A Question of NATO
POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Monday, August 10, 2026 16:26
VIEWED: 6566
PAGE 1 of 3
I don't keep track of, or remember what everybody's opinion is about everything.
So I'm wondering who thinks this is a good idea:
Germany is paying Moscow for fuel, being a captive partner with Moscow, and spending 2% of their GDP on their NATO Defense. While America is paying far more to protect them FROM Moscow.
I don't mind if you also argue the opposite, just say that you're playing Devil's Advocate.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Germany is (mostly) looking out for Germany's best interests, altho Merkel's immigration policy was a giant WTF??? moment.
Germany is an exporting nation, like China, and depends on the American market to maintain a positive balance of trade. At the same time, they don't want to be overburdened with military expenses, so they've been depending on America for that, too. And, since they shut down their nuclear power plants after Fukushima, they have really relied very heavily on coal, but are trying to switch over the "greener" energy sources and are now relying on cheap Russian natural gas.
Don't look for big overarching ideological consistency from Merkel. She's what they call a "pragmatist" which means that (except for her immigration policy, which I STILL can't fathom!) she will not sacrifice an awful lot for a political principle or a for an ally.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
As long as you insist that everything is the Republicans'/ Democrats' fault, then you fail to grasp the REAL problem with American politics.
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Can We Just Admit that Trump Is Captured by the Russians?
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/07/11/can-we-just-admit-that-trump-
is-captured-by-the-russians/
It’s getting sad watching people thrash around for explanations for the president’s behavior that don’t involve him being essentially captured by Vladimir Putin. The latest comes from the Washington Post‘s editorial board. They begin by advancing the argument that Donald Trump is simply too stupid to understand how NATO is funded which is supposed to explain why he continuously says moronic things about Europe not paying the United States their dues. Perhaps as a private citizen and candidate, Trump suffered under the misimpression that NATO countries owe America money, but he was disabused of that notion at some point since he’s become president. If no one else has informed him (and they surely have), the foreign leaders within NATO have let him know in one-on-one conversations. Even Trump’s own words confirm he understands, as he asked European countries to commit to spending four percent of their GDP on defense. That’s a ridiculous request but it shows that he knows what the real bone of contention is, and it isn’t that NATO countries aren’t paying us directly.
Trump attempts to cover for his own NATO-destroying rhetoric by accusing Germany of being too friendly with and dependent on Russia, but that’s ludicrous. Germany has been steadfast in defending Ukraine while the president has rhetorically ceded Crimea to Russia and called for them to be reinstated to the G7.
It’s almost humorous to watch the Post’s editorial board dance around the elephant in the room.
"Ms. [Angela] Merkel and other European leaders probably are aware that Mr. Trump’s deep skepticism toward NATO is shared by virtually no one in his own administration or Republicans in Congress; the Senate passed a resolution in support of the alliance by 97 to 2 on Tuesday. The president is also at odds with the American public. According to a 2017 survey by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, 69 percent — including 54 percent of core Trump supporters — say NATO is “essential” to U.S. security.
Perhaps that’s why, despite his outbursts, Mr. Trump did not stand in the way of NATO’s adoption at the summit of new plans to defend against Russia and terrorism. But his hostile rhetoric does its own damage — and it will be compounded if it is followed by an unseemly show of comity with Mr. Putin at their meeting next week."
Why would a president adopt these anti-NATO positions when they do not reflect the consensus of opinion within his own State Department, Defense Department, intelligence services, or his top advisors and congressional members of his own party?
Why would a president who stands accused of conspiring with Russia to win election want to nakedly adopt policies that suit Russia more than his own country and that are opposed by our allies? Why would he want to have a summit with the Russian leader? Why would he want to have a private meeting with no witnesses present with that Russian leader? An innocent man would avoid making himself look so clearly guilty and a guilty one would be more deceptive. Only a captured man would act like this.
And it’s getting silly how far people will go to avoid facing up to that simple fact.
LOL! I can't wait to see the pee tapes! 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Can We Just Admit that Trump Is Captured by the Russians?
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/07/11/can-we-just-admit-that-trump-
is-captured-by-the-russians/
expected, propagandist, fear mongering - being 'trumped' up to make people accept even more US troops in NATO than the current record numbers, more US military spending in Europe, and moving NATO even closer to the Russian border
I predict - and please put this in the predictions thread - that all this kabuki angst will silently evaporate. And people like RF will be too stupid to notice.
Trump is a blowhard when it comes to getting along with Russia. In reality, despite all the noise and gafla, there has been a major increase in US NATO-directed spending and troops.
https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nato-priorities/2018/06/25/poking-the-
bear-us-air-force-builds-in-russias-backyard/
The Trump administration wants to spend $828 million in 2019 to build up military infrastructure in Europe as part of an ongoing initiative to deter Russian aggression and reinforce allies. Almost half of that construction funding would go toward U.S. Air Force projects.
The request would more than double military construction funding under the European Deterrence Initiative, or EDI, from the 2018 request — when not so long ago, the U.S. military was shrinking its Cold War-era footprint in Europe.
http://www.mfa.gov.lv/en/news/latest-news/59184-the-foreign-ministry-s
-parliamentary-secretary-welcomes-latvia-u-s-strategic-partnership-and-u-s-involvement-in-the-strengthening-of-latvia-s-security 19.02.2018. 17:20
On 19 February 2018, the Parliamentary Secretary of the Latvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Zanda Kalnina-Lukaševica, met with Elise Stefanik and Anthony Brown, members of the Committee on Armed Services at the U.S. House of Representatives.
During the meeting, the Parliamentary Secretary expressed satisfaction at Latvia’s intensive political dialogue with the U.S. Administration and the Congress, which had resulted in further U.S. support for the security and defence of Latvia: a constant rotational forward presence of the U.S. has been established in the country, U.S. troops take place in military exercises in the Baltic States and Poland on a regular basis, and the U.S. Congress has increased funding for the European Deterrence Initiative. Because of this, society in Latvia can feel more secure. Members of the Congress Stefanik and Brown pledged unwavering U.S. support for Latvia’s security and Article 5 of NATO Charter.
https://www.stripes.com/news/big-guns-better-chow-for-us-soldiers-on-r
ussia-deterrence-mission-1.488756 September 21, 2017
Big guns, better chow for US soldiers on Russia deterrence mission
Martinez and his platoon are among 500 173rd Airborne Brigade soldiers that swooped into the Baltics (Lithuania) this month on a mission to deter Russian aggression.
They have joined war games with local troops and new NATO battle groups deployed to the broader region — a buildup that collectively represents the alliance’s largest reinforcement of its eastern flank since the end of the Cold War.
https://www.socom.mil/Pages/posture-statement-hasc.aspx MAY 2, 2017
Reassurance Initiative funding to deter Russia and reassure Allies, including by working with NATO to build more effective defense institutions in partner nations. In support of this, we have had persistent SOF presence for over 2 years in nearly every European country on Russia's western border (Baltics, Poland, Romania, Ukraine, Georgia) – assuring our allies and partners while building host nation and NATO capabilities to compete short of conflict in a hybrid environment.
https://apnews.com/cb5d55ba66694c2ca0f4094e26926345 Jan. 12, 2017
... the new deployment — which includes some 3,500 U.S. troops — marks the first-ever continuous deployment to the region (Poland) by a NATO ally (US).
In a separate but related mission, NATO will also deploy four battalions to its eastern flank later this year, one each to Poland and the three Baltic states. T
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I haven't really heard the numbers laid out.
Germany's GDP was 3,677 Billion in 2017. So 2% was 73.5 Billion (US $). That was the target of each member nation, of which only 5 of 28 met. In 2016 Germany paid 1.19%. Which would be about 43.7 Billion.
US pays 73% of NATO funding. In 2016 US paid 3.61% of it's GDP. Or about 666.8 Billion, based upon FY 2016 GDP.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I haven't really heard the numbers laid out.
Germany's GDP was 3,677 Billion in 2017. So 2% was 73.5 Billion (US $). That was the target of each member nation, of which only 5 of 28 met. In 2016 Germany paid 1.19%. Which would be about 43.7 Billion.
US pays 73% of NATO funding. In 2016 US paid 3.61% of it's GDP. Or about 666.8 Billion, based upon FY 2016 GDP.
Since you're so concerned about our financial stability and have tied that to NATO not spending their fare share on defense, I'll enlighten you in two ways.
First, Trump has all the dummies looking in the wrong direction when it comes to Americas financial stability. Therefore my first response to this thread is...
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My second response to this thread is to show why NATO is so important and why Russia wants to undermine this alliance.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is the OP.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I don't keep track of, or remember what everybody's opinion is about everything.
So I'm wondering who thinks this is a good idea:
Germany is paying Moscow for fuel, being a captive partner with Moscow, and spending 2% of their GDP on their NATO Defense. While America is paying far more to protect them FROM Moscow.
I don't mind if you also argue the opposite, just say that you're playing Devil's Advocate.
Reposted for those with reading deficiencies.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Or, more accurately, to further avoid getting your lying ass kicked, on a pretense of civility.
You trolls are more educational than you realize.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME