Trump/Putin disaster summit. And also overseas visit w/ NATO & UK.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Any European Country who doesnt pay 2% of their GDP in defense then should not have the audacity to criticize US foreign policy then since it is the US who is spending their own money to defend them.

[Zaybay]

At this point I consider many EU countries to be acting like freeloaders .

Im so confused, what threat is there to the NATO nations that they have to spend so much?
There is no military threat to the EU/NATO nations. Russia is not stupid enough to invade a NATO nation, and China is more of a partner than an enemy. Even if there was some enemy that they were facing, the military of the European NATO nations is more powerful than any other nation. The problem is that 2% is not a good standard, as nations have different needs and desires. Can Germany afford it? Yes. Can Greece afford it? No.

Its also important to note that many of these nations have other problems facing them. The West has high unemployment, the East is dealing with reactionary problems and is still effected by the refugee crisis. Why would these nations spend money on building some extra fighter jets and bloating their military complex(ahem, USA), when they can fix their domestic issues?

The reason for a large military budget back in the 70s and 80s was to combat an actual enemy, the USSR. With it gone, what threat is there?

[Fight for Trump]

Any European Country who doesnt pay 2% of their GDP in defense then should not have the audacity to criticize US foreign policy then since it is the US who is spending their own money to defend them.

Don't be an idiot. If a friend gives you something, knowing that it antagonizes your beliefs or is something you generally hate, of course you have the right to criticize them for it. The only thing is that in addition to criticism, they should be prepared to develop capabilities that enable them to have a more independent foreign policy.

[GeorgiaModerate]

At this point I consider many EU countries to be acting like freeloaders .

Im so confused, what threat is there to the NATO nations that they have to spend so much?
There is no military threat to the EU/NATO nations. Russia is not stupid enough to invade a NATO nation, and China is more of a partner than an enemy. Even if there was some enemy that they were facing, the military of the European NATO nations is more powerful than any other nation. The problem is that 2% is not a good standard, as nations have different needs and desires. Can Germany afford it? Yes. Can Greece afford it? No.

Its also important to note that many of these nations have other problems facing them. The West has high unemployment, the East is dealing with reactionary problems and is still effected by the refugee crisis. Why would these nations spend money on building some extra fighter jets and bloating their military complex(ahem, USA), when they can fix their domestic issues?

The reason for a large military budget back in the 70s and 80s was to combat an actual enemy, the USSR. With it gone, what threat is there?

Don't confuse cause and effect.  Russia has historically been unlikely to attack any NATO country precisely because NATO has been a solid alliance firmly supported by the U.S.  If the alliance is weakened, that deterrent will be lessened, and it is quite plausible that Russia could try to make moves against the Baltic countries, for example.  Russia is indeed a strong power and a potential threat.  (Disclaimer: as a child of the Cold War, I grew up highly suspicious of the USSR and post-Soviet Russia, except perhaps for a brief period under Yeltsin.  But I still don't trust them.)

[OSR stands with Israel]

Any European Country who doesnt pay 2% of their GDP in defense then should not have the audacity to criticize US foreign policy then since it is the US who is spending their own money to defend them.

Don't be an idiot. If a friend gives you something, knowing that it antagonizes your beliefs or is something you generally hate, of course you have the right to criticize them for it. The only thing is that in addition to criticism, they should be prepared to develop capabilities that enable them to have a more independent foreign policy.

If Europeans problem with the US is the fact that the US has military bases in Europe then they should tell that to the US and then I would support the US withdrawing their troops from European bases(except maybe the UK) .


The thing is Europe wants America to defend them but are not willing to spend their own money on it either to maintain their own defenses and that is the part which is maddening

[Gass3268]

At this point I consider many EU countries to be acting like freeloaders .

FYI EU =/= NATO and the only time Article 5 (attack on one is an attack on all) of NATO was in response to 9/11.

[Zaybay]

At this point I consider many EU countries to be acting like freeloaders .

Im so confused, what threat is there to the NATO nations that they have to spend so much?
There is no military threat to the EU/NATO nations. Russia is not stupid enough to invade a NATO nation, and China is more of a partner than an enemy. Even if there was some enemy that they were facing, the military of the European NATO nations is more powerful than any other nation. The problem is that 2% is not a good standard, as nations have different needs and desires. Can Germany afford it? Yes. Can Greece afford it? No.

Its also important to note that many of these nations have other problems facing them. The West has high unemployment, the East is dealing with reactionary problems and is still effected by the refugee crisis. Why would these nations spend money on building some extra fighter jets and bloating their military complex(ahem, USA), when they can fix their domestic issues?

The reason for a large military budget back in the 70s and 80s was to combat an actual enemy, the USSR. With it gone, what threat is there?

Don't confuse cause and effect.  Russia has historically been unlikely to attack any NATO country precisely because NATO has been a solid alliance firmly supported by the U.S.  If the alliance is weakened, that deterrent will be lessened, and it is quite plausible that Russia could try to make moves against the Baltic countries, for example.  Russia is indeed a strong power and a potential threat.  (Disclaimer: as a child of the Cold War, I grew up highly suspicious of the USSR and post-Soviet Russia, except perhaps for a brief period under Yeltsin.  But I still don't trust them.)

I understand that, but as I noted before, The USA is actually weaker/on par, with the European nations in NATO. This is precisely why Putin has been adamant on trying to separate Ukraine from Europe, for as soon as he joins the EU, or NATO, its out of reach. While Russia's military is rather strong, it is over exaggerated, and Russia has a lot of weaknesses to exploit. A fossil-fueled economy, dissent, and the plains that lead straight to Moscow.
Russia is sly, manipulative, and ruthless, but not stupid. It knows it cant win against NATO. What Putin wants is NATO gone, not just the US, but the entire alliance. This is why he supported Marie LePen, a critic of NATO and the EU. If the organization is torn apart, then its easy pickings. But even if the US leaves, its still too much of a threat.

[Alabama_Indy10]

Any European Country who doesnt pay 2% of their GDP in defense then should not have the audacity to criticize US foreign policy then since it is the US who is spending their own money to defend them.

[ProudModerate2]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[KingSweden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Too bad you’re tucking your tail and running rather than doing anything about it, Bob.

[ProudModerate2]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[QAnonKelly]

NATO countiries are supposed to hit the 2% target by 2024

[parochial boy]

Any European Country who doesnt pay 2% of their GDP in defense then should not have the audacity to criticize US foreign policy then since it is the US who is spending their own money to defend them.

Seeing as the most tangible result of that USA's military "protection" of Europe appears to be a protracted refugee crisis courtesy of US military expansionism, I'm sure most people will see that threat as ringing largely hollow.

[Izzyeviel]

How does Luxembourg increasing its military spending from £350 million to £700 million, make NATO better?

Trump's talk of %2 or %4 (he seems to now know himself) is pointless for every member, and if you don't have a plan and co-ordination then it gets even more stupid.

Nothing more then a way to excite his base.

[ProudModerate2]

I think I read that Iceland is a NATO member (since its foundation in 1949), and doesn't even have a military force at all. I guess they are just lovers and not fighters.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Trump needs 4% so that Boeing has work once the Chinese stop buying American airliners.

[Izzyeviel]

I think I read that Iceland is a NATO member (since its foundation in 1949), and doesn't even have a military force at all. I guess they are just lovers and not fighters.

It's military value to NATO far surpasses what it could offer in terms of troops. Incredibly important air and naval base for NATO forces. Has all sorts of radar and air defence systems etc.

[KingSweden]

I think I read that Iceland is a NATO member (since its foundation in 1949), and doesn't even have a military force at all. I guess they are just lovers and not fighters.

It's military value to NATO far surpasses what it could offer in terms of troops. Incredibly important air and naval base for NATO forces. Has all sorts of radar and air defence systems etc.

^^^^

Iceland is the fulcrum of the Atlantic defense. Read “Red Storm Rising” for a sense why.

[Izzyeviel]

I think I read that Iceland is a NATO member (since its foundation in 1949), and doesn't even have a military force at all. I guess they are just lovers and not fighters.

It's military value to NATO far surpasses what it could offer in terms of troops. Incredibly important air and naval base for NATO forces. Has all sorts of radar and air defence systems etc.

^^^^

Iceland is the fulcrum of the Atlantic defense. Read “Red Storm Rising” for a sense why.

I was thinking of world war 2, but you are quite correct.

[Progressive Pessimist]

The Projector-in-Chief always accuses his opponents of being Putin's stooge as a cover for how he actually is Putin's stooge. He has done it with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party as a whole, and now Germany. He is more transparent than a window.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I think I read that Iceland is a NATO member (since its foundation in 1949), and doesn't even have a military force at all. I guess they are just lovers and not fighters.

They don't need a military, they have Vikings.

[junior chįmp]

Any European Country who doesnt pay 2% of their GDP in defense then should not have the audacity to criticize US foreign policy then since it is the US who is spending their own money to defend them.

America, under Republican supply-side fiction economics, can barely pay its own bills due to its inability to balance a budget yet you demand Europe pay their ''fair share''...ROFL

[ProudModerate2]

I think I read that Iceland is a NATO member (since its foundation in 1949), and doesn't even have a military force at all. I guess they are just lovers and not fighters.

They don't need a military, they have Vikings.

Don't be silly.
Everyone knows that there are no longer any Vikings in Iceland. They all migrated to Minnesota many, many years ago ...

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Trump's tack with NATO is what he said he'd so, and why people voted for him.  Why this is so shocking is beyond me.

NATO was not meant to be permanent, and as early as 1956 or so, John Foster Dulles proposed to President Eisenhower that America do a cost/benefit analysis of our present alliances.  Now I DO think that our most reliable allies in the World are the democracies of the World and NATO includes the World's most stable democracies.  But NATO was not meant to be permanent, and it is time other nations carry more of the burden of national defense.

[ProudModerate2]

Lt Colonel: Merkel handled Trump like a child.

Ret. Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters tells CNN's Anderson Cooper that watching NATO diplomats deal with President Trump at the NATO summit was like watching "psychiatrists deal with a disturbed child."

Watch the 2.5 minute-long video here: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/07/12/ralph-peters-trump-merkel-nato-disturbed-child-sot-ac-vpx.cnn