• 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!

Trump claims Germany 'totally controlled' by Russia

Samhain said:
I'm not understanding your point; I agree with investing in alternative sources.

My point is that Germany's main issue is their purposefully low domestic energy production in favor of importing. Because of that, they are beholden to their energy producers, mainly Russia, because they don't have the ability to make up the difference. It's a bad position to be in. The US only needs to import 10% of our total energy needs, and so while yes some of that comes from Canada & OPEC, that doesn't mean we are "totally controlled" by them.
Click to expand...

The US consumes roughly 19.8 Mbbl of oil per day.

The US produces roughly 11.4 Mbbl of oil per day.

11.4 is approximately 57.6% of 19.8.

100% - 57.6% = 42.4%

42.4% =/= 10%

PS - You did know that Germany could meet all of its domestic energy requirements if it installed tens of thousands of treadmill powered generators and forced the German population to operate them, don't you?
 
PeteEU said:
Bad policy is to continue it and have a new Fukushima..
Click to expand...

Well, then Trump’s question is valid. If Germany chooses to purchase Russian natural gas to supply its market, how bad can Russia truly be? And how truthful is it that Germany cannot afford to spend more on a common defense?
 
Athanasius68 said:
Trump is suggesting then that Europe PAY their share of the costs of NATO.
Click to expand...

You might want to take a look at some real numbers HERE (Is the US NATO's piggy bank? Here's what America gives and takes).

Did you know that the combined defence budgets for all of the NATO countries (excluding that of the United States of America) is over four times as great as the Russian defence budget?

Did you know that that would rise to approximately eight time the Russian defence budget if the NATO countries (not counting the US) spend 4% of their GDP on defence?

Did you know that NATO is concerned with the defence of Europe (plus Canada and the US) and is NOT concerned with the defence of Africa, Asia, Australia, South America, Central America, or the Pacific Islands?

Did you know that (according to the logic that Mr. Trump is using) the US does not spend a dime "defending" any part of Africa, Asia, Australia, Couth America, Central America, or the Pacific Islands because his position is based on the premise that ALL of the money that the US spends on defence is spent on NATO?

If you assume that Europe comprises 5% of the world and assume that US defence spending is spread evenly throughout the world, then that means that the US is spending approximately US$25,000,000,000 annually "defending Europe". The other NATO nations spend, collectively, around US$270,771,000,000 "defending Europe". Since the other NATO countries are spending around 10 times as much as the US is spending to "defend Europe" and since the GDP of the EU is smaller than that of the US, which of the two is not "paying their share of the costs of NATO"?

The statement


"Trump is suggesting then that Europe PAY their share of the costs of NATO."
​

is false and the correct statement is


"Mr. Trump is manipulating data so that the ignorant portion of the American electorate thinks that something that is already happening is not happening - in short, Mr. Trump is lying when he says that the European countries are not paying their share of the costs of NATO. What Mr. Trump really means is that the European countries are not subsidizing American defence spending to the degree that he would like to see them doing it AND that American defence spending is based on completely unrealistic 'determinations' of the 'threat level' which are produced for domestic partisan political purposes.".​
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
You might want to take a look at some real numbers HERE (Is the US NATO's piggy bank? Here's what America gives and takes).

Did you know that the combined defence budgets for all of the NATO countries (excluding that of the United States of America) is over four times as great as the Russian defence budget?

Did you know that that would rise to approximately eight time the Russian defence budget if the NATO countries (not counting the US) spend 4% of their GDP on defence?

Did you know that NATO is concerned with the defence of Europe (plus Canada and the US) and is NOT concerned with the defence of Africa, Asia, Australia, South America, Central America, or the Pacific Islands?

Did you know that (according to the logic that Mr. Trump is using) the US does not spend a dime "defending" any part of Africa, Asia, Australia, Couth America, Central America, or the Pacific Islands because his position is based on the premise that ALL of the money that the US spends on defence is spent on NATO?

