International [NATO News] What Sweden brings to NATO as its Newest Member

[Arkain2K]

East Germans protest US military movements outside Berlin
By Ben Knight | May 30, 2018

Some 2,050 US military vehicles, in 102 convoys, are currently rumbling through the flat, sleepy country roads in the eastern German state of Brandenburg on their way to Poland. On Monday, they faced token opposition at their stop at a German military barracks near the small town of Brück, from a protest organized by the Left party and attended by a handful of communists and peace activists.

The troop movements, which will likely inconvenience a few motorists until mid-June, are part of the vast and indefinite NATO operation Atlantic Resolve, which is meant to reinforce the alliance's borders in eastern Europe.

While the military purpose of this exercise is uncertain, given that Russian forces across the border are much larger, Atlantic Resolve is considered a vital political signal of NATO's commitment to its smaller members in the east. Atlantic Resolve, which involves the complete rotation of troops every nine months, was launched in diect response to Russia's annexation of Crimea and the war in Donbass in 2014.

Eastern German skepticism

The US Army is aware this part of their journey might be potentially prickly — particularly in eastern Germany where some are still sensitive about seeing a massive US presence on their doorsteps. "Our aim is absolute transparency," the operation commander, Col. William S. Galbraith, said at a mid-May press conference, called in conjunction with the German military. "We're practicing, for example, how troop movements could be conducted in an emergency."

But Brandenburg's state premier, Dietmar Woidke, of the Social Democratic Party, signaled some consternation earlier this year when he was quoted in the press as saying, "I think that it doesn't help us in the long run if tanks drive up and down both sides of the border."

On Monday, Brandenburg government spokesman Florian Engels offered a more diplomatic statement. "The Brandenburg state government fundamentally has a clear commitment to NATO and the alliance's responsibilities," he told DW in an email. "But we need more dialogue with Moscow. That is the right path."

Still, one of Woidke's Cabinet members, Labor and Social Affairs Minister Diana Golze of the socialist Left party, joined her party's small but noisy demonstration on Monday in Brück. The protest attracted a group of around 50 people, representing a mix of leftist organizations — some considerably further left than the Left party, such as the German Communist Party (DKP) — as well as a few inhabitants of the surrounding eastern German towns.

'The Russians never meant us any harm'

Some protesters weren't afraid to deploy the mildly pejorative German term for Americans​

"We called this demonstration because we don't want to get used to these exercises here in Brandenburg. We didn't want them just to pass by without any opposition," Golze told DW. "We think this isn't a good time for the relocation of troops to the border between Poland and Russia. We need to think about how to get out of this spiral of violent escalation. There needs to be a diplomatic path, and not just saber-rattling."

Waltraud Plarre, an economist from nearby Lehnin, explained Germans' conflicted feelings about Russia - the current anger against NATO is imbued with Cold War-era suspicions. For many who grew up in communist German Democratic Republic, the USSR is chiefly remembered as the power that liberated Germany from Nazism.

"The feeling that many West Germans don't understand is that the East Germans say: The Russians never did us any harm," she said, holding a banner that read "Amis go home," using the mildly pejorative German term for Americans. "We never experienced the Russians having evil intentions. And now trying to stir us all up against each other is not in the interests of German people — neither the people in the west or the east. There are other powers behind this that want us to fight each other."

But those feelings weren't exactly shared by the immediate locals living in the communist-era housing blocks next to the protest. A handful had brought plastic chairs out into the sun to watch, equal parts amusement and irritation, as the leftists made speeches and sang songs. It made a change from the multinational military transports rolling past their doorsteps and the artillery fire from the Bundeswehr barracks, which they'd long since grown used to.

"I'm more bothered by the protest, to be honest," one woman said as the distant gunfire was partially drowned out by an amplified acoustic set by a young folk singer beneath a giant image of a dove. "What's the point of all this? For me, Putin is a threat. If he's such a nice guy how come he used to be in the KGB?"

Modest protest

Protesters had hoped for a larger turnout
​

It was clear that the handful of police officers, lounging inside a couple of cruisers at a distance, considered the event fairly modest — and as it petered out after barely 90 minutes, some demonstrators grew annoyed with what they considered the Left party's half-hearted mobilization efforts.

