EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4390
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
ragz_gt
9172 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On July 22 2016 10:41 biology]major wrote: I disagree, he's employing a bluff or a threat to create a change in the defense spending of countries in NATO who don't put any money towards military and just rely on the USA to protect them. We have all of the control in this pact because we have by far the largest military, so we should negotiate with that in mind and get the rest to step up. By always having leaders of US say they will stand with NATO no matter what, some of the countries have been taking the protection the USA has to offer for granted. I could be wrong but that's how I see it, NATO is a combined effort, but it is basically like 4 countries that even have the capacity to do anything. you are wrong. Simply, simply wrong. Now if you wanted, what would be possible, is to say you're considering pulling out of NATO. But saying you might just decide not to protect people, while still being in NATO, if you decide they didn't do enough, is WRONG. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 22 2016 10:46 acker wrote: If it's a bluff, it's a really stupid one. NATO consists of a few countries rich enough to afford first-rate armies and a lot of poor countries geographically situated to serve as ballistic missile platforms, docks, and air bases. Nobody cares if some Eastern European country doesn't give NATO a handful of old MiGs every year. The land is more important. Trump ends our agreement with nato, nato countries evict all our military bases and nukes. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On July 22 2016 09:56 biology]major wrote: why is what he said so radical? Seemed pretty common sense to me, unless of course he is wrong and they are holding up their end of the deal He is threatening to destroy the very FOUNDATION of NATO by making vague suggestions and insinuations that Article 5 is conditional, and overturning a 70-year long, bipartisan consensus on the alliance. If this is an example of his conduct of foreign policy, I weep for our international status as Trump bumbles and tears apart the major web of alliances that keeps America and the world free from the possibility of another "great power" war. The goal of NATO it to deter the Russians from ever attacking a NATO member with an ironclad guarantee of retaliation that would make Russian aggression suicidal. So long as there is no doubt as to our seriousness with regards to our commitment, there is no geopolitical calculation or weakspot for Russia or Putin to try to do anything funny in regards to NATO members. Injecting doubt into the equation does nothing but give Russia a reason to provoke an international crisis specifically to undermine NATO. If there is any doubt in the minds of Putin and Russian revisionists, they will take that doubt and use it to test and exploit any weakpoints, ala Georgia and Ukraine. Next, complaining about the capabilities gap is a common gripe, but one that's been around for decades. NATO was created as a defensive alliance for the US to subsidize the defense and security of a Western Europe devastated and bankrupted by World War Two. The acknowledgement of a capabilities gap was an inherent part of NATO, and the idea that Europeans not meeting the 2% GDP recommendation (which, is a guideline, and not outlined in either the charter or official policy, and was minted during the height of the Cold War) is new and dangerous is silly. It's always been the case, and even if Europe were to collectively raise their military expenditures, US military expenditures would not be affected to any great degree (~3.6% GDP), as we have commitments outside of Europe, particularly East Asia, which are outside the scope of NATO (and into those local alliance webs). This is just the basics of how egregiously retarded the statement is. Beyond the basic misunderstanding of NATO itself, there are the details. First, the countries MOST at risk of attack (Eastern Europe and the Baltics) ALREADY are near, at, or above the 2% GDP threshold recommendation for military expenditures (or are currently planning to hit it within the next 5 years), and these are countries Trump has outlined as ones he may abandon. What the flipping F? Estonia and Poland are already at/above it (depending on your estimate of GDP), and Latvia/Lithuania are passing increasingly larger defense budgets to reach it by 2018/2020 respectively. Beyond that, there's the notion that NATO doesn't contribute (to essentially US-led overseas ventures), when NATO forces were a notable component of the post-war Iraq and Afghanistan forces. Next, Europe in absolute terms still greatly outspends Russia (who, despite spending a retarded 5.5% GDP, can't match budgets with Europe as a whole), and while there are questions of Eurozone stability, Russia is currently in economic crisis at the moment with the decline of oil/petroleum prices, chafing under sanctions over Ukraine, and is in the midst of a major (perhaps terminal, in terms of their current revisionist aspirations) demographic decline, with falling birth rates, higher rates of (young) deaths, major HIV/AIDS, drug, and smoking health risks, and relatively low spending on public health (all the money spent on guns needs to come from somewhere), all having major negative effects on Russia's working-age population (and greatly skewing working-retired ratio). As I've written elsewhere, this is a common trend throughout the developed world (particularly East Asia, China/Japan/S.Korea face major demographic challenges), though the US/CAN mitigates much of it through immigration. Indeed, these all point to a long-term inability for Russia to continue to spend such an unsustainably high percentage of it's GDP on military expenditures or outspend NATO as a whole (or even just the European part). http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2015/04/02-russia-economy-labor-based-stagnation-aleksashenko Beyond this, NATO provides other benefits, from obvious diplomatic benefits to important overseas bases and a unified military chain of command with our allies, and unit/equipment interoperability, which is far and away more important than GDP expenditures of countries (and it should be noted that these bases are often paid/funded in part by the countries that are hosting it at a 1:1 ratio). But to return to the point, Trump's statements on NATO invoke an "ARGH I WANT TO STAB SOMETHING" feeling in someone who is even remotely informed as to foreign policy and NATO, and nearly as indefensible as his "Mexican Judge" statements. We can start by counting the number of GOP leaders who have already heavily criticized it. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
