"Trump is following a playbook written for him by Christian White Nationalists."

[N35t0r]

which only underlines the intrinsic inequity of NATO. As structured if a European country is attacked everyone is on the hook to help but if an adversary nukes Hawaii, well that's not what NATO is about...sorry tough luck...North Atlantic only chum...

That's funny.

The only invocation of article V since the signing of the treaty was by the US over Afghanistan. In fact, the Danes were particularly annoyed about this whole Greenland thing because, among other things, they suffered greater casualties per capital than the US during their time in Afghanistan.

Also, while a theoretical nuking of Hawaii would not trigger article V (just like the the argentine invasion of the Falklands didn't, or any attacks on French Algeria before it's independence or French Guyana even today wouldn't), the very real invasion and annexation by India of Portuguese colonies also did not trigger it.

[N35t0r]

And Europe has proven itself an utterly unreliable ally and that will stick. The US through Trump's betrayals. Europe through decades of ignoring every US president's plaintive pleas to pull its weight on defense expenditures. You talk as though there was this equitable arrangement going on that US arrogance and stupidity utterly ruined but Europe was rocking the boat just as badly and for far longer.

That's a rich take.
I'm eager to receive a list of the decades of pleas.

Im assuming that you are aware that the 2% of GDP military spending was only a guideline starting in 2006, only became a hard pledge in 2014, right?

I'm also sure you've heard about the refuge crisis that has affected Europe? Can you guess where Afghanistan and Iraq appear among the list of refugee origins? Also, Syria was the top country in that list. The US and ISIL were two key players in that civil war.

Finally, it is easy for the US to demand absurd levels of military spenditure when most of it's procurements are made from domestic companies. For smaller nations without a large MIC, a requirement for greater investment essentially means a requirement to subsidize the US. You can understand why countries don't take this very seriously when it's coming from a president who is threatening sanctions towards countries it has a trade deficit with, right?

[BeBMan]

Europe should not up defense spending because of Trump, but because it's needed.

I'm wondering about the 5% that are thrown around. First would be to determine what military is wanted, what capabilities are needed, then adjust the spending for it. If we buy everyone a designer uniform mil-spending would go up too, with little impact.

Ideally there should be way more cooperation in Europe on the matter, but national diffs so far prevented that.

Known for years, in principle argued by the US before Trump, in principle understood in Europe. Just needs to be done, as difficult as it may be practically in times of budget concerns. Things will get more expensive (in various ways) the longer we wait.

/cts

[Dauphin]

How many visibly non-white people are in Trump's cabinet? I know there is at least one.

[Geronimo]

Nonsense. Hawaii = US. Fun fact, the only ever instance of article 5 being invoked was after 9/11.

that is certainly how it *should* have been set up.

[Geronimo]

That's funny.

The only invocation of article V since the signing of the treaty was by the US over Afghanistan. In fact, the Danes were particularly annoyed about this whole Greenland thing because, among other things, they suffered greater casualties per capital than the US during their time in Afghanistan.

Also, while a theoretical nuking of Hawaii would not trigger article V (just like the the argentine invasion of the Falklands didn't, or any attacks on French Algeria before it's independence or French Guyana even today wouldn't), the very real invasion and annexation by India of Portuguese colonies also did not trigger it.

if OBL had targeted Honolulu instead of New york or washington article 5 would be regarded to not apply. Arguing that Europe's nearly nonexistent colonies also not qualifying for article 5 protection does not make it an equitable arrangement. Europe always gained a hell of a lot more security out of it.

[Dauphin]

The U.S. got involved in Vietnam and Afghanistan without treaty obligation. They did so to contain Communism. If NATO did not exist, do you think the US would stand by and let Western Europe go red?

Europe physically benefitted from a U.S. guarantee - absolutely. That guarantee ensured a hot war never happened. A war which would have been very much not in the U.S. best interest to occur, albeit for different reasons than physical defence of the continental US or wider holdings.

The US hasn’t been part of NATO for altruistic reasons. They got a lot out of it. Just not the same things Europe got out of it.

[BeBMan]

that is certainly how it *should* have been set up.

States are members of NATO, not territories. Even when you take the most literal reading, esp. Art. 6, and say it only cover this area, but not that (of one and the same member state) I don't see how this guarantees non-involvement of NATO states. It may be a nice legalistic view, but unsustainable politically.

If the members see it as serious they'd just go with "this fundamentally touches North Atlantic security, even when the attack was on Mars". This is what drove the 9/11 decision, not the geography behind it. Of course it's all speculation at this pt, but I'd say nuking random places outside NATO territory (per treaty or not) would pretty much affect NATO nonetheless.

[Provost Harrison]

And Europe has proven itself an utterly unreliable ally and that will stick. The US through Trump's betrayals. Europe through decades of ignoring every US president's plaintive pleas to pull its weight on defense expenditures. You talk as though there was this equitable arrangement going on that US arrogance and stupidity utterly ruined but Europe was rocking the boat just as badly and for far longer.

Still propaganda. Shall we have a look at manpower eh?

1.9 million in EU + almost 200k for the UK

vs

1.3 million in the US

I think you've been watching a bit too much Fox News there. And we're not in a permanent, paranoid war footing like your own country. Will do you well not to repeat Trump soundbites and look at the data instead.

[Provost Harrison]

Europe should not up defense spending because of Trump, but because it's needed.

I'm wondering about the 5% that are thrown around. First would be to determine what military is wanted, what capabilities are needed, then adjust the spending for it. If we buy everyone a designer uniform mil-spending would go up too, with little impact.

Ideally there should be way more cooperation in Europe on the matter, but national diffs so far prevented that.

Known for years, in principle argued by the US before Trump, in principle understood in Europe. Just needs to be done, as difficult as it may be practically in times of budget concerns. Things will get more expensive (in various ways) the longer we wait.

/cts

I think Poland is at 5% but with neighbours like theirs...

It is clear we need to up defence spending not because of Russia but because of the US. Their descent into this crazy territory has been quite alarming to say the least and we're only a month into crazy.

[Dauphin]

PH, the narrative you are proposing, that Geronimo is parroting Trumpist / FOX views or that his stance is based on them in any way, is ill-founded.

[Provost Harrison]

PH, the narrative you are proposing, that Geronimo is parroting Trumpist views or that his stance is based on them in any way, is ill-founded.

It is a Trumpist talking point however, which is the surprise, that the EU haven't been pulling their weight. At the moment Russia is severely depleted and do not pose a significant invasion threat. However that may not last for long and we do need to be better armed. But not through any request of the US who has vested interests in forwarding the interests of its arms sector.

[Provost Harrison]

if OBL had targeted Honolulu instead of New york or washington article 5 would be regarded to not apply. Arguing that Europe's nearly nonexistent colonies also not qualifying for article 5 protection does not make it an equitable arrangement. Europe always gained a hell of a lot more security out of it.

Semantics aside, you were not facing an existential threat. Not anywhere near.

[Dauphin]

Cuban missile crisis, or any total nuclear war scenario, I think may qualify as existential.

[Geronimo]

That's a rich take.
I'm eager to receive a list of the decades of pleas.

Im assuming that you are aware that the 2% of GDP military spending was only a guideline starting in 2006, only became a hard pledge in 2014, right?

literally *every* US president pressed for more NATO support from the other members and they never stepped up.

Truman made it painfully clear in the establishment of NATO that it would only be viable if the burden were shared, Ike was more concerned with trying to draw down US contribution but he noted that NATO would be destabilized if the US assumed a disproportionate share of the defence expenditures, JFK returned to pressing everyone else to pony up more including the Germans whom he made quite clear would need to field a serious capable military much larger than had been the case, LBJ was especially insistent on increased NATO partner spending following France's withdrawal from the command structure, in 1973 Nixon laid out 5% of GDP as a minimal acceptable commitment from NATO partners, Ford doubled down on that request and Carter might have been the outlier in that instead of requesting relatively more from NATO partners he loudly advocated a 3% annual increase from all members including the US (so perhaps he could be regarded to not be begging for more relative partner spending), Every time Reagan opened his mouth regarding NATO he loudly complained of the inadequacy of NATO partner defense spending frequently noting that overall the rest of them weren't even achieving a 2% of GDP goal and certainly from his presidency on the 2% of GDP metric was frequently cited even if it was not made into a treaty or official obligation there was a change from largely backchannel pressure to increasingly public communications of dissatisfaction and pleading. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama they all repeated the need for NATO partners to step up if NATO was going to make any kind of sense for the US. In any event Whether it was US presidents' job to remind them or not, the fact was that the US was putting a lot more into NATO than it was getting out and everyone else seemed to be just fine with that. They did in fact speak up and were politely ignored.

I'm also sure you've heard about the refuge crisis that has affected Europe? Can you guess where Afghanistan and Iraq appear among the list of refugee origins? Also, Syria was the top country in that list. The US and ISIL were two key players in that civil war.

Are you seriously suggesting that the composition of a NATO member's immigration profile factors into the relative defense weight contributed to the alliance by that member? tell me more about how that works.

Finally, it is easy for the US to demand absurd levels of military spenditure when most of it's procurements are made from domestic companies. For smaller nations without a large MIC, a requirement for greater investment essentially means a requirement to subsidize the US. You can understand why countries don't take this very seriously when it's coming from a president who is threatening sanctions towards countries it has a trade deficit with, right?

bull****. The EU gives ample forum and opportunity alongside NATO to broker specialization of MIC amongst each other. it's ludicrous to assert that it's less painful for large countries to meet such goals than for smaller countries.