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

Vaeltaja

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
3,693
I would assume there is a relatively fixed amount for NATO's budget.
Yes there is - and all member states have fulfilled those very, very tiny payments precisely. NATO owns pair of AWACS, and handful of surveillance drones, and the HQ - that is it.
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.
Except it won't since there is no 'NATO budget' towards which that 'recommended' 2% share would go. The possible increase would only and solely affect the military budget of that exact member state in question, not NATO as a whole, nor the contributions of other NATO member states nor would it increase that country's direct contribution to NATO in any manner. Which also means that no matter how much any or even all of them would increase their share it still would not affect the US military spending one way or the other. It is not a zero sum game.
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.
This is not really relevant.
 

Vaeltaja

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
3,693
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.
I doubt any one questioned that. The point was that no matter how much other NATO member states would spend it still would have no effect on USA's own military spending. That has nothing to do with appreciating or non-appreciating the US presence in the European NATO member states - even if that presence is already very limited.



...the combined strength of NATO, without the US, couldn't move a single brigade combat team from one side of Europe to the other.
They are actually quite capable of doing that. They just lack resources and means to project force in reasonable quantities far beyond limits of NATO member states in Europe.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,171
US
So why doesn't the majority of NATO nations provide the recommended 2% to their military budgets? There has to be a reason. It isn't simply coincidence as no politician does anything by coincidence.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,704
San Antonio, Tx
[/QUOTE]
t
European answer is simple: rearm and create a common European defence.

Easier said than done.
I don’t really understand How a ”European Force” would be different from NATO: Just Europe without the US and./or Canada? Is it really necessary to reinvent wheel? And if you do this, who will provide the airlift and how are your navies doing? I don’t understand the references to the small sized - battalion-sized? - forces. They seem so small as to not seem very credible. Oh well...
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,171
US
I doubt any one questioned that. The point was that no matter how much other NATO member states would spend it still would have no effect on USA's own military spending. That has nothing to do with appreciating or non-appreciating the US presence in the European NATO member states - even if that presence is already very limited.
Based upon the blowback the U.S. has recently received when it reminded all NATO nations of their obligation (yes, I will use that term rather than recommend) I would say there wasn't much appreciation being shown. Just my observation
 

Vaeltaja

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
3,693
So why doesn't the majority of NATO nations provide the recommended 2% to their military budgets? There has to be a reason. It isn't simply coincidence as no politician does anything by coincidence.
Why would they? Their combined military spending (even without USA & Canada) is higher than that of China and Russia combined (and then some). There would need to be a reason for them to actually spend more - a real need.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,171
US
Why would they? Their combined military spending (even without USA & Canada) is higher than that of China and Russia combined (and then some). There would need to be a reason for them to actually spend more - a real need.
Well, there was an agreement at one time they would, if that matters. I guess you feel real comfortable if Russia attacks? I assume you are in Europe. You know, numbers itself aren't the only determinant of a real defense. Just ask France based upon 2 world wars. So, you don't think the U.S. forces and equipment are necessary?
 

Vaeltaja

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
3,693
Based upon the blowback the U.S. has recently received when it reminded all NATO nations of their obligation (yes, I will use that term rather than recommend) I would say there wasn't much appreciation being shown. Just my observation
You are free to use that term but you should be aware that NATO does not use such a term. They use expression 'guideline' and even that is a qualified expression - with 'aim towards' reaching it. Only real 'demand' is not to reduce it any further - https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm?selectedLocale=en . There is appreciation for the US - however asking for more funding with the delusion that it would somehow decrease US spending (which it won't) simply doesn't fly with people who actually know what they are talking about.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,171
US
You are free to use that term but you should be aware that NATO does not use such a term. They use expression 'guideline' and even that is a qualified expression - with 'aim towards' reaching it. Only real 'demand' is not to reduce it any further - https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm?selectedLocale=en . There is appreciation for the US - however asking for more funding with the delusion that it would somehow decrease US spending (which it won't) simply doesn't fly with people who actually know what they are talking about.
So, you are an expert on U.S. military spending? Nice to meet you. It seems to me this is simply a convenient excuse not to do one's share. Excuses.
 

Vaeltaja

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
3,693
Well, there was an agreement at one time they would, if that matters. I guess you feel real comfortable if Russia attacks. I assume you are in Europe. You know, numbers itself aren't the only determinant of a real defense. Just ask France based upon 2 world wars.
There was an agreement that they would aim towards reaching the non-binding 2% guideline - not that they would be required to actually reach it - just making effort to try to. As to the rest... Sure, but why would you think that increased funding would help in that case? You just destroyed your own argument for increased funding there. And i doubt i would feel comfortable if Russia attacked - then again I'm not in a NATO member state. Here most of the people are still trained to fight against invasion. We have probably got more artillery than what NATO does in Europe, and reserves of about 1 000 000 men. Sure the Russians would eventually overcome us - but that is not a reason to give up, only to fight to very end regardless of the odds or prospects.