• 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/NATO/London

Rexedgar

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
63,141
Reaction score
52,790
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Both of Trumps appointed Environmental Protection Agency Directors (Scott Pruitt/Andrew Wheeler) are fossil-fuel corporatists who are gutting the EPA.
 
Very interesting when you look at a picture of those countries contributing 2% and above into NATO. Barring the UK, practically every country that borders Russia are 2% and above.

N2.jpg
 
Snazzy said:
Very interesting when you look at a picture of those countries contributing 2% and above into NATO. Barring the UK, practically every country that borders Russia are 2% and above.

View attachment 67269306
Click to expand...
1) 3 countries border Russia.
2) Thier economies are so small that achieving 2% is not hard.

Sent from my Honor 8X
 
Trump just got laughed off the continent.
 
PeteEU said:
Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia.



Why not? It is % of GDP. Estonia has a GDP of 25 billion. So 2% is 500 million. That is not even 5 F35s.
Click to expand...

Poland would be part of those countries if you include Kaliningrad
 
Trump's saying we don't need to live like stoneage people to have clean air and water. He's pretty good when it comes to that sort of thing. Look at the people fleeing California where they turn off your power when the wind blows too hard.
 
Last edited:
Donald Trump said:
Climate change is very important to me. I've done many environmental impact statements over my life and I believe very strongly in very, very crystal clear, clean water and clean air. That's a big part of climate change.
Click to expand...


:lamo

This is embarrassing.
 
Snazzy said:
~......................I'm not even going to entertain this comment.
Click to expand...
Then I suggest that you reconsider.

There's a helluva lot of confusion over all these payments into NATO and the current US rhetoric has served only to add to it.

As such the second biggest payer (after the US) INTO the NATO budget right now is not the UK (as is so often mistakenly assumed by it meeting the 2 pct of its GDP), but in fact Germany, despite being far from the 2 pct ceiling.

Another issue of confusion that needs clearing up is that whatever percentage of respective GDP any member state invests into its defense spending, is automatically the investment into NATO.

Now wrt to European members one may say that individual spending by percentage of GDP amounts to spending on NATO but even that is not true. Greece, for instance, often lauded as one that surpasses even the 2 pct of GDP currently demanded, has thus a military budget of (in real money) 4,23 billion Euros, most of it earmarked for defending itself against its Turkish arch-enemy.

Compared to that of Germany (43,2 billion Euros) and the UK (40,1 billion Euros), that's a pittance.

As regards the US defense budget of 716 billion bucks, one needs to get away from the BS that all this is NATO. For one thing Europe does not entertain a Pacific fleet nor bases all over the world, for another it does not engage in the tricks of financing all kinds of other activities that are either only remotely connected to NATO defense or not connected at all.

The US currently invests 30 billion dollars for the defense of the NATO area (not to be confused with the NATO budget which is a completely different thing) and that sum pales in light of the 240 billion dollars that the Europeans reserve (again, not for the NATO budget but in overall defense spending).

One has to get away from all this percent of GDP and talk in real money to see the actual picture.
 
PeteEU said:
Why not? It is % of GDP. Estonia has a GDP of 25 billion. So 2% is 500 million. That is not even 5 F35s.
Click to expand...

500 million isn't a large amount to countries with GDPs in the trillions, and populations of 20+ million people.

Estonia has a population not much over 1.3 million people.
 
Chagos said:
Then I suggest that you reconsider.
Click to expand...

Valid points made here. Although my angle was more at 2% of GDP being relative to the output of a country.
 
Snazzy said:
500 million isn't a large amount to countries with GDPs in the trillions, and populations of 20+ million people.

Estonia has a population not much over 1.3 million people.
Click to expand...
500 millionis 2% for Estonia. With the price of weapons, spending 500 million even for a small country is pretty easy.

Point is 2% goal is idiotic because it is based of GDP. Which means if GDP increases then a country is forced to spend more on the military even though there is no need.

Look at Greece. You think that thier military spending has increased to 2%+? No, it is because thier GDP collapsed that they are meeting the goal.



Sent from my Honor 8X
 
PeteEU said:
500 millionis 2% for Estonia. With the price of weapons, spending 500 million even for a small country is pretty easy.
Click to expand...

Spending €500 million on anything, let alone weapons certainly isn't "pretty easy" for a small country like Estonia. 2% of anything is relative to its size, which is my point.

PeteEU said:
Point is 2% goal is idiotic because it is based of GDP. Which means if GDP increases then a country is forced to spend more on the military even though there is no need.

Look at Greece. You think that thier military spending has increased to 2%+? No, it is because thier GDP collapsed that they are meeting the goal.
Click to expand...

Your addressing different points altogether here.
 
Snazzy said:
Spending €500 million on anything, let alone weapons certainly isn't "pretty easy" for a small country like Estonia. 2% of anything is relative to its size, which is my point.



Your addressing different points altogether here.
Click to expand...

Spending 500 million is easy for Estonia because of expensive weapons.

And it is not different points, it is THE point of the whole discussion of the 2%.

Germany could easily spend 2% on the military, but on what? At some point you are just spending money for the sake of spending money. And you have to spend more and more because it. Is % of GDP and your GDP is going up... Absolutely idiotic.

Sent from my Honor 8X
 
PeteEU said:
Spending 500 million is easy for Estonia because of expensive weapons.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

PeteEU said:
And it is not different points, it is THE point of the whole discussion of the 2%.

Germany could easily spend 2% on the military, but on what? At some point you are just spending money for the sake of spending money. And you have to spend more and more because it. Is % of GDP and your GDP is going up... Absolutely idiotic.
Click to expand...

Your points are about the "absolutely idiotic" system of fluctuations, which are different from the original point about small countries affording the 2% relative to their GDP. Regardless of fluctuations, 2% of a figure is still 2% of a figure regardless of the amount.
 
Snazzy said:
What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

I am talking about the fact, that if Estonia buys one F35, they have already spent over 1/5 of the year budget of 2% of GDP. Hence it is pretty easy for a country like Estonia to meet the requirements of 2%.

Your points are about the "absolutely idiotic" system of fluctuations, which are different from the original point about small countries affording the 2% relative to their GDP. Regardless of fluctuations, 2% of a figure is still 2% of a figure regardless of the amount.
Click to expand...

Okay lets do real numbers..

Russia spends between 3 to 4% of its GDP on the military according to western intelligence agencies and experts. That is about 70 billion dollars.

Germany spends 1.3% of its GDP on the military and that is about 50 billion dollars. 2% spending would take that to 74 billion dollars... more than Russia.

France spends 1.7% of its GDP on the military and that is around 62 billion dollars. So for France to reach 2% they need to spend around 70 billion dollars.

That is 2 members alone of NATO that spend together more than Russia, and are not meeting the 2% threshold that has been agreed. If they did, Germany alone would spend more.

Those are real numbers, not arbitrary bull**** % of GDP numbers.

So again why should any nation spend money on the military just to get to a magical 2% number that is always going up (pretty much), when there is no real need? Fact is that the NATO alliance outspends Russia by a lot...

NATO military spending continues to dwarf that of Russia | Euronews

Non US NATO spending is 300 billion a year... and we are afraid of Russia and its 70 billion a year? Come on..
 
Snazzy said:
Valid points made here. Although my angle was more at 2% of GDP being relative to the output of a country.
Click to expand...
By which parameter some can afford an aircraft carrier while none of the Baltic states can. Let alone building the facilities to moor it.
 
PeteEU said:
I am talking about the fact, that if Estonia buys one F35, they have already spent over 1/5 of the year budget of 2% of GDP. Hence it is pretty easy for a country like Estonia to meet the requirements of 2%.



Okay lets do real numbers..

Russia spends between 3 to 4% of its GDP on the military according to western intelligence agencies and experts. That is about 70 billion dollars.

Germany spends 1.3% of its GDP on the military and that is about 50 billion dollars. 2% spending would take that to 74 billion dollars... more than Russia.

France spends 1.7% of its GDP on the military and that is around 62 billion dollars. So for France to reach 2% they need to spend around 70 billion dollars.

That is 2 members alone of NATO that spend together more than Russia, and are not meeting the 2% threshold that has been agreed. If they did, Germany alone would spend more.

Those are real numbers, not arbitrary bull**** % of GDP numbers.

So again why should any nation spend money on the military just to get to a magical 2% number that is always going up (pretty much), when there is no real need? Fact is that the NATO alliance outspends Russia by a lot...

NATO military spending continues to dwarf that of Russia | Euronews

Non US NATO spending is 300 billion a year... and we are afraid of Russia and its 70 billion a year? Come on..
Click to expand...
Let me add that one also needs to divorce one's (supposed) comprehension of the whole issue from confusing actual defense spending (by whatever country) with contribution to the NATO budget.

That's something the US has conveniently cooked up (and not just this present administration) to lower its own expenses on this issue. Understandably so, I'll add, and I can't blame anyone on it.

What this current administration is doing however is adding to the overall confusion of those holding themselves to be in the know on this issue, by prevaricating this silly percentage-of-GDP-game into being something of relevance, when it is completely idiotic and totally dishonest.

We've both outlined the actual picture as others here have done and anyone wishing to stick to the stupid game mentioned above is best left to his/her/their devices.
 
Chagos said:
Let me add that one also needs to divorce one's (supposed) comprehension of the whole issue from confusing actual defense spending (by whatever country) with contribution to the NATO budget.

That's something the US has conveniently cooked up (and not just this present administration) to lower its own expenses on this issue. Understandably so, I'll add, and I can't blame anyone on it.

What this current administration is doing however is adding to the overall confusion of those holding themselves to be in the know on this issue, by prevaricating this silly percentage-of-GDP-game into being something of relevance, when it is completely idiotic and totally dishonest.

We've both outlined the actual picture as others here have done and anyone wishing to stick to the stupid game mentioned above is best left to his/her/their devices.
Click to expand...

Not even brought up the elephant in the room about US spending... Most of it is not even related to NATO defence.. and most American troops and bases in Europe are only there to support the American miss-adventures around the world. Hence in reality, the actual US spending on "European NATO defence" is way below 2%.
 
PeteEU said:
Not even brought up the elephant in the room about US spending... Most of it is not even related to NATO defence.. and most American troops and bases in Europe are only there to support the American miss-adventures around the world. Hence in reality, the actual US spending on "European NATO defence" is way below 2%.
Click to expand...
investments into border protection come to mind (i.e. to the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security), as well as CIA pension funds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom