3 ms·

40000 and not 40,0000. Much is for the US and their military adventures, not for NATO or NATO-related things. It supports the US war machine. Iraq, Syria, Afgh

by lispm 7y ago

40000 and not 40,0000. Much is for the US and their military adventures, not for NATO or NATO-related things. It supports the US war machine. Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, North Africa, ... Much of that has nothing to do with defending Germany, defending the US or defending NATO... The US and its allies/friendly countries currently outspend Russia approximitely fifteen times. If Germany would spend 2% of its GPP on military, then it would approach Russia in absolute numbers, That would be crazy. What we really need is LESS military spending and less military adventures of the US (Iraq, Syrian, Libya, ...). The US has destabilized the whole middle east and north africa. The refugees are going to Europe, not the US... The US will stay in south germany for the near future, because it provides excellent logistics for US wars in middle east, asia and africa.

rayiner 7y ago
Obviously since Germany isn’t currently under attack, German bases are used for other operations. But the German government doesn’t seem eager to get the US military out of the country, and has reacted negatively to Trump’s signaling in that direction. Recent events have convinced me that I was at least partly wrong about my previous view of the United States having bases all around the world. Europeans love to complain about America, but when Trump threatened to pull out of NATO, in the face of an ascendant Russia, the European reaction certainly wasn’t “don’t let the door hit you on the way out.” Likewise in Asia, while the Taiwanese and Japanese have always been warm to American military support, the growing power of China has definitely sparked discussions about America’s continued commitment to obligations in that region.
- lispm 7y ago
  I don't think you have much insight into thoughts of European countries. What you claim was a response to Trump, is actually much more complex. There are different views in different countries and within them. Germany is also no longer the front to the communist block - which no longer exists and only Russia is left as direct opponent. So it may make sense to have NATO defense moving east. Many Germans think that the US politics against Russia leads to nothing good. What Trump does/says is fully inconsistent. NATo is obsolete. Then it is great. He wants to reduce military. Then record money flows into the military. He wants to get out of Iraq, then he blackmails Iraq to let the US stay. He uses kurds to fight against ISIS and then he hands them over to Assad... The main political reaction in Germany to him is to have not too much changed and hope for a more rational US government.
bloodm 7y ago
"If Germany would spend 2% of its GPP on military, then it would approach Russia in absolute numbers, That would be crazy." It is her contractual obligation. Currently Germany does not have an Army anymore but a museum. How many tanks are operational? 100? Russia has 10.000...
- lispm 7y ago
  There is no contract about it. Tanks? Not sure that this is our biggest concern right now.
  - bloodm 7y ago
    Nato Membership is a contract. Yes, Indeed. tanks are not the biggest problem. https://consortiumnews.com/2019/12/21/pepe-escobar-you-say-you-want-a-russian-revolution/ https://consortiumnews.com/2019/12/21/pepe-escobar-you-say-y... PS: "Germany is only one of 19 NATO members that have not met the 2% GDP spending goal set at the 2014 NATO summit in Wales."
    - lispm 7y ago
      and the contract says nothing about what you claim. PS. : the spending goal is in the future: 2025. It‘s also a political goal, not a contract. And the current data can be seen here: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2019_11/20191129_pr-2019-123-en.pdf https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2019_... Look at the numbers, they are vastly different from what you claim.
      - bloodm 7y ago
        "Look at the numbers, they are vastly different from what you claim. " They are "vastly different" because most countries don't share their fair burden. Trump may be wrong in many things, here he is right. In the PDF you provided "NATO guideline 2%" But hey, why spent it on the military? Let the US spent/fight for us.

by lispm 7y ago

rayiner 7y ago

Obviously since Germany isn’t currently under attack, German bases are used for other operations. But the German government doesn’t seem eager to get the US military out of the country, and has reacted negatively to Trump’s signaling in that direction. Recent events have convinced me that I was at least partly wrong about my previous view of the United States having bases all around the world. Europeans love to complain about America, but when Trump threatened to pull out of NATO, in the face of an ascendant Russia, the European reaction certainly wasn’t “don’t let the door hit you on the way out.” Likewise in Asia, while the Taiwanese and Japanese have always been warm to American military support, the growing power of China has definitely sparked discussions about America’s continued commitment to obligations in that region.

lispm 7y ago
I don't think you have much insight into thoughts of European countries. What you claim was a response to Trump, is actually much more complex. There are different views in different countries and within them. Germany is also no longer the front to the communist block - which no longer exists and only Russia is left as direct opponent. So it may make sense to have NATO defense moving east. Many Germans think that the US politics against Russia leads to nothing good. What Trump does/says is fully inconsistent. NATo is obsolete. Then it is great. He wants to reduce military. Then record money flows into the military. He wants to get out of Iraq, then he blackmails Iraq to let the US stay. He uses kurds to fight against ISIS and then he hands them over to Assad... The main political reaction in Germany to him is to have not too much changed and hope for a more rational US government.

bloodm 7y ago

"If Germany would spend 2% of its GPP on military, then it would approach Russia in absolute numbers, That would be crazy." It is her contractual obligation. Currently Germany does not have an Army anymore but a museum. How many tanks are operational? 100? Russia has 10.000...

lispm 7y ago
There is no contract about it. Tanks? Not sure that this is our biggest concern right now.
- bloodm 7y ago
  Nato Membership is a contract. Yes, Indeed. tanks are not the biggest problem. https://consortiumnews.com/2019/12/21/pepe-escobar-you-say-you-want-a-russian-revolution/ https://consortiumnews.com/2019/12/21/pepe-escobar-you-say-y... PS: "Germany is only one of 19 NATO members that have not met the 2% GDP spending goal set at the 2014 NATO summit in Wales."
  - lispm 7y ago
    and the contract says nothing about what you claim. PS. : the spending goal is in the future: 2025. It‘s also a political goal, not a contract. And the current data can be seen here: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2019_11/20191129_pr-2019-123-en.pdf https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2019_... Look at the numbers, they are vastly different from what you claim.
    - bloodm 7y ago
      "Look at the numbers, they are vastly different from what you claim. " They are "vastly different" because most countries don't share their fair burden. Trump may be wrong in many things, here he is right. In the PDF you provided "NATO guideline 2%" But hey, why spent it on the military? Let the US spent/fight for us.