[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
International News Title: Trump: NATO partners "agreed to substantially up their commitment" — ABC News (@ABC) July 12, 2018 The alliance is much stronger than it was at the outset of the conference, Trump said Thursday, taking credit for what he said are increased commitments from allies to up spending, citing an increased commitment of $33 billion to the alliance. “Yesterday, I let them know that I was extremely unhappy with what was happening and they have substantially upped their commitment and now we’re very happy, and have a very, very powerful, very strong NATO; much stronger than it was two days ago,” Trump said. The president told reporters he “probably” had the unilateral power to pull the United States out of NATO if he chose to do so but said he thinks it’s unnecessary. Not only is that a foolish thing to say, it’s at least technically untrue. The NATO treaty was ratified by the Senate in August 1949, giving it the force of law, which means — theoretically, anyway — that Congress would have to act to formally undo it. In practice, though, Jimmy Carter unilaterally canceled a ratified defense treaty with Taiwan in 1978 without any action from Congress, and without any penalties except some political damage that largely got forgotten in the Iranian crisis the next year. Congress might take stronger action against a president that abruptly denounced our NATO membership, especially with this president. Even apart from that, it’s still foolish, considering how much the US relies on its NATO partners for security and military operations that go far beyond Europe. It’s the equivalent of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. And yet Reuters claims that Trump leveled that threat as a means to getting the contribution increases he demanded: The ultimatum was delivered in a session at the NATO summit, the sources said. “He said they must raise spending by January 2019 or the United States would go it alone,” one person said. French president Emmanuel Macron denied that any threat ever was aired, publicly or privately: — Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) July 12, 2018 Maybe not, but the private meeting featured some “intense” back and forth anyway, according to one of Trump’s targets: The mood had appeared to have calmed as the summit went into its second day, focusing on operations beyond Europe. But, several sources said, Trump instead reopened in strong terms his demand that other countries spend more immediately. “The language was much tougher today,” one source told Reuters. “His harshest words were directed at Germany, including by calling her Angela —‘You, Angela.’” As well as Merkel, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez and Charles Michel, the prime minister of Belgium, were singled out by Trump for undershooting on their spending targets when U.S. taxpayers, funding a defense budget worth about 3.6 percent of their national income, foot much of NATO’s bills. In the end, Trump got the other NATO members to agree to his terms. That’s why he held a press conference to declare victory, but it’s likely only a momentary win. NATO members have been pledging increases for years, only to fall short later. Their countries aren’t fond of the idea of spending more money on defense, a legitimate frustration for the US. Perhaps Trump thought that threats of breaking the alliance might finally wake them up, but those are very likely to have more effect on NATO’s opponents and enemies, who have waited almost 70 years for the alliance to fall apart. Airing notions of unilateral withdrawal in public over $33 billion in pledges is pennywise and pound-foolish in a world where Russia is actively rebuilding its empire by force in places like Georgia and Ukraine. And when those pledges fall short, you can bet your bottom dollar that Vladimir Putin will have Russia’s propaganda machine making the most of it, hoping to break the last threads of the alliance that broke the Soviet Union and kept Russia out of eastern Europe since then. Poster Comment: Okay, now NATO is a fine-tuned machine after a two-day summit. Too bad our other presidents never thought of that. Maybe we should wait to see if our alleged allies actually do increase their spending by Trump's January deadline. I like how he went after Merkel. "You, Angela." After he threw those pieces of penny candy on the table in front of Merkel in Canada last month and said, "Don't ever say I never gave you anything, Angela." Anyway, it was a very fun little junket for Trump to go tell off those uppity EUro deadbeats. This also plays into Trump's sanctions against Iran and his demand for fairer trade with the EU. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 12. #2. To: All, Vicomte13, redleghunter (#0) AoS:
#3. To: Tooconservative (#2) (Edited) The other Western countries aren't doing much better... I can't quite agree with that. The major powers there face different problems. Rand corporation did a study entitled: "The Abilities of the British, French, and German Armies to Generate and Sustain Armored Brigades in the Baltics"
Here is their synopsis: "We found that the three countries each could muster and sustain a heavy brigade, albeit at different rates; sustaining these forces would also require significant strain. More specifically, Britain and France would be able to marshal and sustain at least one battalion-size combined arms battle group within a few weeks, with Germany perhaps taking longer. The French probably would get there first, possibly within the first week. Surging more forces to get the deployments up to brigade strength would take more time: a few weeks in the French case and possibly more than a month in the British or German case. For all three armies, the effort would be a major endeavor that probably would leave the forces with little spare capacity for any other contingencies, and there are questions to be asked regarding the capabilities that those forces might have at their disposal or their aptitude for the kind of warfare that fighting the Russians might involve. For the French, the essential problem is that their army already is badly overstretched; for the British and Germans, the problem is the size of their deployable force, although both now are working to expand that size."
