• 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’s ‘5 percent down’ plan for Europe (2 Viewers)

zincwarrior

Dog Food and Belly Rub Distribution Specialist
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2022
Messages
13,348
Reaction score
10,279
Location
Central Texas
Note: this is an opinion piece not a news piece. One of Trump's statements/proposals is that NATO members must increase spending to 5% of GDP. This is being any spending except potentially Poland at this point, and more than the US (~3%). It would effectively return national spending to the level of the Cold War (5% - 10% of GDP).

Thoughts? My personal opinion: an increase of all member states to 4% would put military spending substantially higher than Imperial Russia. At the same time it the US should sunset its commitment to NATO (say a 5 year sunset to build up forces), and frankly needs to reposition from conflict in the Pacific as well.

Five and dime stores are now a thing of the past in the U.S. But if the reporting in the Financial Times is accurate, President-elect Trump is signaling to NATO member-states that they must spend 5 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) annually on defense if they want U.S. support.

That is a big ask. As of June 2024, of the 32 NATO countries, eight were still far short of the 2 percent of GDP threshold. Only Poland exceeds 4 percent.


That may be sufficient in peacetime, but Russia and its Axis of Evil allies are knocking on the door. What’s more, the European continent is already engaged in an active hybrid war with Russia involving espionage, sabotage, cyber-attacks, assassinations and disinformation.

Nor is it adequate for what is likely to come in the next decade. The Kremlin is rapidly preparing an even larger kinetic war against Europe.

Andrei Belousov, the Russian defense chief, underscored the urgency of the latter point when he announced earlier this month that Russia must be ready for a direct “military conflict with NATO in the next ten years.”

To get there and to win the war in Ukraine, Moscow announced in September that it was raising defense spending by 25 percent in 2025, to 6.3 percent of its GDP. That is 1.5 times current U.S. defense spending as a share of GDP, and three times NATO’s present median.



Russia is on a war footing, but many NATO countries remain in denial of what lies ahead — or, as in the case of Slovakia and Hungary, they are prioritizing economic security over long-term national security.

Canada, a key NORAD partner, currently only spends 1.4 percent of its GDP on defense. Belgium, home to NATO’s headquarters, is even worse, spending only 1.1 percent.


Consequently, Europe is vulnerable. That goes double if Russia, in its eventual war with NATO, weaponizes European civilians by intentionally attacking hospitals, energy grids, schools and historic cultural sites, as he has all across across Ukraine.

Leaked NATO reports from last May are alarming. Brussels is estimating that NATO member-states are currently only “able to provide less than 5 percent of air defense capacities deemed necessary to protect its members in central and eastern Europe against a full-scale attack.”
 
Note: this is an opinion piece not a news piece. One of Trump's statements/proposals is that NATO members must increase spending to 5% of GDP. This is being any spending except potentially Poland at this point, and more than the US (~3%). It would effectively return national spending to the level of the Cold War (5% - 10% of GDP).

Thoughts? My personal opinion: an increase of all member states to 4% would put military spending substantially higher than Imperial Russia. At the same time it the US should sunset its commitment to NATO (say a 5 year sunset to build up forces), and frankly needs to reposition from conflict in the Pacific as well.



Idiotic

Taxes would increase and social benefits decreased for no real benefit
 
Note: this is an opinion piece not a news piece. One of Trump's statements/proposals is that NATO members must increase spending to 5% of GDP. This is being any spending except potentially Poland at this point, and more than the US (~3%). It would effectively return national spending to the level of the Cold War (5% - 10% of GDP).

Thoughts? My personal opinion: an increase of all member states to 4% would put military spending substantially higher than Imperial Russia. At the same time it the US should sunset its commitment to NATO (say a 5 year sunset to build up forces), and frankly needs to reposition from conflict in the Pacific as well.

I think Trump ought to pull out of NATO. That constant whining sound got annoying long time ago.
 
Yadda yadda not get invaded by Russia yadda yadda...


I would submit may get your wish.


Russia can even beat Ukraine

Let alone the rest of Europe.

So to spend close to triple on the military would be idiotic.

Germany France and Italy are in the midst of economic turmoil. Cutting benefits in the case of France all to buy a few more tanks that are not needed especially when budgets are tight and being cut
 
Russia can even beat Ukraine

Let alone the rest of Europe.

So to spend close to triple on the military would be idiotic.

Germany France and Italy are in the midst of economic turmoil. Cutting benefits in the case of France all to buy a few more tanks that are not needed especially when budgets are tight and being cut
And if the US says we are done?
 
The only actual threat to invade Canada is the United States.

The idea that the Russians would do so is entirely confined to the pages of Tom Clancy novels.


Or that they could.

Ukraine is right next to Russia, and it is having difficulty in supplying, maintaining its invasion. Let alone trying to invade a country that requires a far more robust logistical system
 
Note: this is an opinion piece not a news piece. One of Trump's statements/proposals is that NATO members must increase spending to 5% of GDP. This is being any spending except potentially Poland at this point, and more than the US (~3%). It would effectively return national spending to the level of the Cold War (5% - 10% of GDP).

Thoughts? My personal opinion: an increase of all member states to 4% would put military spending substantially higher than Imperial Russia. At the same time it the US should sunset its commitment to NATO (say a 5 year sunset to build up forces), and frankly needs to reposition from conflict in the Pacific as well.


Our allies is one of our most effective weapons against our adversaries. Abandoning them would be foolish.
 
And if the US says we are done?


The EU combined has the second largest military budget in the world. It has more than triple the population of Russia and a GDP more than 7 times larger than Russia.

Certainly large enough to defend against a County that can't beat Ukraine
 
Indeed. Outside of invading their own neighbors, Russia engages in asymmetrical warfare.
Trying to blame the West’s virulent racism and open hatred for civilians fleeing from devastating war zones remains utterly pathetic dude.

And still can’t change the fact that the only actual threat to Canada....is the US.
 
Trying to blame the West’s virulent racism and open hatred for civilians fleeing from devastating war zones remains utterly pathetic dude.

And still can’t change the fact that the only actual threat to Canada....is the US.

Apparently, the west is not alone.

 
Apparently, the west is not alone.

Dude, I don’t care that Poland and the Baltic States are shrieking about Russia in hopes of excusing their bigotry and racism towards innocent civilians.

No amount of “but Putin” excuses their hatred of people who are only trying to get themselves and their families to safety, sorry.

And it’s pretty damn telling that you apparently think it does.
 
Does (math whiz?) Trump realize that the US is a NATO member and 5% of US GDP is $1.5T/year?
 
Note: this is an opinion piece not a news piece. One of Trump's statements/proposals is that NATO members must increase spending to 5% of GDP. This is being any spending except potentially Poland at this point, and more than the US (~3%). It would effectively return national spending to the level of the Cold War (5% - 10% of GDP).

Thoughts? My personal opinion: an increase of all member states to 4% would put military spending substantially higher than Imperial Russia. At the same time it the US should sunset its commitment to NATO (say a 5 year sunset to build up forces), and frankly needs to reposition from conflict in the Pacific as well.


The USA's allies might not want a national debt similar to that of the USA
But Trump does have a point, NATO members must be far better prepared for a war with Russia.
 
Note: this is an opinion piece not a news piece. One of Trump's statements/proposals is that NATO members must increase spending to 5% of GDP. This is being any spending except potentially Poland at this point, and more than the US (~3%). It would effectively return national spending to the level of the Cold War (5% - 10% of GDP).

Thoughts? My personal opinion: an increase of all member states to 4% would put military spending substantially higher than Imperial Russia. At the same time it the US should sunset its commitment to NATO (say a 5 year sunset to build up forces), and frankly needs to reposition from conflict in the Pacific as well.


A better plan would be to force all other NATO members to put in about 2.7%, and reduce US spending to that same number (or less, given the fact that we need NATO a lot less than NATO needs us).
 
A better plan would be to force all other NATO members to put in about 2.7%, and reduce US spending to that same number (or less, given the fact that we need NATO a lot less than NATO needs us).

Nope, because the US must ‘defend’ against more than just attacks on NATO nations.
 
Nope, because the US must ‘defend’ against more than just attacks on NATO nations.

No country's military expenditure is entirely dedicated to defending against attacks on NATO nations.

Military expenditure is largely fungible. France's military expenditures could just as easily be used to defend against an invasion by Germany, as an invasion by Russia.
 
5% is incredibly high, like even during the Cold War defense spending for European states in NATO averaged out to like 3%.
 
Note: this is an opinion piece not a news piece. One of Trump's statements/proposals is that NATO members must increase spending to 5% of GDP. This is being any spending except potentially Poland at this point, and more than the US (~3%). It would effectively return national spending to the level of the Cold War (5% - 10% of GDP).

Thoughts? My personal opinion: an increase of all member states to 4% would put military spending substantially higher than Imperial Russia. At the same time it the US should sunset its commitment to NATO (say a 5 year sunset to build up forces), and frankly needs to reposition from conflict in the Pacific as well.

Or we could just supply Ukraine with the weapons they need to defeat Russia and save the world trillions in building more weapons of death and destruction. If the west loses in Ukraine it will cost at least 7 times more than winning would.

The Price of Russian Victory

Why Letting Putin Win Would Cost America More Than Supporting Ukraine

“According to our calculations, defeat in Ukraine would require the United States to spend $808 billion more on defense over the next five years than it has budgeted.

Since 2022, by contrast, Congress has appropriated $112 billion to the Defense Department to assist Ukraine. Put another way, allowing Russia to defeat Ukraine would cost the United States about seven times more than preventing a Russian victory,”
says the report.

Without US support, Russia is likely to gain ground in 2025 as Ukraine’s weapons supplies dwindle. By 2026, Ukraine could lose its effective air defense, enabling Russia to carry out sustained large-scale bombings of military and civilian infrastructure.

“The country’s military would likely collapse by the end of that year, allowing Russia to seize Kyiv and then drive to NATO border,” suggests the report.
“With the Ukrainian army under its domain, the Kremlin would have hundreds of thousands of additionally highly trained, skilled, and battle-tested soldiers whom it could press into service,” explains the report.

“Add up all these figures, and one arrives at $808 billion. It is an enormous sum – roughly equal to the entire Pentagon budget in 202. And it may be an underestimate,” adds the report.


Instead, if Kyiv prevails over Moscow, Washington could reduce its deployments and capabilities in Europe. While it will still maintain a presence there, it could allocate more resources and attention to the Pacific — a desire for many US presidents, including Donald Trump.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/price-russian-victory
 
No country's military expenditure is entirely dedicated to defending against attacks on NATO nations.

Military expenditure is largely fungible. France's military expenditures could just as easily be used to defend against an invasion by Germany, as an invasion by Russia.

You seemed to have missed my point entirely. The US in far more mutual defense treaties than France is.


 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom