Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NATO summit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • So.... G20 summit in Hamburg.

    Only news so far is that the Navy is denying it's sent a "warship" into the port for the occasion - ... it's a 500-ton LCM with some special forces on it. And that 250 out of 500 police officers from Berlin (of course Berlin, where else) have been sent home because they were using their accomodations - a future refugee home - for a bit of a party involving sex and drugs. Don't know if rock'n'roll was involved. I guess they didn't expect that the private security service of the refugee home didn't agree with them trashing the place. Uh, and a couple cars were firebombed. But that's pretty normal in Hamburg on any given day.

    @astralis: i just read "Carter" in that chart instead of "Craters".

    Comment


    • Originally posted by S2 View Post
      We pay.
      Last I checked you were the only one who didn't pay their bills. UN membership fees ring a bell?

      Comment


      • i agree that European defense spending is far short of where it needs to be. the question is if the current POTUS can do anything to change this. given our allies seem to believe that Trump would have difficulty leading his way out of a paper bag, my feeling is...not so much.
        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

        Comment


        • Realistically once Merkel gets her center-right coalition in September we'll probably see a more indepth and financially actually backed defense initiative at least between Germany, France and Benelux. The joint plans at EU level conveniently and "completely incidentally" require approval only immediately after the German election. Conveniently those there - well, except Luxembourg - are also a "coalition" that has actually pledged towards meeting the 2% guideline by 2024, meaning raising their spending way beyond what their NATO pledge requires of them.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by astralis View Post
            [ATTACH]44001[/ATTACH]
            You forgot someone - they may not like that; Muscovy +43% favourable to the Trump administration.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by astralis View Post
              you realize the ultimate judge of how credible the US is towards her allies would be...our allies, yes?
              I wouldn't necessarily agree with that as a measuring stick....

              Comment


              • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                [ATTACH]44001[/ATTACH]
                'To do the right thing regarding world affairs'

                that's subjective.

                I bet if Trump wasn't harping on NATO members to contribute more and wasn't calling out some of the immigration polices of other countries those charts might look a bit different.

                there's do the right thing, and then there's do right by us.....

                Comment


                • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                  i agree that European defense spending is far short of where it needs to be. the question is if the current POTUS can do anything to change this. given our allies seem to believe that Trump would have difficulty leading his way out of a paper bag, my feeling is...not so much.
                  https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-spending-nato

                  Comment


                  • Sajjan said the boost would take total defense expenditures to 1.4% of GDP by 2024-25 from 1.2% now.
                    Not really talking about a huge boost here. Canada has contributed a lot, though, so it's not fair to compare them to the other NATO nations.

                    I don't even if care if the other nations don't contribute as long as they shut their mouths and just stick to running their own nations, and let the US run the foreign policy. We do not need to hear what the French think on Israel, and I don't care what Poland thinks about Thailand, and Greek opinions on the Straits of Hormuz are pretty irrelevant.

                    "Blah blah blah we're so civilized and we work to be united." Yeah, whatever. We have Germans and Italians and Polish and Spanish here in the US, and we all speak English, and we all get along pretty well. You're like, 150 years behind us. Maybe you'll land on the Moon by 2119...by which time Elon Musk will probably be in Alpha Centauri.
                    "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                    Comment


                    • from that very article:

                      His announcement came after Freeland said Canada would seek to play a larger role on the world stage as the United States retreats. Addressing parliament on Tuesday, Freeland said: “International relationships that had seemed immutable for 70 years are being called into question.”

                      “The fact that our friend and ally has come to question the very worth of its mantle of global leadership, puts into sharper focus the need for the rest of us to set our own clear and sovereign course,” she said.
                      “For Canada that course must be the renewal, indeed the strengthening, of the postwar multilateral order.”

                      Freeland told parliament that Canada would “strive for leadership” in multilateral forums such as the G7, the G20, Nato and the United Nations.
                      aka hegemon abdicating power, thus an individual state upping the commitment to their own defense. that's a different kettle of fish than spending for the common defense with the US as alliance leader. personally, i don't think this is a good trade-off.
                      There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                      Comment


                      • "Last I checked you were the only one who didn't pay their bills. UN membership fees ring a bell?"

                        Why stop there? Think we owe more in U.N. peacekeeping dues. Still, is this an attempt at distraction? Afterall, we were discussing N.A.T.O.

                        You do, however, raise a great point. See...our U.N. debt pales in comparison to our Nat'l debt. It's on our mercantilist minds. As it should be. Germany, too, carries significant debt though well below your GDP so you appear to have the means to service your debt comfortably. Germany also carries something of a reputation among Europeans about staunchly demanding debt re-payment.

                        Ogres, you are.

                        So too should be America. And while we carry debt, forgive me if I suggest that we naturally prioritize that which we spend hard capital to build or sustain and that obligation(s) we'll ignore or discount in order to do so.

                        NATO has been important to America long before Germany saved us with their immense 9/11 contribution to RC-North in Afghanistan. It still is. More than in some considerable time, actually, as it's now apparent that Russia doesn't really wish to be a contributor to the current world order and have tangibly manifested that attitude numerous times recently in your immediate neighborhood.

                        Seems a cause for concern.

                        Or not?

                        Afterall, who are we to decide what threats most stir the German psyche? I read this interesting quote recently from David Kilcullen regarding Afghanistan/Iraq but it's self-evident truth is applicable elsewhere-

                        "Resource allocation in itself is not a sign of success-arguably in Iraq we have spent more than we can afford for limited results-but expenditure is a good indicator of government attention..."

                        Follow the money.

                        So we come to the questions that really matter. Is Russia a tangible immediate/near-term threat to the rest of Europe or, at least, it's most immediate neighbors? Really doesn't matter what I think, or my government for that matter. Aside from an eminently fcuked-up president I think you know where most Americans who are careful observers of events lean on this. The question really is how Germany views this threat or lack thereof? Because, as Kilcullen so aptly illustrates, the money tells the tale.

                        So...is the U.N. and the monies owed by America to that august organization really a deep-seated source of angst for most Germans? If America must spend carefully and artfully manage debt would you counsel allocating our monies spent for NATO to, instead, UN Peacekeeping and other various soft-power endeavors?

                        If no threat exists to N.A.T.O. then to what purpose does this organization truly serve? Can it not be disgarded as its obsolescence becomes evident or has it monstrously morphed into this wastrel, needless consumer of valued resources? I ask because you seem smugly proud of gradually easing into a 2% obligation over many years. No urgency would suggest...what, exactly?

                        No tangible threat, correct? If so, we should just shut the whole show down and if America truly feels the freedom of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland (most notably) are worth defending then we should make our own bi-lateral or confederate security arrangements and not bother the rest of Europe.

                        It is, afterall, such trouble defending the liberty of others in your own self-interest. Especially if somebody else might do so on your behalf.
                        Last edited by S2; 29 Jun 17,, 15:15.
                        "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                        "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                        Comment


                        • Ah, let's explain the German government opinion on that.

                          That one is that Russia - at the moment - is still a country you can talk to. One that needs firm handling, but not someone who acts irrational. Russia, not Putin; there are after all other interests at play in their oligarchy as well, ones that Putin has to be mindful of. For that need of firm handling, Germany currently maintains the third-largest contingent - after the US and the UK - in the Baltics. For that need, Germany is one of the main proponents of targeted sanctions - meaning in context with Ukraine and the Baltics, not for ambivalent, shifty reasons like the US does it these days.

                          And yes, follow the money. Because money is a way to control people. Yeah, we're buying gas in Russia. In fact, our companies own those gas fields. And those pipelines. And, even if we don't say it, they also own the people in Russia needed to facilitate that. Setting up such deals - on a geopolitical level - gives a measure of interdependence. One that reassures, and one that gives a negotiation tool. Which is something that, yeah, i know, Americans won't understand for the most part. For us though, it's not a new tool. We used that with East Germany. With the Warsaw Pact at large. And, for gas and oil in particular, with the Soviet Union itself. Directly. In the early 80s, right at the second height of the Cold War.

                          NATO ? NATO is an alliance. In itself a tool. However, to Germany it seems less a tool for guaranteeing security; more one for international cooperation on defense matters. To us that's its main purpose and main reason of existance beyond the Cold War: to present an established framework in which to cooperate with other nations on particular topics. However, we both have and we newly establish other frameworks for the same purpose - NATO isn't the only option in that regard. Mutual defense? To us, that's not a prime function of NATO anymore since the end of the Cold War - it's a side effect, and again one for which we have other frameworks in place.

                          The 2%? Pretty simple: If we'd spend 2% on defense we'd spend more than Russia in absolute figures just by ourselves; in per-capita figures we're already higher. For what purpose though? So far, there isn't really a threat that can't be handled with current arrangements. There are escalating events that can change that shortterm, that require a different response; however Russia has so far been successfully navigating those straits. If those come? Last year we dropped the equivalent of 60% of our military budget on refugees, unplanned and out of the blue. And we still had a considerable budget surplus. We'll do what we can to prevent such events from coming though. Without the blunt, crude and offensive measures that some other NATO members use.

                          Comment


                          • kato,

                            so far, there isn't really a threat that can't be handled with current arrangements.
                            as S2 is pointing out, though, these "current arrangements" have the US spending a disproportionate amount of money, and are in no small part due to US presence in Europe.

                            to put it another way, how confident are you that the "other frameworks" you mention will be sufficient, along with your own military power, to defend Germany against Russia?
                            There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                              kato,
                              to put it another way, how confident are you that the "other frameworks" you mention will be sufficient, along with your own military power, to defend Germany against Russia?
                              None! But don't bank your security on someone across the ocean, particularly if you want to run an "independent" foreign policy.
                              "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                              Comment


                              • "...However, to Germany it seems less a tool for guaranteeing security...."

                                It was for that purpose N.A.T.O was conceived.

                                "...;more one for international cooperation on defense matters To us that's its main purpose and main reason of existance beyond the Cold War: to present an established framework in which to cooperate with other nations on particular topics..."

                                Without a defined and tangible mission we are then spending way too much money on pencils and paper alone, much less all the other expenses accrued by this organization. Especially when one considers your next thought-

                                "...However, we both have and we newly establish other frameworks for the same purpose..."

                                Established as more relevant to the identified needs. If so, then what do these other "frameworks" render N.A.T.O. but as a redundant and, evidently, obsolescent alternative system?

                                "Mutual defense? To us, that's not a prime function of NATO anymore since the end of the Cold War - it's a side effect..."

                                Fascinating. So should we consider this whole hullaballoo orchestrated by Europe about Trump and article 5 all theatrics? It would seem so, if true. Afterall, it's really not how you view N.A.T.O's current purpose anyway.

                                More rather a redundant, bloated and obsolescent system.
                                "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                                "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X