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

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,660
US
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.
From the article you cited a few posts ago:
"Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will: halt any decline; aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows; and aim to move towards the 2% guideline..."
Yet you state, "not that they would be required to actually reach it - just making effort to try to." I hope these nations military forces' aim is better than that of their politicians. Otherwise, somebody might be in trouble...
 

Vaeltaja

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
3,682
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.
Never said i would have been expert on U.S. military spending. So please stop lying. It is not a convenient excuse for anything but simply the reality that there needs to be reason for the increases in spending. Something which effect the member state which does the increase since it alone would be the one to both pay for it and the sole party whose military would benefit from it. The USA is not paying into some magical pool of NATO funding - there is no such thing and never has been - each and every member state pays for their own expenses. Additionally the US military ventures go far and beyond the scope of NATO - no other NATO member state is required (per NATO's own rules) to take any part into them. So matter how much they would increase their spending it wouldn't affect USA's own spending one way or the other.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,660
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.

Never said i would have been expert on U.S. military spending. So please stop lying. It is not a convenient excuse for anything but simply the reality that there needs to be reason for the increases in spending. Something which effect the member state which does the increase since it alone would be the one to both pay for it and the sole party whose military would benefit from it. The USA is not paying into some magical pool of NATO funding - there is no such thing and never has been - each and every member state pays for their own expenses. Additionally the US military ventures go far and beyond the scope of NATO - no other NATO member state is required (per NATO's own rules) to take any part into them. So matter how much they would increase their spending it wouldn't affect USA's own spending one way or the other.
Who were you referencing when you stated, "people who actually know what they are talking about?" Should I assume that I was the delusional one, since you have continually countered my claim that the U.S. will spend less if the other NATO nations spend more? Ok, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. So, you are just offering your opinion - like everybody else.
 
Jul 2016
8,714
USA
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.
LOL, they lack the resources, strength, logistics to even more beyond their own national borders, let alone across the EU. There are a few European countries in NATO who aren't a joke.
 

Vaeltaja

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
3,682
From the article you cited a few posts ago:
"Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will: halt any decline; aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows; and aim to move towards the 2% guideline..."
Yet you state, "not that they would be required to actually reach it - just making effort to try to." I hope these nations military forces' aim is better than that of their politicians. Otherwise, somebody might be in trouble...
You did actually read what you quoted, did you? Because in the part you quoted this is actually noted: aim to move toward the 2% guideline . Which is exactly inline with what i wrote. Aiming to move ain't moving, and even less so when it is not 'to' something but 'towards' something. For example i biked today towards Washington, sure it is almost 7 000 km away but i did bike towards it (a bit), i never did bike to it nor did i reach it.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,660
US
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.
You did actually read what you quoted, did you? Because in the part you quoted this is actually noted: aim to move toward the 2% guideline . Which is exactly inline with what i wrote. Aiming to move ain't moving, and even less so when it is not 'to' something but 'towards' something. For example i biked today towards Washington, sure it is almost 7 000 km away but i did bike towards it (a bit), i never did bike to it nor did i reach it.
Yes. I read your words. Aiming to move among those who keep their word is getting there in my book. Sorry to be principled. "...not that they would be required to actually reach it " doesn't sound very principled. I guess we just have a different perspective when it comes to meeting expectations. So, you expect every NATO nation to be at 2% in the next 5 years?
 

Vaeltaja

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
3,682
Who were you referencing when you stated, "people who actually know what they are talking about?"
No. I referred to the person who has tried to sell others the idea that increasing NATO spending would somehow reduce the US military expenditures, namely Trump.
Should I assume that I was the delusional one, since you have continually countered my claim that the U.S. will spend less if the other NATO nations spend more? Ok, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. So, you are just offering your opinion - like everybody else.
If and only if you sincerely and against all available evidence believe that the increased spending from the other NATO member states would somehow mysteriously and magically reduce the USA's own military spending. Because that simply ain't how the NATO works (per NATO's own statements on their own pages). Mind you that the US military spending might be reduced, it just doesn't have anything to do with how much the other NATO member states are spending. Not that the USA would have all that much to pull out of Europe that wouldn't hurt its own operational capabilities elsewhere (main US facilities in Europe are training facilities, naval bases, air bases, and military hospitals) like in the Middle East.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,660
US
No. I referred to the person who has tried to sell others the idea that increasing NATO spending would somehow reduce the US military expenditures, namely Trump.

