NATO isn't a pool of money, no one "pays" anything for it. It's a mutual self defense treaty (and a command structure for executing such an operation). Trump did nothing to squeeze money out of anyone at that meeting, nor would it have made any sense for him to have done so.
By very conspicuously refusing to endorse Article V in his speech, however, he called the US commitment to NATO self-defense into question (question!) for the first time in the 68 year history of the pact.
If you happened to be a east european power thinking about invading a small NATO member (in the baltics, say), this is a huge gift.
That is true but every country is supposed to spend 2% of GDP on defense, and only the US and 4 others actually do. How Trump handles this and talks about this is asinine, but there is a basis for it.
But many NATO countries have had a decrease in military spending since 2006 when this agreement was signed and have shown no real intention to get up to this level. Now it's perfectly reasonable to say that this is fine and the 2006 agreement isn't that big of a deal. It's also very reasonable to say that good relations are more important than everyone meeting their goal and a clear commitment to Article 5 is essential. But sergiotapia's comment that countries should pay their fair share is also reasonable and ajross's response that NATO isn't a pool of money misses that point.
With all due respect, that's missing the point. If you believe that NATO is a good thing and successfully deters aggression against its member states, Trump's near-abrogation of America's treaty commitments objectively did far, far more damage to that deterrence than Germany underfunding its army. Ergo, Trump's nonsense about "paying" and your defense thereof seems terribly insincere. Either you don't believe in NATO's mission, or you are confused about how it works.
And that's fine. Obama was making that case as well.
But this is international diplomacy here. You don't publicly berate and embarrass your allies especially when those countries were already on track to meeting the target.
European countries have no intentions to ever pay the 2%. For example the Belgian Government reiterated right after the G7 that it had no intention to meet that target and plans instead for 1.3% towards 2030. [1] I work in Brussels and I very often heard members of the European Commission / Parliament tell me how nice it was that the USA was paying for everything defence related.
Again, though, that's a completely insincere argument. If you are worried that NATO is being weakened and undermined by underfunded member militaries, the corrective course of action is to strengthen those militaries and very much not to announce to the world you might not necessarily honor your treaty obligations if they don't. That weakens it further.
Trump doesn't care what Belgium spends on defense. Trump is crapping on NATO because Trump (or one of his patrons, ahem) wants a weak NATO.
Disagree. I think Trump is saying, "You'd better be willing to pay for your own defense. If you won't, don't expect us to bail you out," precisely because Trump feels like NATO nations keep expecting America to pay for a strong military so that they don't have to. So he threatens them into a new mindset, where they have to beef up their military because they can't count on America riding in to their rescue any more.
You want to say it's going to backfire? Fine; you're quite likely right. You want to say it's risky? Shortsighted? Yes, and yes. But I don't buy that it's because Trump is in Putin's pocket.
That doesn't sound like disagreement to me. I didn't say anything about "pockets", just that the undeniably biggest benefactor from intra-NATO bitching like this is the nation that literally just invaded another in the region.
The US never gets paid here, so I'll saying it again: Trump is not trying to strengthen NATO here. He's trying to weaken it. You can decide for yourself why.
The ironic thing is that a big part of what Made America Great in the first place was military protection of trading partners. Withdraw that protection and the trading partners now have less reason to give sweetheart trade deals.
The same point can even be made more cynical and still work: America's military dominance of its trading sphere led to a uniform perception of stability and thus to an environment where we could borrow essentially free money from the rest of the world. Take that stability away and the world desire for treasury bonds dries up, and suddenly it becomes harder to finance that huge military in the first place.
Basically, Trump is kicking over the house of cards as we watch.
Well, countries agreed to spend 2% of their GDP by 2024. Furthermore it's not (yet) obligatory for member states to spend all budgets on armed forces but e.g. on humanitarian aid as well. Nato is supposed to act as an organization of defence but as an organization of shared values to guarantee piece. http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/25/news/nato-funding-explained-...
Countries were already on track to contributing the requisite 2% of GDP to defence. What Trump doesn't get is that you can't just turn around on a dime and do it. It's a medium term process to determine how to spend such a significant amount of money.
