Support NeoGAF

[Freeza Under The Shower]

Give me a break. Just because Cheeto Man is scared his Golden Showers VHS will be leaked doesn't mean the US is a "borderline hostile nation" towards our NATO allies or that we wouldn't back them up in a time of war. We'd have Trump's head if he refused to defend a NATO ally against Russia. I'm sure some Europeans would love for the US to be an enemy in order to validate their views about us, but it's time to dial back the hyperbole and get more in touch with reality.

I'm sorry, have you been blacking out from recent news these past three weeks?

Right now however, the US forsakes its humanitarian duty towards refugees from countries that it expects us to 'pick up the tab for' and then threatens us some more. Do you think European leaders are impressed by your nation's sudden complete lack of basic political knowledge? And more importantly, are you?

This isn't about money. It's just the admin playing to its puppet master, and scoring points with a surprisingly ignorant electorate. If this were coming from a Hillary admin, you would not have heard about it in these terms. This, however, is made as a threat.
That is the definition of a de facto borderline hostile nation.

edit: oh great, top of the page. I was hoping to avoid that.

 

[AP90]

No lies detected. The US spends an obscene amount of money and manpower defending the entire Western world, it's only fair the other countries in the Alliance pull their own weight.

This.

“Americans cannot care more for your children’s security than you do.”

"Currently, just five of NATO’s 28 countries spend at least 2 percent on defense: the United Kingdom, Estonia, Poland, Greece and the United States. Major members that do not include France (1.78 percent), Turkey (1.56), Germany (1.19), Italy (1.11) and Canada (.99), according to NATO figures."
---------
Awesome quote bolded above.

Wow. So only Poland, Greece, The UK and Estonia are pulling their weight..

 

[gcubed]

This is no different then other defense secretaries for a while, the difference will be if they actually follow through on the threat.

I'm totally fine with it

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

Also the US doesn't even care for their own children, especially not the GOP.

Yeah not immediately, but if say Obama 2.0 comes along in the future and realizes we don't need to protect Europe because France and Germany, two countries that should easily be able to handle Russia on their own, are holding the line maybe we can cut back. None of this is going to happen overnight, obviously.

Does the US really want to give up some of their military bases in Europe? There's like a dozen of them.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I think they risk far more than just economic sanctions.
Have you considered Russia not deliberating such plans simply because they don't want to give us an excuse to invade them?

Why would Russia have not even contemplated such actions? I consider it improbable that they would execute the plans for practical reasons, but planning is what military strategists spend their life doing. The United States has war plans that deal with invading Canada. Everybody makes plans regardless of whether they intend to use them or not. Russia invented this form of warfare and employed it against Ukraine. Their primary adversary in Europe is NATO, and so it follows that they have considered all options, both defensive and offensive, for a confrontation with NATO. They cannot possibly confront NATO directly, but they can take indirect action against them.

I am not saying this because of some sort of paranoia, even if you do not believe Russia has any ill intentions, it is impossible that they do not have war plans with the only major military powers on their doorstep - China in the East, NATO in the West.

They direct funds to Euroskeptic parties and groups opposed to NATO. They release hacked information to influence foreign elections. But you think they would not even dare contemplate employing tactics they have used literally less than 5 years ago under their current leadership against their primary rivals?

And do you believe that they are more willing to start a world war, against three nuclear armed nations, than we are?

They won't be risking nuclear war, that's the reason why they would be using "local militias" (in huge air quotes) just like they did in Ukraine. They can maintain a highly implausible fiction of their non-involvement, making it challenging for other countries to respond using military force. When Ukraine was hit, the response was a mild-to-moderate array of economic sanctions. If Estonia got hit, the response would be harsher sanctions or possibly some form of embargo.

The reason the Russian strategy has been effective is because although in "theory" it is something that could justify a military response against Russia, in practice, the victim of the attack needs to engage in a conscious escalation of hostilities for it to come to that. They need to mobilize their armed forces and prepare for an attack against Russia if they want to retaliate. Since there is no shooting war with the Russian Army, just these nebulous proxies, it is the victim's decision whether or not to take it to the next level. Since that escalation would potentially risk a nuclear confrontation, the retaliatory escalation is impossible without a major risk of ending modern civilization. In this scenario, NATO would only realistically be able to put down the rebellion and then take economic and political, but not military measures against Russia.