"Where are they all? They had one bus, for 15 people!" complained Falko Hartmann bitterly. "There are more people here from the peace movement than from the Left party."

Hartmann, part of a charity that helps victims of the war in Donbass, considers Kyiv the aggressors in the Ukraine conflict. "We've been there under fire ourselves and we know where the grenades come from," he told DW. "Of course, neither side is doing everything right, but the biggest provocations are clearly coming from the Ukrainian side."

Then he looked around at the rapidly emptying field behind him. "I'm here to stop the madness of American soldiers being sent to the Russian border, but apparently hardly anyone is interested around here," he said. "This was pure PR. We'll never get anything done this way."

http://www.dw.com/en/germans-protest-us-military-movements-outside-berlin/a-43990723

 

[Arkain2K]

Russia threatened retaliation after Poland requested to build a permanent U.S. military base
By Ben Wolfgang - The Washington Times - Monday, May 28, 2018

Russia threatened retaliation Monday after news that Poland wants a permanent U.S. military base within its borders and is willing to pay up to $2 billion for the facility.

The proposal for an American base touched off a rhetorical firestorm between Moscow and Warsaw, as leaders from both sides traded threats and cast a fresh spotlight on simmering tensions in Eastern Europe.

U.S. officials had no immediate comment on the Polish plan, but Moscow seized the opportunity Monday — on an otherwise quiet Memorial Day in Washington — to push back hard against potential attempts by the Trump administration to bolster the U.S. military presence in the region.

“These expansionist steps, certainly, result in counteractions of the Russian side to balance the parity which is violated every time this way,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters in Moscow.

A key Russian senator went further, suggesting Poland would make itself a target if the plan for a permanent American base comes to fruition.

Poland will become “the object of a retaliatory strike,” said Vladimir Dzhabarov, who serves on the Russian Federation Council’s Foreign Affairs Committee, according to Russian media.

State Department officials declined to comment Monday, beyond saying U.S. officials were aware of the reports and monitoring the situation, which comes less than a year after President Trump visited Warsaw and spoke of a “special bond” between the U.S. and Poland.

Poland’s proposal also comes three months after Moscow deployed advanced nuclear-capable Iskander missiles to Kaliningrad, a slice of Russia wedged between Poland and Lithuania.

Polish officials made no secret of their motivations Monday, arguing that a permanent U.S. military presence in Poland would act as a check against Russia.

Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, its support of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, its cyberattacks against the U.S. during the 2016 presidential election cycle, and other actions as proof that steps must be taken to push back against Moscow’s aggressive stance.

“Permanent U.S. troops in Poland will send a clear message to Russia of U.S. support for its Eastern European allies,” the Polish Defense Ministry said in the proposal.

“Poland’s commitment to provide significant support that may reach $1.5 billion - $2 billion by establishing joint military installations and provide for more flexible movement of U.S. forces,” the document said. “Together, the United States and Poland can build an even stronger bond — one which guarantees the safety, security and freedom of its people for generations to come.”

By offering to pay in full for the construction of the base, the Polish plan fits with President Trump’s call for NATO members — Poland has been a member since 1999 — to beef up their own financial contributions to the alliance.

The offer also comes at a moment when Warsaw appears to be cozying up to the Trump administration on other international matters, most notably the Iran nuclear deal.

Most European officials over the past several days have tried to find ways to keep the Obama-era nuclear deal alive as the U.S. eyes economic sanctions against European companies and others doing business with Tehran.

But Polish Foreign Minister Jacek Czaputowicz made headlines Monday by stating flatly that his country opposes any EU action that would weaken the impending American sanctions — a move that could drive a wedge between Poland and its European allies but also curry favor with the White House.

Meanwhile, Polish officials say they’ve held talks with their American counterparts about their hopes for a military base, The Associated Press reported, and that lawmakers on Capitol Hill have begun conversations with the Pentagon about whether such a base is feasible.

The Defense Department declined to comment on the matter Monday.

Poland currently hosts some American forces, but they’re in the country on a temporary basis. The closest permanent bases are in eastern Germany.

Former President Barack Obama dispatched about 3,000 U.S. troops to Poland in January 2017, a deployment that angered Moscow. The forces have conducted joint training exercises with their Polish counterparts.

