Posted on 02/14/2024 7:32:07 AM PST by Starman417
There has been a load of harrumphing and indignation from the left over something Donald Trump said a few days ago when he said that he would not run to the aid of countries who did not meet their financial obligation to NATO.
And one of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, well, sir, if we don't pay and we're attacked by Russia, will you protect us? I said, you didn't pay. You're delinquent. He said, yes, let's say that happened. No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills.Well, the left went utterly nuts. The NY Times:
Much more of this left wing panty twisting can be seen here.
The only thing this proves is that democrats would suck at negotiations with Russia and China. Think of them all as Antony Blinken, who has been a complete failure.
Trump is right to poke the delinquents. Only 35% of NATO meet their defense spending obligation.
Only 11 of the 31 NATO member countries were expected to meet that target for 2023, according to estimates published last July by the alliance....
That means that 20 NATO countries were expected to spend less than 2% of their GDP on defense, based on the 2023 estimates. The countries with the lowest percentages of spending were Luxembourg (0.72%), Belgium (1.13%) and Spain (1.26%). Five other countries, including Canada, did not meet the 1.5% mark.
Despite being a major contributor to NATO otherwise, Germany fell below the 2% minimum. But German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said Monday that his government would ramp up military spending to meet the commitment. Whether other leaders will follow suit is unclear.
This from Byron York:
This is sometimes what it takes to get the laggards in line. And you know how the left-wing media wasn't going to cover Trump speeches? Back to York:
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
...you mean by flipping the NY Seat blue?
NATO Members Suddenly Poised To Meet Military Spending
Targets Days After Trump Railed Against Alliance
Daily Caller ^ | Jake Smith
Posted on 2/13/2024, 8:54:28 PM by NoLibZone
NATO is expected to announce Wednesday that a majority of its members are set to hit their defense spending goals for 2024, days after former President Donald Trump told those who don’t pay their share that he wouldn’t protect them if re-elected.
It is estimated that 18 of the 31 NATO members will hit their minimum goal of spending 2% of total gross domestic product on defense budgets for 2024, compared to roughly one-third of the alliance who hit that goal in 2023, according to three alliance officials who spoke to The Financial Times.
Trump warned in a speech on Saturday that he would tell Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to members if they don’t pay their share, should he win a second term. “NATO expects about two-thirds of allies to hit 2% in 2024,” an alliance official told the Financial Times. Trump has long had issues with NATO members and their failure to meet the spending goal, feeling that the U.S. was footing too much of the bill. The U.S. is the largest financial backer of NATO, according to The Washington Post.
Donald Trump has said he would ‘encourage’ Russia to attack any Nato member that fails to pay its bills. https://t.co/skp3jzdZXT pic.twitter.com/Z2dh30u400
— Sky News (@SkyNews) February 11, 2024 EU officials say that NATO members are working to hit their targets once more in preparation for a second Trump presidency, according to the Times. NATO members will also try to put importance on issues Trump finds the most pressing – such as China and terrorist threats – and win over his good graces.
“There’s a lot of talk about [Trump]… What is the best way to handle a future President Trump?” one senior NATO diplomat said, according to the Times. “Basically a combination of flattery and a firm hand.” “You can’t worry about the rhetoric too much, but instead focus on the points being made and make sure you give credit to Trump if and when he is right,” former NATO chief spokesperson Oana Lungescu said, according to the Times. Roughly two-thirds of NATO members missed their defense spending targets in 2023, according to the Post.
“NATO was busted until I came along,” Trump said at the rally. “I said, ‘Everybody’s gonna pay.’ They said, ‘Well, if we don’t pay, are you still going to protect us?’ I said, ‘Absolutely not.’ They couldn’t believe the answer.” “One of the presidents of a big country, he stood up, he said: ‘Well sir, if we don’t pay, and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?’ I said, ‘You didn’t pay, you’re delinquent … no I would not protect you, in fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want,” Trump said.
NATO did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Wrong topic.
Other than the UK, and to a lesser extent, Canada, Australia and NZ which the US can ally as the Five Eyes without the NATO apparatus, is there any war the US engaged since the formation of the NATO alliance where the contribution by continental European allies made a significant difference to the outcome? And yes, that question applies to Afghanistan, the only time Article five was invoked, with US special forces militarily winning within two months and then changing the mission and proceeding to lose over the next 20 years. Vietnam, Iraq 1 and 2, Libya, the Balkans (which was of territorial vital national security interest to continental Europe and little to the Five Eyes)? We do fine on our own militarily winning conventional wars at the outset and ultimately losing them by changing the mission to multiyear nation building. My point is that nominal continental European mlitary contributions, although nice for the feel good optics of multinationalism, have always been militarily insignificant and irrelvant to ultimate war outcome Quite honestly, IMHO that is much too high a price to pay for the fiction of a NATO alliance of equally contributing partners that is in reality a NATO reliance on one with the fat guy doing all the substantial rowing in defending continental Europe that has more population and GDP in the aggregate than the US. Maybe a little tough love is in order requiring them to form their own joint standing army and alliance for their defense with a separate Five Eyes alliance, which does not face the same territorial threats as continental Europe, that operates independently and has no hard baked in mutual commitments to a continent reluctant to defend itself.
Isn’t there an old story about money for the fire department that goes along that same line. Your house is on fire but you don’t participate in the monthly support for the fire department, they let your house burn.
Yep!
And for those still confused, see what happens when you don’t keep up on your insurance premiums and have a sudden need to make a claim.
Given the choice of wine or gunpowder, they choose wine.
“Nice little country ya got here. Shame if somethin’ happened to it...”
Nice map to show how useful NATO is to the US - NOT.
China is who the US needs to worry about, and NATO will be no help, at all.
........hah.....probably......
.
There has been a load of harrumphing and indignation from the left over something Donald Trump said a few days ago when he said that he would not run to the aid of countries who did not meet their financial obligation to NATO.
:NeverTrumpin':
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.