Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Mon May 29, 2017 12:38 pm

L410 : "b]What relevance does it have to the topic of the thread?[/b]"
It's just a little measure of how you can - could - adapt to a Union of more than two ; You failed that one too.

"What's the big deal?"
We've discovered that we cannot trust you : you're in just for moling reasons : NATO and US to protect you... and money from Brussels.
BTW, why did you join ?
... sorry, I forgot :...

" France and their bloodshed with tens of thousands dead in Algeria"
...a bloodshed that doesn't prevent you from taking as much cash as you can from the union, and France in particular, doesn't it ?
all that with some very egotistical positions : migration quotas in particular.
;;;And we are the ones with an isolationist agenda ?
I probably made a mistake : It looks that your long history with your eastern neighbour made you partial to vodka.
Contrail designer
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13389
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Mon May 29, 2017 3:56 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
I notice those who resent Trump bringing up a simple truth don't deny that it is the truth. Why is it so difficult to meet your obligations?


Actually half the posters on this thread have denied it. There is no obligation, and the non binding agreement there is is for 2024, not today, not tomorrow.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Mon May 29, 2017 4:01 pm

Aesma wrote:
Actually half the posters on this thread have denied it.

About 80% have denied it. The Trump supporters here are loud, but not really that plentiful.
 
User avatar
BobPatterson
Posts: 3416
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Mon May 29, 2017 8:20 pm

Pihero wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
Pihero wrote:
so, weaseling out of a treaty that the US has ratified (the climate change one ) is ok ?


Please cite the date of ratification by the Unites States Senate.
Thanks.


Thanks for showing us how potus is weaseling out of international agreements :
The COP 21 agreement was signed by the United States on 22 April 2016, ratified by the President on 3 September 2016 and came into force, for the US, on 4 November 2016.
As it is NOT a treaty, it doesn't need Senate's ratification... but of course, nowadays, it's being requalified as a *treaty*, hence submitted to parliament's approval... we all know how rich American lawyers are...


"submitted to parliament's approval... we all know how rich American lawyers are..." is utter nonsense.

Will you please stop babbling long enough to think? I asked a question. You respond by thanking me for something I did not do?

First, you now admit that there is no treaty. Therefore, there is nothing to weasel out of.

Please keep in mind that what is often called a treaty elsewhere in the world may not be a treaty in the United States.

In the United States a proposed treaty entered into by the President or his representatives must, to become a law here, be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate.

COP 21, "The Agreement", was carefully crafted to avoid needing approval from the U.S. Congress. (paraphrasing article: http://time.com/4146764/paris-agreement-climate-cop-21/ )

"The legal nature of the deal--whether it will be binding--had been a hotly debated topic in the lead up to the negotiations. The agreement walks a fine line, binding in some elements like reporting requirements, while leaving other aspects of the deal—such as the setting of emissions targets for any individual country—as non-binding."

It is an "agreement" without teeth and the terms/goals/promises will not be met by many of the parties to it.

While it may be a step in the right direction, it does not go far enough toward meeting/alleviating the environmental disaster that looms before us.

No "agreement" that is designed to sidestep a treaty ratification process is going to permanently bind the American people. As easily as one President may sign on to some scheme, another President can annul that action.

We don't yet know what Mr. Trump is going to do. My guess is that he will refuse to agree to some of the terms of the "agreement' while dismissing or ignoring others. We shall see.

Personally, I think the USA should enthusiastically embrace the agreement for now, and reevaluate our position at the first 5-year review.
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1528
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Mon May 29, 2017 8:59 pm

salttee wrote:
Aesma wrote:
Actually half the posters on this thread have denied it.

About 80% have denied it. The Trump supporters here are loud, but not really that plentiful.



Aesma, what good is article 5 if there is no defense spending behind it?
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 11982
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Mon May 29, 2017 9:13 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
salttee wrote:
Aesma wrote:
Actually half the posters on this thread have denied it.

About 80% have denied it. The Trump supporters here are loud, but not really that plentiful.