Since then, the two nations’ militaries have taken part in other joint operations, including “Exercise Puma” in February, which also included British troops and air defense artillery from Romania and Croatia.

On a related front, the U.S. and Poland inked a nearly $5 billion arms deal two months ago, with Warsaw agreeing to buy a leading American missile defense system. The deal was seen as a serious step by Poland to prepare itself for potential Russian aggression in the region.

When Mr. Trump was in Warsaw last July he declared that the U.S. and Poland share a “strong alliance” and that his administration is “committed to maintaining peace and security in Central and Eastern Europe.”

But the president also has made crystal clear that he’s not willing to put American taxpayers on the hook for European nations’ security — a fact Polish officials seem keenly aware of.

“It is important to share the burden of defense spending, make the decision more cost-effective for the U.S. government, and allay any concerns for Congress in uncertain budgetary times,” the Polish Defense Ministry said in Monday’s base proposal.

At the same time, Warsaw appears eager to lead the charge with rhetorical jabs at Moscow.

Hours after news of the U.S. base proposal broke, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki opened up a fresh line of attack against Russia, telling an audience at a NATO meeting in Warsaw that Moscow is wielding its energy resources as a “new hybrid weapon” that could destabilize the region.

Specifically, he criticized the proposed Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which would funnel huge amounts of Russian natural gas directly to Germany, bypassing Poland and other European states.

Mr. Morawiecki called the project, one of Moscow’s most ambitious energy initiatives in recent years, a “poisoned pill of European security.”

U.S. officials also have come out strongly against Nord Stream 2 and have suggested Washington might level further economic sanctions against Russia if the pipeline moves forward.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/28/poland-wants-permanent-us-military-base-willing-pa/

 

[Pupi]

Colombia is set to join NATO now in order to gain more security, money, influence, and finally reclaim the regional hegemony they lost in the 19th century.

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201805311064960286-colombia-joining-nato-explained/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...t-latin-american-global-partner-idUSKCN1IR0E8

 

[Arkain2K]

U.S. assessing cost of keeping troops in Germany as Trump battles with Europe
By John Hudson, Paul Sonne, Karen DeYoung, Josh Dawsey | June 29, 2018

The Pentagon is analyzing the cost and impact of a large-scale withdrawal or transfer of American troops stationed in Germany, amid growing tensions between President Trump and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, according to people familiar with the work.

The effort follows Trump’s expression of interest in removing the troops, made during a meeting earlier this year with White House and military aides, U.S. officials said. Trump was said to have been taken aback by the size of the U.S. presence, which includes about 35,000 active-duty troops, and complained that other countries were not contributing fairly to joint security or paying enough to NATO.

Word of the assessment has alarmed European officials, who are scrambling to determine whether Trump actually intends to reposition U.S. forces or whether it is merely a negotiating tactic ahead of a NATO summit in Brussels, where Trump is again likely to criticize U.S. allies for what he deems insufficient defense spending.

Since the end of World War II, the U.S. troop presence in Germany has been viewed as a bulwark against a potential Russian invasion of Europe and a staging ground for U.S. operations in Africa and the Middle East.

Defense officials said a cost analysis of options for changing that was being conducted at a staff level to inform a wider discussion about the U.S. troop presence in Europe. As part of the regular analysis of the cost and justification for its troops around the world, the United States has dramatically reduced the size of its force in Germany from Cold War levels.

But persistent doubts in Europe about Trump’s commitment to the alliance have made even the possibility of routine changes to American force posture in Europe far more charged.

The redeployment scenarios under study include a large-scale return of U.S. troops stationed in Germany to the United States and a full or partial move of U.S. troops in Germany to Poland — a NATO ally that has met the alliance’s defense spending targets and whose leadership is more in tune with Trump.

In recent months, Poland has proposedspending at least $2 billion to obtain a permanent U.S. base. The U.S. military already fields a rotating force in Poland, with other alliance members doing the same in the Baltic states, as part of a NATO effort to deter increasing Russian aggression along the alliance’s eastern flank.

