Is it time to think international relations and security beyond NATO?

Vaeltaja

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
3,682
You mean as far as purchases from private companies here in the U.S. I am referring to nations contributing their share to NATO, as designated long ago. Most aren't.
Here's who is paying the agreed-upon share to NATO — and who isn't
You are aware that even if they would be spending up to the recommended share (it is not requirement, keep that in mind) there is no reason what so ever to assume that any of it would trickle to the USA or to US businesses? Or that it would in any manner reduce US military funding of which only a marginal share goes to NATO operations.
 
Jul 2016
8,716
USA
You are aware that even if they would be spending up to the recommended share (it is not requirement, keep that in mind) there is no reason what so ever to assume that any of it would trickle to the USA or to US businesses? Or that it would in any manner reduce US military funding of which only a marginal share goes to NATO operations.
Its not about trickling into US businesses, its about pulling their weight and taking Russia seriously as a strategic threat. Its about not ignoring defense because "Don't worry, the US (or other NATO dominant country) will save us, so we can not bother spending on our abysmal, disgusting, embarrassing military."
 

Vaeltaja

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
3,682
Its not about trickling into US businesses, its about pulling their weight and taking Russia seriously as a strategic threat. Its about not ignoring defense because "Don't worry, the US (or other NATO dominant country) will save us, so we can not bother spending on our abysmal, disgusting, embarrassing military."
The combined strength of NATO without the North American partners is already greater than what Russia has. Even with just those 'abysmal, disgusting, embarrassing military' forces. Their current spending is far greater than that of Russia too. So it is not really that they should absolutely and necessarily spend more, just that they might need to stop investing in forces suitable for foreign interventions and get back to preparing for actual wars. The problem for that to the US is of course that the USA doesn't want any of its friends to reduce their commitments to foreign interventions either.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,195
Portugal
When the EU, specifically certain countries in it, work against the US, then they aren't acting like allies, are they?
There are some moments that it seemed that the USA was working against the interests of the West (EU included), and yet I don’t recall to see a president or prime minister of the EU or of the NATO allies, in a night of insomnia, call the USA “a foe” at dawn in the internet. But since you brought this, specifically what countries in what situations worked against the USA?

You are acting like the current complaints about specific NATO countries is new. Its not.
You are writing as someone that is answering to my post and didn’t read my post. Since I said that is not new. The news here is just the idiotic way that is done.

Don’t know what is a GWB.

But it needed to be addressed.
I already agree with you here EU countries need to develop their industry armenment and expend more in their defence budgets. The current situation with the USA administration shows that they should avoid buying USA materiel. Since the USA considers EU a foe.

I'm glad Trump brought it up, it needed to. He uses Twitter because the MSM isn't his friend and its the only way to get his message across. He is blunt, but he's not a real politician.
Trump is not a real politician? You are joking! He makes politics, runs for candidate, runs for president, gets elected, wants to run again. Ergo, he is a politician. Stating that “I am not a politician” is a politics tactic usual among populist politicians. And it seems that Trump uses the twitter because he doesn’t know how to write more than two sentences.

No idea what is MSM or how it is related with the theme. In Google all the results were related with this: Methylsulfonylmethane - Wikipedia

I typed the last message on my cell phone and it does weird things. "Rocking the boat."
Got its meaning here: rock the boat
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,665
US
You are aware that even if they would be spending up to the recommended share (it is not requirement, keep that in mind) there is no reason what so ever to assume that any of it would trickle to the USA or to US businesses? Or that it would in any manner reduce US military funding of which only a marginal share goes to NATO operations.
I referenced my tax dollars in the last post, not U.S. business. Corporations like Boeing I am sure are doing ok. . I would assume there is a relatively fixed amount for NATO's budget. If the other nations pay their "recommended" share (which is recommended for a reason) then it is only logical that the share for the U.S. will go down. I may not have to pay less in taxes (although that is exactly what has happened over the last year), but the money could be used for other programs and services, just like some NATO nations do. I mean, let me ask you the converse: if nations who are paying nowhere near their "recommended" amount do so, what happens to the taxpayers in those nations? Without a tax increase something has to give somewhere else. It's simply fiscal reality.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,665
US
The combined strength of NATO without the North American partners is already greater than what Russia has. Even with just those 'abysmal, disgusting, embarrassing military' forces. Their current spending is far greater than that of Russia too. So it is not really that they should absolutely and necessarily spend more, just that they might need to stop investing in forces suitable for foreign interventions and get back to preparing for actual wars. The problem for that to the US is of course that the USA doesn't want any of its friends to reduce their commitments to foreign interventions either.
There are some NATO nations that appreciate the presence of the U.S., regardless of how much military strength NATO has without the U.S. Maybe these nations remember history when some of those nations failed to come to their defense.
 
Jul 2016
8,716
USA
The combined strength of NATO without the North American partners is already greater than what Russia has. Even with just those 'abysmal, disgusting, embarrassing military' forces. Their current spending is far greater than that of Russia too. So it is not really that they should absolutely and necessarily spend more, just that they might need to stop investing in forces suitable for foreign interventions and get back to preparing for actual wars. The problem for that to the US is of course that the USA doesn't want any of its friends to reduce their commitments to foreign interventions either.
LOLOLOL, the combined strength of NATO, without the US, couldn't move a single brigade combat team from one side of Europe to the other.

This is why these discussions on Historum about NATO have no point. The individuals arguing them have no military acumen. They don't know what Russia is capable of, don't know what NATO is capable of, don't understand warfare at all. But definitely feels like their opinions are valid.
 
Oct 2013
13,855
Europix
Jobs for those in the industry are good, but it doesn't pay my and others taxes.
It doesn't pay, but it reduces them ;)

American high-tech armament and military research (=Your taxes) is rentabilized through production in high numbers. High numbers achieved through exports.

Europeans buy F's instead of European fighters. That's my taxes reducing Your taxes. It's also my taxes not contributing to the development of European industries, but to the American one.

"Paying my share" is actually "buy more, and buy American" too, Rodger.

And no, I'm not accusing necessarily You 'muricans, but rather Europeans on that.

I was looking lately a bit on the last orders of the "first line NATO": Poland, Hungary, Romania.

Buying a lot. A lot American, which isn't a surprise for me.

But I had two surprises: Romania bought American choppers, although has a Eurocopter factory on its own territory. Odd.

The other, Hungary, that bought a lot European (a bit unexpected for me). These days president Orban was visiting president Trump. I'll wait a couple of weeks them see the new Hungarian tenders...


BTW, I've heard that recently US got out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, as Russia doesn't respect it. I hope You know that missiles of that range do not affect US, nor Russia, as they're too far one from another.

The region that can be reached by this missiles from both sides, is .... Europe.

No Rodger, it's a bit more than just "You paying my defence".

But that isn't nor Your problem, nor Your government's, as it isn't nor Your fault, nor Your government's: it's mine and my government's.
 
Likes: M.S. Islam
Oct 2013
13,855
Europix
If the other nations pay their "recommended" share (which is recommended for a reason) then it is only logical that the share for the U.S. will go down.
That's a lure, my friend. The amounts or percentages invested by any NATO members have no incidence on US military budget.

The only incidence in US military budget is the will to remain the uncontestable no.1 military in the world.

And in the totally improbable situation were an European NATO member invests like nuts and get closer to US, US will not reduce it's military spendings, cause "there's another that can share the burden" but it will increase, cause there's another that might contest US' leading position.