If you assume that Europe comprises 5% of the world and assume that US defence spending is spread evenly throughout the world, then that means that the US is spending approximately US$25,000,000,000 annually "defending Europe". The other NATO nations spend, collectively, around US$270,771,000,000 "defending Europe". Since the other NATO countries are spending around 10 times as much as the US is spending to "defend Europe" and since the GDP of the EU is smaller than that of the US, which of the two is not "paying their share of the costs of NATO"?

The statement


"Trump is suggesting then that Europe PAY their share of the costs of NATO."
​

is false and the correct statement is


"Mr. Trump is manipulating data so that the ignorant portion of the American electorate thinks that something that is already happening is not happening - in short, Mr. Trump is lying when he says that the European countries are not paying their share of the costs of NATO. What Mr. Trump really means is that the European countries are not subsidizing American defence spending to the degree that he would like to see them doing it AND that American defence spending is based on completely unrealistic 'determinations' of the 'threat level' which are produced for domestic partisan political purposes.".​
Click to expand...

Ok—- so the ‘threat levels” are unrealistic.
So Trump is not incorrect to suggest a rethinking of NATO?
 
"Germany is controlled by Russia" may be true to some extent, but it's a distraction/ diversion from the likelihood that Russia/Putin exerts influence over Trump.

If you received billions of dollars in loans and financial support from someone/some institution, you would too.

But we'll never know the extent of those loans and financial support because Trump won't release his tax returns. I wonder why?...
 
Athanasius68 said:
Ok—- so the ‘threat levels” are unrealistic.
So Trump is not incorrect to suggest a rethinking of NATO?
Click to expand...

What Mr. Trump's definition of "rethinking" is is "Either you give us a whole bunch of money to subsidize our military outside of Europe or we will leave Europe and you will have to spend around four times as much money on your military as the Russians spend on their defence."

Mr. Trump perennially neglects to add the " - unless you think that the actual threat of the Russians invading and conquering Europe justifies spending either more or less than that amount without the US telling you what you 'jushavta' do." bit.

Face it, the odds on the Russians invading and conquering Europe are roughly on a par with the odds on the Duchy of Grand Fenwick invading and conquering the USA - and just as reality based.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
What Mr. Trump's definition of "rethinking" is is "Either you give us a whole bunch of money to subsidize our military outside of Europe or we will leave Europe and you will have to spend around four times as much money on your military as the Russians spend on their defence."

Mr. Trump perennially neglects to add the " - unless you think that the actual threat of the Russians invading and conquering Europe justifies spending either more or less than that amount without the US telling you what you 'jushavta' do." bit.

Face it, the odds on the Russians invading and conquering Europe are roughly on a par with the odds on the Duchy of Grand Fenwick invading and conquering the USA - and just as reality based.
Click to expand...

I see— you view Trump’s demand as a way for the USA to free up military spending for the South China Sea or Persian Gulf,
So if Trump unilaterally cuts USA defense spending for NATO, is such pro or anti NATO?
 
Athanasius68 said:
I see— you view Trump’s demand as a way for the USA to free up military spending for the South China Sea or Persian Gulf,
So if Trump unilaterally cuts USA defense spending for NATO, is such pro or anti NATO?
Click to expand...

Obviously if a member of an alliance refuses to participate in the objectives of that alliance then that is "anti-alliance".

When you realize that the (non-US) NATO spending amounts to 400% of what the Russians are spending on defence you can see that Mr. Trump's "logic" has a bit of a flaw in it.

When you also realize that only a portion of what Russia spends on defence goes towards Europe, then the amount that the (non-US) members of NATO spend on the defence of Europe could well be as high as 600% of what Russia spends on its nefarious plot to invade and conquer Europe.

Another way of looking at the numbers is that (once allowance is made for the "traditional" Russian tactic of substituting space for troops) the ratio of Russian spending to (non-US) NATO spending could very well approximate the 1 to 3 ratio of "Defenders" to "Attackers" that "the book" says is the minimum normally required to defeat an attacking force (or at least to render the attacking force's efforts no longer cost-effective).
 