If and only if you sincerely and against all available evidence believe that the increased spending from the other NATO member states would somehow mysteriously and magically reduce the USA's own military spending. Because that simply ain't how the NATO works (per NATO's own statements on their own pages). Mind you that the US military spending might be reduced, it just doesn't have anything to do with how much the other NATO member states are spending. Not that the USA would have all that much to pull out of Europe that wouldn't hurt its own operational capabilities elsewhere (main US facilities in Europe are training facilities, naval bases, air bases, and military hospitals) like in the Middle East.
What evidence? Your opinion? Cite me some evidence. The only article you have cited so far in our discussion is the one from NATO about what member nations are supposed to do regarding their contribution ( cough, cough, he, he). Or is this some sort of political diatribe against the current administration? You do realize that prior to 9/11, military spending in the U.S was down. It's not always been at this pace. Who says it has to continue? I would think the current administration will have more to say about military spending than you or I.
 
Last edited:

Vaeltaja

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
3,682
Yes. I read your words. Aiming to move among those who keep their word is getting there in my book.
Except it ain't the same. Aiming to move towards is pretty much just saying that they need to make an effort but are not required to reach what ever target is set. It is worth keeping in mind that USA can not force anything into those documents. NATO works on consensus - so it would be rather remarkable for there to be anything concrete in those agreements.
So, you expect every NATO nation to be at 2% in the next 5 years?
No. They are not in any way required to do that - and they won't. It doesn't affect USA one way or the other. Pulling out of NATO on the other hand might cost USA the access to its European facilities which might be even more costly for the USA. Difficult to say really.



What evidence? Your opinion? Cite me some evidence.
I already linked you to NATO's own pages. You can read how the NATO and its funding works from there. You will find out that there is not pool of NATO funding to which the USA (or any other NATO member state) is paying to. It just doesn't work like that.
The only article you have cited so far in our discussion is the one from NATO about what nations are supposed to do
Maybe I'm expecting too much but slight initiative in reading and learning how the NATO works from NATO's own pages wouldn't hurt you. It is all in there. It probably doesn't match with what you seem to believe - if you believe anything you have posted but that really can not be helped. I can only point you towards the information.
You do realize that prior to 9/11, military spending in the U.S was down. It's not always been at this pace. Who says it has to continue?
Why would it need to continue? And why it would matter? The current US spending is not high because of NATO or because of NATO operations. It is high because of operations and activities the USA is committing on its own. If the USA wants to scale down its non-NATO operations and activities it is their choice and their call.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,660
US
No. They are not in any way required to do that - and they won't. It doesn't affect USA one way or the other. Pulling out of NATO on the other hand might cost USA the access to its European facilities which might be even more costly for the USA. Difficult to say really.
Of course not. So NATO nations said they would but they really didn't mean it. Just an empty promise. Or in your words, "we'll try!"
I already linked you to NATO's own pages. You can read how the NATO and its funding works from there. You will find out that there is not pool of NATO funding to which the USA (or any other NATO member state) is paying to. It just doesn't work like that.

Maybe I'm expecting too much but slight initiative in reading and learning how the NATO works from NATO's own pages wouldn't hurt you. It is all in there. It probably doesn't match with what you seem to believe - if you believe anything you have posted but that really can not be helped. I can only point you towards the information.
NATO's pages state the U.S. will continue to spend the same amount regardless of whether or not the other NATO nations pull their weight? Really? You have to copy and paste that one for me. My reading comprehension is lacking compared to yours. I didn't know NATO decides the military spending for the U.S. Please copy and paste this from the article you provided. I will be waiting. Please help me or is it it too late? Personally, I could care less if the U.S. spent one dime toward NATO. As you have posted several times, the European nations have everything under control. No worries.
 
Last edited: