Angela Merkel: Europe must take ‘our fate’ into own hands
politico.eu
politico.eu
Please take note that general elections (for the "Bundestag") will be held in the end of September 2017. Everything that will be published now and in the next months by the German media may very well be part of a campaign scheme.
Trump may very well get his wish to see some of the less rich NATO members spend more money on defense, but it may come at the cost of US leadership.
Trump's remarks are not new these are the same remarks that have been thrown around since Busb senior was in office.
Heck Under Obama Sec Def Gates used much harsher words than Trump.
On the issue of defense spending, different members of NATO have different economic hardships. Do we really expect Greece to crank up defense spending while in a debt crisis and under heavy austerity already? These NATO guidelines have to be somewhat contextual based on reality of economics.
This was said in Brussels in front of all of NATO.
The EU have been skimping on its NATO commmitments since the end of the Cold War this isn't a recent development.
Greece is actually meeting it's goals (likely because of its sick waving contest with Turkey) while Germany, France, Italy and even the U.K. do not.
As for Article 5 there has been already blood in the water since Iraq. France basically said that if the US uses Article 5 for Iraq it will ignore it, Germany and Italy were also signaling the same sentiments.
If the US wants other NATO members to step up, then they should reduce payments. Either NATO members will make the determination that the new budget constraints represents an unacceptable level of reduction in capability below which they think is required, or they'll think NATO doesn't need as large a budget.
Realistically, NATO's deterrence effect against Russia comes down to nuclear-MAD. The conventional forces don't matter as much, if NATO is attacked by Russia conventionally, and NATO goes to war, you have a direct hot war between two nuclear equipped entities which is a bit too much risk, so there's little chance of a Russian invasion of a NATO member regardless of NATO conventional defense capabilities.
I think it's likely any conflicts with non-NATO states on the Eurasian continents will likely be proxy conflicts, with NATO and Russia backing different factions, like with the Korean War, Vietnam, and Afghanistan.
I worked as a federal contractor during his time as President. To move data from one base to another.
European countries all claim to be sovereign countries, but surprisingly, not when it's time to pull the credit card out.
Because the US just decided that the most important environmental agreement of our generation isn't worth sacrificing _coal_ jobs?
Indeed, it's not surprising. We could have collaboration. Turns out, as usual, the US is fucking up. It's okay, we'll live.
More military interventions with more refugees arriving at European borders?
There is basically no real threat to European countries atm. Russia is heckling a bit in Ukraine. Supplying Kalashnikovs to separatists and such. But in general, Russia is retreating. With Montenegro joining NATO and things going bad in Syria, Russia is losing access to the Mediterranean sea. And they run out of money quickly!
If things go wrong, special forces (a few hundred men) and French atomic missiles pose enough of a threat for rogue dictators. The large countries can't afford a war, because economic ties are too strong.
Military spending in Europe is exactly where it needs to be. Low. Humanitarian help throughout the world and keeping the inner stability of society (social security, health-care, retirement, ...) gives a lot more bang for the buck. (pun intended)
And the US are not paying $$ for anybodys army. And they know very well how to use their own capabilities outside of NATO and for their own interests.
Because this is the bottom of it. European countries want the protection, while not paying their share, and making fun on Uncle Sam spending so much on their military, and not enough on their social program.
Europeans don't want the US playing global super power. They don't need it. And they ain't paying for it.
[the answer to this question is of course "no", European countries still want the US to be paying for their "protection".]
The key word here is atm (at this moment, I guess). The problem with military capabilities is that they can't ramp up quickly -- it takes years. Relying on what's needed atm is shortsightedness at very least. Many countries in history paid a very painful price for it, or even ceased to exist. A very recent example is Ukraine. It had exactly the same attitude -- "we don't have enemies atm, why bother". Until suddenly it had.