How NATO leaders used quiet maneuvers and 'adroit flattery' to keep Trump from blowing up the allian

Too funny. Basically they treated him like a petulant child who settles down if you give them some candy, and since Trump liked to be flattered, they gave him some. They played him like a fiddle, so so did our enemies.

How NATO leaders used quiet maneuvers and 'adroit flattery' to keep Trump from blowing up the alliance
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/nato-lead...uhd59mWOA2ONvYbuJKudHn52wIZQy-MGGQmPztfyDYQ8v

The Trump presidency posed an existential threat to NATO and to transatlantic relations.

However, NATO managed to survive Trump thanks to the deft diplomacy and interpersonal skills of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, according to research by Leonard Schuette of the University of Maastricht, who interviewed 23 senior NATO and member-state officials about Stoltenberg's central role in placating Trump and preserving the alliance.

To placate the unpredictable American president and cast him as the main driver of positive change within the alliance, Stoltenberg credited Trump with any success in securing spending commitments.

In May 2018, Stoltenberg visited the White House and, in a clever bit of public diplomacy, thanked Trump for his leadership. "It is impacting allies, because all allies are now increasing defense spending. They're adding billions to their budgets," Stoltenberg said.

 

Though it worked for good in this case, Trumps vulnerability to flattery has always disgusted me.

 

The only thing Trump did was gt NATO members to pay what they had committed to.... and that was a GOOD thing!

 

Sure, except that they had already agreed to it in 2012, and were on target. Trump didn't know, or didn't care, so he made a stink about it, and they handled him like people handle a child.

 

AGREED to it in 2012... that's just an IOU. Trump actually got them to write checks.

 

They were on target meaning they were writing checks. Hey, if you want to credit Trump, that is fine by me. I know its important for Trump and his apologists.

 

Sorry, despite their "promises" they were NOT spending the defense budgets they committed to until Trump made it happen.

 

They are not paying it today either (only a fraction of them do), because the 2012 deal was to reach their target by 2024.

I get it you adore Trump, but they played him like a fiddle.

 

Actually, they WERE paying. Their defense budgets increased.

 

I only adore God and my wife (ok... and my kids too). I simply like Trump. Do you ADORE public figures? Kinky...

 

Exact o mungo!!! One must always remember when everyone else is playing checkers Da Trumpsta is playing chess. Always one or two moves ahead of the competition. And now they’ve gone and did this. Wait until the 2024 Trump re-election they will really be mad at him

 

Sure, every year they have increased, but very few are spending the 2% as of now, and ones who do spend 2%, are the ones who always did.

The deal was actually made in 2014, not 2012 and it was due to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Ever since then the members have worked toward the 2024 goal and they are on target, - even Germany who has a history of spending less.

No, not me, which is why I find it hard to level with those who do.

 

I don't know of anyone that does... except Nancy Pelosi... who adores Nancy Pelosi.

 

NATO members have not been living up to their budgetary commitments. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries...less-tail-getting-beyond-natos-2-percent-rule

 

All NATO members should spend at least 5% of their GDP on their military. And I mean actually on their military. Not allocating 30 billion for military pensions and calling that part of the military budget.

 

So true. There are so many problems to be fixed. Our military is all networked and can't communicate with most NATO forces who still rely on voice. Britain is trying though. Most member nations end up buying a lot of our stuff and international sales are complicated. Training is a problem too. There aren't a lot of wide open spaces to train in and the skies over Europe are congested with civilian air traffic.

 

European NATO forces have routinely come to the U.S. to train for decades.

 

5% would be a massive overkill. The US would require a large tax hike to get to 5%, and for what? We spend too much as it is. As for the other members, - they'll never agree to it.

And US trains there, even remote places like like in Norway and Finland (which is not even a member, but an ally).

Talking abut Finland, Russia just issued a warning about them joining NATO, and Finland responded by saying they have no intention of discarding that option. Finland spends 2%, and require all male citizens to serve in the military. Their reserve is over 900 000 men, and they have fought the Russkies before.

Israel spends 5+%, but that's easy because its our money.

 

There are five levels of training: 1.) Individual (marksmanship, drill, etc... Basic Training stuff) 2.) Crew (aircraft crew, tanker, squad, section, etc.) 3.) Team (tank and wingman (just like aircraft), re-enforcing artillery, etc.) 4.) Combined Arms (Tanks working with Infantry, helicopters working with tanks, etc.) 5.) JOINT (Army working Navy, Marines and Army together, etc.)
There are three "domains" of training: Constructive (computer based... desktop and similar), Virtual (flight simulators, tank simulators, etc) and Live - actual field exercises.. usually using MILES (like laser tag only much more sophisticated)
Most of this can be done on a typical base, but "LIVE" training takes lots of space. The US Army has "Combat Training Centers" at Ft Irwin CA (National Training Center), Ft Polk, LA (Joint Readiness Training Center) and a few other places. Hohenfels in Germany is a similar, although much smaller training center. The Marines have a similar facility at Twentynine Palms in CA. While foreign elements have trained there, its very rare. If you go to Ft Bliss in El Paso you will find a fairly large, permanent contingent of the German Air Force operating out of Biggs Army Airfield. Lots of open sky to train in. TACTS/ACMI, the simulation system you saw in TOP GUN is now GPS based so it can be used over water without any surface triangulation stations. That allows a little more latitude. Our own Naval Forces don't have to go to TOP GUN anymore, they can train with it at sea.
Ground forces of foreign nations rarely come to the US to train with us. We do have a facility in Australia that the Aussies rent out to allies in the Pacific Rim for training. We have US Marines there to run the show.

 

Do we spend enough to defeat China, Russia, and Iran combined? If the answer is "No" then we don't spend enough.

 

Well said.

 

Sure, we can nuke them 50 over with the stuff we have today. Why would we engage in a conventional war against a country like Iran?

Does China, Russia and Iran spend enough to defeat US and NATO?

If China and Russia want to invade the US, they'll find themselves in the bottom of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

 

I'm not talking about them invading the U.S. The U.S. has interests and allies in close proximity to China, Russia, and Iran that we are obligated to defend both logically and morally.

 

If China and or Russia launch 1,000 nuclear missiles at the United States do we have the missile defenses capable of stopping the attack.?

If the answer is "NO" then we need to build comprehensive ABM systems, air defenses and Civil Defenses.

 

I just love me a failed Trump bashing thread.
In an effort to make Trump looked bad you just instead proved how he held other countries accountable for their part.
You cannot run an international alliance on IOUs

sad!