• Nato chief warns Trump against going it alone
    45 replies, posted
[quote]Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has warned US President-elect Donald Trump that "going it alone" is not an option for Europe or the United States. He said the West faced its greatest security challenge in a generation. During his election campaign, Mr Trump described Western military alliance Nato as obsolete. He suggested that the US would think twice about coming to the aid of any Nato ally under attack if it had not paid its dues. [I] Writing in Britain's Observer newspaper, Mr Stoltenberg conceded that Mr Trump had a point about the need for some members to make a bigger financial contribution, as the US currently accounted for almost 70% of Nato spending.[/I] But he added that American leaders had always recognised that they had a profound strategic interest in a stable and secure Europe.[/quote] [url]http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37966027[/url] He's right about other nations needing to pull their weight but dumping Nato damages Western collective defence. It harms both the US and everyone else.
[QUOTE] Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has warned US President-elect Donald Trump that "going it alone" is not an option for Europe or the United States [/QUOTE] More like not an option for just Europe.
I agree on the point that we should contribute more. Norway has had increased cuts in its military budget over the years, despite escalating tensions
What does "going it alone" mean?
Hopefully he'll take this advice for the good of the country, the world in general, and his own good as well, though I don't wonder if his backpedaling on various issues won't get him impeached, assuming his boasts and possible revelation of state secrets don't do that first. Hardline Republicans will gleefully seize the chance to shove Pence into the Oval Office.
There is one point I can agree on: NATO members who do not spend 2% of their GDP on defence budget (Denmark amongst them) need to step up their game. Yes, we might've been in a period of peace and stability, but that time is ending. It's time to commit.
Trump's position on NATO is weird because he recently promised a Polish group that he would strengthen NATO according to this site: [URL="http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/whats-trumps-position-on-nato/"]http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/whats-trumps-position-on-nato/[/URL] Trump has actually never talked about leaving NATO as soon as he became president, he said that leaving it was on the table if the other states didn't pull their way. [QUOTE]Charles Lane, Washington Post, March 21: So, I’d like to hear you say very specifically, you know, with respect to NATO, what is your ask of these other countries? Right, you’ve painted it in very broad terms, but do you have a percent of GDP that they should be spending on defense? Tell me more, because it sounds like you want to just pull the U.S. out. Trump: No, I don’t want to pull it out. NATO was set up at a different time. NATO was set up when we were a richer country. We’re not a rich country anymore. We’re borrowing, we’re borrowing all of this money. We’re borrowing money from China, which is sort of an amazing situation. But it was a much different thing. NATO is costing us a fortune and yes, we’re protecting Europe with NATO but we’re spending a lot of money. Number one, I think the distribution of costs has to be changed. I think NATO as a concept is good, but it is not as good as it was when it first evolved.[/QUOTE] He also wants NATO to fight more against terror [QUOTE]Trump, March 25: I’ll tell you the problems I have with NATO. Number one, we pay far too much. We are spending — you know, in fact, they’re even making it so the percentages are greater. NATO is unfair, economically, to us, to the United States. Because it really helps them more so than the United States, and we pay a disproportionate share. Now, I’m a person that — you notice I talk about economics quite a bit, in these military situations, because it is about economics, because we don’t have money anymore because we’ve been taking care of so many people in so many different forms that we don’t have money — and countries, and countries. So NATO is something that at the time was excellent. Today, it has to be changed. It has to be changed to include terror. It has to be changed from the standpoint of cost because the United States bears far too much of the cost of NATO.[/QUOTE] But he did call it obsolete, he seems to have walked back from that statement though [QUOTE]Trump, April 27: They look at the United States as weak and forgiving and feel no obligation to honor their agreements with us. In NATO, for instance, only four of 28 other member countries besides America, are spending the minimum required 2 percent of GDP on defense. We have spent trillions of dollars over time on planes, missiles, ships, equipment, building up our military to provide a strong defense for Europe and Asia. The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense, and if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves. We have no choice.[/QUOTE] His demands regarding NATO are reasonable for the most part IMO. While the US military budget is high thanks to our role as world police, the extra money we are paying into NATO is fat that can be cut from the military budget in order to support domestic interests.