What Trump did whilst overseas was though drive a stake of fear into the hearts of Eastern European countries who are genuinely fearful of Russia.
Germany is exiting NATO. They have already deferred any spending commitment until after BREXIT (UK leaving the EU). I don't think Trump's weird behaviour prompted Merkel's 'We can't depend on them anymore' speech. But bad? meh. depends if you think the demise of NATO is bad.
Any sources for that claim on Germany exiting NATO? Also strange how they didn't seem to make those speeches during the last administration. And the one before that. And the one before that. And the one before that...
Remember, Article V has been invoked just once: Afghanistan after 9/11. We can debate if that was a good or bad action, but strictly speaking, it's only ever been invoked in defense of the USA.
You reject Angela Merkel as a source? How do you interpret her saying the EU must "take its fate into its own hands" and that they can "no longer rely on the United States and UK"?
You do read Der Speigel? - ran an article weeks ago saying there would not even be a decision on spending until 2020.
From February: "The United States and our international allies, which for so long has been the centerpiece of what is rightly called "The Free World," are facing the greatest threat to global stability since the end of World War II. Security arrangements, like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which for more than seven decades have kept us safe from yet another global conflict, are quickly coming unraveled."
Granted it has not been stated as clearly as the UK's exit of Europe but the writing is on the wall.
For rather earth shattering global events such as leaving one of the most stable and powerful military alliances the world has ever seen, I'd like a little more than "writing on the wall" as evidence.
Just because they say they need to be more self-reliant doesn't mean they're pulling out of the alliance. Even Trump, with whom I disagree on pretty much everything, isn't leaving the alliance despite his overheated and irresponsible rhetoric. And "quickly becoming unraveled" is not "we want to leave" it's more "there's a maniac in the white house destabilizing everything that has worked for the past half century".
Do you have any sources for any of this? Hoefnells Gazette maybe? :P
I would not overstate Trump's impact - you will only give him an even bigger head. In reality he is insignificant to policy as he will be gone soon enough. I would say Putin and Snowden were more of an impact.
In reality by 2024 the Bundeswehr will no longer be committing troops to NATO missions outside Germany (see above). If it makes you feel better to pretend that they are 'still part of NATO' then fine.
German here - Germany is certainly not exiting the Nato. Quite the contrary. The large part of the German defense forces are deployed on Nato duties. Former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Turkey (supporting the fight agains the IS).
How should I have sources for the contrary if this is not even a consideration here in Germany? The Spiegel is German, but what has it to do with your statement?
Yes, there are discussions about a more integrated European defense. Which is not only logical considering the European Union but also a good way to save a lot of money by reducing overhead and duplication and as a result giving better capabilities for the same budgets. There is also the justified question, how far the Nato is defended by having troups in Afghanistan. But no where, the Nato itself is questioned (except perhaps by the US president), but certainly not by Germany.
What it has to do with my statement is that you declared that you are German as if that made some difference to the weight of your argument - you did not present an argument, just an opinion, but never mind - Der Speigel is also German and has a very different opinion to you. How do you account for Der Speigels statement that NATO is unraveling then if it is not even a consideration? What do you make of Muttis speech if it is not even a consideration? I am only going by the zeitgeist in Germany and beyond which is clearly passing you by or is it that leaving NATO so unconscionable to you? I am asked for sources which I provide and you have none apart from your own opinion to which you are entitled but you cannot speak for everyone else and say that it is not a consideration when it is.
The paper is called the "Spiegel". I can only comment on statements I can read, so if you think the Spiegel made a statement that the Nato is unraveling, please provide a link to that statement. The fact that I am a German adds quite some weight to my argument, as I am very closely following politics in my country and I can follow the news sources directly in my native language. So I can understand what Angela Merkel said correctly. And I am not aware of anyone (except the extreme left "Die Linke" asking for leaving the NATO, or doubting the NATO itself. What Angela Merkel expressed was only, that she got doubts whether there is still a 100% commitment by the US to the NATO. As a consequence, the remaining NATO states need to organize themselves accordingly. One option for that would be a stronger emphasis on a united European defense. But that would mean in no way or form "leaving" the NATO.
You do not have a monopoly on understanding. And it is rather arrogant of you to assume your understanding is superior. Your own lack of interpretation of what she said is highly disingenuous especially when taken in context with the plans to concentrate on an EU armed forces, the plan to withdraw Bundeswehr from all foreign NATO missions by 2024, the declaration not to meet the 70bn euros spending by 2024 because according to Sigmar Gabriel, it is "neither reachable nor desirable". These are not the views of extremists, they are the views of government officials.
Europa muss sein Schicksal selbst in die Hand nehmen.
or exactly what she said was in English :
"The times in which we can fully count on others are somewhat over as I have experienced in the past few days and that is why I can only say: We Europeans must take our fate in our own hands..."
FWIW and as you must already know being German https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Spiegel is called 'The Mirror' not 'Mirror'! as that makes no sense in German nor English.
> You do not have a monopoly on understanding. And it is rather arrogant of you to assume your understanding is superior.
I do not claim to have a monopoly of understanding. I tried to establish why I consider myself well informed about what is happening in political discussions in Germany. You claimed as a fact that "Germany is exiting NATO". No where did you provide any reference to where your statement is based on. And my answer to that was: there is no indication that the German politics has any intentions of doing so. Being German is relevant here as:
- I am carefully following day to day political discussions. If there were such considerations, it is extremely likely I would have heard about them.
- Living in Germany, I have full access to all media here. I don't know how much of the media coverage is available outside of Germany.
- Being a native German and a resident (living in Munich at the moment) means, I have a very good understanding of the German language. I do not have to rely on translations and can understand original statements with at least no language barrier in place. It would be helpful for this discussion, if you could state your location and whether you are a German speaker.
> Your own lack of interpretation of what she said is highly disingenuous especially when taken in context with the plans to concentrate on an EU armed forces, the plan to withdraw Bundeswehr from all foreign NATO missions by 2024.
Not sure what I should "interpret" but, please provide any reference for these claims of yours. Yes, there are some considerations for creating an EU armed forces, but they are not even at planning state. There are no plans or withdrawing from the NATO foreign missions. If you think there are, please provide a reference.
> Europa muss sein Schicksal selbst in die Hand nehmen.
She is saying:
Wir Europäer müssen unser Schicksal wirklich in die eigene Hand nehmen. Natürlich in Freundschaft mit den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, in Freundschaft mit Großbritannien, in guter Nachbarschaft, wo immer das geht, auch mit Russland, auch mit anderen Ländern, aber wir müssen wissen, wir müssen selbst für unsere Zukunft kämpfen, als Europäer, für unser Schicksal und das will ich gerne mit ihnen gemeinsam tun.
So this is just a call for a stronger Europe, which does not just depend on the US for guidance and defense. Which is incidentally the thing the US has asked from Europe for years, including raising the defense budgets. There is no hint at leaving the NATO. Looking at the defense situation of Germany that would be just bizarre. The state of the German military is not compatible with these thoughts. Since the reunification, the size of the German military has been greatly reduced, partly because of the requirements of the 2+4 contract, partly of the changed situation in the world. What is left of the armed forces, is mostly on NATO duties. So there is no doubt of our commitment to the NATO. But for sure, there are discussions about increasing our defense efforts (as asked by the NATO), but equally, but equally, whether all of our military should be tied up in NATO missions.
> FWIW and as you must already know being German https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Spiegel is called 'The Mirror' not 'Mirror'! as that makes no sense in German nor English.
Yes, I am aware. I was just referring to your spelling of the word "Spiegel". By the way, the magazine itself uses its name with and without the article: http://www.spiegel.de
I have been reading articles in Der Speigel for months now hinting at it. I do not know whether you regard that as reputable or not. Merkel's speech - well she did not say 'we are leaving NATO' true, and she is not Germany but she just said that Europe could no longer rely on the United States and the UK and that Europe would have to make her own defence arrangements in the future. So no. LOL.