European officials are hoping to emphasize Western unity at the NATO summit July 11 and 12. But Trump remains displeased that many NATO countries fail to spend at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense, a target alliance members agreed to reach by 2024. The United States spends about 3.58 percent of its GDP on defense.

Although several U.S. administrations have called on Europe to spend more, Trump is particularly focused on the balance sheet. He has been especially critical of Merkel, on defense and a range of other issues.

Last week, White House frustration was on display in a contentious meeting in Washington between Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton, and German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen. Von der Leyen said German budget projections called for increasing defense spending to 1.5 percent of the country’s GDP by 2024. The White House was disappointed with Germany’s efforts, according to officials.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...689094-ca9f-490c-b3be-b135970de3fc_story.html

 

[Arkain2K]

Trump on NATO freeloaders: "They have to step it up immediately.”
By Joe Saunders | July 11, 2018

​

As a dressing-down goes, this was one for the books.

In an almost unheard-of public confrontation between a sitting United States president and a NATO secretary general, President Donald Trump kicked off his European tour on Wednesday by seriously questioning the commitment of European countries to the alliance.

And he didn’t sound like the Russian puppet liberals that fantasize about — not at all.

In a harsh, breakfast-meeting exchange with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg – a former Norwegian prime minister – Trump sounded every inch the tough New York businessman who spent decades in real estate before going into politics.

“You know, we’re protecting Germany, we’re protecting France, we’re protecting everybody, and we’re paying a lot of money to protect,” Trump said. “Now, this has been going on for decades, this has been brought up by other presidents.

“But other presidents never did anything about it because I don’t think they understood it, or they just didn’t want to get involved. But I have to bring it up, because I think it’s very unfair to our country. I think it’s very unfair to our taxpayers.

“And I think these countries have to step it up. Not over a 10-year period. They have to step it up immediately.”

It’s a good bet the Europeans didn’t care for his tone at all, but American citizens shouldn’t have to be Trump supporters to appreciate the truth of what the president was saying:

The post-World War II era — where the United States played the protective father figure to European countries who preferred to spend their money on social programs over military protection — is over.

Trump was particularly harsh on a deal between Germany and Russia to almost double the amount of natural gas the U.S. ally is buying from Vladimir Putin’s country.

“So, we’re supposed to protect you against Russia, but they’re paying billions of dollars to Russia. And I think that’s very inappropriate,” he told Stoltenberg

“Ultimately, Germany will have almost 70 percent of their country controlled by Russia (through) natural gas… Germany is totally controlled by Russia, because they’re getting from 60 to 70 percent of their energy from Russia and a new pipeline. And you tell me if that’s appropriate, because I think it’s not.”

Democrat delusions about special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into “Russia collusion” notwithstanding, those are not the words of a man in thrall to the Kremlin.

Americans – again, even Americans who aren’t Trump supporters – should be proud that a president is brutally raising the question about the reliance of European countries on American arms, while feeling free to act superior to the United States in international affairs.

But it’s important to note that Trump’s not the only one criticizing Germany’s pipeline deal with Russia. It has some pretty harsh critics in Europe, too.

An article in the left-wing U.K. Guardian, a publication that’s no friend of the Trump administration, summed up the criticisms of the project, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in particular:

“For many, her refusal to see the geopolitical implications of making Europe so dependent on Russian energy shows the reach that Gazprom (the Russian state-owned energy company) … has into Germany,” the Guardian reported. “The presence of the former German chancellor Gerhard Schröder on its board and his friendship with Putin seems only to symbolise the triumph of Russian interests.”

So, Trump is cracking down on NATO “allies” to increase their spending in the united front against a potential military conflict with Russia. Meanwhile, Merkel, the liberal hero, is the one snuggling up to Moscow, not Donald Trump?

That’s not the liberal fantasy at all.

https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/t...-freeloaders-10-years-wont-cut-it-pay-up-now/

 

[Arkain2K]

NATO pledges to boost defense spending after stern words from Trump
By Brooke Singman | July 11, 2018

​

NATO leaders pledged their “unwavering commitment” to boost defense spending on Wednesday, following stern words from President Trump criticizing European leaders for spending too little.

The U.S. and European allies signed a declaration stating they are “committed to improving the balance of sharing the costs and responsibilities of alliance membership.”