[QUOTE=rndgenerator;51363566]What does "going it alone" mean?[/QUOTE] The US stops pulling the weight of security duty in Europe. We have bases all over the world and most of them are staffed with significant amounts of troops/armor/air assets to deter aggression against whichever NATO host they're there for. If we went it alone we would drastically reduce the staffing and funding of those euorpean bases and strategic assets. I don't think we would just abandon them entirely but I doubt we would keep reaction forces maintained on the scale we do now. As of right now we conduct regular military exercises along the Russian border and they're told in plain words they're going to take the first hit if Ivan invades and they don't expect them to last 48 hours, they're there to buy time. If we truely "went it alone" we would likely keep the bases but we wouldn't have the capability to project power like we do now.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;51363567]Hopefully he'll take this advice for the good of the country, the world in general, and his own good as well, though I don't wonder if his backpedaling on various issues won't get him impeached, assuming his boasts and possible revelation of state secrets don't do that first. Hardline Republicans will gleefully seize the chance to shove Pence into the Oval Office.[/QUOTE] Which would set off the more aggressive aspects of the left (SJWS) to work against him. The one thing the left is good at is activism against a GOP asshole. Maybe instead of safe places and harassing me for video games I play, such activists would be pointed at more important targets.
[QUOTE=CruelAddict;51363562]More like not an option for just Europe.[/QUOTE] Would the US rather have Europe on its side or possibly pivoting towards a different nation? The answer seems pretty clear to me, and it's not like the US couldn't lower its military budget if it wanted to - it's not just based on the US covering for other nations spending less; the US has a clear interest in having the world's largest fleet (by [I]far[/I]) and the world's strongest army.
[QUOTE=Guriosity;51363594]Which would set off the more aggressive aspects of the left ([B]SJWS[/B]) to work against him. The one thing the left is good at is activism against a GOP asshole. Maybe instead of [B]safe places[/B] and [B]harassing me for video games I play[/B], such activists would be pointed at more important targets.[/QUOTE] :conspiratard: [sp]I actually don't know whether what you posted is satire or not[/sp] [QUOTE=CruelAddict;51363562]More like not an option for just Europe.[/QUOTE] It also means that the US's ability to assert global hegemony declines, which is good for the world but historically not the US
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51363610]:conspiratard: [sp]I actually don't know whether what you posted is satire or not[/sp] It also means that the US's ability to assert global hegemony declines, which is good for the world but historically not the US[/QUOTE] I remember the bush jr years. The left was busy with him. They were doing something important back then. Now? They harass people cause they got nothing better to do. I see Pence replacing Trump in the same vein. As someone mentioned elsewhere, the nsa could be used to out people who are gay. Great, SJWs (the extreme aggressive left) will be busy fighting that. If they succeed I get my privacy back.
[QUOTE=Guriosity;51363640]I remember the bush jr years. The left was busy with him. They were doing something important back then. Now? They harass people cause they got nothing better to do. I see Pence replacing Trump in the same vein. As someone mentioned elsewhere, the nsa could be used to out people who are gay. Great, SJWs (the extreme aggressive left) will be busy fighting that. If they succeed I get my privacy back.[/QUOTE] Just because X is a more serious problem than Y doesn't mean Y is totally meaningless. Safe spaces are pretty reasonable on paper and are often used reasonably. They're also nothing new. Church is something of a fucking safe space ffs. Alcoholics anonymous is another Video game criticism is retarded to be angry about. People are seeing video games as art, and then they begin analyzing them like art? woah. Disagree with their conclusions if you want but "harassment"???????
The problem with increasing spending on military is that Denmark has had lots of budget cuts due to the inflating medicine budget. Increasing military spending would take a lot of money out of the budget which has already been allocated to spending in healthcare. Not to mention, just allocating more money doesn't equal a better military. The military has a duty which they might be able to meet with their current budget. So it's not a guarantee that more money would make things better.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51363661]Just because X is a more serious problem than Y doesn't mean Y is totally meaningless. Safe spaces are pretty reasonable on paper and are often used reasonably. They're also nothing new. Church is something of a fucking safe space ffs. Alcoholics anonymous is another Video game criticism is retarded to be angry about. People are seeing video games as art, and then they begin analyzing them like art? woah. Disagree with their conclusions if you want but "harassment"???????[/QUOTE] It's harassment if they harass people about it. Safe spaces are stupid if they're used as an excuse to disregard any argument that challenges your world view.
[QUOTE=elowin;51363741]It's harassment if they harass people about it. Safe spaces are stupid if they're used as an excuse to disregard any argument that challenges your world view.[/QUOTE] My problem isn't that it's the narrow minded view on them the types of people that talk about the "EXTREME REGRESSIVE LEFT" often have. Safe spaces usually aren't in particular. Arguably they bias you but we do that naturally all of the time without thinking of it which makes it hard for me to get riled up in the defense of "free speech!" if he understands that then okay
[QUOTE=Tinter;51363725]The problem with increasing spending on military is that Denmark has had lots of budget cuts due to the inflating medicine budget. Increasing military spending would take a lot of money out of the budget which has already been allocated to spending in healthcare. Not to mention, just allocating more money doesn't equal a better military. The military has a duty which they might be able to meet with their current budget. So it's not a guarantee that more money would make things better.[/QUOTE] Our current [del]Chief of Defence[/del] Minister of Defence has already said that Denmark is gradually losing its ability to project any kind of force. This goes for defending our own territory as well. As it stands right now, we'll lose the ability to deploy any large number of troops entirely in a few years. That's unacceptable, both in regards to our commitment to NATO and our general ability to fight opposing forces.
It's pretty clear many nations in NATO need a fire lit under their ass to start pulling their weight, if Trump's threat of withholding military support is that fire, so be it. Furthermore, because Article 5 in the NATO treaty is (seemingly intentionally) vague, the US could withhold military support without actually violating the treaty should a member invoke Article 5.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;51363795]It's pretty clear many nations in NATO need a fire lit under their ass to start pulling their weight, if Trump's threat of withholding military support is that fire, so be it. Furthermore, because Article 5 in the NATO treaty is (seemingly intentionally) vague, the US could withhold military support without actually violating the treaty should a member invoke Article 5.[/QUOTE] They could withhold military support in the form of actually sending troops. But they would be obliged to share intelligence, sending supplies, helping evac civilians... It's impossible for a NATO member to sit out an attack on another NATO-aligned country.
IDK if the other nations are withholding the requirements for NATO because they know the USA could pay for it with their debt then it's probably fair that they put pressure for that.
[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;51363875]IDK if the other nations are withholding the requirements for NATO because they know the USA could pay for it with their debt then it's probably fair that they put pressure for that.[/QUOTE] Most NATO members have cited the practically nonexistent threat against their respective countries for cutting their defense budgets, but given the current situation, most are finally looking into increasing their defense budget and modernising their militaries.
[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;51363835]They could withhold military support in the form of actually sending troops. But they would be obliged to share intelligence, sending supplies, helping evac civilians... It's impossible for a NATO member to sit out an attack on another NATO-aligned country.[/QUOTE] [quote]The principle of providing assistance With the invocation of Article 5, Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to a situation. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and [B]each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in the particular circumstances[/B]. This assistance is taken forward in concert with other Allies. It is not necessarily military and depends on the material resources of each country. It is therefore [B]left to the judgment of each individual member country to determine how it will contribute[/B]. Each country will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to “to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”.[/quote] [url=http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm]Source[/url] The actual text of Article 5 seems to provide no indication as to the minimum assistance required either.
US not supporting NATO with the Republicans in power? I really doubt that happening, Trump ain't gonna start kissing Russia's ass or anything. But I do agree with NATO members spending 2% on defense. My country will prolly reach it next year.
[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;51363900]Most NATO members have cited the practically nonexistent threat against their respective countries for cutting their defense budgets, but given the current situation, most are finally looking into increasing their defense budget and modernising their militaries.[/QUOTE] Yea, but they are still members of NATO. There is a reason they are in it, because they know eventually a threat could emerge.
Arguing "them damn liberal SJWs and their safe spaces" in a thread about US power projection across the world is retarded lol get a grip for real
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;51364024]Yea, but they are still members of NATO. There is a reason they are in it, because they know eventually a threat could emerge.[/QUOTE] I know. I'm not defending their argument. If anything, I'm against it, and I believe that Denmark, as a NATO member, should spend 2% of its GDP on its defenses. I was just stating a fact.
I'm fairly certain his view can be summed up as: strengthen NATO for contributing members, but cut off those who aren't paying their dues. Seems more than reasonable to me.
Will the European and Scandinavian countries be able to enjoy their nationalized healthcare and free college tuition if they have to significantly up their military spending?
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51364202]Will the European and Scandinavian countries be able to enjoy their nationalized healthcare and free college tuition if they have to significantly up their military spending?[/QUOTE] the nordics afaik already have a high military spending idk about sweden but i think they're planning on upping that shit (again)
[QUOTE=Cructo;51364017][B]Yeah but then again that also applies to the US so if they feel they're contributing too much they can just cut back on spending[/B] or other countries can start spending more[/QUOTE] This is the only relevant part. If the US thinks everyone's pulling their ass around, they can spend less, suspend their membership in NATO or whatever. Other nations shouldn't spend more just because the US decides to.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.