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

Oh, I see. We need a massive spending hike so we can police the world better.

I'll have to disagree with that.

He made himself look bad by behaving like a petulant child and getting played accordingly.

As for IOU, vast majority of members are still on IOU state, but as per the 2014 agreement they will reach the goal by 2024. Every year they have made strives toward it.

 

He's got this thing you see where it's kind of hard for him to stay on topic without bringing the poster into the topic personally.


They're just mad that Trump made the cheap bastards pay up

 

Whom would you trust to do it with the best interests of the U.S. in mind?

 

Does the world need a police with limitless resources to defeat a Russia, China + other countries at the same time on the other side of the planet? Why?

Majority of NATO members are not even at 2% (and wont be for a while) and now you want 5%?

Good luck with that.

Your goal can be reached with US spending 10% + mandatory military service for all males. Utter nonsense.

 

Yes. To all of that.

 

Yes, to $2.5 Trillion defense budget and mandatory military service?

I'm sorry, but I just don't see that happening. Even Lindsey Graham was president and 10 of his clones in the Senate, it still would not fly.

 

Time will tell. Time will tell.

 

Mandatory military service would be a nightmare for the military.

 

Silly title and conclusions. What secured the alliance was

Stoltenberg and senior NATO officials embraced "Trump's demands for greater burden-sharing" because "they promised to generate most goodwill with the U.S. president and were not harmful to the alliance," according to Schuette.

Stoltenberg lobbied allies to increase their defense spending. By making sure to do so publicly, Stoltenberg was able to put more pressure on underpaying members and to signal to Trump that he shared Trump's concerns.

 

It would require a massive expansion of the military.

Some countries like Israel, Finland and Switzerland have it and it works, but fortunately we have enough people to weed out the weak because we have our share or them.

Maybe the money is better spent on high-tech.

 

I joined a conscript (draft) Army in 1970 and retired from it in the 90's when it was VOLAR (Volunteer Army). VOLAR was MUCH better. Fewer problem children by far.

 

The article is presented as news. But it reads like an anti Trump opinion piece.

 

Vietnam?

Yes, voluntary is better, but not all countries have enough people for it. Smaller European countries (and Israel) have to choose between NATO, or mandatory service for everyone. Even the NATO countries have a mix of volunteer + lottery draft systems.

It is what it is broheem. Its from the UK. Trump was despised there, but I don't think it would reflect on the article.

About the author:
Constantine Atlamazoglou
Constantine Atlamazoglou works on transatlantic and European security. He holds a master's degree on security studies and European affairs from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.

 

No on Viet Nam... I went West Point instead. Viet Nam was over when I graduated.

 

Or they didn't want to pay their share?

 

Making our military comfortable is not my goal.

 

We can't even defeat sandal clad primitives, and we spend a lot of money right now. I don't think more dollars is going to help this current military. They certainly have not been responsible with the money they've gotten.

 

What will help then? Seriously.

 

As a Canadian I’m wondering why should we pay for the défense of Europe? We already saved their collective asses twice. Paying for NORAD I’m totally fine with, but NATO?

 

I have a couple ideas, but none are politically doable under this administration. They seem to be satisfied with the military as is.

 

I said nothing about making them comfortable. I meant that folks that don't want to be there in the first place go AWOL... run away in battle.... take constant supersvision and drain leader resources.... take ten times the effort to train, hurting readiness. During Viet Nam we fsent a lot of substandard draftee soldiers to Europe so they would louse up the important actions of war. Where did you get this "comfortable" garbage?

 

We have the ability, not the will to do so. Defeating an opponent in war, requires waging deadly war until they are defeated.

 

Apparently every general for the last 20 years didn't think we had the ability. I've never heard any general posit a plan for defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan.

 

Our military is the best in the world, and more than sufficient for the purpose for which it exists: to defend the United States. Using it to occupy places like Afghanistan is always a mistake.

 

No one ever wanted to "occupy" anything. We were there to capture bin Laden. We should have left after we got him. The problem was that the Taliban had demonstrated, time and again, that they could successfully raid Pakistan from their police facilities to their military academy to their major military bases. Pakistan has nukes. We kept the Taliban at bay but knew that they might grab a Paki nuke if we left. It was a tough dilemma.
Now we may find out.