The declaration comes after confrontational and testy discussions between Trump and other NATO leaders.

Since the election, Trump has criticized NATO countries for not paying their fair share, while suggesting he would only come to the defense of NATO nations that fulfilled their financial obligation.

Trump also has pressed NATO countries to fulfill their goal of spending 2 percent of their gross domestic products on defense by 2024. NATO estimates that 15 members, or just over half, will meet that benchmark based on current trends.

As NATO vows to pursue those targets, Trump is seeking even more.

Via Twitter, he called for members to meet the 2 percent commitment immediately. And in a statement Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said Trump, at the summit, "suggested that countries not only meet their commitment of 2 percent of their GDP on defense spending, but that they increase it to 4 percent. Trump wants to see our allies share more of the burden and at a very minimum meet their already stated obligations."

Before sitting down for the first official meeting of the day, the president engaged in a testy exchange with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. He pressed why the U.S. should continue to pay money to the military alliance while the countries purchase energy from Moscow.

“We are stronger together,” Stoltenberg said, while acknowledging there can be differences among allies.

“But how can you be together when you’re getting energy from the group you want protection from?” Trump responded, using Germany as an example. Trump challenged Stoltenberg to explain why Berlin was getting energy from Russia, and asserted that Germany was “totally controlled” by and “captive to Russia” over a pipeline project.

That pipeline project, Nord Stream 2 pipeline, doubles the amount of gas Russia can send directly to Germany, while sidestepping transit countries like Ukraine. The project is opposed by the U.S. and some European Union members.

“We’re supposed to protect you against Russia and yet you make this deal with Russia,” Trump said of Germany. “Explain that. It can’t be explained.”



Trump followed up on Twitter: "What good is NATO if Germany is paying Russia billions of dollars for gas and energy? Why are there only 5 out of 29 countries that have met their commitment? The U.S. is paying for Europe’s protection, then loses billions on Trade. Must pay 2% of GDP IMMEDIATELY, not by 2025."



Former Secretary of State John Kerry later blasted Trump’s comments about Germany as “strange” and “counterproductive.”

“It was disgraceful, destructive, and flies in the face of the actual interests of the United States of America,” Kerry said in a statement, claiming Trump “set America back this morning.”

“He is steadily destroying our reputation in the world,” Kerry said, adding that Trump displayed a “woeful ignorance” of European defense spending.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...eaders-in-testy-start-to-brussels-summit.html

 

[Seano]

I love how every time trump,says something ridiculously stupid the nitwits come out to try to defend it.

Who needs a college education or knowledge when you got a big fucking mouth, no morals and no shame.

I love how every time Trump says ANYTHING people like you take it as green light to pretend to be superior.

 

[Seano]

NATO pledges to boost defense spending after stern words from Trump
By Brooke Singman | July 11, 2018

​

NATO leaders pledged their “unwavering commitment” to boost defense spending on Wednesday, following stern words from President Trump criticizing European leaders for spending too little.

The U.S. and European allies signed a declaration stating they are “committed to improving the balance of sharing the costs and responsibilities of alliance membership.”

The declaration comes after confrontational and testy discussions between Trump and other NATO leaders.

Since the election, Trump has criticized NATO countries for not paying their fair share, while suggesting he would only come to the defense of NATO nations that fulfilled their financial obligation.

Trump also has pressed NATO countries to fulfill their goal of spending 2 percent of their gross domestic products on defense by 2024. NATO estimates that 15 members, or just over half, will meet that benchmark based on current trends.

As NATO vows to pursue those targets, Trump is seeking even more.

Via Twitter, he called for members to meet the 2 percent commitment immediately. And in a statement Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said Trump, at the summit, "suggested that countries not only meet their commitment of 2 percent of their GDP on defense spending, but that they increase it to 4 percent. Trump wants to see our allies share more of the burden and at a very minimum meet their already stated obligations."

Before sitting down for the first official meeting of the day, the president engaged in a testy exchange with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. He pressed why the U.S. should continue to pay money to the military alliance while the countries purchase energy from Moscow.

“We are stronger together,” Stoltenberg said, while acknowledging there can be differences among allies.

