NATO countries agreed to each pay 2% of GDP. After Trump's admonitions Germany has now raised its NATO contributions to 1.34% of GDP.
I think Trump was right, many countries in Europe were just taking the US for a ride over NATO.
And ermany is one of those countries thinking about having an EU army. I wonder who they think is going to pay for that? The US won't and the UK won't anymore - but you can never be sure about the UK. Some in the UK are still trying to rejoin the EU.
Germany especially. Why should they even have a military if they have American bases on their soil which guarantees that if anyone were to attack them (however unlikely), America would defend them if only to defend their military bases and because they already have the troops there.
On the other hand, not sure if Germany having too large of an army is ever that good for the other countries in Europe. They are not known for ever using their army to help anyone out.
As for the EU army, that should never be allowed to happen. The new world order will be funding it, that is who. EU was supposed to be an economic partnership with each country retaining its individual laws and identities. This has slowly started to be eroded and not for the better, but for the worse. And it seems like it's the EU has become a way for the larger members like Germany and France to try to control the smaller ones. If the EU army gets created, that will mean the end of the EU as it was originally supposed to be. In addition, I would bet that this army will not be used to defend the EU or for peace-keeping. It will be used to put down rebellions within the EU itself. To enforce the EU with the barrel of the gun.
It is very unclear what purpose NATO severs these days. Maybe that needs to be re-defined if it is to continue to exist.
People can also think that Putin is paranoid about NATO, but the truth is, if that was the case, why does NATO still exist and who is it being expanded to defend against, if not Russia?
It is even more unclear if a NATO country was attacked, if the other countries would actually join in to defend it as would be their treaty obligations. Treaties can often times be as worthless as the paper they are printed on. If a NATO country didn't see the invasion of another NATO country as an immediate or long term threat to itself, it probably wouldn't get involved (and NATO would end at that time). During the cold war, the Soviet Union's invasion of a NATO member had the potential to change the balance of power so much, that letting that country fall almost certainly mean you were next. We don't have that sense of urgency or purpose in NATO these days. In addition, the larger the organization gets, the more likely it becomes the fall of one NATO state would have no implications for another and therefore remove their motivation to respond.
............ Nobody knew things would happen so rapidly, but NATO was poor and now it is rich, and all of the Fake News commentators that said Trump was tearing down NATO should be ashamed of themselves for telling lies. Not only was the United States being taken advantage of by the EU on trade, but it was forced to pay the costs of the many delinquent NATO countries. Bush and Obama did nothing but make speeches and talk—I acted and acted strongly. I said to them, “if you don’t pay up, no protection.” They all paid up and paid up quickly. It’s a story that’s never reported, but that’s only because we have a corrupt press in our Country!”
Everything the media said was the opposite. Trump did many things that I bet we never heard about, either deliberately or by design by the media. The media always wanted to put Trump in a bad light. Don’t forget who owns and controls the media.
I believe that each participating country just uses their own standing armies to come together for any NATO operations. There are NATO designated generals/admirals and stuff though, so these generals from different countries within NATO then lead and direct the combined troops. There's a Supreme Allied Commander Europe for "army"supreme and Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic for "navy" operations.
Since there is no exact collective standing army, signatory nations are expect to spend at least around 2% of their national GDP on their national military. That way, if NATO actions are needed, there's enough people and equipment to do the operations, without having to have separate NATO troops. How they determined to use a level of 2% GDP spending, I don't know.
NATO countries agreed to each pay 2% of GDP. After Trump's admonitions Germany has now raised its NATO contributions to 1.34% of GDP.
I think Trump was right, many countries in Europe were just taking the US for a ride over NATO.
And ermany is one of those countries thinking about having an EU army. I wonder who they think is going to pay for that? The US won't and the UK won't anymore - but you can never be sure about the UK. Some in the UK are still trying to rejoin the EU.
Germany especially. Why should they even have a military if they have American bases on their soil which guarantees that if anyone were to attack them (however unlikely), America would defend them if only to defend their military bases and because they already have the troops there.
On the other hand, not sure if Germany having too large of an army is ever that good for the other countries in Europe. They are not known for ever using their army to help anyone out.
As for the EU army, that should never be allowed to happen. The new world order will be funding it, that is who. EU was supposed to be an economic partnership with each country retaining its individual laws and identities. This has slowly started to be eroded and not for the better, but for the worse. And it seems like it's the EU has become a way for the larger members like Germany and France to try to control the smaller ones. If the EU army gets created, that will mean the end of the EU as it was originally supposed to be. In addition, I would bet that this army will not be used to defend the EU or for peace-keeping. It will be used to put down rebellions within the EU itself. To enforce the EU with the barrel of the gun.
Trump was wrong in this one. The fact that NATO opposed Putin tells you all you need to know.
Maybe, instead of saving NATO, he shouldve helped disband it.
It is very unclear what purpose NATO severs these days. Maybe that needs to be re-defined if it is to continue to exist.
People can also think that Putin is paranoid about NATO, but the truth is, if that was the case, why does NATO still exist and who is it being expanded to defend against, if not Russia?
It is even more unclear if a NATO country was attacked, if the other countries would actually join in to defend it as would be their treaty obligations. Treaties can often times be as worthless as the paper they are printed on. If a NATO country didn't see the invasion of another NATO country as an immediate or long term threat to itself, it probably wouldn't get involved (and NATO would end at that time). During the cold war, the Soviet Union's invasion of a NATO member had the potential to change the balance of power so much, that letting that country fall almost certainly mean you were next. We don't have that sense of urgency or purpose in NATO these days. In addition, the larger the organization gets, the more likely it becomes the fall of one NATO state would have no implications for another and therefore remove their motivation to respond.
............ Nobody knew things would happen so rapidly, but NATO was poor and now it is rich, and all of the Fake News commentators that said Trump was tearing down NATO should be ashamed of themselves for telling lies. Not only was the United States being taken advantage of by the EU on trade, but it was forced to pay the costs of the many delinquent NATO countries. Bush and Obama did nothing but make speeches and talk—I acted and acted strongly. I said to them, “if you don’t pay up, no protection.” They all paid up and paid up quickly. It’s a story that’s never reported, but that’s only because we have a corrupt press in our Country!”
Everything the media said was the opposite. Trump did many things that I bet we never heard about, either deliberately or by design by the media. The media always wanted to put Trump in a bad light. Don’t forget who owns and controls the media.
Fuck NATO.
Why would he push to strengthen a globalist organisation/union like this? Must be more to it.
The corrupt press should be the 1st to go down, they have hurt this country so much, totally agree with President Trump.
I am a bit confused about this statement as NATO does not have a combinded defense budget.
Anyone can explain?
I believe that each participating country just uses their own standing armies to come together for any NATO operations. There are NATO designated generals/admirals and stuff though, so these generals from different countries within NATO then lead and direct the combined troops. There's a Supreme Allied Commander Europe for "army"supreme and Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic for "navy" operations.
Since there is no exact collective standing army, signatory nations are expect to spend at least around 2% of their national GDP on their national military. That way, if NATO actions are needed, there's enough people and equipment to do the operations, without having to have separate NATO troops. How they determined to use a level of 2% GDP spending, I don't know.
No, believe me we didn’t forget. We were proud of you when that happened. You were always front and center, and let those countries know who was boss!
We never forgot
Floundering.:)
So we are pro NATO now, and not Pro Russia. Hard to tell what’s up with this board any more.
The bootlicking of the commie Putin is revolting. We should be rejoicing in Putin's struggles.