#4. To: Vicomte13 (#3) Most of the first troops to reach a conflict would be American. Our readiness forces are probably greater than the forces of EU NATO combined. That's just not right. And Germany clearly is unprepared to respond to any sustained conflict. These countries have never re-armed and restocked on vital spare parts since they expended their might trying to off Ghaddafi. They failed and we had to finish him off, wrecking North Africa in the process. After that, our alleged allies all cut spending and did not replace the parts and missiles they had expended. So even if you can say that France will get there in a week or Germany in two weeks, will they have enough munitions and spare parts to sustain them for a month or more? The answer is no.
#5. To: Tooconservative (#4) So even if you can say that France will get there in a week or Germany in two weeks, will they have enough munitions and spare parts to sustain them for a month or more? The answer is no. Does Russia have the armed forces to sustain an invasion? No. If Russia invaded, and broke through, and was surging towards capturing a Western capital, would France or England warn them to stop or face nuclear consequences? Unknown. If the Russians overran Germany, absent a full alliance between Germany and France, as the Russians approached the Rhine the French would warn them to stop. If the Russians crossed the Rhine and could not be stopped conventionally, the French would nuke them rather than permit France to be overrun.
#6. To: Vicomte13 (#5) If Russia invaded, and broke through, and was surging towards capturing a Western capital, would France or England warn them to stop or face nuclear consequences? Unknown. They would rely on America to stand up to Russia and to sacrifice Chicago for Latvia or Estonia. You know, because it's our duty to them or something. The rest of the time, they look down on America as a backward and annoying country, in much the same way that you so often do here at LF.
If the Russians overran Germany, absent a full alliance between Germany and France, as the Russians approached the Rhine the French would warn them to stop. If the Russians crossed the Rhine and could not be stopped conventionally, the French would nuke them rather than permit France to be overrun. Would they? I think France would turn Vichy again. A half-dozen nukes on its major cities and France would be obliterated for the next century or so. France's nukes probably still work but France has never been considered reliable as a nuclear ally. Britain is only marginally better and their reputation may be unmerited in the modern era. Britain's current leaders are not Churchills or Thatchers.
#9. To: Tooconservative (#6) Remember, please, that Russia is not the USSR. The combined population of Germany and France, or France and the UK, is greater than the population of Russia, and the French, British and German economies are all larger than the economy of Russia. Simply put, Russia is not economically powerful enough to defeat ANY of the three major Western European powers in a sustained war, and militarily, the UK and France together would defeat the Russians in the field and stop the Russians cold. And it would not be the UK and France together. It would be the UK plus France plus Germany plus Poland plus Holland plus Belgium plus Italy plus Denmark plus Norway plus a whole bunch of other countries. If European NATO mobilized, they would conquer Russia. Russia is only defensible against a mobilized Europe because of the Russian nuclear arsenal. Russia is not the USSR, and the Ukraine would probably join NATO in attacking Russia were a war to come. Let's not pretend that the United States is standing in the breach between Western Europe and a Russian conquest. Russia versus Europe is like Mexico trying to invade the United States. Except that the Mexicans are successfully doing that already.
#11. To: Vicomte13 (#9) If European NATO mobilized, they would conquer Russia. With what? Don't make me laugh. They'd be out of munitions in a week.
#12. To: Tooconservative (#11) I said mobilized, not just “walked East”.
Replies to Comment # 12. I said mobilized, not just “walked East”. If Putin grabbed one or more of the Baltics and/or Ukraine, waiting to mobilize over weeks won't work. I think the NATO ready-force they created is a waste. I don't think the EU countries are that serious about it. And their numbers are far too small to stop Russia from advancing, let alone rout an occupying force.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 12. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|||||||
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|