Trump is lying when he said Germany was getting 70% of their energy from Russia!

While the country does get most of its gas from Russia, that accounts for only about 9% of its overall energy provision. Trump also implied the project was state-funded when it is a private venture.

Here again our liar-in-chief is embarrassing America on the world stage!
 
i have to laugh at Trump and his Germany is a captive of Russia is that why the USA has tens of thousands of troops in Germany ...and Russia has no troops in Germany .... it's clear as day light which country holds Germany captive .... jesus wept Trump is a roaster


it's Germany's place decide who she does business with this is just America/Trump trying to bully Germany to purchase the more expensive American LNG over the cheaper Russian gas ... to buy American would make the German economy uncompetitive and then their is the on going tariff war America started

Athanasius68 said:
Well, then Trump’s question is valid. If Germany chooses to purchase Russian natural gas to supply its market, how bad can Russia truly be? And how truthful is it that Germany cannot afford to spend more on a common defense?
Click to expand...

Germany and western Europe in general don't see Russia as a threat .... most Germans want US forces out of their country .... most western Europeans see America as the biggest threat
 
Last edited:
Godric1970 said:
it doesn't matter how hard America cries Germany and the EU will always do what is best for Germany and the EU and no bully boy tactics will change that .... for a so called ally America is acting like a enemy of the EU ... to buy your gas would be to kill our economies
Click to expand...

Yeah, apparently it's very expensive to ship it versus using a pipe line.
 
Godric1970 said:
it doesn't matter how hard America cries Germany and the EU will always do what is best for Germany and the EU and no bully boy tactics will change that .... for a so called ally America is acting like a enemy of the EU ... to buy your gas would be to kill our economies
Click to expand...

It is not bullying to point out that alliance members are enriching the country the alliance was formed to defend against, while reneging on their own commitments to contribute to the alliance.
 
Jack Hays said:
It is not bullying to point out that alliance members are enriching the country the alliance was formed to defend against, while reneging on their own commitments to contribute to the alliance.
Click to expand...
There is no reneging of commitments. Come back 5 years or so and then we can discuss it when the deadline has passed.

As for enriching Rissia... Trump has been doing that for ****ing decades and the US trades with Russia daily... so talk about hypocrisy.

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk
 
PeteEU said:
There is no reneging of commitments. Come back 5 years or so and then we can discuss it when the deadline has passed.

As for enriching Rissia... Trump has been doing that for ****ing decades and the US trades with Russia daily... so talk about hypocrisy.

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I'll spend no time defending Trump.
The Europeans' default on their NATO commitments has been longstanding. Euros are in default now and have been for years. The new future target is just the latest.
[h=3]German-Russian trade picking up sharply - DW[/h]https://www.dw.com/en/german-russian-trade-picking-up-sharply/a-42564278




Feb 13, 2018 - Trade between Russia and Germany has increased by about a quarter in the past 12 months. The surge came despite sanctions which the ...
 
apdst said:
He makes a good point. I look forward to the counter arguments on this one.
Click to expand...

Which country has imposed sanctions on Russia and which President has refused to inact the Sanctions on Russia that his own Congress passed, the Putin sock puppet is obvious, that would be your boy, own it.
 
Casper said:
Which country has imposed sanctions on Russia and which President has refused to inact the Sanctions on Russia that his own Congress passed, the Putin sock puppet is obvious, that would be your boy, own it.
Click to expand...

Which country cut a deal to import natural gas from Russia and it's former chancellor is the CEO of the Russian company selling the gas?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From ABC News

Trump claims Germany 'totally controlled' by Russia
​

In a combative start to his NATO visit, President Donald Trump asserted Wednesday that a pipeline project has made Germany "totally controlled" by and "captive to Russia" and blasted allies' defense spending, opening what was expected to be a fraught summit with a list of grievances involving American allies.

