Donald Trump doesn’t understand NATO. Claiming missing payments is blatant nonsense. No country is in default on membership payment. 2% of GNP is suggested for their own defense, not as NATO payment. GNPs vary, depending upon each country’s funding. Countries with effective defense need less than 2% No cost impacts US!
Far more important is the mutual protection of NATO, in existence for 75 years, with growing membership. No NATO country has been attacked since becoming a member. Why has Putin been resisting Sweden and Finland’s membership? Why is Putin so afraid of NATO, and why has he worked on Trump to trick him into supporting him? The reason is obvious: Putin doesn’t dare to attack a NATO country, and never has, rightfully fearing compact retribution if he were stupid enough to do so. Would he ever attack Ukraine if that country were a member? Not a chance.
Thanks to NATO, Putin wouldn’t dare to attack the US, while Hitler had planned to drop his first test A-bombs on London and NY, prevented by some brave Norwegian skiers who sabotaged the Rjukan heavy water plant, thus delaying the material Hitler so desperately needed. Instead, they were able to divert some to the US, – for the benefit of the Manhattan project.
What a difference, preventing heavy water from falling in adversarial hands, v. carrying the lighter variety for our adversary, even pulling out of NATO, and encouraging Putin to attack other countries! The epitome of insanity!
Back to New Post
Gosh, Jorg!
“Countries with effective defense need less than 2%”
Once again I suggest that you should read some history.
In 2014 the heads of state and governments of the NATO membership agreed to spend 2% of their GDP on defense.
Those “countries that need less” are freeloaders riding on the backs of those countries that pay their obligated share, and especially on the backs of US taxpayers
How in the world did US tax payers get into this? Don’t you understand what I wrote?
Four years before that 2014 NATO agreement, the US was spending more than 4.5%. Now it’s close to 3%.
It’s quite obvious that none of the other NATO countries need to spend more than 2%., until Oops!, Putin saw the opportunity with Biden, and made his move.
Please be sure to remark on my poorly constructed previous sentence.
It’s important to remind your readers of your superior language skills.
Al: The 2% is just a suggested NATO guideline, and not anything the US has to substitute for if a country is below, any more than the US is getting a relief from countries spending more than 2%. There is no impact on us. Let me use Norway as an example: That country takes national defense very seriously, for obvious reasons: sharing a border with Russia, and being run over by the Nazis in WWII. Yet, they spend a little less than 2%. Why? It is not that they can’t afford more, it is because they have decided they don’t need more! That country’s defense is very solid, with an advanced weapon industry, with weaponry delivered to Ukraine, and even sold to other countries, including the US, which also produces weapons on licenses from Norway. Relative to its small size population wise, Norway has a relatively large GNP, which the defense percentage is related to. With no change in defense spending, the NATO percentage would have been larger with a lower GNP! Simple math, actually.
Jorg, I apologize for the use of the word “obligated”; yes, 2% is a guideline.
I referred to ” US taxpayers” because it’s the taxpayers of every nation that fund defense.
Using a rising GDP as cover for backsliding on matching the guideline for defense spending is a flimsy excuse.
However, Norwegian taxpayers who contentedly feel they’ve spent enough, rest easy, apparently without embarrassment, because they know that when the worst happens, Uncle Sugardaddy’s armed forces are there as backup.
That’s the whole idea: if one member country is attacked, the others will come to the rescue, and don’t be too surprised if Norway is the first to attack Russia, if that country attacks the US! Don’t underestimate Norway’s capabilities, nor their weaponry! The country is small, but very modern and well equipped, – they have even supplied Ukraine with some of the most effective missiles the world has ever seen, developed in Norway. Even the US is fabricating certain weaponry on licenses from Norway.
I thought nonsense like this was beneath you, Al: “Uncle Sugardaddy’s armed forces are there as backup”.
Never even heard of NASAMS, the Norwegian-developed missile defense system credited with near 100% success rate in Ukraine?
Also sold to the US and a number of other countries.
First I’d like to assure you that I have always admired the Norwegian military and equipment, and particularly admire the anti-Nazi accomplishments of the military and civilians of Norway during WWII.
Secondly, I know what NATO’s Article 5 is.
The current US President constantly bleats that all taxpayers should pay “their fair share”.
Why shouldn’t that Progressive idea apply to Norway’s taxpayers/defense contribution to NATO?
With Norway’s fat sovereign wealth fund the taxpayers could easily afford to spend more to make their military even more lethal to the enemy, like the US does, by applying Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity training for the Armed Forces.
Per what I could find on line, so far, US has contributed $73B, and EU countries $27B, to support Ukraine’s war with Russia.
Apparently, grumbling by Republicans in the House has gotten the attention of Europeans, because I heard on today’s news the the Germans and others are beginning to realize that some of Uncle Sam’s purse string watchers are getting wise.
It will be far more costly and risky for us, and the rest of the world, if Ukraine breaks