Besides, the tide of populist nationalism brought on by continued terror attacks is already stimulating defense spending by NATO members. It would not exactly be difficult to both push member states towards increasing the size of their own militaries while still maintaining the guarantee of intervention should an act of aggression come about. Edit: and yeah, what Lord Tolkien said too  | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On July 22 2016 10:42 biology]major wrote: They can't act in that manner because they don't have the military to back those kinds of statements up. They have the land and location to back that statement up, unless America plans on invading and occupying European countries to set up missile silos and dry docks after they leave NATO en masse. If you believe that, good luck. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On July 22 2016 10:48 Plansix wrote: Trump ends our agreement with nato, nato countries evict all our military bases and nukes. You think those countries would really let go of our protection? lmao. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On July 22 2016 10:49 biology]major wrote: You think those countries would really let go of our protection? lmao. Protection derived from NATO Article 5. Which Trump just claimed he'd unilaterally revoke. Claim America will stop protecting NATO members it feels like not protecting, Trump supporters claim they'll accept the deal because America protects them. Classic Logic. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On July 22 2016 10:43 TheYango wrote: The PURPOSE of NATO is precisely as a deterrent based on the belief that the US and its allies will act. Even *if* Trump actually has the intent to act if push came to shove, the entire point of NATO is that the threat of unified action deters foreign powers from acting against NATO. In this case it actually *is* about what you say and not what you do--because by the time there actually is something for you to do, it's too late. Saying things that might make foreign governments believe that you wouldn't uphold Article 5 (even if you do intend to) undermines the entire agreement. That Trump doesn't understand this *should* be alarming. There are a lot of countries in NATO that are there simply because they aren't capable of becoming world powers in their own right, and so they really don't control their foreign policy. So they ally with the strongest country that they can. And they trump up some dangers of security threat because they would feel safer with a bit more American equipment which is more expensive than anything their military could pay for, and more than they want to spend anyways. So it's kind of true that they're freeloading but it keeps those countries dependent on the US for the long term. Which is why the US plays along with that charade. Of course it's expensive and that's pretty much why Trump is against it. But empire has never been cheap. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 22 2016 10:49 biology]major wrote: You think those countries would really let go of our protection? lmao. This. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 22 2016 10:49 biology]major wrote: You think those countries would really let go of our protection? lmao. Um....if trump says he might not defend them, yes. You seem really confused about about NATO and how it works. They allow our bases to be there based on our agreement to protect them no matter what. No reason to have them if we might not. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On July 22 2016 10:52 LegalLord wrote: There are a lot of countries in NATO that are there simply because they aren't capable of becoming world powers in their own right, and so they really don't control their foreign policy. So they ally with the strongest country that they can. And they trump up some dangers of security threat because they would feel safer with a bit more American equipment which is more expensive than anything their military could pay for, and more than they want to spend anyways. So it's kind of true that they're freeloading but it keeps those countries dependent on the US for the long term. Which is why the US plays along with that charade. Of course it's expensive and that's pretty much why Trump is against it. But empire has never been cheap. They're not freeloading. Do you think it's a coincidence that the vast majority of poor NATO countries are right up against the Russian border? They are space for missile silos, air bases, and room for landing troops. That's the only reason why they're in NATO in the first place. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
CobaltBlu
United States919 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Bet they could cut a better deal with Russia. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23898 Posts
Looking forward to Ivanka though. I'm thinking she'll be better even if Trump get's the bigger applause. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
If there is no definite NATO guarantee there is no protection. That's the point of the alliance. The assurance is the protection | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
I really need to take a break from this thread. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 22 2016 10:56 Nyxisto wrote: If there is no definite NATO guarantee there is no protection. That's the point of the alliance. The assurance is the protection No, what would happen is that NATO would be replaced with a new treaty regime that is more favorable to the US. | ||
| ||
