NATO.
- Thread starter straw09
- Start date
Well I agree with his basic philosophy that if other NATO countries don't spend the NATO agreed amount to provide for their own defense,,,,why should we send American men and women to defend their countries for them???
Do you realize how many countries sent troops to Afghanistan to fight along side our troops when they were not the ones attacked on 9/11? If he does pull out of NATO he dang sure better get our troops out of those countries cause somebody will be coming and you can bet it would be Russia.
The Taliban played the long game and ran the best of NATO out of their country and are in control again. I wouldn't use Aphganistan as a model of NATO effectiveness cause we got our high tech asses kicked by Fred and Barney
The original goal was set in 2006, was amended in 2014.
Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will: halt any decline; aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows; and aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls.
So these countries have until the end of 2024 to get to this point.
The HIGH inflation the last couple of years have affected the ability if some countries to keep up with the 2 percent goal. (inflation was everywhere, not just in the US.).
I can't find any wording as to the consequences of a country not meeting this Goal. The agreement states it as a goal/guideline, so I am not real sure its a true requirements.
This money was Not going to NATO, so no money was "pouring" in like Trump says.
I just can't understand how the republican party, that only a few short years ago, was considered the party of "war"(remember "bomb, bomb, bomb iran". ) and now going being the party that would be okay with ending NATO.
If NATO goes away, if you don't think Putin would then take back Poland/some of Germany and the baltic states as fast as he can, your crazy. i wouldn't even be surprised if he tries Alaska. (just some of of the aluetion islands as a test).
I also think it would make the USA appear weak, and as a country that no one could count on.
Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will: halt any decline; aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows; and aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls.
So these countries have until the end of 2024 to get to this point.
The HIGH inflation the last couple of years have affected the ability if some countries to keep up with the 2 percent goal. (inflation was everywhere, not just in the US.).
I can't find any wording as to the consequences of a country not meeting this Goal. The agreement states it as a goal/guideline, so I am not real sure its a true requirements.
This money was Not going to NATO, so no money was "pouring" in like Trump says.
I just can't understand how the republican party, that only a few short years ago, was considered the party of "war"(remember "bomb, bomb, bomb iran". ) and now going being the party that would be okay with ending NATO.
If NATO goes away, if you don't think Putin would then take back Poland/some of Germany and the baltic states as fast as he can, your crazy. i wouldn't even be surprised if he tries Alaska. (just some of of the aluetion islands as a test).
I also think it would make the USA appear weak, and as a country that no one could count on.
except they are spending the agreed upon amount now. They agreed to 4% of GDP in like 2014.
it's just theater to stir up the ignorant.
This was what i found, as of July 7th 2023.
BRUSSELS, July 7 (Reuters) - NATO allies have reached agreement to raise the alliance's target for military spending to at least 2% of national GDP, two diplomats told Reuters late on Friday.
The 31 allies agreed on "an enduring commitment to invest at least 2%" of their GDP into their militaries in the future, two diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity and confirming an earlier report by German news agency DPA.
Agreement on the new spending target was one of the outstanding issues ahead of a two-day NATO summit on Tuesday and Wednesday next week in Vilnius.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg intended to make NATO's current military spending target of 2% of national GDP a minimum requirement rather than a goal to aim for.
In 2023, even the old target will be met by only 11 of the 31 members of the alliance, according to NATO estimates. The goal was set in 2014, when NATO leaders agreed to increase spending towards 2% of their GDP on defence within a decade.
The 11 allies in question are the United States, Britain, Poland, Greece, Estonia, Lithuania, Finland, Romania, Hungary, Latvia and Slovakia.
Bringing up the rear are Canada, Slovenia, Turkey, Spain, Belgium and Luxembourg, whose defence spending was under 1.4% of GDP.
So from what i can gather, it is a goal and not a minimum requirement, as that part was not agreed upon.
Trump in 2018, suggested that NATO go to 4% of GDP, but that was never agreed to. (mainly because for some reason Trump thinks that is money owed to US, which is NOT even close to being true.).
BRUSSELS, July 7 (Reuters) - NATO allies have reached agreement to raise the alliance's target for military spending to at least 2% of national GDP, two diplomats told Reuters late on Friday.
The 31 allies agreed on "an enduring commitment to invest at least 2%" of their GDP into their militaries in the future, two diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity and confirming an earlier report by German news agency DPA.
Agreement on the new spending target was one of the outstanding issues ahead of a two-day NATO summit on Tuesday and Wednesday next week in Vilnius.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg intended to make NATO's current military spending target of 2% of national GDP a minimum requirement rather than a goal to aim for.
In 2023, even the old target will be met by only 11 of the 31 members of the alliance, according to NATO estimates. The goal was set in 2014, when NATO leaders agreed to increase spending towards 2% of their GDP on defence within a decade.
The 11 allies in question are the United States, Britain, Poland, Greece, Estonia, Lithuania, Finland, Romania, Hungary, Latvia and Slovakia.
Bringing up the rear are Canada, Slovenia, Turkey, Spain, Belgium and Luxembourg, whose defence spending was under 1.4% of GDP.
So from what i can gather, it is a goal and not a minimum requirement, as that part was not agreed upon.
Trump in 2018, suggested that NATO go to 4% of GDP, but that was never agreed to. (mainly because for some reason Trump thinks that is money owed to US, which is NOT even close to being true.).
Last edited:
The 2% defence investment guideline
In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending to continue to ensure the Alliance's military readiness. This guideline also serves as an indicator of a country's political will to contribute to NATO's common defence efforts since the defence capacity of each member has an impact on the overall perception of the Alliance's credibility as a politico-military organisation.
While the 2% of GDP guideline alone is no guarantee that money will be spent in the most effective and efficient way to acquire and deploy modern capabilities, it remains an important indicator of the political resolve of individual Allies to devote to defence a relatively small but still significant level of resources.
Budget allocation is a national, sovereign decision, but NATO Allies have agreed that at least 20% of defence expenditures should be devoted to major equipment spending, including the associated research and development, perceived as a crucial indicator for the scale and pace of modernisation.
To learn more, visit Funding NATO.
true, and anybody if doesn't think that Poland is next on Putin's wish list, they are crazy.
That's the first acticle i found that got me interested, and i still can't find anything that its an actual requirement, more like a pledge. so if trump would try to use that an excuse to not defend a country, we would be the ones in violation, not said country.
trump is just being an ahole. It's what he is.
Unless he's doing Putin's bidding which is a bit more concerning. After watching him submit to him in Helsinki I have my reservations.
Putin has had Trump's gonads in a vice ever since secretly filming "The Golden Shower"!!
Ironic that a guy whose companies have went bankrupt 6 times is telling Europe they have to pay their bills.
Explain to me why we should send our sons, daughters, and cash to defend Europe when they refuse to defend themselves???
Because we'll need all the allies we can get if Russia and China ever decide to team up for a WW III. We don't need to break up NATO. No one is forcing us to send aid or troops to anyone or anywhere. If other NATO countries aren't paying their fair share currently, then we should cut back on our share. Don't throw away friendships because tough guy Trump wants to be Putin's b*tch so he may someday build his Moscow Trump Towers!! It's all about him all the time!!
Last edited:
My comment above was only to the irony of it. Nothing more, nothing less.
From the words of Jonathan Edwards in the 1972 classic song, Sunshine:
And he can't even run his own life
I'll be damned if he'll run mine.