Trump, in a testy exchange with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, took issue with the U.S. protecting Germany as it strikes deals with Russia.


"I have to say, I think it's very sad when Germany makes a massive oil and gas deal with Russia where we're supposed to be guarding against Russia," Trump said at breakfast with Stoltenberg. "We're supposed to protect you against Russia but they're paying billions of dollars to Russia and I think that's very inappropriate."


The president appeared to be referring to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that would bring gas from Russia to Germany's northeastern Baltic coast, bypassing Eastern European nations like Poland and Ukraine and doubling the amount of gas Russia can send directly to Germany. The vast undersea pipeline is opposed by the U.S. and some other EU members, who warn it could give Moscow greater leverage over Western Europe.

COMMENT:-

This article is totally "Fake News" and you will find the REAL **T*R*U*T*H** at "Trump: Relations with Germany are 'tremendous'".
​
Click to expand...

He makes a really good point. Once the 800 mile pipeline is completed 70% of Germanys Natural Gas imports will be coming from Russia and Billions of dollars in oil and gas revenues anually will be sent back to Russia

Its a horrible and short sighted and selfish decision made by Germany and it undermines their National security and the National security of other NATO partners.

Putin has weaponized his petroleum exports before and he'll do it again. In 2009, he cut exports to Europe by 60% and cut exports to the Ukraine by 100%

What was Germany thinking and why should the US continue to carry 90% or NATOs expenses if our partners don't give a damn about their own National security ?
 
Fenton said:
He makes a really good point. Once the 800 mile pipeline is completed 70% of Germanys Natural Gas imports will be coming from Russia and Billions of dollars in oil and gas revenues anually will be sent back to Russia

Its a horrible and short sighted and selfish decision made by Germany and it undermines their National security and the National security of other NATO partners.

Putin has weaponized his petroleum exports before and he'll do it again. In 2009, he cut exports to Europe by 60% and cut exports to the Ukraine by 100%

What was Germany thinking and why should the US continue to carry 90% or NATOs expenses if our partners don't give a damn about their own National security ?
Click to expand...

In the long run, Europe is being successfully invaded by penis carrying Muslims. It may be that an un-Islamic USA and an un-Islamic Russia will have more in common than the USA and an Islamic European union.
 
JONRID said:
In the long run, Europe is being successfully invaded by penis carrying Muslims. It may be that an un-Islamic USA and an un-Islamic Russia will have more in common than the USA and an Islamic European union.
Click to expand...

That's really hard to watch. Merkel has already done so much damage to Germany, now she's giving Putin a enormous amount of leverage
 
Fenton said:
He makes a really good point. Once the 800 mile pipeline is completed 70% of Germanys Natural Gas imports will be coming from Russia and Billions of dollars in oil and gas revenues anually will be sent back to Russia

Its a horrible and short sighted and selfish decision made by Germany and it undermines their National security and the National security of other NATO partners.

Putin has weaponized his petroleum exports before and he'll do it again. In 2009, he cut exports to Europe by 60% and cut exports to the Ukraine by 100%

What was Germany thinking and why should the US continue to carry 90% or NATOs expenses if our partners don't give a damn about their own National security ?
Click to expand...

LOL an American claiming that someone weaponized oil HAHAHAHAHAHAH..

Russia did not do jack **** other than defend it self against a corrupt Ukraine... and no I am not a Putin supporter. The fault of the 2009 60% drop was Ukraine and only Ukraine. They did not live up to the agreements they had made and that is the whole freaking reason Europe has wanted an alternative route for its gas... one that does not go through Ukraine.

And the US does not pay 90% of Natos expenses... for the love of god, do you Trump nutters even try to find out if your dear leader is lying.. since he does that all the time?
 
JONRID said:
In the long run, Europe is being successfully invaded by penis carrying Muslims. It may be that an un-Islamic USA and an un-Islamic Russia will have more in common than the USA and an Islamic European union.
Click to expand...

No vagina carrying Muslim in the mix?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom