4 ms·

Quite the spoiled and childish attitude. Most NATO members aren't contributing the minimum and instead effectively externalize defense to the US. Then they make

Quite the spoiled and childish attitude. Most NATO members aren't contributing the minimum and instead effectively externalize defense to the US. Then they make comments like yours that trivialize the importance of defense. At least the military leaders of the Eastern flank of NATO, located as it is on a geopolitical seismic fault and with Russia at arm's length, better appreciate the importance of defense. Of course, relying on the Eastern flank to function as a buffer without is, again, foolish and yet another blow to the beyond dubious solidarity of EU member states. (I am reminded of the Polish-Soviet war of 1920 and the Western attitudes then.) This has nothing to do with any pride. It has everything to do with security and survival. Without it, all those other things you mentioned you can kiss goodbye.

jopsen 9y ago
> Quite the spoiled and childish attitude. Most NATO members aren't contributing the minimum and instead effectively externalize defense to the US. There is no minimum. There is a non-binding spending target at 2% of GDP for 2020. Much of Eastern Europe is understandably already hitting that. Some of western Europe won't hit the targets. I for one understand why increased military spending (and international deployments) is a sensitive subject in Germany. But, nobody says the US have to be a 3.6% of GDP. Maybe you should target for 3% of GDP and spend some money on free education and healthcare. Maybe you could even go to 2% of GDP. See: http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/25/news/nato-trump-defense-spending/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/25/news/nato-trump-defense-spen...
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  The best way to get European allies up to 2% is for the US to make clear moved down toward 2%. As long as the US is going to sacrifice it's citizens welfare to find Europe's defense, why shouldn't Europe let them and focus on domestic welfare?
  - jopsen 9y ago
    In fact, the US could probably improve it's security situation by making an agreement with China and Russia to reduce military spending. And then have it's European allies reach their 2% goal. Allowing the US to have it's cake and eat it too :) But Americans aren't smart enough to vote for less military, or disarmerment... And with so much money on politics there is no chance anyone dares to reduce the size of the US defense budget.

jopsen 9y ago

> Quite the spoiled and childish attitude. Most NATO members aren't contributing the minimum and instead effectively externalize defense to the US. There is no minimum. There is a non-binding spending target at 2% of GDP for 2020. Much of Eastern Europe is understandably already hitting that. Some of western Europe won't hit the targets. I for one understand why increased military spending (and international deployments) is a sensitive subject in Germany. But, nobody says the US have to be a 3.6% of GDP. Maybe you should target for 3% of GDP and spend some money on free education and healthcare. Maybe you could even go to 2% of GDP. See: http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/25/news/nato-trump-defense-spending/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/25/news/nato-trump-defense-spen...

dragonwriter 9y ago
The best way to get European allies up to 2% is for the US to make clear moved down toward 2%. As long as the US is going to sacrifice it's citizens welfare to find Europe's defense, why shouldn't Europe let them and focus on domestic welfare?
- jopsen 9y ago
  In fact, the US could probably improve it's security situation by making an agreement with China and Russia to reduce military spending. And then have it's European allies reach their 2% goal. Allowing the US to have it's cake and eat it too :) But Americans aren't smart enough to vote for less military, or disarmerment... And with so much money on politics there is no chance anyone dares to reduce the size of the US defense budget.