“But how can you be together when you’re getting energy from the group you want protection from?” Trump responded, using Germany as an example. Trump challenged Stoltenberg to explain why Berlin was getting energy from Russia, and asserted that Germany was “totally controlled” by and “captive to Russia” over a pipeline project.

That pipeline project, Nord Stream 2 pipeline, doubles the amount of gas Russia can send directly to Germany, while sidestepping transit countries like Ukraine. The project is opposed by the U.S. and some European Union members.

“We’re supposed to protect you against Russia and yet you make this deal with Russia,” Trump said of Germany. “Explain that. It can’t be explained.”

Trump followed up on Twitter: "What good is NATO if Germany is paying Russia billions of dollars for gas and energy? Why are there only 5 out of 29 countries that have met their commitment? The U.S. is paying for Europe’s protection, then loses billions on Trade. Must pay 2% of GDP IMMEDIATELY, not by 2025."



Former Secretary of State John Kerry later blasted Trump’s comments about Germany as “strange” and “counterproductive.”

“It was disgraceful, destructive, and flies in the face of the actual interests of the United States of America,” Kerry said in a statement, claiming Trump “set America back this morning.”



“He is steadily destroying our reputation in the world,” Kerry said, adding that Trump displayed a “woeful ignorance” of European defense spending.

Anticipation has built for weeks over how confrontational the meeting might be, given the U.S. president's complaints about trade and NATO allies' military budgets -- and how the summit might compare with Trump's scheduled meeting in Finland with Russia's Vladimir Putin.

That meeting has riled Democrats in Washington amid the probe over Russian meddling in the election. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer tweeted Wednesday, "President Trump should not meet with President Putin alone."

The summit in Brussels is the first stop on Trump’s four-country European tour where tensions already have risen over tariffs and the potential trade war between the European Union and the U.S. Trump implemented tariffs of 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminum imports, and the EU is pushing to retaliate.

The president met first with French President Emmanuel Macron, who said the U.S. and France "will continue to work together." Trump said they discussed their "tremendous relationship," and talked about trade.

Trump also met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The president told reporters they discussed military spending and trade, and touted their "good relationship."

The next stop on the president’s tour will be Britain, amid a tumultuous climate for Prime Minister Theresa May. May’s government is in turmoil over her plans for exiting the European Union.

This week, U.K. Foreign Minister Boris Johnson stunningly resigned amid the growing backlash over May and her handling of Britain’s departure from the EU. Johnson resigned less than 24 hours after Brexit Secretary David Davis and junior Brexit minister Steve Baker left their posts in protest of how the government is handling Brexit.

Trump suggested Tuesday that he may meet with Johnson when he gets over there. Trump, who has been vocal in his support of Brexit, is slated to meet with May on Friday.

Trump’s tour will continue with a stop in Scotland over the weekend, then conclude with his final stop in Helsinki, Finland on Monday for his highly anticipated summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Trump suggested that his meeting with Putin could be the “easiest” stop on the European tour, after confrontational talks with NATO and EU leaders.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...eaders-in-testy-start-to-brussels-summit.html

Fuck that noise. Maybe we in the US are getting a little tired of propping up and defending the rest of the world when they treat us like a crazy uncle. The rest of the world has shown us a lot of disrespect in recent months. Why should we kiss EU's ass? Fuck 'em.

Fuck Merkel. Fuck all of them. What are we getting out of this deal? Coming in last in trade, while paying their bills? The honor of being treated like garbage while the rest of the world relies on our military?

 

[D3THRONED]

EU is mad they cant freeload anymore, not surprised.

 

[Arkain2K]

EU is mad they cant freeload anymore, not surprised.

You're barking up the wrong tree. This discussion is about NATO's spending.

And no, they are not even remotely the same.

 

[D3THRONED]

You're barking up the wrong tree. This discussion is about NATO's spending.

And no, they are not even remotely the same.

EU is short for Europe, not just an acronym for European Union. Good try though bud.

 

[Arkain2K]

EU is short for Europe, not just an acronym for European Union. Good try though bud.

Is Canada in Europe?

Keep digging that hole deeper.

 

[D3THRONED]

Is Canada in Europe?

Keep digging that hole deeper.

how many members of NATO are European? point stands, europe salty as fuck and apparently you are as well. sorry bud, canada is the last country people think about when it comes to nato just like iceland. the majority of the countries are european and arent paying their share aside greece, uk, and estonia.

 

[Arkain2K]

Nice to see Canada stepping out of our shadow.

as a canadian - one that sees money pissed away in refugee support, arts, aboriginal payments and other ridiculous spending, this is shameful shit.

There are many of us who are quite ashamed of our lack of contribution.

Canada expected to spend even less on defence in 2018 than last year, NATO report says
By Lee Berthiaume , The Canadian Press| July 10, 2018

​

OTTAWA – Even as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau prepares to defend against U.S. President Donald Trump’s demands that Canada invest more in defence, a new NATO report suggests Canadian military spending as a percentage of GDP will fall sharply this year.

Canada is expected to spend an estimated 1.23 per cent of its GDP on defence in 2018 – down from 1.36 per cent last year, says the annual report, which looks at military investments for all member states.

The decline is largely the result of two one-time expenses last year, said National Defence spokesman Daniel Le Bouthillier, one of which was a retroactive pay increase for service members that was included in the Liberal government’s defence policy.

The other was more unexpected: a $1.8-billion payment into the account that provides pensions for Forces members and their dependents.

“Canada continues to place a premium on tangible operational contributions,” Le Bouthillier said in a statement, “as well as on demonstrating a commitment and capacity to deploy and sustain personnel in support of the NATO alliance.”

The department’s explanation makes sense, said defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, calling it laudable that the government is investing more in pay and pensions for service members.

But the report comes at a sensitive time for Trudeau, given Trump’s persistent calls on NATO allies to increase their defence spending to two per cent of GDP – as members first agreed back in 2014.

The U.S. president is expected to push the matter hard when he sits down Wednesday in Brussels with Trudeau and other NATO leaders.

“The prime minister is saying that Canada is doing great things,” Perry said. “Only now, he will have to explain why spending has gone down.”

https://globalnews.ca/news/4324547/canada-spending-less-defence-nato-report/

 

[gatchaman]

Canada expected to spend even less on defence in 2018 than last year, NATO report says
By Lee Berthiaume , The Canadian Press| July 10, 2018

OTTAWA – Even as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau prepares to defend against U.S. President Donald Trump’s demands that Canada invest more in defence, a new NATO report suggests Canadian military spending as a percentage of GDP will fall sharply this year.

Canada is expected to spend an estimated 1.23 per cent of its GDP on defence in 2018 – down from 1.36 per cent last year, says the annual report, which looks at military investments for all member states.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4324547/canada-spending-less-defence-nato-report/

Doesn't any spending, which Canada makes that is not on nukes, amount to bringing a knife to a gun fight?

Is there any country that is a threat to Canadian sovereignty that is not also a nuclear power?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Canada is expected to spend an estimated 1.23 per cent of its GDP on defence in 2018 – down from 1.36 per cent last year

I guess defense is cheaper than offense.

 

[Headkicktoleg]

US should move to a military as a service business. You want a US base in your country you pay a monthly fee.

 

[Arkain2K]

I guess defense is cheaper than offense.

"If NATO budget cuts do right, no can Defense."

 

[Arkain2K]

Op/Ed: A new security alliance might be better than NATO free-riders
By Sandeep Gopalan, Deakin University in Melbourne, Australia | 07/11/18

Is NATO fit for purpose, and what price should America pay for its survival? These questions assume significance as President Trump meets with the leaders of U.S. allies at the NATO summit in Brussels. Although NATO’s raison d’etre was questioned after the Soviet Union’s collapse, President Trump’s frustrations with NATO and his criticism of “free-riding Europeans” has given a renewed urgency to the alliance’s future.

Trump’s anger stems from allies’ refusal to abide by a commitment made at the Wales Summit in 2014 to contribute 2 percent of GDP to defense. At present, only the United States, the United Kingdom, Greece, Estonia, Romania and Poland contribute more than 2 percent — the latter two just barely.

Major allies such as France and Germany are in deficit. After oral reprimands fell on deaf ears, Trump wrote to the leaders of eight NATO allies in June, expressing his growing frustration that “some allies have not stepped up as promised.”

