Posted on 11/06/2024 11:00:42 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
Donald Trump's victory yesterday sparked a barrage of calls for a hike in UK defence spending amid fears the US could pull out of NATO.
A string of former defence secretaries said ministers should set a timetable for increasing military funding to 3 per cent of GDP in case Mr Trump reduces support for UK-backed campaigns, such as the war in Ukraine.
And new Tory leader Kemi Badenoch rounded on Sir Keir Starmer over the issue during her first Prime Minister's Questions, challenging him to commit to hiking spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP.
During the US election campaign, Mr Trump criticised the scale of support that his country was giving to Ukraine, pledging to 'have that settled'.
He has also signalled that he could pull America out of NATO and said he would encourage Russia to do 'whatever the hell they want' to any member that doesn't meet its defence spending obligations.
Countries who belong to the Western military alliance are supposed to spend at least 2 per cent of GDP on defence. The UK currently spends around 2.3 per cent.
Sir Ben Wallace, who was defence secretary for four years under Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak, led calls for an increase by capitals across the Continent.
He posted on X, formerly Twitter: 'Whatever your feelings about the US election are, the best insurance for all our security is to invest in our own defence and security right across Europe.
'We don't need ridiculous 'European armies' or an EU defence rival to NATO. We need to all invest 3 per cent of GDP across the [NATO] Alliance..'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Yikes - what a drama queen.
Gee, I guess President Trump is responsible for the UK's having scrapped a bunch of its navy long before he was even in office. Trump's also probably behind the UK's invasion of koranimals, the Tory resistance to Brexit which the British people had passed, and the Steele Dossier.
BTW, why wasn't Britain putting money into its own defense during the past four years?
The question is how to get Putin to compromise, as Trump has recently said Putin’s demands are “unacceptable”. And even if Trump had not said that, the Ukrainian people, unlike the Russian people, have a say in this. If President Zelenskyy is pushed too far by President Trump, he will be given the boot by his own people. Ukraine has rather the history of that...
Trump needs negotiating leverage, and has said that if Putin stonewalls, he (Trump) would send more weapons to Ukraine, not less. In that vein, I would propose that Trump suggest that Congress pass a bill appropriating 3x the weapons for Ukraine as the last bill. Preparation for these weapons transfers to be expedited, unless Putin signs at least an armistice agreed to by all, in which case the shipments will be put on hold.
I'm in favor of that.
But the ceasefire may only last for 4 years. Russia will try to attack again after Trump Administration.
Really large Euro armies are a guarantee of disaster, Russia or no Russia. The history is very clear on that.
That said, the Euros spending 3% of GDP on defense, across the board (are you listening, Germany?) even if Cackles had won would be a minimal response to the situation. Biden’s weak stream of weapons actually delivered has been pathetic, and should be scary as hell to the Euros..
The same reason they didn't do anything about being strongly dependent on imports after World War I ended.
Right. I expect considerable partisan / guerilla action, and that could blow up into larger scale conflict at almost any time. That’s why the appropriation itself is indefinite, and the hold on deliveries can be undone if Pooty misbehaves too much or tries to take advantage of a future flare-up.
This tells everything you need to know about the Brit/NATO/Euro lampreys..
C’mo man,
you gonna bring up history against a defenseless neocon ?
Works for us....the euroweenies need to be spending their own money and protecting themselves. Leave us alone.
Always look at the European travel films and ask myself gee where do they keep their aircraft carriers they don’t they are ours Time they start footing the bill instead of just running their mouth and buying gas from Russia The worst thing we ever did was not ripping Germany and asshole when they were building up the Russian military by buying gas
That’s irrelevant to my point, which you apparently did not comprehend.
Nowhere did I argue that armies sufficient for self-defense are not necessary. Obviously they are. But defense generally requires only 1/2 to 1/5 the capability to successfully go on offense. That is dependent on a whole host of factors, country to country. If you have favorable terrain, for example, that helps to effect a good defense.
I was pointing out the danger of Euro countries with LARGE armies, not weak armies, and not something defensive, around 2% of GDP in peacetime and 3% in a situation similar to today, with a large alliance and the US as big dog. (If you are as inefficient at spending defense money as Germany is, better add half a percent.)
Therefor your reply doesn’t even address my point: If we see some of the larger Euro countries gearing up at in excess of, oh, say, 5% - 6% of GDP, enough for an alliance of just 2-3 of those countries to deter Russia, or a neighbor that flips radical Muzzie, then you have a long term near certainty of fracture and then a really major war. Perhaps it goes nuclear if it spreads further. You can even throw Russia out of the equation as a primary antagonist to kick that war off.
You doubt this? Well, there is already considerable discussion in Europe about forming smaller alliances because NATO is so cumbersome, some members are unreliable or can even block policies or actions seen as necessary by other members, and so on.
NATO was not set up only to defend against Russia. NATO was also designed to protect Europe from itself.
Labour taking care of their own business instead of America’s business? what a thought!
I am most certainly not a neocon, unless you have some screwy definition far from the norm. We can’t with half-assed effort make countries like Iraq into some version of ourselves. Best one can hope for is countries like Jordan or Egypt with authoritarian leaders deciding the wars are fruitless (although Egypt’s stability long term is highly dubious.) And certainly Europe should pull it’s weight. However, Europe on it’s own, spending 2% of it’s GDP on defense, or 3% in a situation such as now exists, is not by itself sufficient to deter Russia.
When Trump says the Russians would not have invaded Ukraine if he was Prez, what the hell do you think he means? He means that you have to have a tough US President that someone like Pooty actually “respects” (an element of fear), and that President has to have the means to deter Russia.
Now, if you had a smidgen of reading comprehension, you’d realize I was pointing out the likelihood of Europe long term reverting back to form if it did arm up sufficiently to deter Russia on its (Europe’s) own. Look at the trends: European “unity” is a flash in the pan, held together mainly by the US as big dog.
Not our damn business to ‘deter’ Russia.
Your presumption to be able to know Putin’s intentions and referring to him as Pooty puts you squarely in the neocon arena.
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.