 

[Back-In-Black]

People wbo argue spending 2% is too high need to also agree to disband NATO and roll a new military organization.

You can't have it both ways.

Frankly, I don't see why Europe need NATO.

Exactly, 2% is not asking for much. NATO is a membership. If you don't feel like pulling the bare minimum weight then perhaps it is time to reexamine your relationship with NATO.

 

[Woorloog]

People wbo argue spending 2% is too high need to also agree to disband NATO and roll a new military organization.

You can't have it both ways.

Frankly, I don't see why Europe need NATO.

It is too high for an organization that is unreliable under current, Russia-compromised US direction. And because NATO seems to be a tool for the US, not really a mutual defense pact it is supposed to be.

EU increasing defense spending collectively is acceptable... provided the funds actually go toward European defense.

As for Europe not needing NATO, unfortunately, it is needed. Or an EU Defence Force is needed. Larger alliances have much more weight than individuals, whether it is about military or economy.

In any case, flat 2% is nonsense. Bigger is not automatically better. The money needs to be spend smartly, and mere budget increase isn't. And depending on the country, it may be completely unrealistic... But this should not matter that much to the US, since they still get various strategic benefits.

 

[Rödskägg]

Why would Russia have not even contemplated such actions? I consider it improbable that they would execute the plans for practical reasons, but planning is what military strategists spend their life doing. The United States has war plans that deal with invading Canada. Everybody makes plans regardless of whether they intend to use them or not. Russia invented this form of warfare and employed it against Ukraine. Their primary adversary in Europe is NATO, and so it follows that they have considered all options, both defensive and offensive, for a confrontation with NATO. They cannot possibly confront NATO directly, but they can take indirect action against them.

I am not saying this because of some sort of paranoia, even if you do not believe Russia has any ill intentions, it is impossible that they do not have war plans with the only major military powers on their doorstep - China in the East, NATO in the West.

They direct funds to Euroskeptic parties and groups opposed to NATO. They release hacked information to influence foreign elections. But you think they would not even dare contemplate employing tactics they have used literally less than 5 years ago under their current leadership against their primary rivals?



They won't be risking nuclear war, that's the reason why they would be using "local militias" (in huge air quotes) just like they did in Ukraine. They can maintain a highly implausible fiction of their non-involvement, making it challenging for other countries to respond using military force. When Ukraine was hit, the response was a mild-to-moderate array of economic sanctions. If Estonia got hit, the response would be harsher sanctions or possibly some form of embargo.

The reason the Russian strategy has been effective is because although in "theory" it is something that could justify a military response against Russia, in practice, the victim of the attack needs to engage in a conscious escalation of hostilities for it to come to that. They need to mobilize their armed forces and prepare for an attack against Russia if they want to retaliate. Since there is no shooting war with the Russian Army, just these nebulous proxies, it is the victim's decision whether or not to take it to the next level. Since that escalation would potentially risk a nuclear confrontation, the retaliatory escalation is impossible without a major risk of ending modern civilization. In this scenario, NATO would only realistically be able to put down the rebellion and then take economic and political, but not military measures against Russia.

Yes, obviously everyone is making lots of plans. My point was that it's unlikely they will do this and even if they did, would it suddenly break the western alliances to bits and make us susceptible to conquering by the russians? I'm sure you agree this is not a likely scenario.

I'll also repeat my earlier statements in case you didn't get a chance to read them and believe I'm supportive of their foreign interventions:
"Russia is far from innocent..." and "I'm not defending Russias actions..."
Actually, I think they have about as much "ill intentions" as we do.

I'd be happy to continue tomorrow but it's very late now and I need to sleep, I'm on EU-time after all.
Thanks to everyone for replying to my posts, I enjoyed our discussions

 

[numble]

Maybe the US can finally get some of those sweet social programs that the Euros have if we aren't subsidizing their military. Same with the UK really.

The US plans to increase military spending under the Trump administration.

 

[rec0ded1]

Figure this can go in this thread
AP - Pence tells European allies US 'strongly supports' NATO and will be 'unwavering' in its commitment to the alliance.

Is no one on the same page lol.

 

[spekkeh]

It's fair that the European military gets more funding.

It's also fair that they then buy less American hardware.

At the bottom line I'm not convinced this will be beneficial to the USA.

 

[michaelius]

This should be a list of shame in Europe

Currently, just five of NATO’s 28 countries spend at least 2 percent on defense: the United Kingdom, Estonia, Poland, Greece and the United States. Major members that do not include France (1.78 percent), Turkey (1.56), Germany (1.19), Italy (1.11) and Canada (.99), according to NATO figures.

Hopefully Trump image is so bad that West Europe takes it seriously.

 

[Koren]

It's fair that the European military gets more funding.

Well, we will need it when we'll have to help Canada liberate the USA

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Figure this can go in this thread
AP - Pence tells European allies US 'strongly supports' NATO and will be 'unwavering' in its commitment to the alliance.

Is no one on the same page lol.

Telling the other NATO members to pull their own weight and commit to spending what they are required to spend by the alliance charter sounds to me like it would strengthen the alliance.

 

[Koren]

what they are required to spend by the alliance charter

It's not a requirement... Just a recommandation/goal.

 

[tuxfool]

It's not a requirement... Just a recommandation/goal.

Yup. And in many cases that 2% mark is the wrong criteria to use.

https://www.cnas.org/publications/c...orth-getting-beyond-the-two-percent-benchmark

This has been discussed several times in this thread already.

 

[Lucumo]

Awesome quote bolded above.

What? The US is the country that increases the tension in a lot of places by placing military equipment everywhere while at the same time destabilizing the ME and other regions.

I wouldn't count that as "caring for my children's safety".

 

[Maedre]

2% from Germany equaling 75 billion blows my mind

Why?

 

[Evolution of Metal]

Exactly, 2% is not asking for much. NATO is a membership. If you don't feel like pulling the bare minimum weight then perhaps it is time to reexamine your relationship with NATO.

It is 2% of what the entire country makes, most countries are in debt including USA. It is not a "bare minimum" weight, it is the fixed number. A bare minimum weight is 1 cent.

You are asking Spain to shift around $10b dollars to expand and maintain the military. Spain is never going to be attacked without the rest of the world collapsing first, so it does not need NATO in any way. However, it is much more beneficial to have Spain as a member of NATO even if their military budget doesn't reach 2%, because they still offer a lot of military value as well as contributions towards the NATO's budget itself.

It is a flawed logic to suggest large countries, which are in no danger, to leave NATO because they don't want to expand their military. It would only leave countries like Baltics, who need protection but their military budgets are just a fracture anyway.

 

[Phantast2k]

It's fair that the European military gets more funding.

It's also fair that they then buy less American hardware.

At the bottom line I'm not convinced this will be beneficial to the USA.

But we don't really buy American hardware (anymore):

• Tanks: Leopard / Leclerc / Challenger 2 / Ariete / Iron Curtain stock
• IFVs / APCs / Self-prop. howitzers: Pretty much all self-made / exported from Europe / Iron Curtain stock
• Helicopters: Tiger, NH90, Mangusta,
• Air force: Tornado, Eurofighter, Rafale, Mirage, Gripen, Iron Curtain stock, Harrier (UK/US)
• Navy: Own production 90% of the time or so

Pretty much the only pieces of hardware that are bought from US are not (seriously) produced in Europe:

• Stealth fighters (F-35s)
• Drones
• MLRS
• SAM
• Javelin

However there are still old stocks of US hardware like TOWs, Stingers, F/A-18, F-16. Huey helicopters, M113, M109. It's just that new acquisitions almost never go US' way and if they do then only to close gaps temporarily. Europe missed the boat on stealth fighters & drones so orders go US' way. Once those gaps are filled by European manufacturers, orders will probably go the other way. It's also why neither France nor Germany are buying into F-35 (yet).
There is still quite a lot of cooperation between US & Europe (e.g. MEADS), especially in UK (e.g. Trident) and I'm obviously not taking supply chains into account.

But what I'm trying to say is: Europe doesn't buy US military hardware out of courtesy, but out of necessity.

 

[paradise_circus]

I'm not sure what to think from the majority of the posts in this thread. Instead of demanding a working army and organisation, you just want to pump endless money on militaries, which already happens in european countries at least for a couple of years now.

 

[Rentahamster]

Figure this can go in this thread
AP - Pence tells European allies US 'strongly supports' NATO and will be 'unwavering' in its commitment to the alliance.

Is no one on the same page lol.

Pence's and Mattis' statements can coexist. Without more specific information, they are not inherently contradictory.

 

[Rentahamster]

What the fuck are you talking about?

We've bombed and invaded a lot of countries over the past 20 years, and meddled in a lot of affairs we probably shouldn't have meddled in.

 

[Funky Papa]

Yes, obviously everyone is making lots of plans. My point was that it's unlikely they will do this and even if they did, would it suddenly break the western alliances to bits and make us susceptible to conquering by the russians? I'm sure you agree this is not a likely scenario.

Some other people replied to you, so I'll just address this particular bit.

You are being misled if you think that NATO/EU wouldn't be at risk of crumbling down if Russia moved into the Baltics. A number of polls and studies were conducted after the invasion of Crimea and they show that many citizens wouldn't like to be involved in a situation like that. Plenty of people in the EU don't even know that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are members of the EU. They are tiny countries nobody care about with "funny names" and Russian sounding people; for all they care, they are Russian off-shots that somehow managed to become independent. They don't have a strong opinion about their current status or anything at all. This same mindset is shared to a degree towards some of the Visegrad Group.

Pew Research published some work about this:

The lack of education about the European project is by far our biggest problem. We know little about our neighbours and there's not a lot of solidarity.

Not wanting to follow on Article 5 is a huge issue. The risk compounds because Russia would use covert operations by sending little green men and instill Russian nationalism in the Baltics to make it look like a popular uprising/internal problem. While Poland would be quick to blast those irregular soldiers on the spot, a good portion of the Baltics could be easily overrun while the rest of NATO and the EU debate what to do and figure out the situation.

Countries like Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic would split right away if the EU or NATO show a lack of determination defending their members and allies. And they'd be right in that. An alliance that doesn't defend its partners is not an alliance. Then the rest would follow as NATO's purpose vanishes.

The current situation in Ukrainie was both a message to former vassal states getting ideas of acting independently of Russia and a test for a potential strategy to effectively destroy NATO without getting into an all out war. It would be a risky move for Russia, but defence strategies are devised to counter scenarios such as this one and we've already seen that Russia sees value in such tactics.

For the record, I don't like NATO. At all. I'm an European Federalist and I want a proper European army to defend our own interests without the political interference of foreign nations. But things being the way they are, the EU needs to do something about its defence strategy. And until we can deploy an adequate European Army, NATO will have to be our shield.


Re: European arms industry. France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and Spain are already working on a number of next generation projects such as tanks and unmanned attack aircraft through partnerships. Our reliance on American hardware is currently small and becomes smaller each year it passes, although for some reason Poland still loves their American procurement. I blame that on the evil gnome leading the country these days.

 

[daxy]

If anything, the US has made the world a more dangerous place for European values. But that works out nicely, since they're selling everyone the arms used for military preparedness. I think the US can continue to live in its fearful bubble. What holding them back from reducing their spending in Europe to match whatever is fair on their eyes? Right, because all these contractors have their hands deep into the government's hand and military fetishism is blinding everyone else. The United States' govt is a peacekeeper only in the most shallow, and imperial sense, and the way in which it is performed is exactly what feeds the extremism we see in the world today. What a fucking farce. The US is the most warmongering and backwards country in NATO, so why should the rest lower themselves to their standards?

 

[Dingens]

is this another "let's fund the NHS instead!"-sorta deal? (just replace NHS with obama care)

Anyone who thinks the US would redirect defence spending towards social spending must be naive - the same goes for people who think the NATO exists thanks to the US's generosity. This is just another another gamble at letting others pay for the US's own interests and we should be better of calling the bluff instead of wasting more money. The whole alliance is a relict from times past and needs an overhaul - or rather a replacement. If the US doesn't want to pay for it's geo-strategic interests anymore, than why should we? Let's get that EU-Army going, because the US has more than proven that it's not a reliable partner or at worst a liability - and this goes back to at least Reagan.

[...]

The lack of education about the European project is by far our biggest problem. We know little about our neighbours and there's not a lot of solidarity.[...]

I'd argue it's a two-way problem. Eastern European countries, similar to the UK, sometimes act like they don't wanna be part of the community, but only reap benefits. Just look as the mentioned visegrad group. One critique that comes up sometimes, that these Baltic countries are more interested in an alliance with the US (against Russia) than in an alliance with European countries (which can be contradictory at times) isn't new either.

 

[Phantast2k]

We've bombed and invaded a lot of countries over the past 20 years, and meddled in a lot of affairs we probably shouldn't have meddled in.