He told German Chancellor Angela Merkel that America spends “more resources to the defense of Europe when the continent’s economy, including Germany’s, are doing well and security challenges abound. This is no longer sustainable for us.” It’s difficult, he said, to “justify to American citizens why some countries do not share NATO’s collective security burden while American soldiers continue to sacrifice their lives overseas, or come home gravely wounded.”

It’s not the first time the U.S. president has criticized European Union states for free-riding. In a June 11 tweet, he noted that Germany pays 1 percent of its GDP towards NATO, while the United States pays 4 percent of a much larger gross domestic product. “Does anybody believe that makes sense? We protect Europe (which is good) at great financial loss, and then get unfairly clobbered on Trade. Change is coming!”

Trump is not alone in wondering why America subsidizes the cost of security for rich European states such as Germany that boast favorable trade balances with the United States. There is little reason for American taxpayers to protect free-riders when there are more pressing domestic concerns.

The president’s critics argue that NATO is valuable to the United States because it protects Europe and enables trade in goods worth $717 billion. They say it protects “American values,” promotes intelligence sharing, and allows the United States to deploy military bases in Europe that are vital for missions in Africa and the Middle East. Further, they argue, NATO contributes to U.S.-led missions in places such as Afghanistan, and aids U.S. interests against threats such as terrorists and pirates. Most importantly, it deters Russia from aggression in Europe.

But these claims are overstated. First, trade with Europe is not predicated on NATO. Second, many Europeans have moved away from “American values,” and public opinion in some NATO countries is hostile toward America. As demonstrated by the Iran nuclear deal impasse, American values count for little when European commercial interests are at stake. The EU is even prepared to lend money to Iran to frustrate U.S. sanctions.

Third, while in theory the size and scale of military capabilities is great, in practice America bears most of the burden in terms of lives sacrificed. Intelligence sharing and foreign bases can be established through other intergovernmental agreements and, realistically, should include non-NATO states to be meaningful.

So, is NATO fit for purpose? The preamble to the North Atlantic Treaty expresses members’ “desire to live in peace with all peoples” and their determination to “safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy.” Its goal was to “promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area” through collective defense and unified efforts for “the preservation of peace and security.”

In terms of obligations, article 2 recites vague promises that members will contribute toward “the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions.” Members also “seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration.”

The provision with bite is article 5 — that is, members agree “that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all,” and in response, NATO will assist by taking “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.” Yet, even this provision is not that strong. It doesn’t commit members to take military action in all cases of armed attack against a member. For example, Germany is not obligated to attack Russia if the latter invades Estonia. Collective self-defense is subject to pragmatic considerations of expediency and self-interest.

In other words, while NATO might provide limited deterrence against Russian adventurism, this is largely predicated on adversely impacting U.S. self-interest. Put differently, Russia is not so naïve as to be deterred by the prospect of a military response from Europeans when U.S. interests are not affected. Russia knows that the Germans and French are unlikely to sacrifice their troops or commercial interests and go to war if Russia acts aggressively against, say, Poland. Therefore, if deterrence is the goal, America must decide what price it is willing to pay to save Poland — and who should foot that bill.

At present, European states are gambling on the U.S. paying, even though they have more to lose than the United States from Russian aggression. It may be time for Trump to call that bluff and make them pay up if they really care about security. If they don’t, the United States might be better off creating a new alliance of willing states that are prepared to contribute to collective security against modern threats including cyber attacks and other forms of warfare. That might guarantee better protection for Poland and Estonia than do their free-riding neighbors.


Sandeep Gopalan is a professor of law and pro vice chancellor for academic innovation at Deakin University in Melbourne, Australia. He previously was co-chairman or vice chairman of American Bar Association committees on aerospace/defense and international transactions, a member of the ABA’s immigration commission, and dean of three law schools in Ireland and Australia. He has taught law in four countries and served as a visiting scholar at universities in France and Germany.

http://thehill.com/opinion/national...lliance-might-be-better-than-nato-free-riders

 

[Lead]

What I find odd with Trump's foreign policy is he's calling for NATO to increase military spending and then in Asia, he's backing out of the area to a degree cancelling exercises with South Korea but then the budget for military spending still needs to go up? Where is the good side of this if we are reducing our foothold globally but increasing our spending?