Trump Says NATO Allies Don't Pay Their Share. Is That True?

[yallerdawg]

Source: New York Times, by Peter Baker

*****

Are NATO members violating a rule?

No. The 2 percent standard is just a guideline, not a legally binding requirement. In 2006, even as the United States was increasing military spending because of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, European allies were shrinking their military spending. NATO defense ministers that year adopted a guideline suggesting that each spend the equivalent of 2 percent of its annual economic output on its military — but it was a target, not a rule, and not endorsed by heads of state.

Only in 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea and intervened militarily in eastern Ukraine, did NATO leaders meeting in Wales agree to the 2 percent standard, and even then they urged members to “move toward” that goal by 2024, still seven years away.

*****
Do NATO allies owe the United States money?

No. This is not a matter of members failing to pay dues. The allies arguably may have less capable militaries than they should have, but none of them owe anyone anything. “Europe may owe itself; it certainly owes nothing to the U.S.,” said Ivo Daalder, a former ambassador to NATO under Mr. Obama.

*****

Has this cost the United States money?

Debatable. American experts have argued for years that Europeans can afford to have broader social programs that produce comfortable lives for their citizens partly because they spend so much less on militaries knowing they live under the security blanket of the United States. Overall, American military spending is 72 percent of the total spent by all 28 allies.

But the vast bulk of increased American military spending since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks stemmed from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which were instigated by the United States, not NATO. There is little indication that the United States would have spent less money in those wars if Belgium, Spain and Slovakia, for example, had spent more on their militaries.

*****

Read it all at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/world/europe/nato-trump-spending.html

[Bayard]

1. How is spending less on military a bad thing?

Shouldn't all countries be winding down to achieve world peace? How many times over do you need enough fire power to kill everyone in the world?

The only real reason to continue building military is ego. Directly tied to the size of the leader's penis. Other world leaders have more self-confidence.

[Leith]

2. Now If the shitgibbon Could Only Get That into His Thick Skull

it would be one less thing to embarrass us with.

[gratuitous]

4. I read an account from the Merkel visit

Apparently, she devoted a substantial portion of their discussion explaining how fucked-up his thinking is. She persuaded him for a moment, but she has her own country to run, so once she was gone, Trump's minions crawled back inside his empty skull and again extinguished any facts that had taken up temporary residence.

[uppityperson]

3. K&R