Aesma, what good is article 5 if there is no defense spending behind it?


Oh come on, defense spending might not be the 2% mark, but still.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... penditures

6 France France
7 United Kingdom United Kingdom
9 Germany Germany
11 Italy Italy
16 Canada Canada
17 Spain Spain
18 Turkey Turkey
25 Poland Poland
26 Netherlands Netherlands

Europe does it's bit, but arguably it could do a lot more.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Mon May 29, 2017 10:50 pm

From the WIKI list of defense expenditures, we can see that EU nations already spend four times that of the adversary on their military and their adversary has an eastern border that can't be ignored. It's hard to make the case for them to spend more IMO.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13721
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 12:52 am

salttee wrote:
From the WIKI list of defense expenditures, we can see that EU nations already spend four times that of the adversary on their military and their adversary has an eastern border that can't be ignored. It's hard to make the case for them to spend more IMO.


Well.. .. basing defense spending on imaginary military abilities of the potential enemy is a honered US tradition, isn't it?
"Missile gap" anyone?

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 1:18 am

tommy1808 wrote:
Well.. .. basing defense spending on imaginary military abilities of the potential enemy is a honered US tradition, isn't it?
"Missile gap" anyone?

Best regards
Thomas

Not really a tradition. This nonsense only began in the late 50s or early 1960s.
 
Mortyman
Posts: 5879
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 1:32 am

There is also this list:

List of countries by military expenditure per capita ( 2015 )


Rank

Country

Amount USD$


1 Saudi Arabia 6,909[4]
2 Singapore 2,385
3 Israel 1,882
4 United States 1,859
5 Kuwait 1,289
6 Norway 1,245
7 Greece 1,230
8 United Kingdom 1,066
9 France 977
10 Bahrain 912
11 Australia 893
12 Brunei 866
13 Luxembourg 809
14 Denmark 804
15 Netherlands 759


Norway is second only to the USA in NATO ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... per_capita

Personally I think Norway should spend more ...
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1528
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 3:37 am

The link below contains a few charts that highlights the shortfalls from the agreed upon 2% target .

http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2015 ... ts/116008/

Tommy1808, Thomas and Saltee shall we call it the spending gap?

Maybe those that think everything is fine and that Trump is just being the ugly American go back and look at what happened in the Balkans.
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 3:47 am

Planeflyer wrote:
The link below contains a few charts that highlights the shortfalls from the agreed upon 2% target .

http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2015 ... ts/116008/

Tommy1808, Thomas and Saltee shall we call it the spending gap?

Maybe those that think everything is fine and that Trump is just being the ugly American go back and look at what happened in the Balkans.

There was nothing new at your link and please tell us "what happened in the Balkans" that has any relevance to this topic, with your own words.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9750
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 5:00 am

Well, I am wondering if he will tell the same to the Pacific Partners of the US...
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 11982
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 6:51 am

Planeflyer wrote:
The link below contains a few charts that highlights the shortfalls from the agreed upon 2% target .

http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2015 ... ts/116008/

Tommy1808, Thomas and Saltee shall we call it the spending gap?

Maybe those that think everything is fine and that Trump is just being the ugly American go back and look at what happened in the Balkans.


The Balkans wasn't a matter of spending, probably they were spending 2% at the time. It was the political will or better lack of it.

I can only talk intelligently about the Netherlands. It is mostly the international commitments that put a strain on our military, current missions (some are very small missions, only a couple of men):
Mali (Minusma)
Iraq
Somalia
Afghanistan
South-Sudan
Bahrein
Baltic states (BAP)
Lithonia
Gaza strip
Israel / Syria
Kosovo
Libanon / Syria / Israel
UAE
Libia
Mali (EUTM / UNMAS)
Uganda (ACOTA)

More need to be invested to put our military up to strength. Currently, the next government is put together, after the general elections in March, most parties are willing to invest about 1bn more in our defense, that is about 12,5% more.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9750
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 6:54 am

And one must not forget that many countries did run extra budgets for the missions in Afghanistan or Iraq in the last decade, which seem to be conveniently ignored by the current US administration.
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 7:31 am

Bob Patterson :
"Will you please stop babbling long enough to think? I asked a question. You respond by thanking me for something I did not do?
First, you now admit that there is no treaty. Therefore, there is nothing to weasel out of.
Please keep in mind that what is often called a treaty elsewhere in the world may not be a treaty in the United States."


1/- I thanked you for showing us how through legalese legalities a country can avoid its responsibilities and denies its own word.For a lot of countries, a treaty may be legally binding, but an agreement is to be followed as a matter of pride in one's own word... Sorry the US doesn't seem to know that.
But, in this manner, you could get out of the COP 21 agreement and your president's signature is worth sh!t.
Up to you.

2/- You asked for a date : I gave you the two dates that marked the US approval - and its subsequent actions on its own word - the US signed and ratified that agreement and when it came into force.

3/- as far as I am aware, there's a definition for an agreement, another for a treaty and these definitions are , in these days quite universal.
Contrail designer
 
JJJ
Posts: 3766
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 8:21 am

Planeflyer wrote:
The link below contains a few charts that highlights the shortfalls from the agreed upon 2% target .

http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2015 ... ts/116008/

Tommy1808, Thomas and Saltee shall we call it the spending gap?.


Gap with whom? Add the 3 biggest EU defence spenders and their combined defence budget is double that of Russia.

If the US thinks it's spending too much, well, I'm sure you can invest it for a much better return in healthcare or building a wall along the Mexican border.
 
User avatar
pvjin
Posts: 3586
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:52 pm

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 8:29 am

Dutchy wrote:
More need to be invested to put our military up to strength. Currently, the next government is put together, after the general elections in March, most parties are willing to invest about 1bn more in our defense, that is about 12,5% more.


Why? I think healthcare, education and old people's care are matters way more important than bunch of boys who like to play war games. Besides, military might won't do anything to protect European people from the most imminent threat of Islamic terror. In fact it might be exactly the opposite. Stronger the European militaries are more likely they are to get involved in destructive wars in Middle East and Africa, wars which will further increase the terror threat towards us.

But of course it's the big boogeyman Russia which is the problem, even though they aren't the ones blowing up, raping and robbing citizen of the European Union.

I would finally like to see Europe stop its colonial wars which do no good to anyone. Any military involvement at all outside EU borders should be a big no no. We need an European Union of peace and love.
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King Jr
 
Olddog
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 8:55 am

The most immediate threat that needs an army to be protected from is Russia. The so called terror threats will be solved by other means.

The closest country from EU that invaded other countries is Russia, noone else.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 11982
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 8:57 am

pvjin wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
More need to be invested to put our military up to strength. Currently, the next government is put together, after the general elections in March, most parties are willing to invest about 1bn more in our defense, that is about 12,5% more.


Why? I think healthcare, education and old people's care are matters way more important than bunch of boys who like to play war games. Besides, military might won't do anything to protect European people from the most imminent threat of Islamic terror. In fact it might be exactly the opposite. Stronger the European militaries are more likely they are to get involved in destructive wars in Middle East and Africa, wars which will further increase the terror threat towards us.

But of course it's the big boogeyman Russia which is the problem, even though they aren't the ones blowing up, raping and robbing citizen of the European Union.

I would finally like to see Europe stop its colonial wars which do no good to anyone. Any military involvement at all outside EU borders should be a big no no. We need an European Union of peace and love.


ah yes, your typical narrow-minded response. Your hero Putin spends a lot more of its GDP, you cheer. But more important, if you want to stabilize countries and thus prevent people of fleeing their country, you need a military.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13721
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 10:11 am

Planeflyer wrote:
http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2015 ... ts/116008/

Tommy1808, Thomas and Saltee shall we call it the spending gap?


Let's call it fear mongers overblown potential enemy capabilities gap.

