NATO members laughing at President Trump?

[Peter1469]

This is a good place to renew the question: just what is NATO's mission now that the Warsaw Pact is tits up?

[William]

Really? So we are still locked in a struggle with the Warsaw Pact?

If we are paying one fifth of the costs of Europe's defense it is time to cut the freeloaders loose. Most European nations are socialist/Islamist these days. $#@! 'em.

You're not - you are paying 22% of the operating costs of the combined defence of the USA and western Europe, as per your agreement. You are free to pull out of that agreement at any time.

[William]

This is a good place to renew the question: just what is NATO's mission now that the Warsaw Pact is tits up?

That's a good question.

[Peter1469]

An interesting aside that I knew but it didn't register. Turkey fields the largest NATO army in Europe.

So even though these guys are supporting ISIL on the side, they have a lot of leverage in NATO.

[Adelaide]

Well, Der Spiegel ripped him a new one. Not fit to be president, doesn't understand his own position, so forth. It's actually pretty funny.

The whole thing was like nails on a chalkboard or a train crash. It hurt your ears but you couldn't look away.

[Crepitus]

Nonsense. He is unable to even pass a budget.

Hell he's unable to even write one.

[Common]

That's what they seem to be doing in this video of President Trump telling them off for not contributing enough to NATO - or am I missing something?



I had to Google it, but it seems what he was saying about the 2% doesn't apply to actual contributions - shouldn't he or his advisers know that?

I have also seen claims by Americans that the USA funds most of the NATO costs. This is not so.

The direct contributions are made on an agreed formula based on GDP.

For example - the USA funds 22.1% of NATOs operating costs, while Germany funds 14.6%, and the UK funds 9.8%. On a per capita basis, both Germany and the UK fund NATO at a higher rate than the US.

The 2% agreement relates to the amount spent on individual national defence, and is really only of direct benefit to the country concerned. This is where the USA spends more than most other NATO countries combined. It would have an effect on combined military action by NATO, but has nothing to do with financing NATO.

I'm not surprised at world leaders laughing at the the President of the most powerful nation on earth not knowing what any schoolboy can easily learn.

Theres a whole lot missing here, thats conveniently overlooked. The USA bears the cost of deployments which costs more than the financial contributions of any nato country.
What trump was saying is that the USA pays disproportionately because we are providing the lionshare of the security while the rest sit on their ass.

Most nato countries never sent a troop and the ones that do send token amounts. Its the USA that picks up all the costs.

Trump should tell them stick Nato up your keisters we dont need you. Then see who laughs because europe cant defend itself

[William]

Theres a whole lot missing here, thats conveniently overlooked. The USA bears the cost of deployments which costs more than the financial contributions of any nato country.
What trump was saying is that the USA pays disproportionately because we are providing the lionshare of the security while the rest sit on their ass.

Most nato countries never sent a troop and the ones that do send token amounts. Its the USA that picks up all the costs.

Trump should tell them stick Nato up your keisters we dont need you. Then see who laughs because europe cant defend itself

That's not what they were laughing at. It was Trump mixing up the 2% spent on domestic defence spending, with monetary contributions to the upkeep of the NATO infrastructure, and then lecturing Europe on that basis.

[Newpublius]

That's not what they were laughing at. It was Trump mixing up the 2% spent on domestic defence spending, with monetary contributions to the upkeep of the NATO infrastructure, and then lecturing Europe on that basis.

I don't see him mixing that up. In the clip shown the context is only with respect to the obligation to spend 2% of GDP on defense.

[William]

I don't see him mixing that up. In the clip shown the context is only with respect to the obligation to spend 2% of GDP on defense.

Look at it again. After saying that the US spends more on defence than all other NATO countries combined (which is probably true), he goes on to say -
"If all other NATO members had spent just 2% of their GDP on defence last year, we would have had another 119 billion dollars for our collective defence, and for the financing of additional NATO reserves."

That simply makes no sense - if you spend money you do not have it saved for either your defence or for reserves. That is what the other NATO members are laughing at. He doesn't seem to understand that to spend a certain amount on individual national defence, doesn't mean that money is there to be spent on either future collective defence or future reserves. And the money spent on national defence is not just on new hardware - most of it goes on consumables and salaries, and stuff like that. So it simply isn't there any more.