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

Vaeltaja

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
3,693
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!"
Wrong - they really meant that they would make an effort 'to aim towards' it. They just never committed on reaching it. It is watered down document and probably the best the USA could get passed through in NATO.
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. 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.
Again you are deliberately lying. I never said NATO would dictate that to the USA. Try sticking to what i actually stated instead of fabricating this kind of nonsense. The USA decides its own spending just like all the other NATO members states do. What the other member states pay or do not pay does not affect that amount one way or the other since there is no magical pool of NATO funding. What i stated is that regardless how the spending of the other NATO member states changes it has no effect on the USA's own military spending. Like i said, it ain't zero sum game contrary to what Trump and some others seem to imagine.
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,750
The only way US spending might be reduced as a consequence of European spending, is if the US decides to give up some measure of military capability and have one or more European allies provide it FOR the US, making the US war-making capability dependent on its European allies.

While the US is perfectly happy having its allies dependent on the US like that, it simply won't happen that the US accepts the same for itself.

So US spending won't go down regardless what its European allies might spend.

To be generous, Trump doesn't understand how any of this works. If he did, it would mean he's simply lying.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,171
US
Wrong - they really meant that they would make an effort 'to aim towards' it. They just never committed on reaching it. It is watered down document and probably the best the USA could get passed through in NATO.

Again you are deliberately lying. I never said NATO would dictate that to the USA. Try sticking to what i actually stated instead of fabricating this kind of nonsense. The USA decides its own spending just like all the other NATO members states do. What the other member states pay or do not pay does not affect that amount one way or the other since there is no magical pool of NATO funding. What i stated is that regardless how the spending of the other NATO member states changes it has no effect on the USA's own military spending. Like i said, it ain't zero sum game contrary to what Trump and some others seem to imagine.
Lying? I took your words at face value. You need to knock off using that word. I asked you to cite what experts say the U.S. will continue to spend at the same rate regardless of what the other NATO nations spend. And YOU questioned my reading comprehension and referenced the NATO document. So, let me ask you again, cite some articles that state the U.S. won't cut their military spending if the rest of NATO increases theirs?
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.
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.

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.




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.

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
6,171
US
The only way US spending might be reduced as a consequence of European spending, is if the US decides to give up some measure of military capability and have one or more European allies provide it FOR the US, making the US war-making capability dependent on its European allies.

While the US is perfectly happy having its allies dependent on the US like that, it simply won't happen that the US accepts the same for itself.

So US spending won't go down regardless what its European allies might spend.

To be generous, Trump doesn't understand how any of this works. If he did, it would mean he's simply lying.
Like the U.S. is preventing others from doing their part. Ok. This sounds like real weak excuse. That's why the current administration is asking them to step up. It's Trump's fault that most of the NATO nations who agreed to reach 2% in 2014 (surprise, guess who wasn't president) and halfway there most haven't and have little intention to do so. If the U.S. is happy to have dependent allies then the allies of the U.S. are happy to be their dependents. That's how a symbiotic relationship works. There is an easy solution to getting out from under the boot of the U.S. Start a new defensive organization, exclude the U.S. and pay for things themselves. Do you think they will do that? An easier way might be to contribute their 2%. Otherwise, I say quit complaining about being dependent upon the U.S.
 
Last edited:

Asherman

Forum Staff
May 2013
3,405
Albuquerque, NM
Gentlemen! Chill. Slinging accusations of bad faith never ends well for anyone. Differences in perspective and how we see/interpret politically driven policies is natural, but also a diversion from our common interest in less emotionally-charged topics. This whole thread is only marginally left open; what will we see over the next page or so?
 

Vaeltaja

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
3,693
Lying? I took your words at face value. You need to knock off using that word.
I only use it when some one in bad faith deliberately tries to twist what i stated into something that i didn't state. I sincerely hope the discussion would continue in good faith however.
I asked you to cite what experts say the U.S. will continue to spend at the same rate regardless of what the other NATO nations spend. And YOU questioned my reading comprehension and referenced the NATO document.
Because the information you wanted is in there. Funding NATO / Indirect Funding. Same exact as in here: Here's how NATO's budget actually works or here: How NATO funding works - CNNPolitics also fairly interesting point is made here: Higher NATO Defense Spending May Not Help U.S. Contractors None of what is written in those is any different than what NATO's own document line it out to be. The military expenditure of an individual NATO member state is not any way tied to the expenditures of other NATO member states and there is no common NATO budget to which every one would contribute (apart from the minuscule 'civilian' budget in which the US share is 22%). Hence the expenditures (or lack there-off) of other NATO member states will have no impact on USA's own military expenditure since they are not in any way linked.
So, let me ask you again, cite some articles that state the U.S. won't cut their military spending if the rest of NATO increases theirs?
If you do not believe or refuse to understand what has been written with regards to how NATO funding works by NATO itself then i really can not help you. It is not a question of linking articles - it is about understanding the core principle on how NATO is indirectly funded. The USA may cut or it may increase its military spending (which is a sovereign decision) but it is not related to the military spending decisions of other NATO member states (also their own sovereign decisions) since they are not in any way linked. There are no structures or mechanics which would make any NATO member state to pay for the military expenditures of another one - size of their military budgets is a sovereign decision. Nor are there any structures which would require the member states to take part to operations outside the scope of NATO. Hence increase in military expenditure by non-US NATO member states does not increase their rate of participation to non-NATO operations nor does it help to reduce US military budget in any manner - the other NATO member states won't be paying for the US expenses.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,533
Europix
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...
Royal, it's obvious to me. Not to say that the answer is a bit in Your post: "who will provide the airlift and how are your navies doing? "

I can buy an engine, Valteja can buy a propeller, but even if we raise at 50% the budget we will never can buy a carrier. Together, on the other hand, we could.

People (beginning with European themselves) keep forgetting that two thirds of the European countries are under 20 mil population. They simply do not have the necessary size.

Europe as a whole is amongst the first three economies. Military wise is a dwarf, because it's split in risible small entities.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,886
Portugal
Exquisite sense of humour there!

Probably meant Main Stream Media.
Ups! I feel naïf now. I have a bad relation with many English acronyms and your comment made me give a good laugh on my account. Thank you.

With that “translation” available aggienation’s sentence makes sense now, even if I disagree with it. FOX is “MSM” (Main Stream Media).
 

fascinating

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,374
Ups! I feel naïf now. I have a bad relation with many English acronyms and your comment made me give a good laugh on my account. Thank you.

With that “translation” available aggienation’s sentence makes sense now, even if I disagree with it. FOX is “MSM” (Main Stream Media).
I am with you Tuiius. I am British and I didn't know what it meant. There are too many TLAs (three letter abbreviations). If you mean mainstream media, just type mainstream media. See I typed it twice, it didn't kill me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tulius

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,171
US
I only use it when some one in bad faith deliberately tries to twist what i stated into something that i didn't state. I sincerely hope the discussion would continue in good faith however.

Because the information you wanted is in there. Funding NATO / Indirect Funding. Same exact as in here: Here's how NATO's budget actually works or here: How NATO funding works - CNNPolitics also fairly interesting point is made here: Higher NATO Defense Spending May Not Help U.S. Contractors None of what is written in those is any different than what NATO's own document line it out to be. The military expenditure of an individual NATO member state is not any way tied to the expenditures of other NATO member states and there is no common NATO budget to which every one would contribute (apart from the minuscule 'civilian' budget in which the US share is 22%). Hence the expenditures (or lack there-off) of other NATO member states will have no impact on USA's own military expenditure since they are not in any way linked.

If you do not believe or refuse to understand what has been written with regards to how NATO funding works by NATO itself then i really can not help you. It is not a question of linking articles - it is about understanding the core principle on how NATO is indirectly funded. The USA may cut or it may increase its military spending (which is a sovereign decision) but it is not related to the military spending decisions of other NATO member states (also their own sovereign decisions) since they are not in any way linked. There are no structures or mechanics which would make any NATO member state to pay for the military expenditures of another one - size of their military budgets is a sovereign decision. Nor are there any structures which would require the member states to take part to operations outside the scope of NATO. Hence increase in military expenditure by non-US NATO member states does not increase their rate of participation to non-NATO operations nor does it help to reduce US military budget in any manner - the other NATO member states won't be paying for the US expenses.
Either I am not understanding you, you are not understanding me, or we are not understanding each other. I have taken issue with your repeated assertion that, even if the other NATO members increase their spending, the U.S. will not decrease theirs. Not possibly, but definitely will not you have posted. I have contested this statement and you keep referring me back to the NATO guidelines, which, you argue are merely guidelines or "recommendations" for the other nations, but apparently are written in stone for the U.S. There is nothing in the NATO guidelines that dictate that the U.S. must continue to spend the same amount of military expenditures. It is mere speculation on your part that they will, just as it is mere speculation on my part that they might decrease, or at least those resources could be sent elsewhere. Even the CNN article which you have now attached to one of your posts says MAY not, which implies possibility. Conversely, the article could read MAY. And, as I have written, I am not concerned with U.S. contractors, but rather U.S. taxpayers. We are not going to see each other's point, apparently, so I guess we will have to leave this discussion as is. Suffice to say, the vast majority of non U.S. NATO members receive more benefits from NATO, than does the U.S. In particular, with the exception of the U.K., France and Germany, the remaining NATO members receive far more than they give. I understand these are mostly small nations, but that is why the recommendation is for 2% of GDP. A small nation's contribution will be much less than a large nation. I would prefer, at this stage in history, for the U.S. to merely negotiate with individual nations a mutual defense pact. The U.K., the Baltic states, Poland, etc. Poland and the Baltic states, as you probably know, have already extended themselves for additional support and protection. It is a good symbiotic relationship.