Here's what the poster started with:

Lol, get fucked US. You want to be world leader, NATO members to look the other way while you engage in shady geopolitical meddling and have everyone join your pathetic proxy wars? Then pay for that privilege/service.

And then he went with this:

well maybe such small things as Germany partaking in a invasion without a UN resolution - but hey, you know who called them.

Both posts do not make sense. Not on their own and not together. So I still have no idea what he's babbling about.

If anything, the US has made the world a more dangerous place for European values. But that works out nicely, since they're selling everyone the arms used for military preparedness. I think the US can continue to live in its fearful bubble. What holding them back from reducing their spending in Europe to match whatever is fair on their eyes? Right, because all these contractors have their hands deep into the government's hand and military fetishism is blinding everyone else. The United States' govt is a peacekeeper only in the most shallow, and imperial sense, and the way in which it is performed is exactly what feeds the extremism we see in the world today. What a fucking farce. The US is the most warmongering and backwards country in NATO, so why should the rest lower themselves to their standards?

The part about US forcing Eu countries to acquire it's mil. hardware as has been explained in this thread numerous times. None of the American officials said: Increase your spending and buy our tech. Either allow your statements to be branded as dumb ass gibberish or provide the receipts.

The part about US-induced NATO aggression: How does that explain the Libyan no-fly zone which was spearheaded by Europeans?

Last part: Because Europe has been (in part) free riding so far thanks to the American military presence in Europe, saving billions p.a.

 

[Lime]

I'm surprised and disappointed that so many liberals are falling for this and are advocating increased military spending on faulty grounds.

 

[Phantast2k]

I'm surprised and disappointed that so many liberals are falling for this and are advocating increased military spending on faulty grounds.

You're American (from what I understand), aren't you? If so:
Have you seen your mil. budget and your mil. strength relative to the rest of the world (relative to gdp, population) and then taken a look at Europe?

Has your country been slacking on defense because a different country basically guaranteed your defense and that country now turns increasingly hostile (due to its president)?

Do you have a neighboring country which stole and annexed land from 3 countries in ~ 25 years? A country which threatens you and which leads a cyber and information war against you? A country which fields military tech more advanced than yours?

No? Then you probably shouldn't comment on European defense spending (in the way you did: "increased military spending on faulty grounds").

 

[StrategyFan]

is this 2% just hard military force or all defense/security budgets combined?

 

[Funky Papa]

I'd argue it's a two-way problem. Eastern European countries, similar to the UK, sometimes act like they don't wanna be part of the community, but only reap benefits. Just look as the mentioned visegrad group. One critique that comes up sometimes, that these Baltic countries are more interested in an alliance with the US (against Russia) than in an alliance with European countries (which can be contradictory at times) isn't new either.

I want to defend the Visegrad Group here because I feel their concerns, but I'll be damned if Poland and Hungary are not making this difficult. I'm honestly getting tired of their two faced behaviour. I want nothing more than Tusk to win a second term as president of the European Council just to spite Kaczyński.

is this 2% just hard military force or all defense/security budgets combined?

Army budgets IIRC. I think Juncker is a total ass, but I happen to agree with him here:

”It has been the American message for many, many years. I am very much against letting ourselves be pushed into this," Juncker said in a speech on the sidelines of the international Munich Security Conference.

He said he knew that Germany would no longer have a budget surplus if it increased defence spending to 2% of GDP from 1.22%.

”I don't like our American friends narrowing down this concept of security to the military," he said, arguing it would be sensible to look at a ”modern stability policy" made up of several components.

”If you look at what Europe is doing in defence, plus development aid, plus humanitarian aid, the comparison with the United States looks rather different. Modern politics cannot just be about raising defence spending," he said.

”Europeans must bundle their defence spending better and spend the money more efficiently," he added.

Setting an arbitrary number for all nations like that is just asking for some budget shenanigans. Many countries cannot reach that threshold, others would have a tremendously difficult time selling it and those that can may find themselves buying materiel they don't need nor can support in the long term just to claim they are doing their part. It's a horrible, political decision with little forethought in terms of strategic aims.

 

[michaelius]

I want to defend the Visegrad Group here because I feel their concerns, but I'll be damned if Poland and Hungary are not making this difficult. I'm honestly getting tired of their two faced behaviour. I want nothing more than Tusk to win a second term as president of the European Council just to spite Kaczyński.

Hehe but Tusk being elected is win-win situation for Poland.
We keep the position but we don't have to pay for it in concessions in other places since he was elected without our support.

Even if Tusk is mostly Merkel lapdog he still has some influence to push things that has bipartisan support in Poland.

And we keep only person capable of uniting pathetically weak caricature of opposition we have currently away.

 

[Rödskägg]

Some other people replied to you, so I'll just address this particular bit.

...

I appreciate your taking the time to comment on my posts. However, at this point I feel I can do no more than reiterate what I've said earlier, numerous times nonetheless.

Let's assume that they will occupy the baltics. Let's also assume that this will cause NATO and EU to dissolve. This does not in any way mean that they will have the resources or military power to conquer Europe. The numbers speak for themselves. Furthermore, this does not even consider the improbability of the russian people to actually support an invasion of a superior "enemy".

In my humble opinion, the world will be far better off if we try to reach agreements of demilitarization rather than spending more.

Both posts do not make sense. Not on their own and not together. So I still have no idea what he's babbling about.

My apologies

 

[spons]

No. Invest in education, health care and welfare instead. The military seems like a bottomless barrel anyway, throw more money into it and it'll just disappear.

 

[Phantast2k]

I'll hazard a guess and assume he's talking about the war in Iraq and the german militaries involvement in Afghanistan.
I don't want to sound harsh or insulting but you seem strangely agitated and uninformed. Belligerence and ignorance is hardly a healthy combination as I'm sure your nations history can teach you.

The Iraq war is not a US proxy war. Moreover, NATO is not involved in Iraq.
German military is involved in Afghanistan based on a security council resolution (this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1386 )

Who's the idiot now?
/also fuck right off with your history lessons. How is this appropriate in this context?

 

[Sulik2]

Leaving NATO would be a disaster but asking Europe to spend more on their defense actually isn't that unreasonable.

 

[Rödskägg]

The Iraq war is not a US proxy war. Moreover, NATO is not involved in Iraq.
German military is involved in Afghanistan based on a security council resolution (this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1386 )

Who's the idiot now?
/also fuck right off with your history lessons. How is this appropriate in this context?

Take the time to be more precise what it is you don't agree with. Just "What the fuck are you talking about?" doesn't give us a lot to work with.

 

[MUnited83]

Telling the other NATO members to pull their own weight and commit to spending what they are required to spend by the alliance charter sounds to me like it would strengthen the alliance.

Good thing it isn't required then.

 

[Makai]

People wbo argue spending 2% is too high need to also agree to disband NATO and roll a new military organization.

You can't have it both ways.

Frankly, I don't see why Europe need NATO.

I certainly can have it both ways and we certainly have it both ways.

 

[Staf]

No lies detected. The US spends an obscene amount of money and manpower defending the entire Western world, it's only fair the other countries in the Alliance pull their own weight.

I'm a Swede and i agree. Sweden and the other european countries needs to up their defense spending on par with US in terms of spending-to-GDP ratio.

 

[Mivey]

Telling the other NATO members to pull their own weight and commit to spending what they are required to spend by the alliance charter sounds to me like it would strengthen the alliance.

The weird thing is that there is a difference with spending on the NATO budget, which all members are doing, to my knowledge, and spending a certain percentage of their budget on their own military. Since there was a period of peace on the European continent for decades, and even the wars that did take place in Eastern Europe in the 90ies didn't threaten Europe as a whole. So most nations spent less. Now the geopolitical situation in general, and also in Europe specifically is getting more tense. Most nations will probably increase their spending. A European Army, for example, in whatever form would require large investments initially (even if it could end up saving costs in the long term for smaller countries).

Mattis statement seems like something Trump forced him to say. Populist and poorly thought out.

 

[RinsFury]

We all need to be spending less on the military and weapons of war, not more. Less than 1% like Canada spends should be the goal, invest the money saved into schools, healthcare, and social programs like basic income.

 

[Roude Leiw]

We all need to be spending less on the military and weapons of war, not more. Less than 1% like Canada spends should be the goal, invest the money saved into schools, healthcare, and social programs like basic income.

the world isn't a safe place.

 

[fantomena]

NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg (my former PM and former leader of my party) agrees with Trump/Mattis: http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/donald-trump/stoltenberg-jeg-er-enig-med-trump/a/23847879/

I personally don't like NATO as much as I did before due to it's bombing in the Middle-East.

 

[Rödskägg]

the world isn't a safe place.

It seems to me that spending more on the military won't make it any safer.
With the west beeing the current biggest spender we would do good to show the rest of the world that we're willing to negotiate demilitarization for the benefit of everyone.

Doesn't it make sense that the less weapons we have the risk for war will decrease?
And if war were to break out wouldn't the damage be less severe?

 

[4Tran]

The weird thing is that there is a difference with spending on the NATO budget, which all members are doing, to my knowledge, and spending a certain percentage of their budget on their own military. Since there was a period of peace on the European continent for decades, and even the wars that did take place in Eastern Europe in the 90ies didn't threaten Europe as a whole. So most nations spent less. Now the geopolitical situation in general, and also in Europe specifically is getting more tense. Most nations will probably increase their spending. A European Army, for example, in whatever form would require large investments initially (even if it could end up saving costs in the long term for smaller countries).

Mattis statement seems like something Trump forced him to say. Populist and poorly thought out.

I wouldn't quite put it that way. While I think it's nonsense, encouraging more military spending has been a priority goal of a lot of people in the US and other militaries. Doesn't keep it from being nonsense that doesn't take into account the needs of the individual NATO members though.

It seems to me that spending more on the military won't make it any safer.
With the west beeing the current biggest spender we would do good to show the rest of the world that we're willing to negotiate demilitarization for the benefit of everyone.

Doesn't it make sense that the less weapons we have the risk for war will decrease?
And if war were to break out wouldn't the damage be less severe?

While I agree with the sentiment of disarmament, I don't think that it's a realistic goal at this time. The world is trending towards arms races right now. And as these races are primarily fueled by China and India's growing industrial might coupled with a need for a military to go along with that growth, it's unlikely for that trend to reverse any time soon.

What we could do with, is someone willing to defuse the ongoing proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, but it doesn't look like anyone even wants to talk about that.

 

[Funky Papa]

I appreciate your taking the time to comment on my posts. However, at this point I feel I can do no more than reiterate what I've said earlier, numerous times nonetheless.

Let's assume that they will occupy the baltics. Let's also assume that this will cause NATO and EU to dissolve. This does not in any way mean that they will have the resources or military power to conquer Europe. The numbers speak for themselves. Furthermore, this does not even consider the improbability of the russian people to actually support an invasion of a superior "enemy".

In my humble opinion, the world will be far better off if we try to reach agreements of demilitarization rather than spending more.


I'll hazard a guess and assume he's talking about the war in Iraq and the german militaries involvement in Afghanistan.
I don't want to sound harsh or insulting but you seem strangely agitated and uninformed. Belligerence and ignorance is hardly a healthy combination as I'm sure your nations history can teach you.

As I explained before, Russia doesn't need nor want to conquer Eastern Europe. Maybe the Baltics. What Russia wants is a broken EU that cannot back it into a corner nor retaliate when Putin is being a jackass. A broken EU means a bunch of quarreling nations with little weight in the world stage that can be bullied into Russia's sphere of influence. Russia's strategy also calls for the creation of buffer zones along its borders very much in line with Eastern Ukraine and made up, bullshit nations like Transnistria that cannot survive without Russian assistance and exist solely to provide some space between the motherland and potential adversaries.

Back in the day the Baltics and the Visegrad four used to play that role. It's understandable that they are immensely alarmed by Russia's increasing political interference and aggression in Ukraine.

 

[Lime]

the world isn't a safe place.

Read Funkypapa's post about Junckers quote on defense and security being more than just military

 

[Rödskägg]

While I agree with the sentiment of disarmament, I don't think that it's a realistic goal at this time. The world is trending towards arms races right now. And as these races are primarily fueled by China and India's growing industrial might coupled with a need for a military to go along with that growth, it's unlikely for that trend to reverse any time soon.

It may not be realistic at this particular point in time but the discussion needs to be had for anything to happen in the first place. Seemingly impossible and positive changes has occured before, I earlier mentioned slavery as an example. The relatively peaceful collapse of the Soviet union and East Germany may serve as another.

China is currently spending about a third of what the US is spending on weapons. I can understand why they feel the need to strenghten their military even if I think that it's ultimately counterproductive. Especially with several US military bases right in their neighbourhood.

 

[Ennosuke]

As if the USA is spending all the money for us europeans. They have been doing this to create jobs and to be the number one on this planet.