up to create its own unified defense force, that is a potential rival and enemy of the USA. World dominance demands ensuring allies have potential but not capacity.

But such dominance is expensive and of dubious utility.

 

Really?
Interesting when someone else is doing the same as the USA then they are evil, simply because only the US is allowed?

China took over what was an international shipping lane ... why were they able to do this and btw much more (investigate a little bit about their involvements in Africa please!)?
Because the USA made self-isolation in 2003 by being more interested to make BS in ME as to look on these things and because this Iraq BS costs a bunch of money, it had to be saved somewhere else and first was right this!
But this dumbass in White House was not better as this one who followed and this one who is currently playing the Trainee in White House about these issues!

 

Maybe the US should pay less instead?

If there is a total sufficient military with current total spending, why create more military?

if the USA continues to spend its 3%, then NATO or anyone else spending more will not make the world any safer or easier. Its just more weapons.

SO if the USA spends less, and the NATO members and other world powers spend more on the military, then it won't be wasteful overspending on military capacity.

But then the USA would lose the control and influence it enjoys, and other countries will increase theirs. So I don't think the USA would be willing to decrease its spending.

Therefore its just a call to waste money on unnecessary military capacity.

Better just to have the understanding that the USA would do the majority of the military thing, and Europe will do the majority of the welfare thing...

 

European security should be a European issue. It's time to pull American troops, and funding while letting Europe manage its own affairs.

 

Excellent, so the EU already has things covered, no need for NATO

 

Nah, better to keep the hard power influence. That's why we spend the money in the first place. If you think about it, we actually get Europe to subsidize our military influence.

DO we need military influence in Europe? probably not, but its useful as a safe regional base to extend our umbrella over the Caucasus, ME and Africa.

 

Irony, since limeys are the biggest warmongers history. But, ok.

 

It doesn't make any difference in how much EUR or USD it works out to be, that's the beauty of it. If Greece is in the negative then they owe nothing (which should also be a reflection of how much they should receive).

 

What they still do in majority of issues and where the few left US bases in Europe are more used and necessary for the US for their other international affairs as for example in ME as they are for NATO!

A fact widely ignored by the US people who tell about issue like you...

 

This above is uneducated. It's biased and incorrect.

I have an opinion on this but I sense that most people posting on this are doing whats normally done and reacting from bias versus facts.
Please observe the excerpt below from the
2017 US Military Index ( Europe)

The U.S. is on pace to have only 17 main operating bases left on the continent,158 primarily in Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Turkey, and Spain. The number of U.S. installations in Europe has declined steadily since the Cold War when, for example, in 1990, the U.S. Army alone had more than 850 sites in Europe. Today, the total number for all services is approximately 350. In January 2015, the Department of Defense announced the outcome of its European Infrastructure Consolidation review, under which 15 minor sites across Europe will be closed.159

On pace but we still have 35 at this time.

I think this discussion could be absolutely great and I encourage at least one person who is a detractors to Trumps statements to read the link below. It is a very long analysis and loaded with not just US numbers and goals in Europe but ALL NATO countries.. With not just spending but how it's spent. Pros and Cons. Contributions.. Military compositions..

It's not everything we need to know about the US and NATO but it sure does cover alot and I learned alot. I always learn things researching yalls discussions.

It's about a 15 minute read. Well worth the time

http://index.heritage.org/military/2017/assessments/operating-environment/europe/

 

So Greece is bankruptcy at least and because 2% of nothing is at least nothing, they can fire the complete military and sell their equipment to others, right?

 

I seriously don't foresee the EU ever forming any defense force that would be perceived as a threat to the US, but I'm sure Russia would love to see that happen.

 

Greece is free to do whatever it wants.

 

Uneducated, biased and incorrect??? hello???

To make it short ... look closer on USAEUR and what is based in these bases again and doing what again. Also investigate about NATO strategics and their structure and changes! Then come back to me please and you will not write the same post anymore!

What was wrong about US Forces in Germany I wrote please?
Who is leading the NATO troops and involvements and giving troops the various missions again?
Everything nearly without US involvement!

 

So Trump will not be upset that they did not spent 2%, eh?

 

And that's your defence? You won't find me defending our past wrongdoing, but if it's America, defend stupidity at all costs.

 

You complain about bias whilst citing Heritage, a hard-right organisation? Seriously?

 

That fact isn't ignored by me at all. Since, I did both my rotations to Iraq, from Germany.
I'm sick, and tired of the US being world cops, this would be the first step towards a less interventionist, and aggressive foreign policy.

 

Currently they are spending 2.4% (second only to the US) and per your example that ain't much. So if you gotta, go you gotta go. If their GDP is in the negative they can get away with spending nothing and still be meeting their obligations.