• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Will we see NATO set firm benchmarks to meet the 2% level of spending as agreed

Will we see NATO set firm benchmarks to meet the 2% level of spending as agreed to?

  • Total voters
    8
JANFU

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
59,416
Reaction score
38,984
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Will we see NATO set firm benchmarks to meet the 2% level of spending as agreed to?.
Trump during his campaign has drawn a line in the sand.
Yes
No
Other

Trump speaks with NATO secretary general | TheHill

Trump had criticized the transatlantic alliance throughout his campaign, arguing its members should pay more for their own defense and calling it "obsolete." He also criticized NATO for not doing enough on counterterrorism.

The statement from NATO did not mention any discussion of Russia on the call. NATO members have been anxious about Russia's intentions following Moscow's invasion of Ukraine last year and annexation of Crimea.

In response to those actions, NATO established a Very High Readiness Joint Task Force and is sending four battalions in eastern Europe to ward off any potential Russian encroachment.
Click to expand...
 
JANFU said:
Will we see NATO set firm benchmarks to meet the 2% level of spending as agreed to?.
Trump during his campaign has drawn a line in the sand.
Yes
No
Other

Trump speaks with NATO secretary general | TheHill
Click to expand...

I don't know it was a line in the sand as much as a harsh kick off for negotiations. But I would expect that it awakened the governments around the EU to the fact that the free ride is nearing the end.
 
NATO should have been disbanded the day after the Soviet Union officially ceased to exist.

Russia is no conventional military threat to Western Europe...Germany, France and the U.K. combined outspend Russia (militarily) by more than 2 to 1.
 
JANFU said:
Will we see NATO set firm benchmarks to meet the 2% level of spending as agreed to?.
Trump during his campaign has drawn a line in the sand.
Yes
No
Other

Trump speaks with NATO secretary general | TheHill
Click to expand...

I clicked "other." I don't know what NATO as an organization will do, but I have a feeling that Trump will try to keep his promise.

In fact, President Obama has spent the last ~2 years (since the Russian invasion of Ukraine) trying to do the exact same thing - get NATO members and partner nations to uphold their commitment to spend an amount equal to or greater than 2% of their own national GDP. He gave one hell of a speech in Estonia, on September 3rd, 2014 that I watched live on C-Span as he gave it.

This should not be a problem for either party here in the US to support.
 
DA60 said:
NATO should have been disbanded the day after the Soviet Union officially ceased to exist.

Russia is no conventional military threat to Western Europe...Germany, France and the U.K. combined outspend Russia (militarily) by more than 2 to 1.
Click to expand...

NATO is one of the few factors in the world that has stemmed China, North Korea, Iran, and many others (including Putin's Russia) from acting aggressively toward NATO countries. It should never be disbanded.

The amount of money spent by any particular country does not equate to similar disparities in military capabilities. The Russians currently have a main battle tank that can and will destroy every NATO nation's main battle tank, including and especially the US' over engineered and under armored Abrams M1A2.
 
Beaudreaux said:
NATO is one of the few factors in the world that has stemmed China, North Korea, Iran, and many others (including Putin's Russia) from acting aggressively toward NATO countries. It should never be disbanded.
Click to expand...
What on Earth does NATO have to do with China or North Korea? Both countries have not shown the slightest interest of military advancement outside of their historical borders. And South Korea's military (outside of nukes) is MILES more powerful than the North's.

The amount of money spent by any particular country does not equate to similar disparities in military capabilities. The Russians currently have a main battle tank that can and will destroy every NATO nation's main battle tank, including and especially the US' over engineered and under armored Abrams M1A2.
Click to expand...

The T-14 Armada? IT has an updated version of the same gun the Russians have been using for decades. It's armour is not even as thick as top Western tanks. And - with oil prices in the dumps - there is serious doubts whether the Russians can afford to build more than a few hundred of the things. It is innovative (with the humanless turret). But to assume it outclasses EVERY, SINGLE western tank when it has not even been in battle is naive. Basically, it is a T-80/90-type design with improved protection, slightly improved armament and a humanless turret.
 
DA60 said:
The T-14 Armada? IT has an updated version of the same gun the Russians have been using for decades. It's armour is not even as thick as top Western tanks. And - with oil prices in the dumps - there is serious doubts whether the Russians can afford to build more than a few hundred of the things. It is innovative (with the humanless turret). But to assume it outclasses EVERY, SINGLE western tank when it has not even been in battle is naive. Basically, it is a T-80/90-type design with improved protection, slightly improved armament and a humanless turret.
Click to expand...

I was talking about the T-90 (built on the T-72 design) not the T-14 Armata (because of the same reasons you mentioned) or the death trap T-80. Once the M1A3 rolls out, then maybe things will change.

The T-90 is designed to survive attacks like the one in the video below. The M1A2 is not:

 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
What on Earth does NATO have to do with China or North Korea? Both countries have not shown the slightest interest of military advancement outside of their historical borders. And South Korea's military (outside of nukes) is MILES more powerful than the North's.
Click to expand...
Article 5 is not limited to Europe or the Atlantic seaboard of the US.
 
Necessity is the mother of all funding, they will have little choice but to pay more of heir own way.
That said, we are Not pulling out of NATO, period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom