4 ms·

US policy toward NATO has been remarkably consistent, despite the confusing rhetoric from the commander-in-chief. The United States still refuses to recognize t

US policy toward NATO has been remarkably consistent, despite the confusing rhetoric from the commander-in-chief. The United States still refuses to recognize the Russian government's claim over Crimea, the Trump administration has continued selling arms, including lethal arms and armored vehicles, to the government of Ukraine, the United States conducted a cyberattack against Russia prior to the 2018 midterm elections, and US forces are actively participating in NATO's multinational training exercises and forward deployments in Eastern Europe. A Biden administration is expected to continue these activities.

mschuster91 6y ago
> US policy toward NATO has been remarkably consistent. Yeah, with Trump moving troops out of Germany because he believes, contrary to all facts, we'd be trying to rip them off. Not to mention the whole Iraq fiasco with Bush trying to rope NATO allies in a war based on lies.
- swsieber 6y ago
  So Germany is not deliquent on NATO payments? Or that doesn't qualify?
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    Germany is not delinquent on NATO payments, at least not on the formally agreed-upon budget contribution of 313 million € (https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-match-us-contribution-to-nato-budget/a-51446211 https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-match-us-contribution-to-na...). The thing you (and Trump) are meaning is the total defense spending as percentage of GDP. Germany cannot be "delinquent" here by definition! Every country is legally free to spend whatever it wants on defense. The "2%"is an informal goal only, not backed by any international treaty!
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - frandroid 6y ago
    AFAIK there are no "NATO payments". There's just an expectation that NATO countries will spend 2% of GDP on defense, and most European countries are far behind that. Germany however has increased its spending in recent years and is getting closer to the mark. Trump just doesn't understand the geostrategic position of the U.S., where troops stationed in critical countries prevent invasions which would upturn its imperial economic order. Trump thinks the U.S. has stationed troops in SK, Germany, Taiwan for the countries' interests, where they were clearly deployed there to defend its own.
    - panzagl 6y ago
      Or he has decided US interests have changed.
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      International security arguments are bullshit. We spend money on weapons in order to spend money on weapons. That tiny interest is the tail that wags the entire dog of security theater throughout politics, media, and academia. If we had a democratic system we wouldn't waste so many resources on armaments. That's why the military-industrial complex destroyed our previously somewhat-democratic system.
  - JackFr 6y ago
    There aren't "NATO payments" per se. However, it is a common defense treaty, and as such each member is expected to contribute a proportionate amount to their own military. Most recently the agreed level was 2% of GDP, which Germany has consistently fallen short of. Both Obama and Bush complained about it as well, but they both had a reasonable understanding of how things worked.
  - CathedralBorrow 6y ago
    Who is receiving those NATO payments?
    - nix23 6y ago
      The "defense" Industry?
  - celticninja 6y ago
    No it is not.
- HenryKissinger 6y ago
  Yes, there is a level of pettiness at work in this recent decision. What they want to do is shift to a rotational force model and deploy another Armored Brigade Combat Team to Poland every 9 months instead of having an SBCT in Germany. Meaning you have to move 2 ABCTs(~4500 Soldiers and all their equipment) in/out of the theater. The main tactical problem with that is that those forces don't have standoff distance from Russian A2AD weapons. The underlying causes of these changes are Germany (1) continuing to spend less than 2% of GDP on defense; (2) its 2019 announcement that its pushing back its 2% target date from 2024 (agreed upon in 2015) to 2031; and, (3) continued German support for Nord Stream 2. America is publicly penalizing Germany for the above reasons, which will likely disincentivize similar actions by nations receiving US troops from Germany and other host nations in Europe. Moreover, it seems some troops are likely slated for rebasing in the Indo-Pacific which will bolster US' power there.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    > which will likely disincentivize similar actions by nations receiving US troops The only thing this will lead to is a breakup or a massive relevancy drop of NATO. Europe is already emancipating themselves, the US will continue to lose influence - to the benefit of China and Russia, of course.
  - jialutu 6y ago
    What about the US blowing up the Middle East, where Germany and much of European countries having to deal with the refugees as a consequence of those wars? I think countries like Germany have been penalised enough by the US for not picking up the slack for the refugee situation.
    - HenryKissinger 6y ago
      The flows of refugees from Syria to Turkey and Greece were largely due to the fallout of the Syrian Civil War, which the United States was neither responsible for starting, could not have prevented from starting, and could not have stopped once it began.
AndrewBissell 6y ago
I wonder what you're being downvoted for here exactly. As much as the DC foreign policy consensus likes to portray anything short of complete encirclement and expanding NATO right up to Russia's borders as "appeasement," everything you point out is true and a major counterpoint to the idea the Trump administration just gives Russia whatever it wants.
vmception 6y ago
I agree, I got a bank comfort letter from an Asian client using Sberbank, and found out that the entire bank is on OFAC list! Russians use this bank like Americans use Venmo. It just seems like low hanging fruit for a chummy head of state to deal with, because the sanction itself is so hurtful and broad to include the entire institution for over half a decade and never revisiting it. It is balanced to separate the rhetoric of the head of state from the autonomous and distributed US agencies. Its clear the priorities from the president are self-protection, and the stuff with Russia is just enough to keep investments afloat, while pretty much everything else regarding US agencies and geopolitics is ignored. So all the drama stays at the top of DOJ, Fed, Treasury and what all the divisions do transcends administrations.

mschuster91 6y ago

> US policy toward NATO has been remarkably consistent. Yeah, with Trump moving troops out of Germany because he believes, contrary to all facts, we'd be trying to rip them off. Not to mention the whole Iraq fiasco with Bush trying to rope NATO allies in a war based on lies.

swsieber 6y ago
So Germany is not deliquent on NATO payments? Or that doesn't qualify?
- mschuster91 6y ago
  Germany is not delinquent on NATO payments, at least not on the formally agreed-upon budget contribution of 313 million € (https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-match-us-contribution-to-nato-budget/a-51446211 https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-match-us-contribution-to-na...). The thing you (and Trump) are meaning is the total defense spending as percentage of GDP. Germany cannot be "delinquent" here by definition! Every country is legally free to spend whatever it wants on defense. The "2%"is an informal goal only, not backed by any international treaty!
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- frandroid 6y ago
  AFAIK there are no "NATO payments". There's just an expectation that NATO countries will spend 2% of GDP on defense, and most European countries are far behind that. Germany however has increased its spending in recent years and is getting closer to the mark. Trump just doesn't understand the geostrategic position of the U.S., where troops stationed in critical countries prevent invasions which would upturn its imperial economic order. Trump thinks the U.S. has stationed troops in SK, Germany, Taiwan for the countries' interests, where they were clearly deployed there to defend its own.
  - panzagl 6y ago
    Or he has decided US interests have changed.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    International security arguments are bullshit. We spend money on weapons in order to spend money on weapons. That tiny interest is the tail that wags the entire dog of security theater throughout politics, media, and academia. If we had a democratic system we wouldn't waste so many resources on armaments. That's why the military-industrial complex destroyed our previously somewhat-democratic system.
- JackFr 6y ago
  There aren't "NATO payments" per se. However, it is a common defense treaty, and as such each member is expected to contribute a proportionate amount to their own military. Most recently the agreed level was 2% of GDP, which Germany has consistently fallen short of. Both Obama and Bush complained about it as well, but they both had a reasonable understanding of how things worked.
- CathedralBorrow 6y ago
  Who is receiving those NATO payments?
  - nix23 6y ago
    The "defense" Industry?
- celticninja 6y ago
  No it is not.
HenryKissinger 6y ago
Yes, there is a level of pettiness at work in this recent decision. What they want to do is shift to a rotational force model and deploy another Armored Brigade Combat Team to Poland every 9 months instead of having an SBCT in Germany. Meaning you have to move 2 ABCTs(~4500 Soldiers and all their equipment) in/out of the theater. The main tactical problem with that is that those forces don't have standoff distance from Russian A2AD weapons. The underlying causes of these changes are Germany (1) continuing to spend less than 2% of GDP on defense; (2) its 2019 announcement that its pushing back its 2% target date from 2024 (agreed upon in 2015) to 2031; and, (3) continued German support for Nord Stream 2. America is publicly penalizing Germany for the above reasons, which will likely disincentivize similar actions by nations receiving US troops from Germany and other host nations in Europe. Moreover, it seems some troops are likely slated for rebasing in the Indo-Pacific which will bolster US' power there.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  > which will likely disincentivize similar actions by nations receiving US troops The only thing this will lead to is a breakup or a massive relevancy drop of NATO. Europe is already emancipating themselves, the US will continue to lose influence - to the benefit of China and Russia, of course.
- jialutu 6y ago
  What about the US blowing up the Middle East, where Germany and much of European countries having to deal with the refugees as a consequence of those wars? I think countries like Germany have been penalised enough by the US for not picking up the slack for the refugee situation.
  - HenryKissinger 6y ago
    The flows of refugees from Syria to Turkey and Greece were largely due to the fallout of the Syrian Civil War, which the United States was neither responsible for starting, could not have prevented from starting, and could not have stopped once it began.

AndrewBissell 6y ago

I wonder what you're being downvoted for here exactly. As much as the DC foreign policy consensus likes to portray anything short of complete encirclement and expanding NATO right up to Russia's borders as "appeasement," everything you point out is true and a major counterpoint to the idea the Trump administration just gives Russia whatever it wants.

vmception 6y ago

I agree, I got a bank comfort letter from an Asian client using Sberbank, and found out that the entire bank is on OFAC list! Russians use this bank like Americans use Venmo. It just seems like low hanging fruit for a chummy head of state to deal with, because the sanction itself is so hurtful and broad to include the entire institution for over half a decade and never revisiting it. It is balanced to separate the rhetoric of the head of state from the autonomous and distributed US agencies. Its clear the priorities from the president are self-protection, and the stuff with Russia is just enough to keep investments afloat, while pretty much everything else regarding US agencies and geopolitics is ignored. So all the drama stays at the top of DOJ, Fed, Treasury and what all the divisions do transcends administrations.