Does NATO Members paying more make NATO stronger or weaker?

[zimmer]

Does NATO Members paying more make NATO stronger or weaker ?

Obviously for any school child, more money when it comes to defense is better.

So how is Trump making NATO weaker by getting member states to pay their fair share?

 

[Moderate Right]

Does NATO Members paying more make NATO stronger or weaker ?

Obviously for any school child, more money when it comes to defense is better.

So how is Trump making NATO weaker by getting member states to pay their fair share?

I don't think the answer is either. The same dollars are being spent. It's just a matter of how much the US pays vs how much the others pay. Everyone should pay their fair share.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Argumentative question, the intention is not necessarily about strength but other nations paying to NATO what they agreed to so presumably the US can shoulder less of the costs. Now I’ll stipulate that I doubt this is about zero sum, but I also doubt this is about just a raw increase in NATO funding where the US stays constant paying far more by GDP math than these other nations.

The other consideration for this subject is strong against whom?

If Trump is engaged with Russia to the point that we have mild bipartisan agreement is questionable in motivations then NATO is already undermined by it’s largest contributor. This is only going to get worse as Trump goes with sanctions and other economic headwinds that impact some of these same nations involved in NATO.

I am not convinced this is really about more money for NATO defense, but a power play among many from Trump trying to alter the status quo to questionable results.

Trump supporters are all for it, his critics are nothing but harsh... the rest of us question what is really going on behind the scenes. And your question completely misses the point.

 

[HowardBThiname]

I vote "stronger" in the sense that if all nations paid what the US is paying, there would be more financial resources to investigate incidents, do studies and increase activities.

 

[Grand Mal]

Does NATO Members paying more make NATO stronger or weaker ?

Obviously for any school child, more money when it comes to defense is better.

So how is Trump making NATO weaker by getting member states to pay their fair share?

Come off it. All that bs isn't about making NATO stronger, it's about Trump shilling for US defense contractors. If every NATO member doubled their defense spending tomorrow but didn't spend a dime of it in the US, it wouldn't be enough.

 

[Anagram]

I don't think the answer is either. The same dollars are being spent. It's just a matter of how much the US pays vs how much the others pay. Everyone should pay their fair share.

Isn't Trump's questioning of NATO spending based on their 2% GDP target, not based on their failure to actually pay for NATO's common fund? The U.S. doesn't spend correspondingly more on its own defense because Iceland only spends .1% of its GDP on defense.

You could maybe argue that their failure to meet those targets puts us in a position where we need to spend more to achieve the right level of defense, but it's certainly not a dollar for dollar trade off where we pay exactly 1.9% of Iceland's GDP on our defense because they are that far short of their 2% goal.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Does NATO Members paying more make NATO stronger or weaker ?

Obviously for any school child, more money when it comes to defense is better.

So how is Trump making NATO weaker by getting member states to pay their fair share?

Obviously NATO needs the USA a whole bunch more than the USA needs NATO though peace treaties among all the NATO nations makes us all infinitely more safe than we otherwise would likely be. But when the USA is carrying the lion's share of the load to finance NATO, I have a really hard time thinking the President taking a leadership role--the first we have seen in a very long time--to insist that the other members pay their fair share. And yes, that will make NATO much more prepared to intervene or defend where it is appropriate that they do so.

 

[Grand Mal]

Obviously NATO needs the USA a whole bunch more than the USA needs NATO though peace treaties among all the NATO nations makes us all infinitely more safe than we otherwise would likely be. But when the USA is carrying the lion's share of the load to finance NATO, I have a really hard time thinking the President taking a leadership role--the first we have seen in a very long time--to insist that the other members pay their fair share. And yes, that will make NATO much more prepared to intervene or defend where it is appropriate that they do so.

The US doesn't need NATO at all. And, come to think, NATO doesn't need the US.
So Trump should do everyone a favour and just pull out of the alliance. If he can, I don't know how that works.

Just curious- do you think that NATO members contribute to some kind of mutual-defense fund, and the US is having to make up a shortfall?

 

[Moderate Right]

Isn't Trump's questioning of NATO spending based on their 2% GDP target, not based on their failure to actually pay for NATO's common fund? The U.S. doesn't spend correspondingly more on its own defense because Iceland only spends .1% of its GDP on defense.

You could maybe argue that their failure to meet those targets puts us in a position where we need to spend more to achieve the right level of defense, but it's certainly not a dollar for dollar trade off where we pay exactly 1.9% of Iceland's GDP on our defense because they are that far short of their 2% goal.

As I understand it, there is NATO and then there is your own defense. They aren't always necessarily the same exact thing. Then there is a question of what is defense and what is not. NATO's expenses should not be intertwined with other defense expenditures. I don't really totally understand the full details of how NATO works, as in countries should probably be voting for what they want and what they don't want and how much should be spent on this or that.

 

[OlNate]

Does NATO Members paying more make NATO stronger or weaker ?

Obviously for any school child, more money when it comes to defense is better.

So how is Trump making NATO weaker by getting member states to pay their fair share?

Why would anyone in their right mind invest in NATO now, after Trump made kissy kissy with Putin???

Dismantle NATO now, prioritize the UN, and take away veto rights. The world has changed beyond recognition in the last two years, NATO is obsolete.

 

[OlNate]

Obviously NATO needs the USA a whole bunch more than the USA needs NATO though peace treaties among all the NATO nations makes us all infinitely more safe than we otherwise would likely be. But when the USA is carrying the lion's share of the load to finance NATO, I have a really hard time thinking the President taking a leadership role--the first we have seen in a very long time--to insist that the other members pay their fair share. And yes, that will make NATO much more prepared to intervene or defend where it is appropriate that they do so.

No so obvious after yesterday, Owl. Why would anyone have confidence in Trump as an ally now?

 

[Anagram]

As I understand it, there is NATO and then there is your own defense. They aren't always necessarily the same exact thing. Then there is a question of what is defense and what is not. NATO's expenses should not be intertwined with other defense expenditures. I don't really totally understand the full details of how NATO works, as in countries should probably be voting for what they want and what they don't want and how much should be spent on this or that.

There are funds for NATO specifically and there are funds spent on one's owns defense, that's true. But it's my understanding that the spending that Trump is criticizing the other nations for is not money spent on NATO specifically, but rather a NATO goal that within a few years every member should be spending at least 2% of their GDP on defense spending.

 

[Peter King]

Technically the 2% is not money going into NATO, because NATO is funded for specific NATO things being paid on the basis of GDP where the country with the highest GDP pays that percentage of the total NATO costs. The US with the highest GDP paid 22%, Germany paid about 15% and France/UK both paid about 10% each.

With that money NATO costs are paid like civilian staff, headquarters, military equipment like the AWACS planes (which we hear fly over several times a day), it pays for basis and command headquarters and a program to beef up military capabilities in certain countries above and beyond what they would need for their own defense.

The 2 percent countries pay is to defend their own countries and keep their armed forces at a certain level in case the NATO needs them, not because we actually need that kind of money for our own defense.

Now then there is the amount of GDP the US pays for it's military, which is 686 billion in 2017. That is indeed 71.7% of all the percentage NATO members spend on their military. But that is not the money the US pays for NATO because the US has military operations and basis that have nothing to do with NATO. The US has a military that spans the nation and (for example) the Benelux countries do not have defense and military needs that span the entire world so it is ludicrous to demand (as Trump wants) to pay that much for our military. That kind of cost is not needed for NATO defense needs.

That the US has a military power structure that spans the globe means they spend billions on non-Nato expenses. We are not going to spend more that 2% because we do not have needs for that high a military spending. Where should that money and troops go? We do not have a big country or overseas areas to put tens of thousands of troops in.

 

[Rogue Valley]

The 2% defense spending of GDP is currently a common alliance "goal" and is not a hard and fast NATO commitment until 2024.

This formula was agreed upon by all NATO nations, including the United States, at the 2014 NATO Summit in Wales.

Trump can say he feels NATO nations are not budgeting enough for defense. That's an opinion.

But to state NATO nations are in 2%/GDP default is disinformation.

 

[itsforthekids]

Does NATO Members paying more make NATO stronger or weaker ?

Obviously for any school child, more money when it comes to defense is better.

So how is Trump making NATO weaker by getting member states to pay their fair share?

Because it's Trump. These nitwits were bobbing their heads like crazy when barry was saying it.

 

[Roycarn]

Stronger. The previous administration knew this as do other NATO leaders at present. There's a plan for France to increase defense spending to about 2% of GDP by 2024. There was never really any debate about it, the more the Europeans pay the more self reliant they'll be when it comes to dealing with the US.

 

[ChezC3]

It doesn't matter.

What matters is that they receive a service and are expected to pay the price agreed for said service.

 

[Rogue Valley]

It doesn't matter.

What matters is that they receive a service and are expected to pay the price agreed for said service.

There is no agreed upon individual cost until 2024.

 

[Anagram]

The 2% defense spending of GDP is currently a common alliance "goal" and is not a hard and fast NATO commitment until 2024.

This formula was agreed upon by all NATO nations, including the United States, at the 2014 NATO Summit in Wales.

Trump can say he feels NATO nations are not budgeting enough for defense. That's an opinion.

But to state NATO nations are in 2%/GDP default is disinformation.

I believe technically it's not even a hard and fast commitment in 2024. It's only a target the countries are expected to try and reach.

 

[ChezC3]

There is no agreed upon individual cost until 2024.

Really?

so this whole 2% is just caca?

Come now...

 

[Napoleon]

Really?

so this whole 2% is just caca?

Come now...

It is as framed by Trump. The declaration everyone actually agreed to says that 2% is a target “to move towards” over a period of ten years as GDP growth allows.

 

[ChezC3]

It is as framed by Trump. The declaration everyone actually agreed to says that 2% is a target “to move towards” over a period of ten years as GDP growth allows.

and how many years ago was that?

how much has GDP growth grown?

Have they been honest in their dealings?

 

[Napoleon]

and how many years ago was that?

how much has GDP growth grown?

Have they been honest in their dealings?

That was four years ago. Aside from the US, four nations have already met or exceeded the target with NATO reporting that 15 are on track to do so.

 

[ChezC3]

That was four years ago. Aside from the US, four nations have already met or exceeded the target with NATO reporting that 15 are on track to do so.

And of course I am to accept all of this, why?

I mean if you showed me the agreement or hell just a synopsis of the agreement from a principle source that would convince me.

I am aware some countries are holding up there end. Ones with far less in some cases giving far more, but to the actual — if I’m representing your argument correctly — informal, non binding, sort of hand shake and a gentleman’s word understanding.....I was unaware multinational organizations in a pact for their mutual benefit and defense offered such things.

I’d be delighted to see such if you’d be so kind as to present it. Would you?

 

[Napoleon]

And of course I am to accept all of this, why?

I mean if you showed me the agreement or hell just a synopsis of the agreement from a principle source that would convince me.

I am aware some countries are holding up there end. Ones with far less in some cases giving far more, but to the actual — if I’m representing your argument correctly — informal, non binding, sort of hand shake and a gentleman’s word understanding.....I was unaware multinational organizations in a pact for their mutual benefit and defense offered such things.

I’d be delighted to see such if you’d be so kind as to present it. Would you?

Here is the text of the declaration. The relevant passage is as follows:

“Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will:
halt any decline in defence expenditure;
aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows;
aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls.”