Author Topic: US versus NATO  (Read 58811 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -7995.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 283,582
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,683
    • Army.ca
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #75 on: July 03, 2018, 22:03:53 »
What does the Euroforce do when Putin shuts off their gas?
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 51,904
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,123
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #76 on: July 03, 2018, 23:49:55 »
What does the Euroforce do when Putin shuts off their gas?
import more from Iran?

Seems like they may be sitting on a bunch.

Russia isn't the only place selling gas.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 146,609
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,710
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #77 on: July 04, 2018, 08:08:12 »
import more from Iran?

Seems like they may be sitting on a bunch.

Russia isn't the only place selling gas.

The same Iran that is allied with Russia? 

Altair, I generally like your posts but.....

You are conveniently ignoring real world geopolitical issues in order to try and suit your narrative in this thread but unlike some other threads where I think you've presented some good counter-points to the established narrative, you've been found wanting in this thread.

Comparing supposed numbers of tanks, aircraft, personnel, GDP, etc is useless metric and is the same flawed methodology that got the United States in so much trouble in Vietnam.

It also ignores the fact that outside of The United States, most European States have paper armies whose supposed numbers don't reflect any sort of reality.  The exceptions being the UK, France and Poland. 

The UK is running away from Europe and defence cuts have left their military less capable.  They don't even have any LRP ASW and are an island without any large power projection capability and have pulled out of Germany. 

The French are capable but their military is decisively engaged in internal security operations and maintaining a grip on their former colonies and sphere of influence.  They have very little to give NATO and I wouldn't necessarily consider them a reliable partner.  I don't think they would give a damn if Russia decided to move on the Baltics and as long as French territory wasn't threatened I doubt they would do anything.

Poland has a credible military for the very reason that they are very fearful of the Russians for good reasons but they do not have the mass or numbers to defend themselves indefinitely. 

The rest of Europe is much like Canada, a paper force that could offer very little in actual equipment and personnel for any sort of military campaign against the Russians.

The modern Russian Army is a different beast from its Soviet era force.  It's more professional and can draw on nearly 400,000 contracted (professional) soldiers and has modernized doctrine and training.  Putin and his supporting cast have gone about tearing up the entire military-security apparatus of Russia to make it far more lethal but also more responsive.

The Russians could mass an invasion force of 80,000-100,000 and rapidly overrun the Baltics and yes a collective NATO with US Support might be able to stop them; however, what happens elsewhere?

The United States also has to worry about China, Iran, the Middle East, South America, etc.

America has a lot of adversaries who would capitalize on America becoming embroiled in another war on Europe.  Thinking about this, it makes perfect sense that Europe needs to spend more on Defence because the United States isn't strong enough to fight a land war in Europe while simultaneously maintaining its position elsewhere. 

Your problem is you are seeing the chess board as a 2 player game:



The reality is the board looks more like this:


Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 127,360
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,606
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #78 on: July 04, 2018, 19:07:27 »

Online PPCLI Guy

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 238,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,900
  • It's all good
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #79 on: July 04, 2018, 19:22:11 »
Trump to NATO, the US isn't the worlds piggy bank.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-nato/trump-will-tell-nato-nations-us-cannot-be-the-worlds-piggy-bank-idUSKBN1JT2XD

Roger.  Sounds good.

That also means that they will no longer provide the world's currency of choice, (that will be the renminbi) nor the global commons - specifically freedom of navigation (that will be a series of regional Navies: France, Iran, Russia, China).  They will no longer be able to force the US version of fiscal probity on other IMF members (which is actually to laugh), nor be a beacon of either civility or democracy.

In short, they will cede the city on the hill to various regional hegemons.

I don't see a problem there.
"The higher the rank, the more necessary it is that boldness should be accompanied by a reflective mind....for with increase in rank it becomes always a matter less of self-sacrifice and more a matter of the preservation of others, and the good of the whole."

Karl von Clausewitz

Online Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 272,065
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,330
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #80 on: July 04, 2018, 19:29:09 »
Trump to NATO, the US isn't the worlds piggy bank.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-nato/trump-will-tell-nato-nations-us-cannot-be-the-worlds-piggy-bank-idUSKBN1JT2XD

...and renounce stewardship/influence of the World Bank, IMF and WTO?

Seems the US likes having the US Dollar as the de facto world currency....and China would probably enjoy having the Yuan and Dollar trade status...

Remember, the US spent the last 73 years building itself up as the World’s piggy bank.  It can change its direction, but it’s hypocritical to blame the rest of the world for its own aspirations/interests.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 322,135
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,399
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #81 on: July 05, 2018, 02:21:08 »
Let the flip flopping continue:

Why the U.S. Has Spent 200 Years Flip-Flopping Between Isolationism and Engagement?

What does the United States want to be to the world? And what would the world like? A welcoming beacon of democracy? A partner in trade and security? A wary, but distant ally? Or a fortress that has pulled up its drawbridge?

For America’s allies and foes alike, the messaging of the last week has been unequivocally the latter: President Trump announced punishing steel and aluminum tariffs. He traveled to the California-Mexico border to view a border-wall prototype. And he abruptly replaced Secretary of State Rex Tillerson with the more hawkish Mike Pompeo.

Cue the drawbridge.

This isn’t the first time the United States has taken such a stern line. When Donald Trump talks about “putting America first” he echoes a deeply ingrained attitude in American foreign policy dating back to the Revolution: that the United States should look to itself and be wary of entanglements with the world beyond. Such isolationism has been a recurring force in shaping American foreign relations.


https://www.history.com/news/american-isolationism
“To stand on the firing parapet and expose yourself to danger; to stand and fight a thousand miles from home when you're all alone and outnumbered and probably beaten; to spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary.”
— Jerry Pournelle —

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 494,190
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,451
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #82 on: July 05, 2018, 09:04:10 »
Let the flip flopping continue:

Why the U.S. Has Spent 200 Years Flip-Flopping Between Isolationism and Engagement?

What does the United States want to be to the world? And what would the world like? A welcoming beacon of democracy? A partner in trade and security? A wary, but distant ally? Or a fortress that has pulled up its drawbridge?

For America’s allies and foes alike, the messaging of the last week has been unequivocally the latter: President Trump announced punishing steel and aluminum tariffs. He traveled to the California-Mexico border to view a border-wall prototype. And he abruptly replaced Secretary of State Rex Tillerson with the more hawkish Mike Pompeo.

Cue the drawbridge.

This isn’t the first time the United States has taken such a stern line. When Donald Trump talks about “putting America first” he echoes a deeply ingrained attitude in American foreign policy dating back to the Revolution: that the United States should look to itself and be wary of entanglements with the world beyond. Such isolationism has been a recurring force in shaping American foreign relations.


https://www.history.com/news/american-isolationism

Exactly!
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 51,904
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,123
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #83 on: July 05, 2018, 09:21:33 »
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 203,880
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,742
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #84 on: July 05, 2018, 17:16:55 »
http://carnegieeurope.eu/specialprojects/NATOs2PercentPledge/

A good resource for exploring the 2% metric that predominates discussions these days.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline CloudCover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 58,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,657
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #85 on: July 05, 2018, 18:03:25 »
Thats a good page! I have never really understood why a %GDP figure is applied across the board. It seems more sensible to match (national interest and threats) to (commitments to capability) and forward pay accordingly, depending on the aspirations of any particular country that looks or needs to gloat about military force as a critical part of their existence. 
... Move!! ...

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 372,816
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,559
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #86 on: July 05, 2018, 18:21:59 »
Yes, America first has a sad and sorry history, doesn't it?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dr-seuss-adolf-wolf/

And ironically the same critical Dr Seuss supported the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Apparently he had quite the hate on for the Japanese in general.

Quote
But right now, when the Japs are planting their hatchets in our skulls, it seems like a hell of a time for us to smile and warble: "Brothers!" It is a rather flabby battle cry. If we want to win, we've got to kill Japs, whether it depresses John Haynes Holmes or not. We can get palsy-walsy afterward with those that are left
-Dr. Seuss

« Last Edit: July 05, 2018, 18:30:44 by Jarnhamar »
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 51,904
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,123
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #87 on: July 06, 2018, 02:25:05 »
And ironically the same critical Dr Seuss supported the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Apparently he had quite the hate on for the Japanese in general.
-Dr. Seuss
Interesting anecdote. What does it have to do with the conversation at hand?
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 127,360
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,606
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #88 on: July 06, 2018, 03:41:05 »
Trump fires a shot across the bow of NATO.


http://www.foxnews.com/

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 178,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,053
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #89 on: July 06, 2018, 09:22:18 »
Interesting anecdote. What does it have to do with the conversation at hand?

I'm going to guess that Jarnhamar was pointing out the possible hypocrisy in cherry picking quotes/memes from 80 years ago, but ignoring less pleasant quotes from the very same person...

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 51,904
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,123
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #90 on: July 06, 2018, 09:24:30 »
I'm going to guess that Jarnhamar was pointing out the possible hypocrisy in cherry picking quotes/memes from 80 years ago, but ignoring less pleasant quotes from the very same person...
It's not hypocrisy in the least. Just because someone was wrong about something doesn't mean they were wrong about everything.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 178,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,053
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #91 on: July 06, 2018, 09:32:56 »
It's not hypocrisy in the least. Just because someone was wrong about something doesn't mean they were wrong about everything.

Fair enough.


Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 322,135
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,399
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #92 on: July 06, 2018, 09:33:06 »
Trump fires a shot across the bow of NATO.


http://www.foxnews.com/

This is also represents one of his 'starter's gun' shots being fired in front of the upcoming mid-terms in November.

https://ig.ft.com/us-midterm-elections/
“To stand on the firing parapet and expose yourself to danger; to stand and fight a thousand miles from home when you're all alone and outnumbered and probably beaten; to spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary.”
— Jerry Pournelle —

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 372,816
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,559
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #93 on: July 06, 2018, 10:51:41 »
Interesting anecdote. What does it have to do with the conversation at hand?

Everything.
Irony and hypocrisy of US politics.

You have a cartoon condemning American indifference to the deaths of foreign children, from a guy who wants to go kill japs.

Just like Americans accusing Trump of pushing the US towards war with Korea with his tough language then turning around and criticizing him for attempting to deescalate the situation and meeting the North Korea leader.

Just like people bitching and complaining that the US acts like the world police and has their hands in everyone's pot and now bitching about the US calling out NATO for funding and threatening to pull back American forces/out of NATO or whatever.

That poster is an amazing example of American "but what about the children!" politics and how there is always more to the story IMO.

Trump is talking about giving a lot of Americans what they've been asking for for years about spending and NATO but those people are so hard wired to oppose and hate anything Trump does or says that they don't know which way they're going.



As for NATO vs Russia it was already pointed out you can't just cut and paste troop numbers from Wikipedia and who ever has more wins.  Lots of countries have paper armies (as pointed out). Wiki says Canada has 100 tanks and 79'000 active troops- I wouldn't exactly count on those numbers in a fight. I'm not sure how much experience you have working with fellow NATO countries but some of them are just ridiculous. 
Russia seems very serious about modernizing their military, I think a lot of NATO countries think the US will always be there to save them. Trump wants better returns for the US. 

Aren't you embarrassed about the state of our own military?  Can you imagine facing off against Russian armor with an 84mm Carl Gutsav and no air defense?


There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 218,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,068
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #94 on: July 06, 2018, 11:11:49 »
Diane Francis has it in one.

https://business.financialpost.com/diane-francis/canada-should-be-embarrassed-trudeau-needs-to-smarten-up-on-defence-and-pay-our-share-to-nato?video_autoplay=true

Quote
Canada should be embarrassed: Trudeau needs to smarten up on defence and pay our share to NATO

Diane Francis
July 6, 2018
9:31 AM EDT

U.S. President Donald Trump just sent tough letters demanding that Canada and the other NATO allies live up to the two per cent of GDP spending commitment they made at their Wales summit meeting in 2014. This will be the subject of intense discussion at next week’s NATO summit.

The President’s letter said the U.S. “is increasingly unwilling to ignore this Alliance’s failure to meet shared security challenges.” He added that while he appreciates Canada’s contributions to defence around the world, they “do not excuse any of us from our commitments to ensure NATO has the resources it needs.”

“This frustration is not confined to our executive branch,” the letter continued. “The United States Congress has taken note and is concerned as well.”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau allegedly replied that Canada is doing its bit, but he’s dead wrong.

He, like all his predecessors, have repeatedly ignored American requests to pony up more. In June 2016, the diplomatic former President Barack Obama also made it clear that Canada was not doing its part and said in his speech to Parliament: “The world needs more Canada and NATO needs more Canada.”

Adjustments should have been made years ago, but were not. Now, with an aggressive president in the White House, countries like Canada need to pay up.

Only two non-NATO allies get it: Australia and Japan. What Trump is saying is fair: The cost of being the world’s policeman and its gigantic US$800-billion annual trade deficit are both unsustainable and unjust.

By contrast, Australia (not a NATO member but reliant on U.S. military help) puts Canada to shame and will reach defence spending of two per cent of GDP by 2021. Already, Australia is spending twice as much as Canada — roughly $35 billion in 2018 — compared with Ottawa’s paltry $17 billion.

Frankly, this is embarrassing and explains why Trump is so upset.

Japan, also not a NATO member, realizes it is dependent upon U.S. military protection and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is abandoning its domestic military sector and going on a buying spree for American-made weaponry, systems, and technology. This will also dramatically reduce its trade surplus with the U.S.

Meanwhile Canada, without any bargaining position in terms of trade because of its failure to even try to meet NATO commitments for four years, pouts and whines about Trump and his team, thus threatening to damage Canadians and ruin the two countries’ relationship for years to come.

The link between trade and defence contributions is totally clear. U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin last week said if NATO member countries are seeking exemptions from U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs they will be asked to step up their contributions to NATO.

Canada’s on the bottom third of the NATO spending list:

U.S. 3.6% of GDP
U.K. 2.1%
Greece 2.25%
France 1.75%
Poland 2%
Estonia 2.25%
Canada 1.25%

Meanwhile, Germany, Italy and Spain are laggards that spend less than Canada.

Germany is under huge pressure to get its act together and is faced with the withdrawal of 35,000 American troops.

“The United States continues to devote more resources to the defence of Europe when the continent’s economy, including Germany’s, are doing well and security challenges abound. This is no longer sustainable for us,” wrote Trump to Chancellor Angela Merkel.

John Bolton, Trump’s national security adviser, said that underpaying NATO members, not the U.S., have undermined the organization in the face of the Russian threat.

Frankly, Trudeau had better smarten up and soon.

Mulroney and the North Warning System bought us the Canada US Free Trade Agreement
Pearson, the DEW Line and Bomarc bought us the Autopact
Louis St Laurent and NATO bought us US protection and access to the US market.

At the same time Canada, as Trump initially pointed out when he came to office, was not a problem and was not his target.  Canada is broadly in trade balance with US and the typical annual deficit of 12 to 13 billion dollars can be seen as an offset against the defence expenditure.  Arguably it effectively adds, in Trump terms, 13 billion to the 20 billion (SIPRI) defence budget, raising Canada's stake to 33 Billion.

That compares to Germany whose defence budget of 44 billion (SIPRI)  and trade surplus of 64 billion (US Census Bureau) results in a stake of minus 20 billion.

That is Trump's, and the US political class's beef.

Canada is not Trump's NATO target. Except when we join with his opponents.
Canada, likewise, is not Trump's NAFTA target.  Except when we join with his opponents.

Trump's NATO target is Germany et al.
Trump's NAFTA target is Mexico.

And just for comparison

Australia spends 28 billion on defence (SIPRI) and maintains a trade deficit similar to Canada's of 14 billion (USCB) which raises the Australian stake to 42 billion.

Australia's stake of 42 billion from a population of 24 million = a per capita stake of $1750.

Canada's stake of 33 billion from a population of 36 million = a per capita stake of $920.

Germany's stake of -20 billion from a population of 83 million = a per capita subsidy of $240
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 218,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,068
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #95 on: July 06, 2018, 11:18:20 »
Let the flip flopping continue:

Why the U.S. Has Spent 200 Years Flip-Flopping Between Isolationism and Engagement?

What does the United States want to be to the world? And what would the world like? A welcoming beacon of democracy? A partner in trade and security? A wary, but distant ally? Or a fortress that has pulled up its drawbridge?

For America’s allies and foes alike, the messaging of the last week has been unequivocally the latter: President Trump announced punishing steel and aluminum tariffs. He traveled to the California-Mexico border to view a border-wall prototype. And he abruptly replaced Secretary of State Rex Tillerson with the more hawkish Mike Pompeo.

Cue the drawbridge.

This isn’t the first time the United States has taken such a stern line. When Donald Trump talks about “putting America first” he echoes a deeply ingrained attitude in American foreign policy dating back to the Revolution: that the United States should look to itself and be wary of entanglements with the world beyond. Such isolationism has been a recurring force in shaping American foreign relations.


https://www.history.com/news/american-isolationism

Arguably that is the reason for the US.  Historically the dominant culture in the US was defined by refugees from the religiously inspired political wars of Europe. The intention was to declare a pox on all their houses and get on with doing things differently in a new world separated from Europe by a 3000 mile wide moat.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 51,904
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,123
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #96 on: July 06, 2018, 11:52:05 »
Everything.
Ok, lets see where this goes.
Quote
Irony and hypocrisy of US politics.

You have a cartoon condemning American indifference to the deaths of foreign children, from a guy who wants to go kill japs.
Again, just because he was wrong about wanting to kill Japs, does that also make him wrong to condemn American indifference to foreign children?
Quote

Just like Americans accusing Trump of pushing the US towards war with Korea with his tough language then turning around and criticizing him for attempting to deescalate the situation and meeting the North Korea leader.
Not me, leave me out of this.
Quote

Just like people bitching and complaining that the US acts like the world police and has their hands in everyone's pot and now bitching about the US calling out NATO for funding and threatening to pull back American forces/out of NATO or whatever.
When did I complain about america acting like the worlds police?
Quote

That poster is an amazing example of American "but what about the children!" politics and how there is always more to the story IMO.
, of course, it's a political cartoon from the 1940s, not a in depth political opinion piece. It was simply bringing to light that America first has reared its head repeatedly over history
Quote

Trump is talking about giving a lot of Americans what they've been asking for for years about spending and NATO but those people are so hard wired to oppose and hate anything Trump does or says that they don't know which way they're going.
Incorrect. I think that while a lot of people want the freeloaders to invest in the defense forces, they want to maintain the health of the alliance as a whole. At this point we are talking about throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Quote



As for NATO vs Russia it was already pointed out you can't just cut and paste troop numbers from Wikipedia and who ever has more wins.  Lots of countries have paper armies (as pointed out). Wiki says Canada has 100 tanks and 79'000 active troops- I wouldn't exactly count on those numbers in a fight. I'm not sure how much experience you have working with fellow NATO countries but some of them are just ridiculous. 
Some are, some aren't. Regardless, my doubts lie more on the Russians ability to sustain any campaign in a war versus Europe, that country has so many issues, demographically, economically, and socially.
Quote
Russia seems very serious about modernizing their military,
And they have just implemented huge budget cuts, 20 percent this year(YEAR!). How serious is that? Why is nobody talking about that. People seem to believe what they are preconditioned to believe about Russia, and people can have as many opinions as they want, but it is my opinion that while Russia has taken great strides, it is not the fearsome force that many believe it to be. Beyond saber rattling and playing games with Ukraine, I don't see them doing much more than that, US in NATO or not. But again, just my opinion.
Quote
  I think a lot of NATO countries think the US will always be there to save them. Trump wants better returns for the US. 
And there are better, more diplomatic ways to do so. Publicly blasting the alliance and raising doubts about US commitment to it will simply lead to others looking elsewhere for their collective security. Trump, I believe, started this off perfectly, raising just enough doubt to kick European nations and Canada into gear and defense spending was rising accordingly. But what does trump expect? Everyone to hit 2 percent overnight?  At this point, it's becoming counterproductive. Now leaders are going to need to sell raising defense spending in a way that doesn't look like they are bending over for Trump. Or, as alluded to before, simply starting to look beyond NATO. When Europe gets their EII organization up and running and it can provide security for Europe without NATO and the USA, what has the USA gained?  EII will be a priority for Europe, not NATO, meaning NATO and the USA by extension lose influence, and allies.
Quote

Aren't you embarrassed about the state of our own military?  Can you imagine facing off against Russian armor with an 84mm Carl Gutsav and no air defense?
Sure, but do I expect Canada to find 20-25 billion dollars overnight to spend on defense? As it stands, we were at 1.01 not too long ago, and will be at 1.2 before too long, I call that improvement. Or I guess we could just give then entire army very generous pensions and merge the RCMP into it and make it to 2 percent with not a lick more capabilities, a la France or Greece.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Online Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 272,065
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,330
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #97 on: July 06, 2018, 14:10:41 »
Diane Francis has it in one.

https://business.financialpost.com/diane-francis/canada-should-be-embarrassed-trudeau-needs-to-smarten-up-on-defence-and-pay-our-share-to-nato?video_autoplay=true

Mulroney and the North Warning System bought us the Canada US Free Trade Agreement
Pearson, the DEW Line and Bomarc bought us the Autopact
Louis St Laurent and NATO bought us US protection and access to the US market.

At the same time Canada, as Trump initially pointed out when he came to office, was not a problem and was not his target.  Canada is broadly in trade balance with US and the typical annual deficit of 12 to 13 billion dollars can be seen as an offset against the defence expenditure.  Arguably it effectively adds, in Trump terms, 13 billion to the 20 billion (SIPRI) defence budget, raising Canada's stake to 33 Billion.

That compares to Germany whose defence budget of 44 billion (SIPRI)  and trade surplus of 64 billion (US Census Bureau) results in a stake of minus 20 billion.

That is Trump's, and the US political class's beef.

Canada is not Trump's NATO target. Except when we join with his opponents.
Canada, likewise, is not Trump's NAFTA target.  Except when we join with his opponents.

Trump's NATO target is Germany et al.
Trump's NAFTA target is Mexico.

And just for comparison

Australia spends 28 billion on defence (SIPRI) and maintains a trade deficit similar to Canada's of 14 billion (USCB) which raises the Australian stake to 42 billion.

Australia's stake of 42 billion from a population of 24 million = a per capita stake of $1750.

Canada's stake of 33 billion from a population of 36 million = a per capita stake of $920.

Germany's stake of -20 billion from a population of 83 million = a per capita subsidy of $240

Funny how Canada is always seen as the leech on America.  America was quite happy to use Canada as the no-man's land buffer between them and the USSR as well, so it is not just a bit self-serving to say Canada never did anything for the U.S. (other than provide 1000's of miles of buffer between the USSR's strategic/tactical nuclear forces and CONUS.

Not saying that Canada couldn't be a bigger player, but this overnight (a decade or two) "You're laggards" perspective that doesn't at least acknowledge that we were the coldest de facto banana republic upon which the U.S. forced a portion of its nuclear arsenal, is (politely) disingenuous.

Let's seek a credit from the U.S. for unchallenged access to Canada's arctic archipelago for it's SSBNs and SSNs? ???


Quote
Only two non-NATO allies get it: Australia and Japan. What Trump is saying is fair: The cost of being the world’s policeman and its gigantic US$800-billion annual trade deficit are both unsustainable and unjust.

This pre-judges that the rest of NATO/Australia/Japan/others support America being "the World's policeman."

So if it's unsustainable and unjust.....why not....you know...stop being Team America - World Police? :dunno:



Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 372,816
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,559
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #98 on: July 06, 2018, 14:35:09 »
Quote from: Altair
Again, just because he was wrong about wanting to kill Japs, does that also make him wrong to condemn American indifference to foreign children?
Wrong? No. Hypocrite yes. So I'd question his motives.

Quote from: Altair
Not me, leave me out of this.

Quote
When did I complain about america acting like the worlds police?
I'm surprised to see you say you haven't but if not then cool. Lots of people have still brought it up and lament about it.


Quote
of course, it's a political cartoon from the 1940s, not a in depth political opinion piece. It was simply bringing to light that America first has reared its head repeatedly over history
So the US should act as the world police is what you're saying?

Quote
Incorrect. I think that while a lot of people want the freeloaders to invest in the defense forces, they want to maintain the health of the alliance as a whole. At this point we are talking about throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I think I'm correct.


 And they have just implemented huge budget cuts, 20 percent this year(YEAR!). How serious is that?[/quote]
It's the first time it's decreased in 20 years. Maybe they were able to cut corners and be more productive. Maybe they have a better more efficient way of doing business. Putin is also putting more money into health care and education so maybe better medical services and education opportunities for the 3.5 million members of their armed forces.

Quote
And there are better, more diplomatic ways to do so. Publicly blasting the alliance and raising doubts about US commitment to it will simply lead to others looking elsewhere for their collective security. Trump, I believe, started this off perfectly, raising just enough doubt to kick European nations and Canada into gear and defense spending was rising accordingly. But what does trump expect? Everyone to hit 2 percent overnight?
Easy. Countries maybe a clear and obvious effort to improve. Take Canada for example. Fixing the stupid procurement system we have would be a great sign we're committed to sorting our crap out and stop wasting money.


There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 51,904
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,123
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #99 on: July 06, 2018, 15:27:02 »
Wrong? No. Hypocrite yes. So I'd question his motives.
I'll lump him in with FDR, another person who got it horribly wrong on Japanese Americans(And Mackenzie King on Japanese Canadians) but right on a bunch of other issues. Humans are flawed creatures, but being wrong in one issues doesn't make someone wrong in others
Quote
I'm surprised to see you say you haven't but if not then cool. Lots of people have still brought it up and lament about it.
Sure, but I don't speak for these people, nor share their views, and if I'm discussing something with you, they are completely irrelevant to me.
Quote

So the US should act as the world police is what you're saying?
There is a balance to how interventionist a world power should be. It isn't whether one should or shouldn't be a world police, it's whether it is worthwhile for a leading power to take on the role. Some Empires have gone bankrupt doing it, others have prospered, others have been able to guarantee their security, others have been bogged down in costly pointless wars. But do I support pulling up the drawbridge and withdrawing from global affairs if they aren't getting things exactly their way, no I do not support that, especially when there are other powers waiting for America to make a misstep like that.
Quote


I think I'm correct.
I'm sure you do.
Quote
It's the first time it's decreased in 20 years. Maybe they were able to cut corners and be more productive. Maybe they have a better more efficient way of doing business. Putin is also putting more money into health care and education so maybe better medical services and education opportunities for the 3.5 million members of their armed forces.
That's quite the spin. If Canada did likewise I don't think you would be saying the same. There are very few ways to sugar coat what has happened, that is a massive cut, and it's going to cut into effectiveness and readiness. Not exactly something that puts the fear of god into people
Quote
Easy. Countries maybe a clear and obvious effort to improve. Take Canada for example. Fixing the stupid procurement system we have would be a great sign we're committed to sorting our crap out and stop wasting money.
NATO spending has been rising across the board, even in Canada. So there have been improvements. To hear the US president rant and rave though, you wouldn't know it. When he was elected, 3 NATO* countries met the 2 percent of GDP threshold, it's looking like 8 will shortly.  Yet instead of being pleased about the improvements being made, what we get are accusations of countries being free loaders and how they all owe America. This is the point where other nations are going to have to justify increased defense spending while somehow not looking like they are being pushed around by the American President.  At this point, I believe all the bluster if for domestic consumption, not looking at how it's beginning to become counterproductive.

*Greece makes the 2 percent threshold, yet 70 percent of their defense budget goes to personnel. Knowing Greece, where is that money going? Early retirements at 40? Generous pension funds?  Bureaucrats in Athens making good money doing no work? Yeah, 2 percent doesn't mean much there does it? Then we consider the actual Greek military. What NATO operations do they support? Where were they in Afghanistan?  What does the Greek military do outside of Greece to help NATO? Nothing. We all know why the Greeks "maintain" their military. It's because they hate their neighbour and fellow NATO country, Turkey. So what is that 2 percent of Greek GDP doing for NATO?
Someday I'll care about milpoints.