Maybe those that think everything is fine and that Trump is just being the ugly American go back and look at what happened in the Balkans.


Oh.. you mean like the whole NATO being almost unable to find even tracked armor in that tiny area? The war being "won" by destroying industrial Base and infrastructure. We can chuck dumb bombs out of transalls for that.
The problem was the lack of will to sustain losses, not military capabilities.

I am not exactly the guy saying nice things about the Russian government, but if there will ever be an open confrontation with Russia, they won't be kicking of big mistake No.3 because we don't have enough tanks, ships or fighters, but because they think NATO will not be worth the paper the treaty is written on.
As I said before, Russia couldn't even confidently take on Turkey, them being able to break into Europe is rediculous. If NATO government gets their shit together, willwise, that war would be fought in Ukraine and end there.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9750
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 11:27 am

Trump is now going to act on the Germany:

Latest Tweet: "We have a MASSIVE trade deficit with Germany, plus they pay FAR LESS than they should on NATO & military. Very bad for U.S. This will change"
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 11982
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 11:45 am

seahawk wrote:
Trump is now going to act on the Germany:

Latest Tweet: "We have a MASSIVE trade deficit with Germany, plus they pay FAR LESS than they should on NATO & military. Very bad for U.S. This will change"


Then he has to act to the whole EU and that means a trade war. Ah well it was only explained to him by Angela Merkel about a dozen times and many times by others that Germany doesn't have trade deals with anyone, just the EU. But we can't expect him to grasp this concept, it hasn't got his name in that. :-)

But hey, at least he now, albeit partly, understands that Germany doesn't owe anything to NATO.

He really is like a 12 y/o doesn't know the consequences of what he is saying and doing.

Like: "Donald J. Trump‏: Russian officials must be laughing at the U.S. & how a lame excuse for why the Dems lost the election has taken over the Fake News."

Don't think so, Donald J. Trump, I think Russian officials say: "oh shit, this isn't what we have signed him up for"
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9750
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 11:57 am

Still wrong though, as Germany has paid any obligations it has towards NATO.
 
Olddog
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 12:04 pm

It seems that US tries to lure its people in confusing NATO budget and the falsely called Defence budget. Because what the US military spendings are in fact trying to build is an aggressive force to invade other countries to "protect" their interests.
Last edited by Olddog on Tue May 30, 2017 12:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 11982
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 12:21 pm

Olddog wrote:
It seems that US tries to lure its people in confusing NATO budget and the falsely called Defence budget. Because what the US military spendings are in fact trying to build an aggressive force to invade other countries to "protect" their interests.


Not the US, Trump is with his administration. Furthermore, he is repeating the same mistake as with Mexico and paying for his stupid wall, the government of Germany isn't the same as getting the spoils of a trade deficit. over and over again, Trump shows signs that he knows absolutely nothing. He is hurting the US interest in a massive way, even IF he isn't cooperating with Russia.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9719
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 12:35 pm

That he still did not understad is, that the current balance of investment and spendings by tourists etc, in short all monetary Transactions which are not based on im- and Export, tells a ferent Story. Germany invests tmuch more in the USA than vv and more German tourists travel to e US than vv. All that creates Jobs.

And, he still does not understand how the members contribute to the cost of running NATO.
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13721
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 1:05 pm

PanHAM wrote:
That he still did not understad is, that the current balance of investment and spendings by tourists etc, in short all monetary Transactions which are not based on im- and Export, tells a ferent Story. Germany invests tmuch more in the USA than vv and more German tourists travel to e US than vv. All that creates Jobs. .


I wonder what his reaction will be when Google, Facebook and Apple will have to start paying taxes here for real... that is billions per year.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 4189
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 2:01 pm

Wow, I wouldn't have thought that the relationship between the two governments will get that bad so quickly...
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9719
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 2:15 pm

Word has it that Mrs Merkel simply got fed up when an educated exchange was simply not possible. Even Erdogan did not manage to get that unusual reaction so quick. But then Erdogan is not that important..
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
Mortyman
Posts: 5879
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 2:41 pm

A fairly good article that explains everything there is to know about NATO funding:


Trump Says NATO Allies Don’t Pay Their Share. Is That True?


http://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/world ... p=cur&_r=1
 
User avatar
pvjin
Posts: 3586
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:52 pm

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 3:26 pm

Dutchy wrote:
But more important, if you want to stabilize countries and thus prevent people of fleeing their country, you need a military.


That's the thing, you can't create long term stability through outside military force. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, all of them are in pure chaos despite all the western military involvement in them.

For real stability it's better to stay away and let the strongest side win and establish a sustainable government of any kind. Obviously sometimes that government isn't exactly a democratic one you would prefer, but even dictatorships can often be dealt with diplomatically. As an example, I'm sure Taliban wouldn't export terrorism abroad if Western countries accepted their rule the way they accept ideologically similar regimes of Saudi Arabia and Qatar for example.
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King Jr
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2117
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 4:22 pm

Three years ago, the U.S. and UK were leaning on Germany, who relies on Russian natural gas, to take a stronger stance against Russia. They also leaned on France to not deliver already sold Mistral ships to Russia.

How the times have changed. If ideological imperatives around the 'west'/transatlantic links start changing, economic imperatives will become more important. With the U.S. sounding more protectionist, and the UK playing 'my way or no deal', China and Russia will become key trade partners and the values that bind the west will become weaker, secondary to trade interests.

It could, of course, change on the back of a couple of elections. Alternatively, it could get worse. Either which way, the 'west' is now very vulnerable to short-term thinking. It's fast becoming about instant gratification and petty, petty vindication, with little regard for what follows.

Anti-west actors - whoever they may be - couldn't have done a better job of weakening the west if they tried.
Last edited by ElPistolero on Tue May 30, 2017 4:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 11982
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 4:22 pm

Dictatures aren't stable, they will collapse in the end.

Taliban, wasn't that the government which supported Bin Laden? Even after the 1998 attack? In the 1990'ish nobody was interested in Afghanistan. Or what about the Pan Am attack by Lybia.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2117
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 4:25 pm

pvjin wrote:
As an example, I'm sure Taliban wouldn't export terrorism abroad if Western countries accepted their rule the way they accept ideologically similar regimes of Saudi Arabia and Qatar for example.


The Taliban allowed AQ to launch attacks on the U.S. for many reasons. The U.S. refusal to afford them diplomatic recognition was not one of them.

I don't know where you're studying history, but I'd ask for my money back if I was you.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1528
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 5:39 pm

The NATO budget is trivial compared to defence spending and w/o commensurate defence spending the NATO budget means nothing because bad actors are only deterred by capabilities.

Is no one worried about Russia is doing in the East?
 
User avatar
pvjin
Posts: 3586
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:52 pm

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 6:05 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
The Taliban allowed AQ to launch attacks on the U.S. for many reasons. The U.S. refusal to afford them diplomatic recognition was not one of them.


Then the US should have bought their loyalty just like they did with Saudis. No dog bites a feeding hand.

ElPistolero wrote:
I don't know where you're studying history, but I'd ask for my money back if I was you.


We have a state funded education system here, no money I can ask back.
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King Jr
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2117
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 6:27 pm

pvjin wrote:
Then the US should have bought their loyalty just like they did with Saudis. No dog bites a feeding hand.


Heh - you should really ask Pakistan how that worked/is working out.

Ideologues don't sell out.
 
JJJ
Posts: 3766
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 6:52 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
The NATO budget is trivial compared to defence spending and w/o commensurate defence spending the NATO budget means nothing because bad actors are only deterred by capabilities.

Is no one worried about Russia is doing


France, Germany and the UK combined outspend Russia by more than two to one.

NATO military spending dwarfs everything else by several degrees of magnitude.

On a conventional war the current Ukraine low-intensity conflict is the only thing Russia can hope for.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 11982
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 9:44 pm

pvjin wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
The Taliban allowed AQ to launch attacks on the U.S. for many reasons. The U.S. refusal to afford them diplomatic recognition was not one of them.


Then the US should have bought their loyalty just like they did with Saudis. No dog bites a feeding hand.


Here you go: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14103
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 10:22 pm

Trump is now saying he likes Merkel. He understands now it's not productive for him or the US to say anything else.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 11982
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Tue May 30, 2017 10:23 pm

keesje wrote:
Trump is now saying he likes Merkel. He understands now it's not productive for him or the US to say anything else.


wait for it, wait for his tweet and then we'll know.....
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1528
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Wed May 31, 2017 7:12 pm

JJJ,

Russia is testing the water but that they have done so is worrying enough.

After all, much smaller conflicts have, in the past led to Major conflagrations.

The Balkans is just a recent example and I think it telling that all the Trump critics have remained completely silent on this issue.

Since the Roman Empire a common thread in most European wars is one or several nations feeling surrounded and striking out as a result.

Russia is in that spot today stuck between China, the West and the Muslims.

Strong doses of deterrence and diplomacy are required.
 
JJJ
Posts: 3766
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: NATO and Trump

Wed May 31, 2017 9:37 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
Strong doses of deterrence and diplomacy are required.


How much is "strong"? Twice the Russian budget? Three times? Five? Ten times?

Because NATO combined defence budgets add up to over 13 times that of Russia. Take the US out and it's still almost 4 times what the Russians are expending.

Russia can bark all they want (they have nuclear weapons after all) and bully or buy their former satellites but they know they can't risk going to a direct confrontation with NATO.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9750
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Thu Jun 01, 2017 5:14 am

Planeflyer wrote:
JJJ,

Russia is testing the water but that they have done so is worrying enough.

After all, much smaller conflicts have, in the past led to Major conflagrations.

The Balkans is just a recent example and I think it telling that all the Trump critics have remained completely silent on this issue.

Since the Roman Empire a common thread in most European wars is one or several nations feeling surrounded and striking out as a result.

Russia is in that spot today stuck between China, the West and the Muslims.

Strong doses of deterrence and diplomacy are required.


Given the current US president, there is another option for Europe and that is to restart the partnership with Russia. Trump is currently making sure that Russia will brake its isolation in the future. Either the US will do it, or the US will influence others to do it. In the end Russia has gas, oil and natural resources as well as a big domestic market. Crimea is not that important when the US starts closing its market and alienating its allies.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 11982
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Thu Jun 01, 2017 6:01 am

seahawk wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:
JJJ,

Russia is testing the water but that they have done so is worrying enough.

After all, much smaller conflicts have, in the past led to Major conflagrations.

The Balkans is just a recent example and I think it telling that all the Trump critics have remained completely silent on this issue.

Since the Roman Empire a common thread in most European wars is one or several nations feeling surrounded and striking out as a result.

Russia is in that spot today stuck between China, the West and the Muslims.

Strong doses of deterrence and diplomacy are required.


Given the current US president, there is another option for Europe and that is to restart the partnership with Russia. Trump is currently making sure that Russia will brake its isolation in the future. Either the US will do it, or the US will influence others to do it. In the end Russia has gas, oil and natural resources as well as a big domestic market. Crimea is not that important when the US starts closing its market and alienating its allies.


In itself, Crimea might not be that important, but it is the first time since Hitler some country annexed a part of another country in Europe. And it destabilized its neighbors. It tries to further destabilize further influence elections in western Europe, the general public by lies. Probably shot down MH17 with 298 people. Putin's Russia is aggressive and you want to cooperate with him?

Oil and gas are on their way out. Big domestic marked, yes, potentially, currently the GDP is about the size of the BeNeLux.

So I don't think we should reward Putin's aggression now. If Russia wants to engage in normal diplomatic relationship and stop harassing its neighbors, then we could return to normal relationships, including trade.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Thu Jun 01, 2017 6:24 am

Dutchy wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Given the current US president, there is another option for Europe and that is to restart the partnership with Russia. Trump is currently making sure that Russia will brake its isolation in the future. Either the US will do it, or the US will influence others to do it. In the end Russia has gas, oil and natural resources as well as a big domestic market. Crimea is not that important when the US starts closing its market and alienating its allies.


In itself, Crimea might not be that important, but it is the first time since Hitler some country annexed a part of another country in Europe. And it destabilized its neighbors. It tries to further destabilize further influence elections in western Europe, the general public by lies. Probably shot down MH17 with 298 people. Putin's Russia is aggressive and you want to cooperate with him?

Oil and gas are on their way out. Big domestic marked, yes, potentially, currently the GDP is about the size of the BeNeLux.

So I don't think we should reward Putin's aggression now. If Russia wants to engage in normal diplomatic relationship and stop harassing its neighbors, then we could return to normal relationships, including trade.

OK, you're part of the faction in Europe who rejects the idea of rapprochement with Russia. Yet seahawk's premise remains valid because we can be sure there will be (already is) a faction in Europe who would favor tighter bonds with Russia. Seahawk is pointing out a real danger and I don't think it should be quickly dismissed. There are many people on this side of the pond who should be made aware of the seriousness of Trump's positions on Europe including the possible future consequences.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 11982
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Thu Jun 01, 2017 6:31 am

I pointed out the dangers of cooperating with a regime like Putin. It is a slippery scale. There are a lot of countries far less worse then Russia we could deal with. Merkel is right, Europe needs to rise to the occasion, and not engaging in something we can't control. Working with Russia is fine, but on our terms, not on the terms of Putin.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9750
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Thu Jun 01, 2017 7:05 am

Dutchy wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:
JJJ,

Russia is testing the water but that they have done so is worrying enough.

After all, much smaller conflicts have, in the past led to Major conflagrations.

The Balkans is just a recent example and I think it telling that all the Trump critics have remained completely silent on this issue.

Since the Roman Empire a common thread in most European wars is one or several nations feeling surrounded and striking out as a result.

Russia is in that spot today stuck between China, the West and the Muslims.

Strong doses of deterrence and diplomacy are required.


Given the current US president, there is another option for Europe and that is to restart the partnership with Russia. Trump is currently making sure that Russia will brake its isolation in the future. Either the US will do it, or the US will influence others to do it. In the end Russia has gas, oil and natural resources as well as a big domestic market. Crimea is not that important when the US starts closing its market and alienating its allies.


In itself, Crimea might not be that important, but it is the first time since Hitler some country annexed a part of another country in Europe. And it destabilized its neighbors. It tries to further destabilize further influence elections in western Europe, the general public by lies. Probably shot down MH17 with 298 people. Putin's Russia is aggressive and you want to cooperate with him?

Oil and gas are on their way out. Big domestic marked, yes, potentially, currently the GDP is about the size of the BeNeLux.

So I don't think we should reward Putin's aggression now. If Russia wants to engage in normal diplomatic relationship and stop harassing its neighbors, then we could return to normal relationships, including trade.


All true, but in the end it all boils down to choosing the lesser evil. No European country will accept an economic downturn for Crimea and should America close its market and isolate itself from Europe, dealing with Russia will, no must, be attractive again. If Trump continues on his course, I fear that in 2 years the question of who is more reliable as a partner Russia or the USA, will be hard to answer. And Putin is able to adjust his tactics if playing nice gives him an advantage.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 11982
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: NATO and Trump

Thu Jun 01, 2017 7:17 am

It is not just Crimea and the destabilization of Ukraine, it is the whole package. Trump is irradical, Putin is savage, he will do anything to stay in power including playing the nationalistic card like he is now, that makes him predictable in a sense, but also unreliable to build a strong during relationship. In the end, Russia is unstable, because the ordinary citizen pays the price.

And economically, Russia isn't that important and will decline further when the world kicks off oil and gas addiction.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: acavpics, WarRI1 and 24 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos